Last Name: Hutchins

First Name: Jeremy

School: Johnson County Community College

Region:

Years Judging CEDA: 5

# Of Rounds on this Topic: ~ 40

General:

I used to call myself a policy maker, but now I would describe myself as a critic of argument. My interpretation of "policy maker" became too restrictive to deal with the evolution of debate arguments. To me, being a critic of argument means that the participants get a lot more freedom (and responsibility) in determining how the debate takes place. You are responsible for suggesting a means for evaluation, you are responsible for comparing the quality of arguments, cards, and the like, you are responsible for determining a hierarchy for argument importance, etc. If participants don’t take the responsibility, it leaves me a great deal of latitude in figuring out what happened. I don’t think you want me to read cards or compare implications – it can be very scary.

Specific:

My flow stinks. No, really, it’s terrible. Ask anybody who has seen it and they will tell you. I rarely get cites and, without much pen time, I’ll get behind. This has several implications:

(1) It is difficult to understand your argument or to trace where evidence comes from when you are only referencing an author and date. It’s also difficult for me when there are multiple pieces of evidence by the same author and you are referring to one piece as the "winning" card. It’s always good to explain the argument again when you are just using author names.

(2) You will probably want to slow down. I don’t want to limit you or take away a strategic advantage that you have, but I’m kind of tired of feeling bad about decisions when much of my confusion is rooted in my inability to "get" everything. Less speed and more explanation will make my decisions better (I hope). I will do my best to yell "slow" or "clear," but I would also suggest that you watch me.

(3) Structure, structure, structure (label, number, etc). The more structure you have and the more that you use it the better off I (and you) will be.

I have little predisposition against any particular type of argument, but here are some things to consider:

Topicality: I find this is the argument that debaters make the most (damaging) assumptions about. Always give reasons and explanations to support your claims. Saying the word(s) "abuse" or "fair ground" or "ground loss" or "jurisdiction" are not good reasons in and of themselves.

Critiques: These require a lot of explanation from you for me to be on top of it. I generally find that I have a high expectation for the link level of critique debates and that the specificity of affirmative solvency evidence is more compelling than the generic implications of the critique. At the same time, I am sympathetic to negative arguments that indict the generic nature of affirmative answers. Finally, I won’t make any assumptions about the implications of critique arguments, so spell them out.