Judging Ramble for Eric Jenkins

Assitant coach and graduate student

University of Texas

Rounds on Topic: Too many

How do I judge? When I ask myself this question, three rules come to mind. First, i only read evidence when both sides debate it. If one tem makes distinctions/comparisons and the other doesn't contest them, then i don't read the evidence and defer to that teams evidence/arguments. Second, please, please implicate your arguments. If you win the perm or the critique or the counterplan, what does that mean? Why do the d/a and the turns outweigh the advantagee? etc...Understand that as a judge, winning arguments is never so clear cut. My decisions generally come down to propensities of impacts for both sides. The team that recognizes what the other might win and explains the implications even if the other team wins some risk generally has success getting my ballot. Third, I have some defaults in the absence of debate in the round, although I try to make in round arguments my primary default. I will weigh aff. "policy impacts" versus the potential impact of critiquing unless told to evaluate the round in a different framework. This means i generally default aff in kritik debates where negatives fail to explicate a perspective from which I should judge the round (including the implications of (or jutifications for) voting affirmative and negative. It's a little known fact, now that I'm at UT, that I was not a big kritik debater. I enjoy good ones and hate bad ones. I default negative on c/p theory and generally prefer to avoid deciding rounds on theory. However, i do enjoy debates about c/p solvency advocates or theory debates with specific standards (like certain pics good, others bad) instead of good-bad, ships passing debates. I will vote on clearly dropped arguments, however phrases do not constitute arguments. I will readily dismiss unwarranted or unclear arguments. I try to protect 2nrs some, but I also give 2ars leeway to do impact analysis. T's o.k. - I think constructive engagement and with are appropriate, and maybe "potential abuse" isn't really the issue I won't kick the c/p and weigh the d/a versus case for the negative after a 2nr goes for the c/p unless told to do so. I guess this means I default that 2nr advocacy is non-conditional. But that's all up for debate...or not. Tie goes aff. A perm that answers the net benefit means aff wins. Nukes bad, consequences o/w, "moral obligation" alone not enough. But please be willing to problematize any of these constructs we call impacts. CX is a lost art; use it for arguments and see your speaks go up. These all in the third category are defaults. Debate an argument, develop it, and I'll weigh it how you tell me to. Most of all: have fun and be nice. I Love the Simpsons... This is not up for debate.