Ross Smith, Wake Forest University, Southeast Region, 20 years judging, 50 rounds this year

Basics:

1) Critical does not mean totally accepting nor does it mean close-minded. As a judge, I am a critic.

2) Utterances characterized as arguments are not creatures imbued with inalienable rights, nor are they all created equal.

3) I try my best to apply my critical faculties and skills to the round in front of me, to adapt, if you will.

4) Good c-x, clear delivery, and high-quality evidence and analysis all greatly improve the quality of my decision (as well as your points and my enjoyment).

A Paradigm? I know the term has fallen into disuse, but the perspective I find easiest to use to judge a debate is one which sees the debate as a request by the affirmative for my endorsement of a decision by those in a position to do the affirmative plan to do the affirmative plan. There, that confused you. Try this: is the affirmative plan desirable from the perspective of those who would be deciding to do it? OK, by now you should have recognized the "plan focus." What you may be unfamiliar with is the notion of perspective. Simply put, what may seem good from one perspective may seem bad from another. But in a debate, we have a binary opposition (according to the rules).

Presumptions: here’s another old-fashioned term. Note that presumptions rarely enter into play in that few rounds are very close on the issues where the presumptions arise. If you fear debating in front of me because of them, you don’t realize that I have frequently voted contrary to my presumptions, and have only rarely invoked them. I thought it might be useful to discuss them, however, since hidden presumptions can lead to unpleasant surprises. The paradigm above can be seen as one basic presumption. Another is that topicality is a voting issue. A third is that the affirmative has the burden of proof with regard to answering the question that the paradigm poses.

Corollary Presumptions: This list flows from the basic presumptions, and is handy:

1) A "debatable" plan is not necessarily a topical one. If there is not reasonable definitional support for a plan’s topicality, then it is not topical. On the affirmative side of this same coin, just because an affirmative interpretation may not be preferred according to some aesthetic standard does not mean that it is an unacceptable interpretation.

2) Plan-inclusive counterplans are ok.

3) Conditional counterplans are ok.

4) International counterplans are suspect.

5) The affirmative must have an advantage or must have turned a disad. The advantage must be unique.

6) If the best policy at the end of the round includes the entire aff. plan, then the aff. wins.

7) These presumptions can be overcome by force of argument.

Some other potentially helpful comments:

1) I have heard some "disad" shells so poorly developed as to warrant no 2AC response.

2) I am not particularly fond of the Clinton disad for theoretical and "real-world" reasons.

3) I have voted frequently for the Clinton disad and for international counterplans.

4) Large chunks of many speeches are incomprehensible, particularly the reading of evidence.

5) I usually take a very good flow. Debaters often do not.

6) "Try or die" and "The disad is unique and unturned" are amusing statements in which affirmatives cloak, "We have no solvency but vote for us anyway" and negatives cloak, "Who needs a link?"

7) From a postmodern perspective the notion of "link" is indeterminate if not downright dubious. Perhaps that’s what inspires the negative kritiker to label everything the affirmative says or does a "link".

8) For want of better, I frequently must use the linkximpact= A>B formula. It makes a big difference then if the link is 1% vs 10% or the impact is 10 vs 100. How many units is the impact of a "nuc war, juhdge"?