Last name: Stroube First Name: Jack
School: University of Texas Region: South-Central
Years Judging CEDA: 1 Number of Rounds on this Topic: 50
Judging Philosophy:
In deciding a debate round, I attempt to examine the warranted claims in the round with as little introduction of my bias as possible. So to the question "What is your paradigm?", I respond with "What can you warrant?" However, I must warn that my biases are infinite and insurmountable and may plague you. I feel that it would be impossible to ever reveal them all no matter how long the form. I take this opportunity to codify my biases on major forms of argumentation:
topicality: I have much appreciation for this fossil, but wonder about its relevance at the end of year on a five case topic. Good luck.
counter-plans: Bias towards the legitimacy of plan inclusive and exclusive counter-plans. The competition appears to be scripted into the resolution particularly in the word, ‘immediately’, in the ‘all or nearly’ phrase, and in the ‘two-part’ structure of the resolution requiring that one lift sanctions first and then do some other form of constructive engagement as well. I believe the c-x of the 1AC is the critical time for the negative to establish their PIC ground. The catch being that my bias is also towards the reciprocity of the intrinsicness permutation which only makes logical sense to test the net-benefit in the same way that negative tests part of the plan. Utopian counter-plans though largely dead are amusing still.
disadvantages: Though I think the Clinton DA reflects a President fetish, I actually do not have much, if any, bias against this argument. As for the rest, they are fine but largely reflect a larger political science fetish of realpolitik dynamics reliant on a catalytic theory of a near infinite series of combustible internal links. Negatives should beware that I believe a disad can be beaten without evidence if well attacked at key pressure points with a rigorous analysis of the negative evidence.
kritiks: My threshold has gone up and bias shifted against generic links like the reform link. My bias is towards the elaboration of specific ways that specific grids of thoughts, concepts, or ideas related to specific practices and actions. I prefer the isolation by the negative of specific possibilities for change linked to the criticism. Oftentimes, I believe that changing our discourse is not enough and that we need to shift towards transforming if not dismantling the structures of the debate and academic institutions at large. I think perhaps we will find that ‘fiat is not illusory’ and that criticism could bring more ‘out-of-round’ changes in debate structures if we were to wager new avenues of criticism.
In conclusion, my primary bias for presentation is round framing tactics which take the judge through a series of steps acceding reasonable credibility to the opponent’s arguments but at the same time establishing criteria to evaluate their evidence and warrants in the face of potentially better evidence or better warrants. All of this is important only if the goal is to win as in a horse race. If debaters make non-competitive choices to explore the possibilities of communication in non-rote forms, I will try to ‘reward’ them with good speaker points at the very least. And that appeal, in the age of debate ‘offense’…