Monday, April 11, 2016

Team Policy Debate Judging Philosophies I Can't Ever Say

One of the only things you as a judge are allowed to say to the teams debating in front of you in NCFCA is your judging philosophy (or relevant background, experience, and what the teams can do to make the round more enjoyable for you), that only if the Affirmative team remembers to ask you for it. I have actually begun writing mine down to make sure that it is succinct and will stand up to potential scrutiny from the powers that be. That powers that be really don't like you to deviate from "I'm a stock issues judge" and "I like impacts." I found that out to my sorrow at my second tournament ever when my judging philosophy landed me in hot water (to be fair, the debate team that took me to task over my judging philosophy, um, misrepresented it QUITE A BIT to the fraud squad, but whatever).

So, a few of the judging philosophies I would love to share:

1. I really don't care for all of that evidence y'all read. I am much more interested in your thoughts and ideas, so let's keep those canned speeches to a minimum, especially that first one, okay?

2. I don't buy fiat power. If neg runs a fiat kritik, I'm likely to buy it.

3. I'm old school. Speed and spread go a long way toward winning my heart, so show me what you got, people! 

I'll continue to brainstorm. Whenever I'm giving a "judging philosophy," I always think of things I want to say (and mentally urge myself to shut up), so I know there are many more marinating in my brain...

No comments:

Post a Comment