[eDebate] Gordie Miller Judge Philosophy

jmill12 jmill12
Tue Mar 7 16:36:55 CST 2006


I sent this to Mike Berry and posted it a debateresults.com. Here it is for
storage in the edebate archives for eternity (or until the revolution!)

Judge philosophy for Gordie Miller, University of Rochester Debate Union

I have judged about 70 rounds this year, around 20 in open. UNT, UTD and UT are
the only ?national? tournaments I?ve judged at this year. How can you get
enough when it is so BIG! uh Texas that is. I have been obligated for 22 debates
at the 3 previous NDT?s I?ve judged at and gotten into 21 debates. At CEDA i
judged the final round in 99 and 2000, but not past doubles since then. I?ve
been judging open college debate for 10 years. I have pretty much been locked
into a stagnant position on most teams pref sheet. I am under no illusion that
what I write here will change that very much. But I?m going to give it a try. 

The four major criticisms of my judging that i have been able to draw out are as
follows; (1) your points are too low (2) you rarely read evidence, even in close
debates, making quick not thorough decisions (3) you are a k hack , bad policy
judge (4) You?re preference against topicality and theory arguments puts you
out of touch with current debate practices. I have though a lot about this, read
edebate (ross?s posts on points were rather enlightening) and see validity in
most of these opinions. So here?s what  I am going to do.

1. For the NDT and CEDA Nats I am going to adopt a more rigid point structure 1
29.5, 2 29, 3 28.5, and 4 28 will be what i assume the speaker points for the
round will be upon entering the debate. They can go up if you number your
arguments, have shorter overviews, do excellent evidence comparison and admit
your weaknesses in the debate. They will go down if you are rude, hostile,
disrespectful, mean or lie.
2. I will read more evidence after the debate. I will attempt to read equal
amounts from both teams, and I will take at least 15 minutes minimum to make my
decision. I have not done this much for fear of increasing intervention, but
most of the debaters I have talked to say quick decisions are also equally
likely to carry increased intervention. OK I?ll try it.
3. Sure I like a good critique, but I honestly love a case debate with specific
DA links and even a good case specific counter plan. That?s the research I
primarily do each year , specifically the last to years almost all of my
research has been case research. I hope my commitment to read more evidence and
take a little longer will encourage the (straight up, policy) crew to give me a
chance, because I do enjoy that kind of debate too. As far as the k, i?ve said
previously that I don?t feel very post modern or post structural in my
ontology. I?m kind of stuck in modernist, progressive, material ontology. I
try to understand the Baudrillard, Lacan, Foucault, Zizeck, but it is very
difficult for me. I know that?s the link which is why it is confusing. I?ve
judged many ?performance? teams and they are probably split on whether I am
good for them
4. I?m not sure I can do much about T and theory thing. I think running T and
doing case research are often mutually exclusive. You make a choice on which
cards to cut. Don?t blame the aff case choice for your decisions. Now, that
being said, when the 2AC dodges every attempt you made to engage them, I become
the biggest T/Theory hack. That?s right,  don?t run your aspec, pressure
spec, or your economic pressure T in the 1NC do it after the abuse. AFF- dont be
crying about ?new in the 2? i blame the 2AC for being shifty not the neg for
pressuring the 1AR. I guess this means that  am not a potential abuse or
competing interpretations judge, I?m more of a specific in round abuse or
reasonability judge. Basically if you look at aff teams during your strategy
meeting and say ?that case is not topical, I?m going for T? I may not be
your best judge. . Just engage the aff , it?s not that tough and if it is
explain that in the 2nc based on the 2ac. O yeah, I think CX is very binding and
an unclear cx answer is very much like dropping an argument.

A few extra?s
5. Talk with your opponents about how you are going to deal with evidence/block
transfer BEFORE the debate. are you going to set it down, do you hold things
while you are speaking ? how will they get those blocks? I don?t really care I
just want y?all to figure that out ahead of time.
6. I don?t think anyone is obligated to answer questions outside of cx in prep
time. It is a courtesy the other team provides, not a right you have, please be
aware of that. Don?t be obnoxious.

I respect all the hard work that you, your coaches, teammates and administrators
have put in to get you to these National Tournaments. Thank you for reading this
and preferring me at your National Championship!
I will try to be a better, more open minded judge, please let me know how I am
doing jmill12 at mail.rochester.edu







More information about the Mailman mailing list