[eDebate] Sarah Snider's Judge Philosophy

Sarah Snider sjsnider
Tue Mar 27 15:52:31 CDT 2007


it hasn't been updated on debate results in a REALLY long time, so here.

Sj

My name is Sarah Snider, I coach for Kansas State University. I have been
judging debates for 6 years. I have not updated my judge philosophy in 5
years. For those of you who don't know me, I debated at the University of
Vermont for 4 years with no previous high school debate experience. I
cleared at several big tournaments, including the NDT. I was primarily a
critique debater (about 80 percent of the time) which means nothing now
because debate has changed so much, given the state of debate today I
consider myself to have been a pretty straight-up debater. I never would
have considered not having a plan text, or a "counter advocacy" or whatever.
Since my debate career ended I have coached at the University of Rochester,
a brief stint at Catholic, a bit on the side at Georgetown and UMKC while I
directed the Urban Debate League in Washington, D.C. and I now find myself
at Kansas State. I have coached all types of debaters, the crazies on the
kritikal side and the crazies on the policy end. I have done a significant
amount of research this year and feel like I know what's going on.

What I like:
Pleasant debates about the issues, deep case debates, specific disadvantages
and tricky counterplans, the kind of critical debates that make me really
reflect on myself and the world, and innovative theory arguments.

What I dislike:
The generics, the assumption that I have read all of the critical literature
you are reading, lack of evidence comparison, when your plan text has a
stupid and fatal flaw in it.

Things you might like to know:
I flow all the time, if you want that to change you should have a reason and
tell me what I should do to evaluate the round without the flow- i.e. set
forth a framework I should use to weigh arguments that allows me to abandon
the flow. It has gotten harder for me to abandon the flow recently.

My points range is 26.5-28.5 unless you rock my world. I don't have a
problem giving 26.5's at an average tournament. I gave a 29 at CEDA nats
because it was deserved. I can't remember giving a 30.

If you want me to understand your arguments you should explain them in a way
that I will understand. Don't try to sound uber smart- make super complex
arguments sound simple and you'll have success in front of me.

Talk about why what the other team said is bad, not why the world in general
is bad.

The bruschke site says that I have voted neg 23 times and aff 25 times this
year. I think this almost 50-50 split is a result of my inclination to
protect affirmative's from alternatives that shift and change during the
block. Just tell us what your alternative is in the 1NC, are you going to
claim that it solves the aff? Why wait until the block? You must be scared.

I understand it's the NDT and its stressful for you, I hope you find a way
to have fun and relish the act of debating. I will diligently try to
evaluate your debate in as fair a way as possible and to work hard to
explain my decision because you deserve no less, but ultimately whether or
not you make sense is on your shoulders.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070327/38f386ef/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: S Snider Judge Philosophy.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 28672 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070327/38f386ef/attachment.doc 



More information about the Mailman mailing list