[eDebate] NDT judging philosophy

Katie Richey katerichey
Wed Mar 26 13:25:24 CDT 2008


The only other philosophy I have out there is really old, here is one for
the NDT for those who care.

*Non-traditional Affs:  Meaning affs that don't take a literal policy-making
approach to the resolution.  I really enjoy them, especially creative ones.
Give specific instructions about what you think the ballot means,
represents, symbolizes.  You generally need to win the framework debate (if
you hear it) to win your Aff.  If the Neg wins policy-making good (or
another similar framework arg) you probably aren't going to win my ballot
because your Aff uses better reps/superior epistemology.  *

*Traditional Affs:  I enjoy them also.  I have not coached or cut cards on
the topic so don't assume I know your aff.  If someone runs a policy
strategy against you, I evaluate these debates in a very mathematical
way.  After
the debate, I grid the plan versus the Cplan and the respective advantages
and net benefits and calculate <insert form of destruction >.  The least
amount of <insert form of destruction> wins.  Better debating (clarity,
funny, drawing out evidence warrants, sounding pretty) & better evidence
(most recent, best warrants) will help your side of the equation.*

*Topicality:  Not coaching on the topic leaves me a little bit behind on the
T debate.  I have judged at a few national tournaments this year so I'm not
totally clueless, but if you decide to go for T in front of me tie your
abuse/ground claims to specific positions you've lost and why those
positions have been important this year.  *

*Framework:  If you are on the literal USFG side of the fence, don't forget
to answer external DA's to your framework.  You might think the argument
that policy debate = genocide is stupid, but you still need to answer it in
a comparative way with your fairness, predictability, competitive equity
claims.  If you are on the policy debate = genocide side of the fence the
reverse is true.  Remember to talk about debate as a competition, a game, an
activity and what your DA's to policy debate mean in this context.*

*Kritiks:  The less generic the better.  If you are generic, you can make
this less obvious by drawing out links from 1AC evidence, skillfully using
your cross ex, and applying your generic ev in a compelling way to the
action of the plan.  I have a pretty good background in most critical
arguments.  K debaters neglect the bottom of the flow? spend more time on
the implication and alternative debate.  *

*Stylistic/Misc.:  *

*Long overviews are not good for you, me, or the flow.  If you are giving a
long ass overview, one of the following things is true:  1) you will end up
repeating yourself when you get to the line by line which wastes time or 2)
you are saying something that properly belongs on the
link/impact/alternative debate.  Both of these are annoying.  *

*Also, whenever two people (or sometimes 3 or 4) start to scream loudly over
each other during the cross ex I stop listening.  This is the NDT -stop
fucking shouting and ask and answer questions that might actually help you
win the debate.*

*My judging philosophy, in general, is to be attentive and open minded.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080326/9ae31375/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list