[eDebate] UWG Tournament - judge philosophy for Andrew Baird

michael hester uwgdebate
Wed Jan 14 14:54:35 CST 2009


the following is the judging philosophy for Andrew Baird. he's in grad
school at UWG now, but debated for FSU, as well as judging for them.


Andrew Baird:

I generally will put the most weight on solvency when making a
decision on a round.   That is not to say that I am not open to
hearing critiques, theory,  or topicality arguments.   It is important
that these arguments be impacted effectively, the more teeth the
argument has when it is crystallized obviously the more likely I am to
vote for it.   The same can be said for when I am assessing a counter
plan.   When it comes down to the end of a round if there is a unique
reason to vote for a counter plan that comes along with any sort of
unique dis-ad that is going to hold a lot of weight on the solvency
flow then I'll pick it up.
Rate of delivery is more or less a none issue.   If you can fill out
the flow then more power too you.   As you can probably tell I am a
pretty traditional style judge.   I will vote up a performance though
if it is adequately explained as to why the rhetoric is valid in
round, more importantly why the rhetoric has unique advantages over
more traditional policy style.   Finally as for T, it will be
considered.   A lot more so if the affirmative is obviously not with
in the realm of topicality.   But I'm not going scrap the whole flow
and vote on a T argument solely as long as the affirmative is more or
less topical.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090114/8b137f85/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list