Point of Information

Sarah McGuinn

Constraints: none

Background
I’ve been a Parliamentary debate coach for the past 3 years, and Director of Forensics for the past 2 at NDSJ. To that end, I’ve judged in many local invitationals (Cal, SCU, Stanford, SCU2, MLK, etc), including adjudicating many elimination rounds (including late elimination rounds). I was myself a college debater and did LD in high school (Parli was not introduced until after I was out of high school).

Approach to judging
First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias (though I very much hate ‘fake citing’ aka lying in rounds and will call you out if I see blatant examples of it). I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I don’t subscribe to the belief that spreading makes debate more exclusive therefore should be preferred, but that doesn’t mean you’ll lose because you talk fast. There is an incredible distinction between speaking quickly to cover points and circuit style spreading, and trust me, I can handle either and have NO problem with the former.

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality (grr), etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). That doesn’t mean, for example, you have to pick a “predicable” House, but if your definitions significantly alter the meaning or spirit of the resolution, I’m not going to be a happy camper.

Argument preferences
I care about the framework first and foremost-I do not want to have to guess on what grounds I should make my decision. Give me a criteria, be structured, and I will be very happy. I love critical arguments, go ahead and run them, though please don’t run them BADLY. I do hate getting down to the end of a round and having to make a decision based nearly entirely on who wins the topicality debate-if you’re going to run T(and there’s lots of reasons why you probably should), be prepared to work for it, and do the extra step of trying to argue under your opponent’s definitions as well. Quality of argumentation ALWAYS trumps quantity-I will never be convinced by a voter that states “My partner and I had 3 contentions while my opponents had only 2” unless there is a weighing mechanism in place that would force me to do so (and really, try not to do that, yikes). Also, contentions should have a CWI; you don’t need to cite sources in Parli for there to be good evidence, as compelling examples work just fine, but contentions without warrants are so very lonely. Impact is also key in my book; you should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

Presentation preferences
I’ll just repeat what I said above:
I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I don’t subscribe to the belief that spreading makes debate more exclusive therefore should be preferred, but that doesn’t mean you’ll lose because you talk fast. There is an incredible distinction between speaking quickly to cover points and circuit style spreading, and trust me, I can handle either and have NO problem with the former.
Additionally, since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at a tournament like Cal Cup where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 6-9 point range on a 10 scale, with average speakers getting 6s, decent speakers getting 7s, good 8s, excellent 9s, and 10 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 5 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

Leave a Reply