Armstrong,+Dan

Submitted by [|dwarren] Wednesday, December 11, 2013 - 12:33pm 68.188.244.87 Judge's Name: * Last name first please: e.g. Smith, Bob High School Graduation Date: * Just the year, please. Judge's e-mail: * Experience: * Coach a team High School debater College debater Frequently Judge Occasionally Judge Teach a high school class Choose all that apply Rounds Judged this topic: * How many rounds have you judged on this topic? Judge Paradigm: * Speaking skills Stock issues Policymaker Hypothesis tester Games player Tabula Rasa Best descriptor of your judging style for policy debate. Rate of Delivery: * 3Indicate preferences for these practices Quantity of Arguments: * 4Indicate your preference Topicality: * 5Indicate your attitude Counterplans: * 1Indicate your preference Generic Disadvantages: * 2Indicate your preference Conditional Negative Positions: * 3Indicate your preference Debate Theory Arguments: * 3Indicate your preference Kritik arguments: * 3Indicate your preference Overall judging paradigm: * || I am the Marketing and Communications Team Leader @ The Mackinac Center for Public Policy and have organizes debate workshops throughout the state of Michigan as well as judged at various venues.. I look for direct clash in arguments. Therefore I consider each argument and vote on the majority, if not all of them. Both teams should frame the argument so that it makes logical sense and involves a good deal of detail. The side that does not address the argument adequately will not get my vote. Some specifics: Paperless - I don't charge prep time for reasonable time spent doing things like saving to a flash drive or the loading on a computer. I don't mind tag-teaming, however each debater needs to bring original content to the debate, not simply repeating what a teammate has said. Theory - We live in a real world. I need to be convinced that one idea is better than another and be shown why it is better using real incentives, results, and proofs. Topicality - I as a judge am looking for this already and see this as a way of evaluating the affirmative's position and score. I like to answer questions before the round, but will also answer during the round. These are the standards I have developed through judging debate. I may change slightly depending on the situation, but will more often reflect this. Dan Armstrong Marketing and Communications Team Leader The Mackinac Center for Public Policy 989-698-1917 armstrong@mackinac.org On Dec 10, 2013, at 1:27 PM, Pastor David Warren wrote: Here is an example: I will vote on nearly any argument as long as the way that it is explained makes sense and actually warrants my ballot. To aid in this, both teams should explain in great detail what the actual argument that they are making is and why it is the most important aspect of the round for me to vote on. Impact calculus is extremely important to me as well as a good line by line debate (debate is about clash after all). I don't have a tendency towards any specific type of argument nor do I really have any arguments that I won't vote for as long as they are well articulated. Some specifics: Paperless - I don't charge prep time for flashing as long as both teams aren't doing any prepping during it. Tag Teaming/Prompting - Totally cool with it, debate is meant to be a team activity. Just don't make the speech for your partner; that would be crossing my very generous line. Kritiks - As a K debater, I am probably more likely than most judges to vote on a critical argument; however, as a K debater I expect a little more work done on the K if you want me to vote for it. Simply put, if you're the 2NR and you're going for a K, those five minutes should all, or nearly all, spent on the K. Topicality - I run topicality as part of my own Neg. strategy, I hold it as an apriori issue in the round. That being said, for the negative to win on T, they need to be winning every single part of that T argument. Theory - Of all things in a debate round, I am probably least likely to vote simply on theory, especially if you're just taking twenty seconds to pull it over in your final speech. However, if there is something legitimately abusive and the theory argument is articulated well I will certainly vote for it. As for anything else, I am more than willing to answer specific questions before, or even during the round (within reason). I should say that while this is typically my paradigm, not every debate round is the same, some decisions may contradict what I have posted above. In the event that a decision doesn't reflect this, I'll do my best to explain why that round was different for whatever reason and why that forced me to vote the way I did.

Ethics Statement: *