Bliss,+Brita

Submitted on Wednesday, December 10, 2014 - 4:51pm Submitted by anonymous user: [70.194.8.103] Submitted values are:

Judge's Name: Bliss, Brita (updated) High School Graduation Date: 2009 Judge's e-mail: britaebliss@gmail.com Experience: - Coach a team - Frequently Judge Rounds Judged this topic: 25 Judge Paradigm: Tabula Rasa Rate of Delivery: 4 Moderately fast Quantity of Arguments: 3 A moderate number Topicality: 2 Moderately often Counterplans: 2 usually acceptable Generic Disadvantages: 1 acceptable Conditional Negative Positions: 2 usually acceptable Debate Theory Arguments: 1 acceptable Kritik arguments: 1 acceptable Overall judging paradigm: assistant coach for Portage Northern, BA in psychology from Kalamazoo College.

first, don't make assumptions. ask me before the round if you want to know how I feel about certain things. I don't count flashing as prep, but you need to tell me the moment you end prep & start flashing. I also need you to tell me immediately after cross-x if you are or are not taking prep before your speech. it drives me nuts when I ask, "neg prep?" & no one answers me but instead y'all just start prepping. I'm fine with tag-teaming as long as you keep it within reason.

second, debate is for education & fun. I do not like it when competition turns nasty or personal. I will dock your speaker points if you are rude to the other team, your partner, or me. I also do not appreciate gendered language. treat each other with respect.

explanation is huge for me. I'm willing to listen to any sort of argument, but I'm not going to vote on something that is not well explained. don't assume I know what your acronyms mean. don't assume I know the particulars of your K. SLOW down on your tags & authors & holy buckets, please give me an accurate roadmap & signpost clearly. otherwise I'm fine with speed as long as you are comprehensible. I really appreciate when leftover speech time is used to reiterate the points made in your own words. I want to know that you know what you're advocating, not just reading cards. impact calculus is also very important.

a dropped argument is a conceded one. my paradigm is tabula rasa & I stick to that pretty closely. I tend to lean a bit more towards weighing human rights & moral obligations over existential impacts, but I am also not going to vote on a moral obligation if it's obvious you're commodifying the suffering for which you claim to solve. I also tend to lean a bit more away from counterplans but if you run a CP well & convince me it's the best option, I'll still vote on it. you're just going to have to work diligently to outline it clearly & convince me why that's how I have to vote.

anything else, just ask me! Ethics Statement: Agree