Bishop,+Amanda

Bishop, Amanda 2013 bishop69@msu.edu Coach a team, High School debater, Frequently judge 15 Tabula Rasa > > > > > > > > -I enjoy listening to arguments that people actually understand and are genuinely true. I would rather hear well developed arguments than a lot of arguments that go under covered. -I like being told what to vote on at the end of the round and what my decision should be based off of/how it should be framed. When it comes to framework, you need to impact your framework. Why is your framework the best and why should I vote on it? If you don't frame the round I am left up to deciding who is best on my own. That being said, I need impact calc and weighing at the end of the round. -Even if I don't like the topic that you are arguing, for example a kritik that I philosophically disagree with, I will evaluate it on how well it was debated and answered NOT on my own personal philosophy. -I like T. It needs to be in a standard shell. You cannot win the bottom of the flow, the standards and voters, without winning the top and having the better definition. That being said, you need to compare the actual definitions and prove that yours is better before you spend your time on the bottom half of the flow. -Kritiks and Counterplans should be read at a slower pace so that I don't miss anything. I can comprehend pretty fast spreading, but the faster you go the more I miss. I can only hand write so quickly. I consider myself middle of the road with speed. -I also enjoy a good case debate, I mostly ran policy affs with some critical advantages. I think a lot of people don't use their case to their full advantage. Cross applying is important and the neg should not ignore the case. Case work is always good. The case needs to be extended for the entirety of the round. Disads are usually underutilized in my opinion.
 * Judge Name **
 * High School Graduation Year **
 * Judge Email **
 * How would you describe your Policy Debate experience? **
 * How many rounds have you judged on this year's topic? **
 * What is the best descriptor of your judging style for policy debate? **
 * Judge Preferences **
 * **Rate of Delivery** Moderate
 * **Quality of Arguments** Well Developed
 * **Topicality** Vote on it often
 * **Counterplans** Acceptable
 * **Generic Disadvantages** Acceptable
 * **Conditional Negative Positions** Acceptable
 * **Debate Theory Arguments** Usually Acceptable
 * **Kritik Arguments** Acceptable
 * Please indicate your overall judging paradigm. **