Hopkins,+Sharon

Judge's Name: Hopkins, Sharon High School Graduation Date: 0000 Judge's e-mail: shopkins@uprep.com Experience: - Coach a team - Frequently Judge - Teach a high school class Rounds Judged this topic: 40 Judge Paradigm: Tabula Rasa Rate of Delivery: 4 Moderately fast Quantity of Arguments: 1 Few, well developed Topicality: 4 Moderately Rarely Counterplans: 1 acceptable Generic Disadvantages: 3 sometimes acceptable Conditional Negative Positions: 2 usually acceptable Debate Theory Arguments: 3 sometimes acceptable Kritik arguments: 1 acceptable Overall judging paradigm: Occupation: High School U.S History Teacher Affiliation: Director of Debate at University Prep HS in Detroit, MI I am in my 4th year of coaching a high school team and my teams have done pretty well even though our program is in its infancy. Updated 12/6/13

The Topic I am somewhat familiar with the arguments on this topic. I have done a fair amount of research and have judged about 30 rounds on the topic.

The Basics A wise judge once said "Win what you are good at". Pretty much Anything goes as long as you understand what you are saying with the exception of "racism good". I prefer good arguments than just reading a bunch of cards that you can't explain. Debate is about critical thinking and often times teams rely solely on the cards and not the merits/effects of the policy and their understanding of them. Argumentation outweighs evidence. If an argument is explained well, it will be given just as much weight as a card. I believe in truth over tech. With that being said, I rarely called for cards after the round. I prefer for debaters to debate it out, and not to construct my own story after the round.

In your rebuttals, you must do a good job of framing the debate. I don't like to have to nitpick my flow to decide what's important & should be voted on. You need to tell me which side I should vote for and why its your side Speed Slow down on the tags. If you spread through them and I can't flow them, this can be detrimental to your speaks and the overall round.

Topicality I will vote for it but it is not my favorite debate. If you run T, you need to really explain the standards, not just re-read them.

CP's CP's must solve the harms of the affirmative or I won't vote on it. If you run a PIC, the net benefit must be explained well and extended throughout the debate.

DA's Have a good link story and impact it throughout the round. Politics DA's- I find it difficult to evaluate these debates especially when the link is flimsy & the impact scenario is far-fetched & very much removed from reality.

Theory Most of these debates are a wash. I'd much rather hear a debate on substantive issues.

Kritiks I really like to listen to a good K debate where the Kritik is explained in laymen's terms. In addition, the links need to be specific or you need to explain how the aff's methodology, reps, etc links to the K. If you take this route, your burden becomes more difficult but is still winnable.

Critical Affs Aff-I'm your judge. Neg-Have an inclusive framework and respond to case directly.

Hear Ye, Hear Ye... A Word About Performance "A project is a temporary endeavor with a defined beginning and end (usually time-constrained, and often constrained by funding or deliverables),undertaken to meet unique goals and objectives, typically to bring about beneficial change or added value."Based on this definition every 1AC is a project. In addition, not all performance teams are the same. Some critique debate itself. Others critique the resolution, some critique the government, while others have a plan text or advocacy statement that is a policy implementation, the performance is just the method in which debaters make their arguments more inclusive or put simply, makes it more interesting for a 16 year old to incorporate what they like into what they love. The best teams find a way to make their performance a discussion of the topic. I have seen some of the best critical thinking happen in these rounds where young people really found there voices. I do think that this argument should be accepted just as any other, and over time it will be, just as the Kritik was a taboo in the beginning but is now commonplace. Teams need to be prepared for this type of argument just as they would any other, and not just read framework. They must actually interact with the effects of the advocacy.


 * This does not mean just because you run a critical affirmative or performance that I will automatically vote for you. If you drop util arguments and such, I will vote accordingly.

If you have any questions, please ask before the round. Ultimately, be nice to each other, learn, and have fun. Everything else is secondary.

Ethics Statement: Agree