Hurteau,+Andrew

Hurteau, Andrew 2008 ahh12@albion.edu High School debater, College debater 0 Tabula Rasa > > > > > > > >
 * 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** Moderately
 * **Counterplans** Rarely acceptable
 * ** Generic Disadvantages ****Sometimes** acceptable
 * **Conditional Negative Positions** Sometimes acceptable
 * **Debate Theory Arguments** Sometimes acceptable
 * **Kritik Arguments** Unacceptable
 * Please indicate your overall judging paradigm. **

I subscribe to the judging paradigm Tabula Rasa. I believe that debate needs to rely on the quality and use of evidence and reason more so than anything else. My judgements stem from what evidence was used to support the pillars of the Affirmative arguments and plan, and what evidence was used to refute those things. I do not believe that more means better. Better means better. Policy Debate is a game of logic, wit, and analysis, and I choose to rely on those to decide which team made a better argument.

As a young debater in high school and college, I natural preferred, and was coached, to speak in a manner that was emphatic, impassioned, and supported by evidence, in an effort to appeal to a rationalizing judge, rather than unleash a barrage of evidence in an effort to 'out-cite' my opponents. This does not mean to imply that the speed reading of evidence is a sign of weakness. No. What I mean is that I would rather see a young debater use evidence that he or she completely and discuss. I'd prefer one well developed point made from one card then three mediocre arguments with three semi-applicable cards.

I judge based on the evidence and the way it is used in the context of the round. I have a working familiarity with the topics and sources, but as a former MIFA sanctioned Policy Debater, I have had much practice is separating my personal biases from the evidence and outcomes.