Conant,+Bradley

My L-D Judge Paradigm
Bradley Conant, Dirigo High School LD Coach

I am a 17 year veteran teacher of Social Studies and Business at Dirigo High School in Dixfield. I teach Ancient History, Military History, Philosophy, Debate and Psychology. In addition, I have taught US History, Maine History, Computer Applications, Keyboarding, Accounting, Economics and Entrepreneurship. I have coached LD since 1996 and have been MFA LD Moderator for about 5 years. I have branched out into Speech and PF in recent years and have overseen a tiny Stuco team in the past.
 * 1. What is your educational and/or professional background?**

I would estimate about two dozen rounds of PF and have never been present in a full Student Congress round (despite having a few competitors).
 * 2. Estimating, how many rounds of Public Forum or Student Congress would you say you have judged in the past?**

Policy: Exactly one round judged. Never again! I have watched finals at NFL's and a few rounds in the MFA. LD: Not quite countless. 13 years times about 40+/- rounds per year. Call it over 500.
 * 3. Estimating, how many rounds of LD and Policy would you say you have judged in the past?**

First of all, the opponent must catch the drop. Secondly, it needs to be a significant part of the case, rather than a mere technicality. Dropping subpoint 3c on one contention may not be that big of a deal in the grand scheme of the round. However, the major items of clash, like the value, criteria, certain observations and the main contentions must be addressed to have an effective case, whether the drops are caught or not.
 * 4. How heavily do you consider "dropped" arguments? (Arguments that an opponent does not respond to.** **Feel free to comment****)**

Depends largely on the type of evidence. A firm philosophical foundation backed up with any kind of evidence is required, this is after all "values debate". Quality counts over quantity. Lots of legal precedent or statistics are nice but they need to support something bigger. They cannot stand alone. It also helps to link this evidence to the important elements of your case. If you make claims, tie the evidence to the claims and subsequent impacts you intend to use. Do not assume a "link" just because you present evidence, communicate it. I'm not impressed just because you say the word "card" along with some guy's name. I need to know what's on the card that's relevant to your case before it counts.
 * 5.How important is evidence in your decision ?**

A blend of philosophy and practical evidence works best. Start with a philosophical base to back the whole case, then add supporting evidence and explanation. I don't have a magic formula for how much of each but a philosophical basis is the priority in LD. Theoretically, your case doesn't have to be "practical" at all. It just has to be valued higher.
 * 6. Do you prefer: Philosophy Only, Carded Evidence only, No Evidence, Or blends of cards and philosophical concepts?**

Speed kills! Too fast is poor communication and if you are not communicating your position, you lose. I have rarely seen too slow but it happens. Too slow means you aren't making all of you points. If you can enunciate well at a higher speed, you are okay. It's when you are spreading so many concepts into that speed, that you lose me and other judges.
 * 7. What is your preferred speed of delivery(1 being Bill Clinton Slow, 10 being "spreading".** **Feel free to comment)**?

Formal is good. People put a lot of pride into this event, and they should. "Dress for success" doesn't hurt, but in terms of judging, it won't affect a decision - only a first impression. I think how you refer to your opponent is important; Referring to them as "my opponent" or "the negative side" etc. keeps things less personal, dispassionate or neutral. It adds a touch of "professionalism" which might be useful later in life. If you slip and mention someone by name, I don't mind but psychologically, it adds a touch of emotionalism that doesn't always help a round. It only hurts my judgment if it hurts the round.
 * 8. On a scale of 1 to 10, how important are formalities for you? (How you refer to your opponent, organization, formal attire, etc.** **Feel free to comment.****)**

You will have convinced me that you have the superior case and value when the round ends. You will have diminished the cohesiveness of your opponents case, especially if you are neg. Communication is key. Just because you said all the right words doesn't mean you communicated them effectively. Body language, tone of voice, good signposting all affect communication. Communicate that "aha moment" when you said the right thing that overturns your opponent. Don't just throw the words out and assume any judge will catch it. Rebuttals are where all this tends to show the winner. Keeping your case organized and cohesive despite the pummeling of your opponent, plus some confidence and clear voice make a difference if you maintain it to the end. A lot of competitors lose confidence and cohesion as time passes in a round.
 * 9. At the end of the day how does a debater win your ballot?**

Never did this in school. Don't regret that either. That makes my perspective different.
 * 10. Are you a former debater? If yes, what events did you compete in and for how long?**

(1 being none, 10 being the most important aspect of round. Feel free to comment)** Depends. 9-10 Impact tells me why I should care about something. That's necessary for communication purposes. It also tends to show the priority or weighting a piece of evidence should have in the round. Again, that makes it necessary. Without it, evidence is weaker and of less real value. Impacts need to be pointed out and linked to your case.
 * 11. On a scale of 1 to 10, How important are the impacts of the debate to you?

Civility (or lack thereof) is the main one. Over "jargony" language is another. A touch of jargon is fine but don't over do it. That's just less effective communication.
 * 12. Do you have any "pet peeves" when it comes to debate? If so, what are they?**

9 - I tend to fill a page when I use one the "judges flow sheets" (not the same as the competitors flow sheet) or a legal pad size sheet. Doesn't make me infallible in terms of recalling every detail of the round but provides the memory cues needed for a decision. The detail I write does not always correspond to the volume of information you provide, especially if you are "spreading". If you communicate the information well, I write enough notes to remember the gist of it. If you are speaking too fast, I may miss some things, meaning you did not communicate effectively.
 * 13. On a scale of 1 to 10, how detailed are your "flows"? (1 being that you don't flow/don't know what flowing is, 10 being that you are a former policy/lder)**

Face the judge in c/x. Sit on either side. Keep your own time when possible.
 * 14. Do you have any preferences? Any things that you like debaters to do? If so, what are they?**