Allison Levin Judging Philosophy
I competed in high school a long time ago, and have been coaching in completive (national circuit) policy debate and LD at the high school level for over 10 years. I am currently coaching for McKendree University.
Some general notes?.
I think debate is a game. I think you should do whatever it takes to win that game, and I respect people who play the game creatively and with passion.
I like people who do work. This doesn?t mean that I won?t vote for lazy, trite strategies but I respect you for unique, creative, smart positions.
I think anything goes argumentation wise in a debate round. I will listen to anything and have probably voted at least once on every style/argument.
Don?t be an asshole. What I mean by this is debate competitively, have fun, be intense, go for the win, but don?t run up the score on or totally embarrass obviously weaker teams for no reason.
Don?t make make racist / homophobic / sexist comments?if you think it might be offensive, don?t say it. Attack the argument not the team.
Run it, I will vote on it. I probably have a lower threshold here than most judges. I?ll default to competing interpretations and T as a voter unless convinced otherwise.
You have to do a lot of work to convince me something in debate is illegitimate. To win my vote on theory you probably need to show in round abuse not just potential abuse.
I love the K, but make sure (1) you can explain it and (2) the alt solves the impact of the K. Although I have read a lot of the literature, I will not use my knowledge to fill in the gaps in your analysis- it is your job to explain (and if you do not, you should expect me to give Aff a lot of leeway in explaining your argument when answering it).
I am a big fan of a well-crafted CP. I tend to default believe that delay and consult CPS are legitimate- so the Aff will need to explain to me why they are not if that is the argument you want me to vote on.
Perms are not advocacies - they are tests of competition. If you are going to use the Perm as an advocacy, you need to explain why the Perm can function as a advocacy when introducing the perm. Give solvency/warrants for the Perm.- don?t just say Perm do both.
You should read them. I like specific creative DAs over generic DAs, but if you win the argument, you will win the round.
You can go as fast you like so long as you?re clear. Slow down when reading topicality arguments, procedurals and important texts (plans, alternatives, permutations, etc.).
Dress however you want. I honestly do not care what you?re wearing or what you look like.
I probably forgot something, so if you have a question ask