Last Name: Hutchins First Name: Jeremy School: Johnson County Community College Years Judging Policy: 8 # Of Rounds on this Topic: 70+ General: I am a critic of argument. To me, being a critic of argument means that the participants get a lot more freedom (and responsibility) in determining how the debate takes place. You are responsible for suggesting a means for evaluation, you are responsible for comparing the quality of arguments, evidence, and the like, you are responsible for determining a hierarchy for argument importance, etc. If participants don’t take the responsibility, it leaves me a great deal of latitude in figuring out what happened. I have been told (and I generally agree) that I have some pretty traditional predispositions as to how a debate should go down. I think all forms of evidence (poetry, song, narrative, silence, etc.) can be used as data to support claims. However, I also think that less traditional forms of evidence often require additional explanation in terms of how they support or relate to a particular claim. Specific: Flowing: I still rely on what I have written down to make decisions. I still think participants are responsible for answering opposing arguments and within a reasonable amount of time (generally, the next available speech though this is often debatable). That being said, I am still not the best flow in the activity. I rarely get cites and, without much pen time, I’ll get behind. This has several implications: (1) It is difficult to understand your argument or to trace where evidence comes from when you are only referencing an author and date. It’s also difficult for me when there are multiple pieces of evidence by the same author and you are referring to one piece as the “winning” card. It’s always good to explain the argument again when you are just using author names.

(2) You will probably want to slow down. I don’t want to limit you or take away a strategic advantage that you have, but less speed and more explanation will make my decisions easier.

(3) Structure, structure, structure (label, number, etc). The more structure you have and the more that you use it the better off I (and you) will be. Topicality: Always give reasons and explanations to support your claims. Saying the word(s) “abuse” or “fair ground” or “ground loss” or “jurisdiction” are not reasons in and of themselves. Critiques: I generally find that I have a high expectation for the link level of critique debates and that the specificity of affirmative evidence is more compelling than the generic implications of the critique. At the same time, I am sympathetic to negative arguments that indict the generic nature of affirmative answers. Finally, I won’t make any assumptions about the implications of critique arguments, so spell them out. Counterplans: These theory debates often take place at a rate and depth that, in my opinion, does them a disservice. As with topicality, give reasons and explanations to support your claims and always implicate arguments in terms of what they mean for the status of the counterplan. If you have specific questions about other argument types, I’ll be happy to answer.