gordie miller -- Rochester
Use the back button on your browser to return to the pref entry page or tournament entry list. The judge philosophy appears in a different format at the bottom of the page.
Judging philosophy:
Judging Philosophy for Gordie Miller Rochester, 15th year judging, this part updated 10/20/10 for West Point Prep Time- I'm not into rigid enforcement of prep time. My general guideline is you are using prep time until your papers and order are set or your digital speech is ready and saved on a flash drive and/or sent to viewing computer. I do not expect the other team to "stop prepping" while you jump drive/set up speaking space. If you're uptight about the other team's prep time use than you should be quick and efficeint. bathroom breaks are fine but the other team should not be forced to sit and not prep while your partner is in the bathroom. if you prep while partner is out that is prep time. If you dont want the other team to have "extra prep time" be quick or don't take bathroom breaks. If you have a belief in the absolute equity and infallibillity of prep time that's cool, you just don't want me to be your judge. Paperless debate- See prep time thoughts above. I'm fine with paperless, but you should know i can't transcribe your speech, i can't write or type that well. This means just because you said the words does not necessarily mean that your argument is persuasive. 1ac-1ar i get it be a quick argument making machine, but you have to pause, use emphasis, and slow down on important arguments in the 2nr-2ar if you want me to comprehend and be persuaded. My default position is that Conditionality is bad. Not a huge believer in neg flex. but i did vote neg on courts politics over half the time at my last tournament (binghamton) Debate is a world of mutually preferred judging. You get to choose how to rank me. I feel it is the debaters job to adapt to me. Many of you abhor that idea. I respect that. Excercise your choice. Good Luck just reread that last part and sounds kinds of rude. I mean to say you will have to deal with the way i organize the round like time keeping and prep time use stuff. I won't dismiss arguments out of hand, you have to answer arguments you think i hate. I am part of the debate but i understand and accept that the debaters are a bigger part. I know where I stand in the judge preference part of the current debate. The heavy policy teams don’t prefer me and the most performative teams do not prefer me. I get the middle, which is truthfully, where I think my “philosophy” currently resides. I am not persuaded that rigid enforcement of a particular interpretation (be it topicality, specification, theory) is necessary or even good for debate. If you can persuade me that your opponent is dodging your substantive debate I am a little more likely to be persuaded. It is very interesting to me that as the research tools available to our community have dramatically increased, the “Ground” that is legitimate to debate seems to have dramatically decreased. More than interesting, it seems a little counter-intuitive to me. Translation: I am not a big fan of “competing interpretations” as vague and subjective as “reasonability” sounds, it works for me. To answer the Question: Are you more critique or policy friendly? I honestly think I am on the fence, though many who I have judged may say the former. I don’t see them as so separated. You need a little bit of both in my mind. What good is a policy without critical reflection? What good is critical reflection without insights on how that reflection effects our actions? Yes, that means some of the more radical approaches (nihilism, normativity, no argument) are difficult for me to get a grip on philosophically. It is hard for me to understand the implication of these arguments in context of the debate. That is not to say it is impossible for me to be persuaded, heck it’s more likely I go for that then the theory/topicality debate I just wrote about. My flow is decent, my handwriting a little spotty, I am not going to vote for you because the other team missed a bit of ink ( I do to from time to time.) I will vote for you if the other teams missed an entire argument (claim warrant data thanks toulmin!). There is a lot of stuff going on in debate that seems interesting and up for debate, from the right/expectation of pre-round prep, to use of computers for evidence/block reading (do I get your computer during all my prep?, what if I don’t have a computer to flash drive it over to me?) to the protocol of the “flip”. I enjoy debates about those ideas and other norms and practices in debate. Please ask me questions for anything else.
Seasonal voting record:
Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: