Paul Spears -- H.H. Dow High School

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:

I attempt to be mostly tab. I listen to the round and will vote where I am told. I debated in high school for 4 years, but didn’t compete nationally. I see analysis as very important and tag words like “fairness” and “post dates” do not mean very much to me unless they are explained.
Tag Teaming and prompting: This is alright as long as it is not excessive. I want to know that both partners understand what they are talking about. If there isn’t a need to tag team, then it shouldn’t be happening very much.
Specific Argument-
T: I often debated T and know most arguments. I want there to be clash on the flow, don’t just read blocks.
Theory: Like with T, clash is important. You need to tell me why I should care and why I should either reject the argument or the team.
Ks: Again, analysis. Tell me why your K matters and how it links. Tell me what the alt does. Tell me if your impacts should come before the case impacts.
Framework: whoever gives the best reasons for why their framework comes first will likely win this, and then the round.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: