Last Name: Mitchell								First Name: Gordon
School: University of Pittsburgh						District: VII
Years judging: 15								Rounds on topic: 27
Paradigm: Jocular contrapuntist						Origin: Welsh
Throws: Right								Flows: Right

The world of intercollegiate policy debate is an odd and magical place, where a keen spirit of competition drives debaters to amass voluminous research in preparation for tournaments, and where the resulting density of ideas spurts speakers to cram arguments into strictly timed presentation periods during contest rounds. Expert judges trained in policy analysis keep track of such contests as they unfold at breakneck speed, with speakers routinely delivering intricate argumentation at over 300 words per minute. To the uninitiated onlooker, this style of debate reveals itself as an unintelligible charade, something like a movie-length Federal Express commercial or an auctioneering competition gone bad. But there are rich rewards for participants who master policy debate's special vocabulary, learn its arcane rules, and acclimate themselves to the style of rapid-fire speaking needed to keep up with the flow of arguments. The rigorous dialectical method of debate analysis cultivates a panoramic style of critical thinking that elucidates subtle interconnections among multiple positions and perspectives on policy controversies. The intense pressure of debate competition instills a relentless research ethic in participants. An inverted pyramid dynamic embedded in the format of contest rounds teaches debaters to synthesize and distill their initial positions down to the most cogent propositions for their final speeches.
	- Gordon R. Mitchell, preface to Strategic Deception: Rhetoric, Science and Politics in Missile Defense Advocacy (Michigan State University Press, 2000), p. xvi.

GENERAL: My general predisposition as a judge is to approach the evaluative task hermeneutically, bringing my theoretical presumptions into conversation with the arguments presented by the debaters in the round.  What follows is a rundown of these presumptions, which are not hard and fast rules, but rather default positions – starting points that are open to revision, nudgage, slippage, and inversion (with the right mix of persuasion).

THEORY:  Default particulars (presumptions that can be shifted with convincing reasons): Plan-inclusive / topical counterplans okay if competitive by non-trivial net benefits; Neg must show specific in-round ground loss to win T; Micro-agent or exception counterplans absorbable by aff unless contrary rock-solid commitment made in plan or 1AC CX (except in cases of excessive CX evasion); Magnitude generally trumps time frame on impact comparisons; Negative should have solvency ev for their c/p; Legitimacy of neg international fiat depends on the quality of evidence presented to prove workability and salience of the c/p.

ARGUMENT SPECIFICS:  Regarding political process disadvantages, I give aff leeway on new args in rebuttals when the shell is presented without significant initial / internal links in 1NC.  Also, I am heretic of the "cult of uniqueness" – I think the aff takes out or turns the link to a DA, that DA is no longer a reason to vote neg, even if the neg wins uniqueness.  Contrary to some popular opinion, I do not rule out politics disadvantages a priori – I give them a careful hearing, although the evidence must support the story for me to give them large weight.

KRITIKS / DEONTOLOGY: I will vote on kritik arguments, but the following presumptions for evaluation open much space for rejoinder: 1) I’m a stickler for performative consistency, because I tend to believe that performative contradictions undermine the ethos of critics, especially when such critics present their arguments as pedagogical interventions; 2) The role of the ballot as an agent of change needs to be elucidated in order to provide a rationale for why they implication of kritiks are voting issues.  3) The most persuasive kritik arguments are supported by detailed and specific link analysis relating the terms of the kritik directly to opponents’ argumentation.

EVIDENCE / STYLE: Debaters who deliver the texts of evidence cards clearly will receive bountiful speaker point rewards, and debaters who call out and challenge opponents who slough such responsibilities for clarity will receive a sympathetic hearing.  The clearer a card is presented in the speech, the greater the chance that I will call for it after the round.  Spirited debate over the interpretation of specific pieces of evidence also increases the chances that I will give cards a gander.  Conversely, wholesale “read this string of cards, they’re great” appeals do little to encourage post-round inspection.