Judge Philosophies
Andy Christensen - Idaho State
n/a
Aneesha Ahuja - IPCW
n/a
Anna Hoerner - Carroll
n/a
Bridge Bach - USAFA
n/a
Carson Chamness - Lewis & Clark
n/a
Casi LeBlanc - Alaska
n/a
Cyan Ridge - Lewis & Clark
n/a
David Luke - CofI
n/a
Eric Hamm - Lynn
I am a reformed policy debater. I love theory but hate speed. I believe that debate is a communication activity, and that speeding makes the activity inaccessible and less valuable. That said, I am usually OK with critical positions run on the Aff or the Neg (though Aff K need to have substantial "role of the ballot" discussions). Topicality, along with other procedurals, is always a fun position; I especially prefer good debate on the standards/reasons to prefer level. Counterplans do not have to be non-topical (with theory to support), but mutual exclusivity is important to avoid a permutation, which usually does not have to be understood as advocacy (but this can be challenged).
The two areas, besides my distaste for speed, that might be understood as more conservative would be regarding the neutrality of political assumptions and my skepticism of performative advocacy cases. I am open to political arguments from anywhere on the political spectrum. I will not take as an assumption "Trump bad," nor the contrary "Trump good." Defend these positions. For performance, perhaps my skepticism comes from the fact that I haven't yet heard it run well. Perhaps you can convert me. Identity positions have a higher threshold to clear.
With value-based debate, I expect clear discussion of the value and criterion. I enjoy getting into the philosophical weeds. I am a philosophy professor who specializes in 19th and 20th century continental philosophy. I also have an economics background, so feel free to get wonky.
Everett Cason - Alaska
n/a
Gabriel Herring - CofI
n/a
Geneva Luteria - Alaska
n/a
Izzy Moore - Alaska
n/a
Jackie Liu - USAFA
n/a
Jacob Justice - UMiss
n/a
Jacob Ratliff - UMiss
n/a
Jacob Witt - Carroll
n/a
Jacob 2 Witt - Carroll
n/a
Jasmine jacob - USAFA
n/a
Joe Diprizio - MSU
n/a
Kamakshi Jaiswal - IPCW
n/a
Kyle Cheesewright - CofI
This is my most recent judging philosopy. If you want to see a collection of them, with information that is more or less relevant, Net Benefits has an interesting archive.
“All that you touch
You Change.
All that you Change
Changes you.
The only lasting truth
Is Change.
God Is Change.”
–Octavia Butler, “Parable of the Sower.”
Debate is a game. Debate is a strange, beautiful game that we play. Debate is a strange beautiful game that we play with each other.
I love debate. It’s the only game that exists where the rules are up for contestation by each side. There are some rules that aren’t up for discussion, as far as I can tell, these are them:
1/ Each debate will have a team that wins, and a team that looses. Say whatever you want, I am structurally constrained at the end of debate to award one team a win, and the other team will receive a loss. That’s what I got.
2/ Time limits. I think that a discussion should have equal time allotment for each side, and those times should probably alternate. I have yet to see a fair way for this question to be resolved in a debate, other than through arbitrary enforcement. The only exception is that if both teams decide on something else, you have about 45 minutes from the start of the round, to when I have to render a decision.
Pretty much everything else is open to contestation. At this point, I don’t really have any serious, uncontestable beliefs about debate. This means that the discussion is open to you. I do tend to find that I find debates to be more engaging when they are about substantive clash over a narrow set of established issues. This means, I tend to prefer debates that are specific and deep. Good examples, and comparative discussion of those examples is the easiest way to win my ballot. Generally speaking, I look for comparative impact work. I find that I tend to align more quickly with highly probable and proximate impacts, though magnitude is just so easy.
I tend to prefer LOC strategies that are deep, well explained explorations of a coherent world. The strategy of firing off a bunch of underdeveloped arguments, and trying to develop the strategy that is mishandled by the MG is often successful in front of me, but I almost always think that the round would have been better with a more coherent LOC strategy—for both sides of the debate.
At the end of the debate, when it is time for me to resolve the discussion, I start by identifying what I believe the weighing mechanism should be, based on the arguments made in the debate. Once I have determined the weighing mechanism, I start to wade through the arguments that prove the world will be better or worse, based on the decision mechanism. I always attempt to default to explicit arguments that debaters make about these issues.
Examples are the evidence of Parliamentary debate. Control the examples, and you will control the debate.
On specific issues: I don’t particularly care what you discuss, or how you discuss it. I prefer that you discuss it in a way that gives me access to the discussion. I try not to backfill lots of arguments based on buzzwords. For example, if you say “Topicality is a matter of competing interpretations,” I think I know what that means. But I am not going to default to evaluating every argument on Topicality through an offense/defense paradigm unless you explain to me that I should, and probably try to explicate what kinds of answers would be offensive, and what kinds of answers would be defensive. Similarly, if you say “Topicality should be evaluated through the lens of reasonability,” I think I know what that means. But if you want me to stop evaluating Topicality if you are winning that there is a legitimate counter-interpretation that is supported by a standard, then you should probably say that.
I try to flow debates as specifically as possible. I feel like I have a pretty good written record of most debates.
Rebuttals are times to focus a debate, and go comprehensively for a limited set of arguments. You should have a clear argument for why you are winning the debate as a whole, based on a series of specific extensions from the Member speech. The more time you dedicate to an issue in a debate, the more time I will dedicate to that issue when I am resolving the debate. Unless it just doesn’t matter. Watch out for arguments that don’t matter, they’re tricksy and almost everyone spends too much time on them.
Before I make my decision, I try to force myself to explain what the strongest argument for each side would be if they were winning the debate. I then ask myself how the other team is dealing with those arguments. I try to make sure that each team gets equal time in my final evaluation of a debate.
This is a radical departure from my traditional judging philosophy. I’ll see how it works out for me. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. For the record, I have strong opinions on just about everything that occurs in a debate round—but those strong opinions are for down time and odd rants during practice rounds. I work to keep them out of the debate, and at this point, I think I can say that I do a pretty good job on that account.
I just thought of a third rule. Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I thought speeches are. If you tell me what speaker points I should give you, I will listen, and promptly discard what you say. Probably.
For the sake of transparency: My personal gig is critical-cultural theory. It’s where my heart is. This does not mean that you should use critical theory that you don’t understand or feel comfortable with it. Make the choices in debate that are the best, most strategic, or most ethical for you. If your interested in my personal opinons about your choices, I’m more than happy to share. But I’ll do that after the debate is over, the ballot submitted, and we’re just two humans chatting. The debate will be decided based on the arguments made in the debate.
“[Y]ou can’t escape language: language is everything and everywhere; it’s what lets us have anything to do with one another; it’s what separates us from animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so on.”
-David Foster Wallace, “Authority and American Usage.”
Kyle Sessions - Willamette
n/a
Kylle Zapata - Alaska
n/a
Margo Harness - CofI
n/a
Miranda Zigler - Lewis & Clark
n/a
Monica Fast - Alaska
n/a
Neleah Richardson - USAFA
n/a
Renee Barrett - Lynn
n/a
Ruby Sullivan - LUC
n/a
Ryan Asbridge - USAFA
n/a
Sarah Partlow Lefevre - Idaho State
n/a
Shanone Tejada - Alaska
n/a
Sue Rieger - LUC
n/a
Tyler Whitney - MSU
n/a
Yasmina Osseiran - Lewis & Clark
n/a