2013 Tower Invitational
Eastern Michigan University - Feb 2-3 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Andy Rapp - Northwood
n/a
Ashley Coker - Ball State
n/a
Becky Veydt - SAU
n/a
Courtney Wright - BGSU
n/a
Dawn Lowry - WKU
Ian Hopkins - Miami U
n/a
Jon Conway - Ball State
n/a
Joseph Packer - CMU
<p> </p> <p>I competed and coached in policy debate for 11 years and coached LD for 3.</p> <p>Things to know</p> <p>1. Reject the argument not the team is my default on theory issues. This means that absent a clearly articulated reason as to why a team should lose the debate I will not vote on theory. (Note: Yes this means even if the other team drops a random voting issue I will not vote against them if you do not provide clear warrants as to why they should lose the debate).</p> <p>2. Winning topicality or any other theory issue requires more work than winning on a substantive issue. This is to say, if both teams go for substance I have to pick a winner, but if one team goes for theory I can assess that they have not surpassed the burden required to reject the other team. This does not mean that T and theory are unwinnable arguments in front of me. I think I am much more inclined to vote on T than the average LD judge I have encountered. In order to win you should clearly explain your interpretation, explain how the other team has violated it, explain why your interpretation makes for good debates, explain what the opponent does or justifies, and explain why that is bad for debate.</p> <p>3. Negatives need to make choices in their second speech. I frequently find myself voting against negatives that should be ahead in the debate because they extend too much. This holds especially true when negatives go for a combination of theory and substance. To a lesser extend this is true for affirmatives as well.</p> <p>4. Presumption goes to the status quo, which means that ties go to the negative (in the world of a counterproposal I lean aff on presumption, but the question is up for debate).</p> <p>5. Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards by making smart, warranted, analytical arguments.</p> <p>6. I lean affirmative on most counterproposal theory questions (conditionality, PICs, topical counterplans). The chances of me voting on a consultation counterplan are extremely low. Any counterplan or kritik that can result in the affirmative’s plan is highly suspect.</p> <p>7. I don’t find many of the kritiks run in LD to be persuasive, but I think this is a function of not adapting to the time constraints and speech times of the activity. If you do read a kritik you should apply it to the affirmative’s case starting in the first speech. If you are only talking about your kritik and not how it interacts with the specifics of the affirmative case, you are unlikely to get my ballot. The more specific the kritik is to the topic or plan the better.</p> <p>8. Be respectful to the other team.</p>
Justin Rudnick - Ohio U
n/a
Katie Hodgdon - CMU
Katie Beckman - Northwood
n/a
Katie Giglia - Akron
n/a
LaTerry Aaron - Northwood
n/a
Maggie Waid - UW-Oshkosh
n/a
Marcus Coleman - EMU
n/a
Mark Marciniak - Northwood
n/a
Mark Rittenour - Akron
n/a
Marwan Moshin - Northwood
n/a
Mike Storr - Miami U
n/a
Mike Catlos - Ball State
n/a
Nic Bell - EMU
n/a
Paul Carlton - U of M
n/a
Paul Wesley Alday - BGSU
n/a
Ryan Rigda - CMU
Ryan Lauth - Northwestern
n/a
Stephanie Wideman - Wayne State
n/a