2018 The Hatfield and McCoy Invitational Swing Tournament
Marshall University/University of Kentucky - Feb 9-11 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Andrew Harvey - GCC
n/a
Ashley Coker - Ball State
n/a
Logan Hurley - Boyce College
<p>I competed for 4 years in Parliamentary Debate and 3 years in IPDA for the University of Kentucky. That was usually pretty traditional/communicative debate, though I have experience reading and watching more technical/theoretical/critical debates. I work hard to not impose my preferences upon the round, but I'm self-aware enough to know that I have preferences and instincts. Here's a brief list of thoughts/opinions/expectations I have that a competitor who knew me well would probably know so you're all on the same page.</p> <p> </p> <ul> <li> The most fun debate is one where really interesting arguments related to the stock issues come up. I'll vote for DAs and Advantages on impact, but if you really want to be sure that you're making me happy, tell me why their plan is unworkable, or their inherency is wrong leading to the SQ solving, or why your advantages clearly resolve the problems. Simple arguments done cleverly makes my heart happy.</li> <li>In LD, feel free to do whatever makes you happy with speed, Ks, narrative, etc. Just make sure I look like I'm flowing and tracking with you and all that. I wear my heart on my sleeve when I judge, so it shouldn't be hard to figure out. If I look confused, I am. If I look like I'm digging your argument, I probably am. If I look annoyed, there's at least a decent chance that something is going wrong for you.</li> <li>For Parli, I expect you to remain pretty close to the topic of the resolution. You do not have time to draft a legitimate Kritik in 15 minutes, unless it's something trivially obvious like Americentrism/Racism-Bad or whatever. And if your opponents argue in a way that is that problematic, go for it. You speed should never be faster than a rushed conversation.</li> <li>For IPDA, keep policy pragmatic, value inspiring and philosophical, and fact straight-forward. Speak like you're talking to a lay judge. I will be flowing, because I am easily distracted otherwise, but an IPDA debater should be able to seem coherent without the judge writing a word.</li> <li>For Advantages and Disadvantages, the name of the game is (probability)x(impact). I will tend to prefer something very likely and a step in the right direction to something that's absurdly unlikely but massive.</li> <li>The above said, I really, really, really like novel arguments. I'll let you skimp on the actual risk being low if the argument is neat.</li> <li><br /> </li> </ul>
Michael Coulter - GCC
n/a
Mike Storr - Ball State
n/a
Rachel Little - UPIKE
n/a
Timothy Bill - UK
Tony Boese - UVA
n/a