Judge Philosophies
Alex de Jesus-Colon - UTD
n/a
Alpheshkumar Chokshi - Brooks Debate
n/a
Andie Martin - Nova 42
n/a
Annie Wu - Brooks Debate
n/a
Ansh Singh - Brooks Debate
n/a
Bala Ponnulakshmi Ramakrishnan - Brooks Debate
n/a
Chris Flowers - Alter Ethos
update: toc 23'
Email chain: chris@alterethosdebate.com
TLDR
Debaters ought to determine the procedural limits and educational value of each topic by defending their interpretations in the round. I ought to vote for the team that does the best job of that in the debate.
I mostly care about warranting arguments and engaging with opponent's through analysis and impact comparison. The team that does the better job justifying my vote at the end of the debate will win.
Debaters should not do any of the following:
Clip cards
Steal prep
Ignore reasonable things like showing up on time and maintaining speech times and speaking order.
Disregard reasonable personal request of their opponents. If you dont wish to comply with opponent requests, you ought to have a good reason why.
Misgender folks
Say or do racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist things.
Read pessimism args from identities they don't identify as.
Argumentative Preferences
WARRANTS & EXPLANATIONS over blippiness.
Education > Fairness
Breadth = Depth ---> both are important please make warrants here.
Ks dont need to win an alt to win.
Reasonable disclosure practices should be followed.
Analytic > Low quality evidence
Specific Stuff
Theory
Disclosing before the round is a reasonable thing to do. That being said, I come in with a slight bias against theory arguments in LD. Lots of frivolity in this space right now.
To adapt for this bias teams can read theory that actually has the potential to improve debates or read shells that will have clear and significant violations. Running theory as an exploit of tech judges makes debates less enjoyable for me and I am inclined to vote against them at the smallest of responses. Affirmative teams should feel comfortable reading fewer spikes and more substance.
t/framework
Neg teams ought to engage with plan free or non-topical affirmatives. Affirmative teams should advocate for some departure from the status quo within the context of the topic. The more an aff is steeped in topic literature, the less likely I am to vote against it as a procedural issues, so strong topic links are crucial. I generally think education is a more important element of debate than fairness and that an inability to prepare against an argument doesn't inherently mean that argument is unfair.
Topicality
I default to reasonability because I think it incentivizes innovative research by the aff and expands the limits of the topic in a good way.
Perf Con.
I'm good with multiple worlds but think perf cons make for less enjoyable debates and I am inclined to vote against 1NC's that read cap and the econ da in the same speech.
Counter Plans
If you have a solvency advocate, its legit.
PICs are generally good because they force the affirmative to more deeply examine their advocacy, I want them to be excluding something substantial and to have a solvency advocate of some kind.
Conditionality
Neg definitely gets to be conditional. Limited conditionality is the most reasonable interp.
DA's
I like topic DA's, and find most politics and econ based internal links implausible. But, I won't vote against them on face, I let your opponent make those arguments.
Presumption
Neg walks in with presumption. Neg teams should still make presumption analysis in the round though.
*If I haven't mentioned it here, ask me. It has been a minute since I've judged.
Derek Chen - Nova 42
n/a
Dylan Muller - Nova 42
n/a
Eduardo Velazquez - ModernBrain
n/a
Israel Beltran - Wilshire
n/a
Janine Wilkins - Tourn Judges
n/a
Jasmine Hand - Schreiner
n/a
Jeff Harkleroad - Tourn Judges
n/a
John Gooch - UTD
I see myself
as open to most any argument, although I tend to prefer case arguments, disadvantages,
counterplans, and kritiks (the âKâ?) over topicality arguments. (At one time, I thought
of myself as fitting the âpolicymakerâ? paradigm when I was judging high school
C-X.) I do tend to give GOV teams leeway on topicality, but that doesnât mean they
should drop it! I also donât like seeing GOV case vanish from the round in
favor of only a theoretical debate. I
donât like seeing drops on the flow, but I expect debaters, themselves, to extend
dropped arguments. Simply put, I wonât intervene. In general, I expect good
clash as well as thorough and exacting refutation in all speeches. Speakers of
rebuttal speeches, for example, should tell me a good story; in other words,
they should tell me exactly why they
win the round and why.
With regard
to spreading, I find that I donât keep up with rapid delivery like I did when I
was competing, which is now more years ago than I like to admit. I am not âanti-speed,â? but if I signal a
debater to slow down, then he/she/they should do so. Bad argumentation is bad
argumentation; it doesnât matter how fast or how slow the debater if they are making
âjunkâ arguments (e.g., DAs or Ks with weak links). I have seen the fastest team
in the round lose to debaters who spoke more slowly. I also believe an exciting
and stimulating round can take place between debaters with slower delivery. Over
the years, I have witnessed several such debates in NPDA, IPDA, and LD as well
as in the college and high school policy formats.
Last, I
expect debaters to behave in a civil manner toward one another. I just donât
see any call for rudeness or incivility. I think now, more than ever, we need
to engage in civil discourse. Bad behavior in the round (or outside the round) just
doesnât bode well with me at all. Competitors participate in tournaments to learn
and to become better debaters. And this activity should be enjoyable. Itâs
supposed to be fun, and I think sometimes we forget that.
Kaori Dadgostar-Shimazaki - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Margaret Belford - UTD
n/a
Megha Patel - Brooks Debate
n/a
Miles Pitman - Schreiner
I will be flowing with you. I really like well structured and clear cases. Appreciate nice taglines with fluid transitions. Have fun!
Rajyalakshmi Nimmagadda - Brooks Debate
n/a
Rand Meyer - ModernBrain
n/a
Sulaymaan Ali - ModernBrain
n/a
Travis Cornett - Tourn Judges
n/a
Veronica Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Vikas Yadav - GCC
n/a