Judge Philosophies
Amanda Layman - Akron
n/a
Chris Hachet - Capital
n/a
Clara Adkins - Marshall
n/a
Danny Province - CMU
<p>My “paradigm” is that I am interpreting the quality of argumentation on both sides through a stock issues and net benefits framework (side without presumption must win both). I consider both the AFF and NEG to be giving me an advocacy, and therefore must be consistent (no performative contradictions) in their position. I assume both sides must prove any position they articulate (procedurals, case, disads, critiques) for me to vote on them at the end of the round. I evaluate impact calculus as [probability x (magnitude - timeframe) = impact]. This means that magnitude is limited by how likely the scenario seems and how soon. A low probability, high body-count scenario will not count for very much compared to a high probability impact with a smaller body count. Additionally, I assume the further away in time the impact is, the less likely the scenario will hold true, so timeframe can further mitigate magnitude. AKA: I prefer high probability and sooner impacts over unlikely high magnitude impacts. I will entertain any analytics so long as good warrants are given. I am flowing, but am not 100% obligated to vote on the flow as it is not specified in the rules of LD to do so.</p> <p>If both competitors prefer speed debate, then I will tolerate it. My only concern from speed is preventing spread debate. The rules say I am not to “encourage” spread which I interpret to mean I will not award it the ballot. AKA, if you run 6 procedurals only to try to spread your opponent and just focus on drops, I will intervene and ignore the dropped positions and only pay attention to where there was clash. I interpret an exclusionary use of speed the same way; I will intervene by only listening to clash. I am not the judge to go for spread debate in front of.</p> <p> Please no Obama is a time traveler white supremacist or equivalent weird arguments. If your evidence is from a spiritualist/unqualified source making a ridiculous claim, I may not even flow it.</p> <p> I view judge intervention as a necessary tool of an educator. I am comfortable intervening, but will do so sparingly and only when I believe someone has gone outside the bounds of good argumentation.</p>
David Trumble - St. Anselm
n/a
Erin Graham - Hillsdale
n/a
Garrett Crane - Capital
n/a
Garrett Walker - Marshall
n/a
Greg Bennett - Akron
n/a
Jess Hinkel - Otterbein
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>
Josh Rocha - Akron
n/a
Kevin Waters - Florida State
n/a
Kristina Kearns - Capital
n/a
Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale
n/a
Nancy Jackson - Marshall
n/a