[eDebate] John Vermitsky's Judging Philosophy Take II
Fri Oct 13 11:45:46 CDT 2006
Got some emails apparently its only posted on planet debate so here it
is for your convenience.
It's been a while since I've gotten a chance to see many of you in the
community with the exception of those that I saw at the earlybird and
last year at Wake Forest.
Oh and another heads up. I am an attorney who just passed the bar so
I am familiar with these cases. If you work in some good legal
reasoning I'll give you more speaker points!
Ok so my judging philosophy
I debated at the University of Rochester with my wonderful partner
Christy Webster. In that time I ran a variety of arguments and as a
result am willing to listen to anything.
Ok now for the args specifically
C(K)ritical arguments- I enjoy these arguments in fact these are the
arguments we ran the most. That being said I will not just pull the
trigger just b/c you say discourse comes first or their nuclear war
scenario doesnt matter b/c only our words are real. These are
arguments that can be made and won in front of me however if you are
going to run a kritik you need to have an alternative you need to have
a link and you need to defend against the permutations and case
outweighs arguments. If you do that and give me a framework in which i
can vote for you I will do so. Let me stress that if you can do all
these things there is no kritik I wont vote for no matter how obscure
or "out there it seems"
Disads- Disads can be sweet and a real pain in the ass for critical
debators. If you win the disad and its got impacts bigger then the aff
i will quickly vote for it again AS LONG AS YOU PUT ME IN THE RIGHT
FRAMEWORK! That means cover your ass against critical advantages and
win your uniqueness. Case take outs help too
Run em if you got em. I'm not sure what I think of pic's. Usually I
think they are fine but if they contain another aspect of abuse as
well you probably want to cover your theoretical ass. Conditional cp's
have to be well defended but I think dispo is normally ok. Its a good
idea to have a net benefit to the cp that's not turned.
Theory and T
Just go a little slower here then on the other things. That doesnt
mean you have to slow down to conversational just give me a sec of
pentime when you are spewing through your blocks. I will vote on T,
Aspec, I,spec or any good spec arg if you prove the abuse or potential
abuse. That being said i hate voting for bad theory args b/c they are
dropped...but I've done it in the past. I dont think there is much of
a dif. b/w abuse and potential abuse but again you can persuade me
otherwise. I definately buy into the competing interpretations theory
of procedural arguments. I will definately consider a kritik of T but
it's gonna be an uphill battle.
A few random things
I love humor, You can curse in front of me all you want, but DO NOT
berate the other team (unless they are coached by ken johnson, will
baker, kathryn rubino, or joe patrice. I will give extra speaker
points if you can find some way to make fun of christy webster in a
round)seriously though be nice to each other and have fun. and if you
think im wrong after a round please argue with me just dont be a jerk
about it and you can say whatever you want to me.
More information about the Mailman