[eDebate] Going to Gonzaga?
suniea at whitman.edu
Thu Sep 14 15:13:19 CDT 2006
If you're going to Gonz, I thought you might want to know my judge
philosophy since I'm in for 6 rounds.
Judging for Whitman College
The ballot: My ballot is used to answer the question ?should the
United States The United States Supreme Court should overrule The
United States Supreme Court should overrule one or more of the
following decisions: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Ex parte Quirin, U.S.
v. Morrison, Milliken v. Bradley?? To answer that question, I will
ask ?is the topical plan better than the status quo or an alternative
policy option competitive with the plan?? For me a policy option is
one that relies on governmental fiat.
This is not up for debate. If your arguments do not disprove that the
plan would be better than the status quo or a counterplan, then they
may be very interesting or compelling, but in terms of my ballot, they
are a complete non-sequitur. This also applies to any K that attempts
to garner uniqueness through an alternative that is not the status quo
or a policy using governmental fiat.
My only exception to this is if both teams agree that the framework for
the debate should be something different, in which case I will judge
their competing arguments and framework claims to the best of my
Topicality: I?ve always leaned aff on topicality issues. If you?re
trying to convince me that a very middle of the road aff (CAF? or
permits on the energy topic; IPR or currency on China) isn?t topical,
you?re probably going to lose. However, I will have no hesitation
voting for T against cases that are either blatantly non-topical or
assume plan mechanisms that usurp core negative ground (like affs last
year that offered China an incentive). In most T debates, I find
evidence to be much less compelling than clearly articulated arguments
about what ground is lost and why that ground is vital to the neg.
DAs: Always be reading disads.
CPs: I like almost all CPs with a few exceptions: consultation CPs,
utopian CPs (anarchy, for example), delay CPs. I?m not totally biased
against these, and I understand that especially early in the year they
can be the negative?s fallback, but I don?t like these arguments
much and will lean slightly aff on theory questions about their
legitimacy (note: this does not mean you should automatically go for
?consult bad? if you?re aff?see section on theory).
Ks: Mostly explained by section on the ballot above. I?m not totally
unwilling to listen to ?critical? arguments, however. I?m
definitely receptive to using link arguments about epistemology as
indicts of affirmative evidence (eg, your terror talk cards indict the
truth of the 1AC terrorism advantage), I just won?t vote for an
alternative and you?ll have a hard time winning uniqueness for most
of those arguments, so you?ll still need some other external offense.
Theory: I generally lean negative on theory issues. I think most 1ARs
would be better spent making strategic choices and reading more ev on
the substance of the debate than trying to keep theory alive. However,
I evaluate theory args in an offense/defense paradigm, so if the neg
isn?t making offensive arguments to justify what they?re doing, you
probably should keep theory alive. Long story short: Though hesitant,
I?ll vote on theory but would much prefer (and will give much higher
speaker points) to teams that go for substance.
Pet peeves: People who are mean to other debaters, people who steal
prep, people who ask to go to the bathroom before they give their
speech. I?m sure I?ll add to this list as time goes on.
Will earn you extra speaker points: ad homs about the Denver Broncos,
funny jokes referring to most classic action films (think Die Hard or
T2) or classic comedy films (think Tommy Boy and Billy Madison). Please
do not try force jokes about these issues; bad jokes get you lower
More information about the Mailman