[eDebate] My Judging Philsophy

Jonathan Gingerich jonathangingerichedebate
Fri Oct 26 15:44:15 CDT 2007

Judge Philosophy
Jonathan Gingerich

Revised 10/26/07

Affiliation: Georgetown
Number of Rounds Judged This Year: 0

I debated at Georgetown for the past four years.  I am now a first year law
student.  I know absolutely nothing about this year's topic. I have never
judged college debates before, but I have judged quite a few high school

Delivery: I'll tell you if you aren't clear.

Arguments: I like valid arguments.  Most arguments in debate are not valid
or even sound. I wish debaters made more arguments that were valid or at
least sound.

General Preferences: I presume that debate is about which of two competing
advocacies is superior.  If you argue that I should evaluate debate in a
different way (e.g. emotionally or aesthetically) you should be very clear
criteria about how to evaluate it.

I think that specificity (i.e. texts for plans and alternatives) is good in
most situations.

I think that discrimination on the basis of demographic categories is
probably bad in almost all instances. I prefer not to bring identity
politics into debate. I attempt to minimize the role that these
predispositions have on my evaluation of debates, but arguments in favor of
identity politics often don't make as much sense to me personally as do
arguments against.

I try not to read cards to make my decision?I will read cards if they are
contested but I defer to analysis of evidence that is done by debaters in
the round. I think that arguments about the quality of sources are
important, but I also think that warrants in cards are just as important as
or more important than source qualifications in many instances.

Topicality: I will assume that the resolution is a normative question about
whether a particular course of action is desirable. If you want to argue
that the resolution should be interpreted differently (for instance as a
statement to be interrogated) you should tell me explicitly how it should be

Counterplan Theory: Everything is up for debate. That being said, keep in
mind that some theoretical make more sense to me than others. I tend to
think that any competitive counterplan or alternative is theoretically
legitimate. I tend to think that conditionality is legitimate.  I tend to
think that consultation counterplans are not competitive.

You may not like your speaker points if you engage in intentionally hostile,
racist, sexist, or heterosexist acts.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071026/25414293/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list