[eDebate] Judge philosophy
Wed Sep 9 03:27:24 CDT 2009
I've gotten a series of emails over the last few days with questions
about my judge philosophy -- thought it worth posting a reminder
before the Jesuit prefs go live.
The questions, usually in order:
Still a bad idea if you like speaker points. Still willing to vote on it.
2) "But, this topic has specific consult evidence." (Not really a
Sounds like a very good DA. Still convinced the CP is an unfair (and
uncompetitive) shortcut. Yes, "Japan w/25 consult! w/25 nuclear" does
come up with cards that suggest talking to our allies before making
changes to our posture. That hardly qualifies as deep, well-balanced,
comparative literature on both sides.
Backup option if you really want to run it anyway -- anyone who
publicly posts an affirmative card to e-debate which comparatively
says it would be better if the US did NOT consult X ally over a
topical plan, and gets 3 judges unaffiliated with their school to post
in public support that the card is good enough, has free reign to run
that consult CP in front of me with no speaker point penalties.
3) "Do any other counterplans incur similar speaker point penalties?"
No. I'm sure this topic will have a wide array of CP's, many of which
are fair, many of which are unfair, and plenty of which questionably
compete -- but none of them will automatically lose you points.
Full philosophy (updated) is up on debateresults and the wiki.
More information about the Mailman