Heather Walters -- Missouri State
Use the back button on your browser to return to the pref entry page or tournament entry list. The judge philosophy appears in a different format at the bottom of the page.
Judging philosophy:
Heather Walters, Missouri State University Years Judging: 12, General framework issues: I generally prefer that the affirmative side have a stable plan/advocacy that they are willing to defend. I generally believe that the affirmative can defend the resolution as that stable advocacy (especially if they are willing to defend the “consequences” of the plan and weigh them against the case). I am less comfortable with the affirmatives that defend the resolution as a “starting point” or that “problematize” the resolution. That said, I have also voted for several of these cases this year as well. Be specific and thorough in the writing of the plan / counterplan / and permutation. I am open to and I have voted on “plan-flaw” type arguments when teams are lazy in writing these texts and it comes back to haunt them in the debate. Critical Arguments: Good critical debaters explain specific links to the affirmative case and spend some time discussing how their argument relates to the impacts that are being claimed by the affirmative team. I also think it helps a lot to have specific analogies or empirical examples to prove how your argument is true/has been true throughout history. Topicality: I haven’t heard that many T debates this year. It is a voting issue. Affirmatives should be topical. I generally don’t think the resolution is just a gateway for your political project. Instead, the resolution exists to provide fair ground to both sides and affirmatives should not be able to take anti-topical action in the plan and should take topical action. Counterplans: I believe that I lean negative on most counterplan theory issues. I would generally think that it is ok for a counterplan to be dispositional/conditional/plan inclusive. Affirmatives should write out permutations and be specific about what they include. I find that most of these debates come down to technical issues/how it is debated in the round, so my predispositions are not usually relevant and I can be persuaded to lean either direction depending on how the issue is debated. A counterplan must have a discernable net benefit in order for me vote for it. Other issues: As with most judges, the last two rebuttals are key. I generally think it is useful to have a short overview that indicates what issues you are expecting me to vote on at the end of the round. Please do more than just extend a bunch of cites in the last rebuttal. Use cites, of course, but also explain what that evidence is saying and why it is still important in the debate. The best way to get high speaker points from me is to be clear, be polite, participate fully in your cross-examinations and use them to your advantage to point out flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and use appropriate humor. If you have any specific questions, please ask.
Seasonal voting record:
Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: