Paul Johnson -- Pittsburgh
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:
Paul Johnson 7th Year Coaching Observations: Debaters don't flow much anymore. But the judge does. Take note. "Framework" is often a shorthand for "you should weigh both sides impacts." Ok, well....I often do. And whoever is capable of actually solving for one seems to come out ahead more often than not. This is not to say that framework doesn't matter but...unless it moves past this "weigh both" modus vivendi, you're better off just doing impact calculus...I'll understand that its "framework" probably. If you take my scholarly familiarity with some as my tacit agreement with all of that something, you may have greviously erred. Topicality: I like it? Any community needs rules within which to be creative. If the constitution of a community is problematic, its revision may be necessary. Judging topicality is probably harder than anything else, which is why as I get older, I have become more comfortable in those debates. Not good at them, mind you. But more comfortable. To the extent that judges seem to buy into a "most limiting" paradigm I remain waiting for a debater to eloquently assail its failings, but I have casually signaled my assent to that old regime many times. For more, please see Kansas PW (you may remember them from such films as "Disarm is not topical!" Framework: I am, judging from mutual preferences, considered something of an old hand at the "clash of civilizations" debates. While I think the "clash of civs" description maps a kind of incommensurability onto policy-critique debates that does them a disservice, I regularly judge them. Folks should be honest about what does and does not "meet" the framework. For me, framework/topicality impact turns are not particularly persuasive, but become more so when the "policy" team treats the goodness of debate as an enthymematic given while the "critical" team points out that debate might not be all rainbows and sunshine. Debate can debate about debate: why would we shy away from that? Disads, Case args: No judge philosophy is ever really against these. Robo-repeating phrases like "the disad turns the case and our evidence is more comparative in a future predictive world" without adding WARRANTS is a problem. Critiques: just winning a link is not enough. Bad things are bad. Just because something bad is ongoing, doesn't mean we should do more of it. Policy debaters underestimate reps arguments, but no more so than critical debaters ignore the specificity of the plan and internal link scenarios as relevant considerations. If there is an advantage the K doesn't link to...the aff is in a good spot. Case defense benefits immensely in these debates. Honestly, what do you expect me to say? Critique people hate that I care about the case, and the policy people hate that I'm willing to vote on non-unique impacts. Just keep making me your ordinal 47, and move on. Theory: increasingly open minded to affirmative theory arguments. Reject the argument not the team is always operational, however, until the affirmative team has proven to me I ought to think differently. Arguments that impact the qualitative character of debates (international, multi actor fiat) seem to have more persuasivity to them than argument about the difficulty of vertical debate. Been a while since anyone pushed on these questions in front of me, so I can't say for sure whether or not I would now be a "wildcard." "performance": arguments are arguments. the ceda forums discussion between deven cooper, rashad evans, and jason regnier was illuminating for me on the question of race. if you begin from the presumption that we inhabit incommensurable and unintelligible spaces, you will end up with polemics. If you begin from the presumption that we share some space, you gain the ability to build bridges, but also have to think a lot more about the "why vote" warrants. You should do what you want to do. No grand missives here about how I'll hit you with a SCUD missile for reading a consultation counterplan, but obviously smart strategies and smart debating earn the highest possible award. Being mean about arguments, not people, is ok. Humor appreciated. I give non-verbals. NEW: Social Media policy: I may, in between speeches and inactive periods of the debate, post to twitter or facebook about the debate. My standard is: I reveal no information on my opinion of the debate that my non-verbals do not also reveal, and I refrain from personal mendacity. Tech policies: prep time stops once you're ready to jump. If you suspect someone is clipping cards, I suggest you record the debate, although I try to follow along. "argument is a person risking enterprise" --Douglas Ehninger
Seasonal voting record:
Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: