Patrick Waldinger -- Boston College
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:
Patrick Waldinger – Boston College Updated 3.22.09 Background: I am currently in my fourth year of coaching at Boston College. Before that, I received my Masters at Wake Forest where I was an assistant debate coach. I debated in college at The Catholic University of America and in high school at Cathedral Prep. General Comments: I prefer to hear fast, technical, policy debate. I have, however, voted for many different kinds of styles and arguments. I have also voted against many different styles and arguments. I believe that it is non-negotiable that the affirmative has to defend a plan that is an example of the current CEDA debate resolution. I believe that the affirmative must defend the consequences of their plan as if the United States Federal Government were to actually enact your proposal. I like to read a lot of cards at the end of debate so they better be good. If you don’t like judges who read a lot of evidence, then I am not the judge for you. Plan: You should read one and it should be relevant to the topic. In fact, it should be an example of the current CEDA resolution. Nothing more, nothing less. Topicality: Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I’m a big fan of having to talk about the topic. There is a reason why we have one. I default to reasonability on T unless you give me a good reason not to. Disads: Yes. Good evidence is crucial. Counterplans: Sure. Although there are many types of counterplans that I find theoretically dubious – conditioning and consult CPs being high on my list. I don’t think the negative should be able to advocate more than one alternative policy proposal i.e., counterplan or alternative, in a debate. Kritiks: Okay. I don’t necessarily dislike the K, but I feel oftentimes it is unnecessarily confusing and fails the negative’s burden of rejoinder. The negative has to prove the plan is a bad idea, yet many times I judge the kritik and the negative makes no attempt to argue why the specific plan the affirmative is proposing is bad. Theory: I believe I hold almost opposite beliefs to the current debate community’s notion of what is theoretically legitimate, i.e., I am very conservative when it comes to debate. The only theoretical arguments that I believe are “voting issues” are conditionality and topicality. The rest are just reasons to reject the argument and/or allow the other side to advocate similar shenanigans.
Seasonal voting record:
Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: