John Nagy -- Liberty University

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:

John Nagy—Judging Philosophy

About me—Assistant Director of Debate @ Liberty University
Background—debated at University of Mary Washington

Debates judged on this topic—43

What you really need to know—I like policy debate. By this, I mean evaluating a topical affirmative against a competitive counterplan or the status quo. I like all disadvantages and most counterplans. Plans must be topical and topicality is never a reverse voting issue. The affirmative must read a plan text that they will defend. Case debates are awesome and greatly encouraged. Kritiks, performances of any type, or personal advocacy statements are not the best idea in front of me, on the affirmative or negative. “Not the best idea” = high probability that you will lose. I am a very expressive judge, so if you see me sighing, scowling, or listening to music while your speaking, that could be a hint that am not buying what your selling. And don’t even try to be funny. 99.9 % of in round humor totally flops. Just debate and maybe you’ll make me laugh inadvertently.

The Affirmative—you have to read a plan text that promotes a topical action, using the actor specified in the resolution. And you should defend the actions specified in the plan text.

Kritiks/Performance—not a fan of it. I agree that there are some aspects of the game that need to be reformed, but that doesn’t require taking a wrecking ball to the whole activity. Yes, I know that fiat doesn’t exist, and I don’t care. Policy debate is an intellectual game that prepares us for many endeavors in the real world. Please don’t waste your or my time by making “policy debate bad” arguments, because I think they are misguided, to put it politely. If you still insist on running a critical argument, then at least have a real world policy alternative to the criticism. And “moving away from X,” or “reevaluating Y,” or “imagining away Z,” is not such an alternative. And I wouldn’t recommend morphing the alternative into something totally different in the 2NC. All the affirmative would have to utter is “floating PIC’s bad,” and you’re probably dead in the water.

Topicality—it’s always a voting issue and is never a reverse voting issue. Topicality is not genocidal, homicidal, or suicidal. The affirmative need not have to present an alternate interpretation if they can prove that the negative’s interpretation alone is undesirable.

Counterplans—I am quite biased towards the negative on CP theory. Conditionality and plan inclusive CP’s are fine and encouraged. But the negative only gets one CP. It’s better to spend your precious speech time beating the CP/net benefits instead of whining to me about how “unfair” the CP is. And articulating nebulous permutations that morph into “do the CP” in the 1AR.

General Notes—

--I try and go off the flow as much as possible. If it wasn’t in the 2NR/2AR, I won’t evaluate it. New 2NR/2AR arguments will be identified and ignored.

--I really disdain asking for cards after a debate. Most debaters have substituted evidence analysis for “read the card after the round.” Analyzing the quality and accuracy of the evidence in the round in your job, not mine. But if you make if my job, chances are you may not like the results. If there is a genuine debate over the meaning/quality of a piece of evidence, then I will probably evaluate the accuracy of either side’s claims.

--Try and keep the debate as organized on the flow as possible. For example, don’t read fifteen straight cards in the 2NC on the disadvantage and not tell me where to put them. It’s sloppy debating and promotes judging confusion. And judging confusion = decisions you probably really won’t like.

--Pause for a moment between cards. Or give me a verbal signal like “and” between cards. It also wouldn’t hurt to slow down a tad bit for the tags. Motoring through cards without pause or any hint of the tags or authors will not be good for your speaker points as well.

--Go as fast as you want, but if I have to yell “clear” more than once then your speaker points will suffer. It means nothing to get out 47 arguments if your judges could only flow 30 of them.

Ranting on the topic—

--I like capitalism and disdain cap bad arguments.

--If you have the capability to run a politics DA in front of me, you probably should.
--Case specific DA’s = really want to hear them.
--Just for the record—I will vote for a kritik if the 2AC puts three answers on it or really botches answering it, which seems to be happening quite often in front of me lately.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision
MonmouthJVOctoJamesMMeissner0Miller0BosColBartholomae0Folio0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
MonmouthOpenQurtGeoWasAndrews0Tan0GeoMasLastovica0Nichols0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
AppStateNov2CapitalBrown27.2Malone27UGABallasiotes 27.5Mir27.3NEG
AppStateOpenQurtUGAJohnson0Sharpe0EmoryBontha0Li0NEG 2-1 (AFF)
RutgersNov2CUNY Aslam27.5Avrakh27.4NYUGrant27.7Kim27.6NEG
WVUNovNatJV6NavyHowe26.8Hurt27.1CUNY Antiqua27Sen27.2AFF
WVUNovNatJVOctoGeoMasKwon0Lastovica0CrnlFurman0Yoon0AFF 3-0 (AFF)

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: