Chris Lundberg -- Northwestern

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:

Chris Lundberg
Northwestern University
7ish tournaments/40+ Rounds 8 Years coaching
Theory
Do whatever you please, as long as you carefully weigh the
impacts of your competing interpretations of any given theory. I
think that most theory debates are inconclusive given that folks
do not take the time to parse out what values or goals are
furthered by their theoretical framework. You’ll have a greater
chance of winning my ballot if you carefully and explicitly
impact your theory arguments relative to you opponents’.
Topicality
See the section on theory. Just to reiterate, you should focus on
the implications of your interpretation as a whole, compared with
the other team’s interpretation (or lack thereof)
Counterplans
See the section on theory. I do tend to have a greater negative
bias than others in this area, so feel free to test the limits of
fiat and competition, if you wish.
K-ish type stuff
Make sure to get to the core questions as early as possible
in the debate. I usually see the core questions as; the
link; establishing frameworks for how the case and the
alternative for the K interact; how to evaluate performative
elements of a speech act in relation to constantive ones, or
form in relation to substance,etc.
Style
Be funny, be fast, be smart, be nice.

Seasonal voting record:

Tourney Div Rd AFF NEG Decision
Wake Open 5 Dartmth Elias 28.2 Resar 28.1 GTown Day 28.4 Engler 28.3 NEG
NDT Open 5 Harvard Bolman 28.5 Suo 28.7 Wake McCarty 28.2 Miller 28.6 AFF
NDT Open 6 Trinit Bram 28.2 Uzman 28.4 IdahoS Ridgeway 27.6 Vanluvanee 27.9 AFF
NDT Open 7 Wake Bailey 28.8 Min 28.6 Cal Hodgman 28.7 Pramanik 28.5 AFF
NDT Open 8 Wake Bencosme 28.8 Carlotti 29.2 WayneS Leap 28.7 Messina 28.9 NEG

Tourney	Div	Rd	AFF					NEG					Decision
Wake	Open	5	Dartmth	Elias	28.2	Resar	28.1	GTown	Day	28.4	Engler	28.3	NEG
NDT	Open	5	Harvard	Bolman	28.5	Suo	28.7	Wake	McCarty	28.2	Miller	28.6	AFF
NDT	Open	6	Trinit	Bram	28.2	Uzman	28.4	IdahoS	Ridgeway	27.6	Vanluvanee	27.9	AFF
NDT	Open	7	Wake	Bailey	28.8	Min	28.6	Cal	Hodgman	28.7	Pramanik	28.5	AFF
NDT	Open	8	Wake	Bencosme	28.8	Carlotti	29.2	WayneS	Leap	28.7	Messina	28.9	NEG

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format:

Chris Lundberg Northwestern University 7ish tournaments/40+ Rounds 8 Years coaching Theory Do whatever you please, as long as you carefully weigh the impacts of your competing interpretations of any given theory. I think that most theory debates are inconclusive given that folks do not take the time to parse out what values or goals are furthered by their theoretical framework. You’ll have a greater chance of winning my ballot if you carefully and explicitly impact your theory arguments relative to you opponents’. Topicality See the section on theory. Just to reiterate, you should focus on the implications of your interpretation as a whole, compared with the other team’s interpretation (or lack thereof) Counterplans See the section on theory. I do tend to have a greater negative bias than others in this area, so feel free to test the limits of fiat and competition, if you wish. K-ish type stuff Make sure to get to the core questions as early as possible in the debate. I usually see the core questions as; the link; establishing frameworks for how the case and the alternative for the K interact; how to evaluate performative elements of a speech act in relation to constantive ones, or form in relation to substance,etc. Style Be funny, be fast, be smart, be nice.