Chris Loghry -- Wyoming

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:

02/05/2011

I think debate is a game and it should be treated like the game it is, and as such I attempt to divorce myself from relative "truth" values of arguments. Counter-intuitive arguments can be persuasive especially when conceded, if an argument is stupid it should be relatively easy to answer. You should have fun and do things that are fun to do. If your idea of fun is executing an incredibly precise disad/counterplan strategy then have at it. If it's running things that are questionably true, go for it. If it’s something else, that’s fine too. The point is debate is supposed to be fun, and it's obvious when debaters are having fun so give it a try.

Here's some specific stuff.

Framework – It's usually just some kind of topicality or plan focus argument and/or an impact priority argument. The idea that deontological impacts (or whatever) require an immediate loss is ridiculous. THIS DOES NOT MEAN DON'T GO FOR FRAMEWORK, if you think you're winning it go for it. It's ridiculous how many times I've had to resolve a framework argument this year. I've voted for turns on it and the argument itself, but usually I wish something else would've happened. Also, I tend to think Affs should have a plan.

Disads – I like em. I think there is such a thing as zero risk of a link, but that’s probably the exception and not the rule. Impact turns are awesome. I love "you say good, we say bad" debates.

Kritiks – I like ones that have concrete nouns. If you can articulate a link and an impact that’s probably good enough (if you win an impact priority argument). I don’t get why kritiks MUST have alternatives, though I do understand the utility of including them. There needs to be a framework for evaluating impacts and I think 2acs forget this a lot. Well thought out and tricky perms are great. Finally, as above, I do think there's such a thing as zero link.

Counterplans/Theory – Negs are getting away with murder in terms of counterplan disposition. A few conditional alternatives are probably fine and I tend to err neg in those instances, but when we get to like 6 or more that’s a little out of hand. Affs: please read conditionality is bad in these instances and Negs please answer them by reading your “condo good” block as fast and unintelligibly as you possibly can so I can vote aff on conditionality while looking you directly in the eyes. This certainly doesn't mean "conditionality bad" is an auto-win, just that I will vote on it if debated well and clearly, with adequate time invested and good explanation of the link and impacts. Generally I just think teams are too afraid of going all in on theory, so if that's you don't risk it.

Topicality – Reasonability probably trumps hyper specific violations that only eliminate one case from the aff’s interpretation, but could be compelled otherwise. If this is your bag, just be sure to explain (examples are nice) your interpretation, how it necessarily excludes the affirmative and why that's good. Winning your link (violation) means nothing if you don't explain your impact (voting issue).

Final thoughts:

>>Evidence has gotten really bad and really short. Good evidence can win you a round you may otherwise have lost, however I don’t ascribe to the “evidence index” type of second rebuttal where a bunch of authors and dates are thrown out without even cursory explanation of the evidence.

>>A note about flowing: do not assume I can anticipate every possible application of an argument, if you want to apply things across multiple sheets of paper that's fine, but please make it clear.

>>Be nice, it amazes me to no end how much of a jerk we can turn into inside of a debate round. I get it, you’re intense and you want to win, quit being a jerk about it.

>>AND PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY, assume your opponent might be winning some of their arguments and make some arguments contingent on this assumption.

Seasonal voting record:

Tourney Div Rd AFF NEG Decision
KY Open 1 Oklhma Masterson 28.1 Tomik 28.4 Minn Plutowski 28 Svoboda 27.8 AFF
KY Open 2 Harvard Bolman 28.5 Suo 28.6 KState Hallinan 28.7 Ziegler 28.8 NEG
KY Open 3 Towson Whitley 28.9 Ruffin 28 Minn Crunkilton 28.4 Ehrlich 28.5 NEG
KY Open 4 Wichit Coleman 28.4 Sullivan 28.1 Augie Fischer 28.3 Heidtke 28.2 NEG
KY Open 5 KState Kowaleski 27.6 Mays 27.4 Harvard Lucero 27.7 Nowell 27.5 NEG
KY Open 6 Pittsb Markus 28 Lee 28.5 KState Ramirez 27.8 Pena 28.4 AFF
KY Open 7 Augie Cantrell-Paulson 28 Engelhardt 27.3 Capital Nickell 27.5 Nagel 27.9 NEG
KY Open 8 Minn Frank 28.6 Schauer 28.5 UNLV Velto 28.8 Bato 28.7 NEG
UNLV Open 1 UNLV Cottrell 27.9 Kosmach 28.1 Texas Liu 28.2 Miller 28 NEG
UNLV Open 2 Texas Donovan 28 Saltzman 28.4 Michig Deming 28.3 Pappas 27.8 NEG
UNLV Open 3 Whitman Larson 27.5 Lewis 27.6 UTD Kontopoulos 27.9 Varney 28 NEG
UNLV Open 4 Trinit Murray 28.2 Vail 28 KCKCC Garvey 28.1 Miller 27.7 AFF
UNLV Open 5 Texas Fitz 27.6 Stolte 27.5 Bing Choudhury 27.2 Reddick 27.3 AFF
UNLV Open 6 Michig Hirn 28.3 Liu 28.6 Texas Guha-Majumdar 28.5 Makuch 28.4 NEG
UNLV Open 7 Baylor Morey 27.7 Morrell 27.2 IdahoS Doty 27.4 Johnston 27.5 NEG
UNLV Open Doub UNLV Bato 0 Velto 0 PugetSnd Novack 0 Stevenson 0 AFF 3-0 (AFF)
UNLV Open Octo Michig Deming 0 Pappas 0 UTD Kontopoulos 0 Varney 0 AFF 3-0 (AFF)
UCO JV 1 UCO Maxey 27.5 Munday 27.4 UTSA Colmenero 27.6 Rodriguez 27.7 NEG
UCO JV 2 JCCC Solecki 27.5 Villanueva 28 KState Austin 27.8 Papen 27.6 AFF
UCO Open 3 Oklhma Leaseau 27.8 Maddy 28.1 UTSA Liles 28 Nerison 28.2 NEG
UCO Open 4 Texas Chowdhury 28.1 Malone 28.3 Kansas Campbell 28.5 Gress 28 NEG
UCO Open 5 Texas Fitz 27.8 Stolte 27.7 KState McMillin-Beckman 27.5 Pena 27.6 AFF
UCO Open 6 KState Bryant 28.5 Hodges 28.8 UTSA Colwell 28.7 Ivanovic 28.6 AFF
UCO Open Octo Texas Chowdhury 0 Malone 0 Oklhma Masterson 0 Tomik 0 AFF 2-1 (NEG)
UTD Open 1 UTSA Nerison 28.7 Stroud 28.6 Texas Chowdhury 28.5 Malone 28.3 AFF
UTD Open 2 Richmond Borwick 28 Henschen 27 Wichit Box 28.7 Munday 28.8 NEG
UTD Open 3 Trinit Gonzalez 28.7 Murray 28.5 Minn Hall 28 Willette 27.5 AFF
UTD Open 4 Kansas Getto 27.6 Wood 27.5 Oklhma Cherry 27.8 O'Brien 27.7 NEG
UTD Open 5 Kansas Foreman 28.1 Reed 28 Oklhma Leaseau 28.4 Maddy 28.3 NEG
UTD Open 6 UMKC Allsup 28.7 Garcia 28.6 Oklhma Leonardi 28.9 Minton 27.9 NEG
UTD Open 7 Minn Frank 28.7 Schauer 28.6 UTSA Ely 28.4 Liles 28.9 AFF
UTD Nov Semi Richmond DuBois 0 Olvera 0 JCCC Lynch 0 Walters 0 NEG 3-0 (NEG)
Texas Open 1 Kansas Petersen 28.7 Wilkins 28.5 Weber Gomez 28.6 Olson 28.4 AFF
Texas Open 2 Minn Crunkilton 27.8 Ehrlich 28 Bing Choudhury 27.5 Reddick 28.2 AFF
Texas Open 4 NoIowa Casady 28.4 Chase 28.2 Wake Bailey 28 Min 28.6 NEG
Texas Open 5 Kansas Campbell 28.7 Gress 28.4 UTD Dwyer 28.5 Roark 28.6 AFF
Texas Open 7 WestVa Palmer 27.8 Warne 28 Libert Bobbitt 28.2 Hedrick 28.1 NEG
Texas Open 8 Oregon Copenhaver 28.1 Gaffney 27.8 Vermont Cooper 28 Doucette 27.9 AFF
UNT Open 1 Augie Engelhardt 27 Heidtke 27.5 KState David 27.4 Hallinan 27.6 NEG
UNT Open 2 Augie Cantrell-Paulson 27.8 Fischer 28.3 Kansas Getto 27.7 Wood 28.1 AFF
UNT Open 3 Oklhma Roberts 28.1 Snider 28.2 KCKCC Garvey 28.4 McFarland 28.3 NEG
UNT Open 4 Kansas Hampton 28.4 Miller 28.1 Rochstr Lim 28.2 Lyle 27.9 AFF
UNT JV 5 UTSA Calhoun 27.2 Dominey 27 Kansas Johansen 27.3 Sears 27.4 NEG
UNT Open 6 Oklhma Cherry 28.2 O'Brien 27.9 Minn Plutowski 28 Svoboda 28.1 AFF
UNT Open Doub UTSA Colwell 0 Robertson 0 Oklhma Masterson 0 Tomik 0 NEG 3-0 (NEG)
UNT Open Octo KCKCC Garvey 0 McFarland 0 WayneS Leap 0 Messina 0 AFF 2-1 (AFF)
D2Qual Open 1 EWU Collins 28 Oeflein 28.1 Whitman Butler 28.3 Lewis 28.2 NEG
D2Qual Open 5 Weber Roberts 28 Woodhall 27.8 Whitman Collier 28.2 Menzies 28.1 NEG
NDT Open 1 Minn Crunkilton 28 Ehrlich 28.1 CSUF bugrov 28.3 cruz 28.2 AFF
NDT Open 2 GeoMas Lastovica 28.6 Nichols 28.4 Kansas Kennedy 28.8 Kennedy 29 NEG
NDT Open 3 Kansas Campbell 28.2 Gress 27.8 Texas Guha-Majumdar 28.3 Makuch 28.4 NEG
NDT Open 5 WayneS Leap 28.9 Messina 28.7 Rochstr Diamond 28.5 Kasschau 28.6 AFF
NDT Open 7 Minn Frank 28 Schauer 27.9 Concor Bosch 28.1 Walker 28.2 NEG
CEDA Open 2 KState David 28.2 McMillin-Beckman 27.8 UCO Askey 27.9 Vance 28.3 NEG
CEDA Open 3 Vermont Sadek 27.7 McConnell 27.5 Wichit Donnell 28.1 Sullivan 28 NEG
CEDA Open 4 WestVa Jensen 28.1 Warne 28.3 JamesM Miller 28.2 McGrath 28.4 NEG
CEDA Open 5 Kansas Kennedy 28.5 Kennedy 28.6 KCKCC Garvey 28.4 McFarland 28 AFF
CEDA Open 6 Oklhma Maddy 28.2 Leaseau 28.1 Minn Crunkilton 28.4 Ehrlich 28.3 NEG
CEDA Open 7 JamesM Brass 28.2 Waugh 27.9 Baylor Cook 28.5 Morgan 28.3 NEG
CEDA Open 8 KCKCC Miller 28 Johnson 28.1 Oklhma Massey 28.2 Masterson 28.3 NEG
CEDA Open Trip Oklhma Massey 0 Masterson 0 JamesM Brass 0 Waugh 0 NEG 2-1 (NEG)

Tourney	Div	Rd	AFF					NEG					Decision
KY	Open	1	Oklhma	Masterson	28.1	Tomik	28.4	Minn	Plutowski	28	Svoboda	27.8	AFF
KY	Open	2	Harvard	Bolman	28.5	Suo	28.6	KState	Hallinan	28.7	Ziegler	28.8	NEG
KY	Open	3	Towson	Whitley	28.9	Ruffin	28	Minn	Crunkilton	28.4	Ehrlich	28.5	NEG
KY	Open	4	Wichit	Coleman	28.4	Sullivan	28.1	Augie	Fischer	28.3	Heidtke	28.2	NEG
KY	Open	5	KState	Kowaleski	27.6	Mays	27.4	Harvard	Lucero	27.7	Nowell	27.5	NEG
KY	Open	6	Pittsb	Markus	28	Lee	28.5	KState	Ramirez	27.8	Pena	28.4	AFF
KY	Open	7	Augie	Cantrell-Paulson	28	Engelhardt	27.3	Capital	Nickell	27.5	Nagel	27.9	NEG
KY	Open	8	Minn	Frank	28.6	Schauer	28.5	UNLV	Velto	28.8	Bato	28.7	NEG
UNLV	Open	1	UNLV	Cottrell	27.9	Kosmach	28.1	Texas	Liu	28.2	Miller	28	NEG
UNLV	Open	2	Texas	Donovan	28	Saltzman	28.4	Michig	Deming	28.3	Pappas	27.8	NEG
UNLV	Open	3	Whitman	Larson	27.5	Lewis	27.6	UTD	Kontopoulos	27.9	Varney	28	NEG
UNLV	Open	4	Trinit	Murray	28.2	Vail	28	KCKCC	Garvey	28.1	Miller	27.7	AFF
UNLV	Open	5	Texas	Fitz	27.6	Stolte	27.5	Bing	Choudhury	27.2	Reddick	27.3	AFF
UNLV	Open	6	Michig	Hirn	28.3	Liu	28.6	Texas	Guha-Majumdar	28.5	Makuch	28.4	NEG
UNLV	Open	7	Baylor	Morey	27.7	Morrell	27.2	IdahoS	Doty	27.4	Johnston	27.5	NEG
UNLV	Open	Doub	UNLV	Bato	0	Velto	0	PugetSnd	Novack	0	Stevenson	0	AFF 3-0 (AFF)
UNLV	Open	Octo	Michig	Deming	0	Pappas	0	UTD	Kontopoulos	0	Varney	0	AFF 3-0 (AFF)
UCO	JV	1	UCO	Maxey	27.5	Munday	27.4	UTSA	Colmenero	27.6	Rodriguez	27.7	NEG
UCO	JV	2	JCCC	Solecki	27.5	Villanueva	28	KState	Austin	27.8	Papen	27.6	AFF
UCO	Open	3	Oklhma	Leaseau	27.8	Maddy	28.1	UTSA	Liles	28	Nerison	28.2	NEG
UCO	Open	4	Texas	Chowdhury	28.1	Malone	28.3	Kansas	Campbell	28.5	Gress	28	NEG
UCO	Open	5	Texas	Fitz	27.8	Stolte	27.7	KState	McMillin-Beckman	27.5	Pena	27.6	AFF
UCO	Open	6	KState	Bryant	28.5	Hodges	28.8	UTSA	Colwell	28.7	Ivanovic	28.6	AFF
UCO	Open	Octo	Texas	Chowdhury	0	Malone	0	Oklhma	Masterson	0	Tomik	0	AFF 2-1 (NEG)
UTD	Open	1	UTSA	Nerison	28.7	Stroud	28.6	Texas	Chowdhury	28.5	Malone	28.3	AFF
UTD	Open	2	Richmond	Borwick	28	Henschen	27	Wichit	Box	28.7	Munday	28.8	NEG
UTD	Open	3	Trinit	Gonzalez	28.7	Murray	28.5	Minn	Hall	28	Willette	27.5	AFF
UTD	Open	4	Kansas	Getto	27.6	Wood	27.5	Oklhma	Cherry	27.8	O'Brien	27.7	NEG
UTD	Open	5	Kansas	Foreman	28.1	Reed	28	Oklhma	Leaseau	28.4	Maddy	28.3	NEG
UTD	Open	6	UMKC	Allsup	28.7	Garcia	28.6	Oklhma	Leonardi	28.9	Minton	27.9	NEG
UTD	Open	7	Minn	Frank	28.7	Schauer	28.6	UTSA	Ely	28.4	Liles	28.9	AFF
UTD	Nov	Semi	Richmond	DuBois	0	Olvera	0	JCCC	Lynch	0	Walters	0	NEG 3-0 (NEG)
Texas	Open	1	Kansas	Petersen	28.7	Wilkins	28.5	Weber	Gomez	28.6	Olson	28.4	AFF
Texas	Open	2	Minn	Crunkilton	27.8	Ehrlich	28	Bing	Choudhury	27.5	Reddick	28.2	AFF
Texas	Open	4	NoIowa	Casady	28.4	Chase	28.2	Wake	Bailey	28	Min	28.6	NEG
Texas	Open	5	Kansas	Campbell	28.7	Gress	28.4	UTD	Dwyer	28.5	Roark	28.6	AFF
Texas	Open	7	WestVa	Palmer	27.8	Warne	28	Libert	Bobbitt	28.2	Hedrick	28.1	NEG
Texas	Open	8	Oregon	Copenhaver	28.1	Gaffney	27.8	Vermont	Cooper	28	Doucette	27.9	AFF
UNT	Open	1	Augie	Engelhardt	27	Heidtke	27.5	KState	David	27.4	Hallinan	27.6	NEG
UNT	Open	2	Augie	Cantrell-Paulson	27.8	Fischer	28.3	Kansas	Getto	27.7	Wood	28.1	AFF
UNT	Open	3	Oklhma	Roberts	28.1	Snider	28.2	KCKCC	Garvey	28.4	McFarland	28.3	NEG
UNT	Open	4	Kansas	Hampton	28.4	Miller	28.1	Rochstr	Lim	28.2	Lyle	27.9	AFF
UNT	JV	5	UTSA	Calhoun	27.2	Dominey	27	Kansas	Johansen	27.3	Sears	27.4	NEG
UNT	Open	6	Oklhma	Cherry	28.2	O'Brien	27.9	Minn	Plutowski	28	Svoboda	28.1	AFF
UNT	Open	Doub	UTSA	Colwell	0	Robertson	0	Oklhma	Masterson	0	Tomik	0	NEG 3-0 (NEG)
UNT	Open	Octo	KCKCC	Garvey	0	McFarland	0	WayneS	Leap	0	Messina	0	AFF 2-1 (AFF)
D2Qual	Open	1	EWU	Collins	28	Oeflein	28.1	Whitman	Butler	28.3	Lewis	28.2	NEG
D2Qual	Open	5	Weber	Roberts	28	Woodhall	27.8	Whitman	Collier	28.2	Menzies	28.1	NEG
NDT	Open	1	Minn	Crunkilton	28	Ehrlich	28.1	CSUF	bugrov	28.3	cruz	28.2	AFF
NDT	Open	2	GeoMas	Lastovica	28.6	Nichols	28.4	Kansas	Kennedy	28.8	Kennedy	29	NEG
NDT	Open	3	Kansas	Campbell	28.2	Gress	27.8	Texas	Guha-Majumdar	28.3	Makuch	28.4	NEG
NDT	Open	5	WayneS	Leap	28.9	Messina	28.7	Rochstr	Diamond	28.5	Kasschau	28.6	AFF
NDT	Open	7	Minn	Frank	28	Schauer	27.9	Concor	Bosch	28.1	Walker	28.2	NEG
CEDA	Open	2	KState	David	28.2	McMillin-Beckman	27.8	UCO	Askey	27.9	Vance	28.3	NEG
CEDA	Open	3	Vermont	Sadek	27.7	McConnell	27.5	Wichit	Donnell	28.1	Sullivan	28	NEG
CEDA	Open	4	WestVa	Jensen	28.1	Warne	28.3	JamesM	Miller	28.2	McGrath	28.4	NEG
CEDA	Open	5	Kansas	Kennedy	28.5	Kennedy	28.6	KCKCC	Garvey	28.4	McFarland	28	AFF
CEDA	Open	6	Oklhma	Maddy	28.2	Leaseau	28.1	Minn	Crunkilton	28.4	Ehrlich	28.3	NEG
CEDA	Open	7	JamesM	Brass	28.2	Waugh	27.9	Baylor	Cook	28.5	Morgan	28.3	NEG
CEDA	Open	8	KCKCC	Miller	28	Johnson	28.1	Oklhma	Massey	28.2	Masterson	28.3	NEG
CEDA	Open	Trip	Oklhma	Massey	0	Masterson	0	JamesM	Brass	0	Waugh	0	NEG 2-1 (NEG)

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format:

02/05/2011 I think debate is a game and it should be treated like the game it is, and as such I attempt to divorce myself from relative "truth" values of arguments. Counter-intuitive arguments can be persuasive especially when conceded, if an argument is stupid it should be relatively easy to answer. You should have fun and do things that are fun to do. If your idea of fun is executing an incredibly precise disad/counterplan strategy then have at it. If it's running things that are questionably true, go for it. If it’s something else, that’s fine too. The point is debate is supposed to be fun, and it's obvious when debaters are having fun so give it a try. Here's some specific stuff. Framework – It's usually just some kind of topicality or plan focus argument and/or an impact priority argument. The idea that deontological impacts (or whatever) require an immediate loss is ridiculous. THIS DOES NOT MEAN DON'T GO FOR FRAMEWORK, if you think you're winning it go for it. It's ridiculous how many times I've had to resolve a framework argument this year. I've voted for turns on it and the argument itself, but usually I wish something else would've happened. Also, I tend to think Affs should have a plan. Disads – I like em. I think there is such a thing as zero risk of a link, but that’s probably the exception and not the rule. Impact turns are awesome. I love "you say good, we say bad" debates. Kritiks – I like ones that have concrete nouns. If you can articulate a link and an impact that’s probably good enough (if you win an impact priority argument). I don’t get why kritiks MUST have alternatives, though I do understand the utility of including them. There needs to be a framework for evaluating impacts and I think 2acs forget this a lot. Well thought out and tricky perms are great. Finally, as above, I do think there's such a thing as zero link. Counterplans/Theory – Negs are getting away with murder in terms of counterplan disposition. A few conditional alternatives are probably fine and I tend to err neg in those instances, but when we get to like 6 or more that’s a little out of hand. Affs: please read conditionality is bad in these instances and Negs please answer them by reading your “condo good” block as fast and unintelligibly as you possibly can so I can vote aff on conditionality while looking you directly in the eyes. This certainly doesn't mean "conditionality bad" is an auto-win, just that I will vote on it if debated well and clearly, with adequate time invested and good explanation of the link and impacts. Generally I just think teams are too afraid of going all in on theory, so if that's you don't risk it. Topicality – Reasonability probably trumps hyper specific violations that only eliminate one case from the aff’s interpretation, but could be compelled otherwise. If this is your bag, just be sure to explain (examples are nice) your interpretation, how it necessarily excludes the affirmative and why that's good. Winning your link (violation) means nothing if you don't explain your impact (voting issue). Final thoughts: >>Evidence has gotten really bad and really short. Good evidence can win you a round you may otherwise have lost, however I don’t ascribe to the “evidence index” type of second rebuttal where a bunch of authors and dates are thrown out without even cursory explanation of the evidence. >>A note about flowing: do not assume I can anticipate every possible application of an argument, if you want to apply things across multiple sheets of paper that's fine, but please make it clear. >>Be nice, it amazes me to no end how much of a jerk we can turn into inside of a debate round. I get it, you’re intense and you want to win, quit being a jerk about it. >>AND PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY, assume your opponent might be winning some of their arguments and make some arguments contingent on this assumption.