Willie Johnson -- City Univ. of New York

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:

former member of the Pace university debate team ( 2005 - 2006), Former member of the Coalition, Current CUNY affiliation

Years Debating (college): 3 (high school): 3
Years Coaching (high school): 5
Years Coaching (College): 2

Speaking: I believe that clarity comes before all other ideals of what we often fantasize a good speaker to be, a debater has to be clear so that I spend more time analyzing and processing what is said then trying to comprehend what the hell is being said. This helps in the rebuttals when there is more cross applying of arguments instead of me sitting there trying to ponder what argument reference is being made. Speed is something I can adjust to not my general forte yet if you are clear I can primarily make easier adjustments (look I sound like a damn metronome). I tend to give hints towards the wrongs and rights in the round so I want be put off if you stare at me every now and then. Debates should be a game of wit and word that upholds morals of dignity and respect do not be rude and or abrasive please respect me, the other team, your partner and of course yourself

The Flow: My hand writing is atrocious just incredibly horrible for others at least I generally flow tags, authors and major warrants in the world of traditional debate. Outside of that with all the other formats poetry, performance, rap, theatricals and so fourth I just try to grasp the majority of the speech incorporating the main idea

The K: yeah I so love the K being from a UDL background and having running the K for a majority of my debate career, yet don't let that be the reason you run the K I believe that a great K debate consist of a in-depth link explanation as well as control of the clash. There should be Impact calculus that does more then tell me what the impact is but a justification for how it functionally shapes the round which draws me to have a complete understanding of the Alt versus the plan and there must be some idea of a solvency mechanism so that the k is just simply no a linear disad forcing me to rethink or reform in the status quo (K= reshape the Squo)

The T debate: First I find it extremely hard to remember in my entire debate career where I cast a ballot for topicality alone yet it is possible to get a T ballot you most have a clear abuse story I will not evaluate T if there is not a clear abuse story. Voters are my best friend and will become a prior if well explained and impacted, yet I do believe education and fairness have extreme value just want to know why.

The D/A: Well I actually find myself voting more on the Disad then the K I just think that the disad debate offers more tools for the neg then the K yet it is the debater who optimize these tools that gain my ballot, link debates should contain at least a specific link as well as a an established Brink generic links are not good enough to win a D/A ballot and any good aff team will destroy a a generic link unless there is some support through a link wall. Impact debates must be more then just nuke war kills all you have to place comparative value to the status quo now and after plan passage. Yet a disad is an easier win with the advantages of solvency deficits and the option of competitive counter plans.

The Counter Plan: Competition is key if there is no proof that the end result is not uniquely different from the aff plan it is less likely to capture my ballot. So C/P solvency and competition is where my voter lies on the C/P flow this involves establishing and controlling the clash on the net benefit. PIC's usually rely on proving that the theoretical value of competition is worth my jurisdiction.

Theory: cross apply T only thing with a theory debate that is different is you must be able to show in where does the violation actually happen yet I find theory to be easy outs to traditional clash.

Framework: this is where my jurisdiction truly fall and it is the teams job to not only introduce the functioning framework but to uphold and defend that their framework is worth singing my ballot towards. I have no set idea of a framework coming into the round your job is to sell me to one and by any means my job is not to look at what framework sounds good but which is presented in a manner that avoids judges intervention (really just the team that prevents me from doing the bulk of the work if any).

In general I love a good old debate round with tons of clash and where there is an understanding and display of your own intellect I find it hard to judge a round where there is just a display of how well a team can read and make reference to evidence, usually I hope that ends or is done less coming out of the 1AR. I'm a man who finds pleasure in the arts and execution of organic intellect and can better give my decision and opinion based mainly on how one relates back to competitive debate, if debate for you is a card game then it forces me to have to make decision based off my comprehension of the evidence and trust me that is never a good thing, yet a round where the discussion is what guides my ballot I can vote on who upholds the best discursive actions.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision
BingHmptJVOctoNSFowle0Lowenthal0NewarkAstacio0Haughton0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
BingHmptJVSemiNewarkAstacio0Haughton0LibertScott0Trujillo0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
RochesterJVQurtLibertScott0Trujillo0CrnlGunn0Huang0AFF 2-1 (NEG)
WestPtNovOctoMiaFLBenavides0Rojas0JamesMGlomb0Schrer0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
WestPtJVQurtNewarkHaughton0Murphy0WestVaJensen0Palmer0NEG 2-1 (NEG)
WestPtJVSemiLibertAlsop0Rossdeutscher0WestVaJensen0Palmer0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
MonmouthNovOctoBingDellaRocco0Dogaroiu0LibertBridwell0Laremore0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
MonmouthNovFinalArmyBurroughs0Hauptman0JamesMSchrer0Spiker0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
RutgersNovDoubBosColFerguson0Shnipes0MUBell0Cosentino0AFF 2-1 (AFF)
RutgersJVSemiBingFriedman0North0LibertFebrizio0Lotspeich0AFF 2-1 (NEG)
CornellNovOctoRichmondDuBois0Shahzad0RochstrBenitez0Schaffer0AFF 2-1 (AFF)
CornellOpenQurtNewarkRandall0Smith0NSFowle0Opperman0NEG 2-1 (NEG)
WVUNovNatNovOctoBingChoudhury0Dogaroiu0BardDaniszewski0Taylor-Milner0AFF 2-1 (NEG)

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: