Cade Hamilton -- Kansas State
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:
Cade Hamilton, This is my 5th year out and have judged a number of debates. Topicality: I believe that it is a voting issue and that issues regarding the resolution are important. That being said, I can be convinced that there are issues that could be of more importance than topicality or reasons why topicality is bad. You will have to be very clear and straight forward regarding what your impact turns of topicality mean for debate and for me. Counterplans: I enjoy good counterplan debates. I tend to believe that the affirmative should be able to defend their agent and process, but find myself somewhere in the middle regarding questions of conditionality and dispositionality. I think that consult counterplans are interesting, however I believe them to be a bit shady (emphasis on just a bit, not too much…just my inherent gut reaction). Disads: I really love a good disad debate. I think the negative team should weigh their disads against the case advantages (duh). Pretty much a fan of DA’s, enough said. Critiques: I enjoy these debates that are laid out in a way that I feel everyone can access in the debate. They should be understandable and should include a feasible and functional alternative. My prior experience with critical literature may not be up to par with yours so keep that in mind. I love debate because the opportunities it provides for people with all sorts of backgrounds and interests. So, I believe, that I am open to different forms of debate and argumentation. But, I urge all debaters to explain and impact their arguments to the fullest extent possible. If I do not feel that either team has explained a decision calculus, I will resort to a policymaker paradigm. Good luck, have fun, and try to be as respectful as possible.
Seasonal voting record:
Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: