Seth Gannon -- Georgetown
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:
16 thoughts, 4 large and 12 small (those that have changed this year are marked with an asterisk) Large thoughts: *1. Debate is about communicating. Good debaters recognize that, time pressures and all, they can afford to explain and be funny. They identify breakdowns in communication and correct them. This year, I am making many of my speaker point decisions on clarity and technical precision. 2. I appreciate aggressive strategies of all genres. It is always better to win on something seemingly crazy than it is to lose on something supposedly respectable. Related point: Do not introduce any strategy on which you are unwilling to give a final rebuttal. 3. By default, I will determine based on arguments in the round whether or not one and only one topical policy presented by the affirmative is preferable to the status quo and competitive policies. I will do so from the perspective of those in a position to enact those policies. Don’t be afraid to change this decision structure, but change it explicitly. Provide me a rubric with which to evaluate the debate. If the other team accedes to it or fails to prove it less desirable, I’ll use it. 4. I am perfectly comfortable passing judgment. If an argument does not rise to a minimal threshold of sense and explanation, I will disregard it. If I do not understand what a piece of evidence says by the end of the debate, I will not read it. Presumably the “tabula rasa” judge is by now only a strawperson, and I do not claim to be one. Small thoughts: *1. Any aff. demonstrated not to defend a topical plan loses, as much at the end of the year as the beginning. “Debate-ability” alone does not make a plan topical, absent reasonable definitional support. If the aff. interpretation is good, a slightly better neg. interpretation may not be enough. Although it would require overcoming an extremely heavy bias, I will not—unlike last year—unequivocally rule out the possibility of voting for an aff. that lacks a topical plan. This does not mean open season, and you should still not be surprised in the 99.5%+ of scenarios in which I decide T is a voting issue, perhaps even despite the K aff. team’s lead on the flow. 2. Presumption is toward less change from the status quo. 3. Phrases like “side constraint,” “decision rule,” “no value to life,” etc. are heavily value-laden, and, if any sensible explanation is present, you cannot afford to drop them. 4. Theory arguments inform how I resolve the debate but likely do not resolve it alone. A situation in which I would reject the team is difficult to conceive (unless the argument I am rejecting is unconditional or some "voting issue" explanation is dropped). In the case of conditionality, this may mean making the CP unconditional. 5. Conditionality seems more sensible than not, at least to the extent of one CP. Many neg. teams, however, have gotten very sloppy in their defense of it. I am happy to dismiss a conditional counterplan and test the status quo on my own after the debate, but I won't unless the neg. explicitly instructs me to do so. *6. Other CP theory: - Attacking the competition of consultation, delay, and other wholly plan-inclusive CPs is likely more productive than attacking their legitimacy. - Alternate actor fiat strikes me as bizarre, although aff. teams only sometimes articulate these concerns adequately. - "Topical CPs are a reason to vote aff" is a better argument than "PICs bad." - I fear at this point that I do not understand textual competition, which makes the explanatory threshold to win on it very high. - If the best policy at the end of the round includes the plan, the aff. wins. Given that, I am happy to vote for a permutation as an independent, stand-alone policy that proves the plan desirable, but I won't unless the aff. explicitly instructs me to do so. 7. Theory generally: My personal bias is toward views that facilitate good decision-making or that are logically derived from debate "first principles." *8. The K’s win-loss record in front of me last year was terrible. Please provide argument and explanation in place of jargon. Three very dim rays of hope: (1) I can think of K arguments on this topic that are compelling and reflect reality, although my preferences here are largely arbitrary; (2) I suspect I would have been a hack for Leong and Turner, although they wisely would’ve avoided me; and (3) I greatly enjoyed and talked up a smart and example-filled James Brockway 2NC last year, although I eventually voted aff on a perm. *9. If you find some aspect of their plan unclear, please ask about it in the cross-ex. If they find some aspect of your plan unclear, please answer, either by specifying further than the plan or by explaining why you are under no obligation to do so. 10. Dropped arguments must be impacted. Any argument that does not directly or eventually answer the question “For whom am I to sign the ballot, and why?” is irrelevant, dropped or not. 11. Nit-pickiness: If you do not spend time before and during the debate crafting effective strategies for cross-ex, I am not a good judge for you. Title the first off-case argument in the 1NC. I am "you"; the other team is "they." *12. Looking for more? Alex Lamballe's philosophy is all recommended reading for understanding me. I agree with everything, esp. the sections on making debate fun and the relative unimportance of uniqueness.
Seasonal voting record:
Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: