Amanda Luppes -- Baylor
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:
I debated for four years in high school in Minnesota and for five years at Baylor. This is my first year judging college debate, although I have judged some high school debate. My thoughts on judging are still largely influenced by who I was as a debater and, I am sure, will be significantly altered over the course of this year. I have experience with almost all types of arguments, but I definitely have a leaning towards policy debate. It’s also helpful to remember I was a 2A, so there are certain areas where I tend to err affirmative. However, my overriding philosophy is that debaters should make arguments in the way and style they want. Your specific knowledge of your argument is probably better than trying to kowtow to what I want. But I will still go through my general thoughts about debate. Evidence/Argument evaluation: I think there is often an exclusive reliance on evidence to determine debates, which rewards those who read lots of cards, and often only small parts of each large card. Quality of evidence is much more important than quantity. I will not call for cards if you do not reference them specifically in the 2NR/2AR. Some judges read evidence as a way to evaluate arguments, but I do not. A good, logical analytical will beat a shitty card. I do not read parts of cards after the round that you did not read, ie the unhighlighted parts. If you don’t read full sentences or important warrants, neither will I. Making evidence quality comparisons is important to me – some blog from today is (usually) not as good as a peer reviewed journal article from a year ago. Impact calculus in the debate will play a big role for me when deciding the debate. Plans: I think the affirmative should usually have a plan which defends instrumental implementation of the resolution. I used to run an aff without a plan, so I understand its strategic utility – I just dislike using it as an excuse to be lazy or not to answer neg arguments. So if you run an aff without a plan, I still expect a coherent response to DA’s, counterplans, etc – this can be a K, it just needs to be something other than “we don’t have a plan so no link”. On the flipside, neg’s against an aff like this should leverage those mostly unanswered arguments on framework. Topicality: I will vote on it if there is a good negative argument for it. I generally take a broad view of the topic, but there are things that are not topical. CTBT on last year’s nuclear topic = no topical. I don’t know yet what people will run that is not topical on the immigration topic, but I am sure there is something that isn’t topical. Against K affs, T should just be an element of framework; it is rarely a winner by itself. Theory: I know there is a prevailing preference to give neg’s an unlimited array of arguments, but if the affirmative advances a serious theory argument, I would vote for it. It is important in any theory debate that there be intense attention both to the line by line and an explanation of the general implication of the theory argument. Counterplans: I am not a fan of cheater counterplans and if there is a good enough argument, I am willing to vote on theory against them. Legitimate perms include all of the plan and some/all of the CP. A pic out of something not in the plan – or at least a major part of the affirmative – is not competitive. Cps that compete on “certainty of the plan” are also questionable for me. Kritiks: On most K’s, I have at least a general idea of what the arguments are and am capable of following those debates. I have significant experience with gender/feminism, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, biopower, stuff like that. I am less clear about non-Zizek psychoanalysis arguments. My problem comes from debaters who exclusively use jargon and other big words that are never explained. Many K’s do not interact with the other team’s arguments. This is your responsibility to explain these concepts in a way that refutes the other team’s arguments. A policy team explains their link turns that makes sense to me is always going to beat a more technically proficient K team who never explains interactions between arguments or explains a thesis to their argument. I also think there is often insufficient development of the alternative, so if you have one, make sure it is explained and utilized. I am more than willing to vote on K’s, you should just be aware of my predispositions. The role of the ballot is to determine which team did the better debating. If you ask me to use the ballot for anything but that, I am unlikely to do it. I do not think you can fix problems in the community one win at a time and I do not want to endorse that precedent. Also, I generally like debate and think it’s good. I wouldn’t devote all of my time to an activity that I thought was bad. Clarity is very important for me. I can follow unclear speakers because I know links come after uniqueness, impacts after links, etc., but it makes me very unhappy. If you are unclear, you should just slow down, you will sound better and probably read just as many cards. Don’t force yourself to go fast. Quality over quantity.
Seasonal voting record:
Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: