Logan Chin -- Minnesota
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:
For starters, I have not judged on this resolution and have limited knowledge of the topic literature. That being said, I will probably read a lot of evidence after the debate, but as always it benefits you to expound on your internal link early in the debate; I will hesitate to do work for one side or another to fill in any blanks. Second, I am a lazy judge and will vote for a team that allows me to write the easiest and most reasonable ballot. My flow is the most important factor in my decision, followed by evidence. Uncontested or mishandled impact comparison is where I find myself deciding many debates, be they theory/T, DA, or performance debates. On style of argument: I have no strong dispositions for or against a particular style or template of debate. I reward good evidence, especially if it is used strategically and with tact. I readily discredit poor evidence if the other team accurately identifies it. As a debater and coach, I am very familiar with many styles of debate, and you are probably best off staying within your comfort zone. I will never frown upon quickness, but I will only flow what I can hear. On policy arguments, generally: Offense is key, which means that successfully turning the case or turning the disad will matter a lot and likely earn a win. Disads are typically made more salient with more specific links. I tend to think that the negative cannot read too many cards in the block, but needs to start explanation early on, as well. Counterplans usually solve the case enough, and counterplan theory is not where I prefer to settle any round. That being said, offense against counterplans is the most important thing an affirmative can do. On the K: I like a good K debate. Debates should focus on what is the fundamental function of my ballot. Negatives get away with absconding fairness very easily because affirmatives mishandle a lot of stupid and/or important arguments. Permutations won't get very far without a foothold on the framework debate--I think that unless the affirmative can justify any consideration of their plan in the first instance, it's wasteful to even try. Disadvantages to the alternative are a superior answer to kritiks, as they tend to discredit consideration of the alternative as well as the framework. I expect that negatives present a clear alternative/method argument, and be able to tie the impacts directly to the affirmative's argument. What my ballot does also matters: is an intellectual endorsement or rejection an important consideration? Why should I or shouldn't I evaluate the alternative as a counterplan with a framework screen? Drawing on history for convincing examples is a good tactic. I don't want to watch an awful, rehashed clash of civilizations debate. If the neg can't read defense against the 1AC, or if the aff has only generic K-toolbox answers and can't engage the neg's argument, then you need to learn more. Topicality: I do not hack for topicality, and have a higher threshold than some. I prefer that the debate be about the affirmative, but I will not refrain from felling a team for overstepping the resolution. I have voted for Topicality before, but still believe that negatives need to do a better job articulating the importance of fairness. Specific examples of what one interpretation allows or prohibits, as well as the importance of ground, is almost a precondition for me to sign my ballot negative. Don't shy away from T, just have a good list of affirmatives, and do a good job of explaining how fairness accesses education. Some 2A's tend to hustle through T blocks too quickly to flow. Never been a fan of "The A/OSPEC" but I will gladly vote on it if the 1AR is a faceplant. Theory: Of paramount importance in a theory debate is framing the contest as a question of different interpretations. I tend to decide theory debates as I would questions of advantages or disadvantages. Fairness questions, as explained above, are most persuasive to me when attended (in rebuttals) by a host of specific reasons and/or examples. "Multiple conditional worlds lets the negative run abusive strategies" is like a 10% on the Convincing scale, but "multiple conditional worlds justifies running contradictory arguments to trip up affirmatives, like running Red Spread and the Security K at the same time" is probably going to make me care a bit more. If a debate must come down to theory, I would much rather that it be on a larger objection, rather than a piddling and trivial argument. Not that I won't vote on "no neg fiat" or "solvency advocates bad"--I would just prefer to watch golf, and that's saying something. Very much conditional predispositions I have on theory: "Test in, test of", quality of education is good, really small PICs are annoying, some predictability can help reinforce depth, _good_ solvency advocates are sometimes a reasonable basis for predictability. Other: I give dropped arguments full weight (unless they clearly have no bearing in the round--I won't drop a team on "multiple conditional worlds bad" if there are no conditional worlds). I don't give that many verbal or visual cues, and if you think I am carrying a sour expression, it is most likely just how my face normally looks. It is up to you to monitor your own debating. Be faster with your paperlessness. I will stop prep time once your hands are away from the keyboard or when a flash drive is removed. Alternatively, the teams can come to some agreement on the matter, but let me know ahead of time. Cross-ex is a good time to get links and justify theory arguments that you may make. Swagger makes the world go 'round, but making poor attempts at swagger is just throwing my entrails and your speaker points into the toilet. Although I have a high tolerance for aggression, this is not goddamn Bro-Sparta. Past coaches: DCH, Phil, Eli Brennan.
Seasonal voting record:
Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: