Cat Duffy -- Pace Academy

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:

First things first:
- Nothing said in here is an absolute. Its hard to eloquently express how much I hate/love certain arguments yet will/won’t vote for them if you make me/mess up the round (i.e. I HAVE voted on the intrinsicness perm to politics and I HAVE voted aff against the politics da). So please, if you have questions ask me before the round.
- I try to stick to the flow. I will default to offense/defense - I *did* debate for MSU for two years so I think it is extremely rare for there ever ever ever to be zero risk of a link. Seriously.
- I'd like it if you were funny but if you're not its cool as long as you're smart you'll get good points. Unless you're a jerk.
- I protect the 2nr. 1ar drops should and will be punished especially if it involves reasons why the disad complicates the aff. Sidenote: While dropped arg’s are probably true arg it doesn’t mean they’re 100% slayers. Conceding no brink or no threshold doesn’t mean there’s zero risk, it means there’s no brink or no threshold. This being said, if I can't understand the block and the 1ar points this out I'm pretty amenable to being lenient on the 2ar.



T: I probably think that T should be about competing interpretations. Reasonability isn't an argument if you don't have a counterinterpretation. I think T debates can be great when there is in depth comparison of the interpretations complete with case lists of both the affs your interpretation justifies and why those are good but also the affs the opposition justifies and why those are bad. I've found myself becoming more and more sympathetic to the aff on T as time goes on but its debatable. If you're critiquing T I am so not your girl. A-spec, o-spec, or any other kind of spec is NOT a winner…

Counterplans: They’re good. You should go for them. I'm pretty neg biased on theory. I think that consult/delay/any other stupid process counterplan is, well, stupid and probably not competitive. I think I’m pretty bad for the aff on theory although I’m more open to aff theory against those types of counterplans. Generally I think any theoretical objection to a counterplan not related to its status is probably a reason to reject the cp and rarely, if ever, the team. Multi-actor, multi-prong, international uniqueness counterplans are all fine. I also think that if the counterplan solves 100% of the aff you only have to win a .001% risk of the da to win.

Disads: They’re also good. Chances are I know more about the politics da you're going for than you do. Evidence comparisons on all levels of the disad are necessary whether you're aff or neg. If I'm left weighing impacts after the debate because no one has done any comparative work you're probably not going to like the outcome. If you’re Aff and really think that the intrinsicness perm (or vote no or any of that other stupid crap) on the politics disad is a winner, think again when I’m judging. Seriously.


Ks/Performance: If this is your thing I’m probably not your judge. If you don’t defend your aff, read a plan, talk about the resolution, or even mention the words robot and/or theology and/or vacuous I’m probably a strike for you. I think most neg's lose in front of me because I have no clue what the alternative does/says/means or why it could ever solve the aff. I think most aff's lose because they fail to answer reasons why the K comes first (turns the case, onto/reps first, no value to life). If you are affirmative and debating the K you have to make a perm (particularly if there's a double bind included), alt doesn't solve, and case outweighs args etc. So many 2a's forget about the importance of their aff. All of this being said don’t be afraid to go for the K in the 2nr if the 1ar bones it – I’ll vote on the K, I just prefer a politics cp debate. On the other hand if you're neg against a K aff I'm pretty good for you - framework and a disad gets me almost every time.

Sidenote: If you are one of my debaters and I catch you editing this again there will be severe consequences -- you KNOW who you are.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: