Jeremy Hammond -- Pine Crest Prep

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:

Hammond, Jeremy

I have now debated for 8 years. 4 Years at a small HS in Northern MI, (don't hold it against me) and 4 years at Michigan State University. Here is how I like to judge arguments by topic.

Theory: For the most part I think counterplan theory is a reason to reject the counterplan and not the team. There are exceptions to this rule, but they have to be well articulated. The general exception to this is conditionality. Though I think if the work is done, many other theory arguments can be voting issues.

Topicality: I think that topicality is a valuable argument when it is researched specifically for an affirmative. You can not win on topicality in front of me if you are reading topicality Establish = To Create. But you can win on topicality if you negative infront of me defining things like (which regard to the HS topic) Incentives = only positive. That is not to say that I have any leaning either way on the issue. I think generally the only way to judge topicality debates in competiting interpretations, but reasonability is also a fair standard if you are running establish is to create. You must impact T on either side. When topicality debates get too muddled, I find myself voting aff more than negative. Good topicality debates are generally a negative ballot. ((((Update)))) I find myself being more and more reasonable.

DA's: Running DA's in front of me is encouraged. At Michigan State I became a big fan of the politics, elections, and many other DA's that we read, and even ones that other teams read. The Impact Calculus is the highly encouraged, comparing how your impact weighs with regards to other impacts in the round.

Counterplans: I do believe that there should be a limit to what counterplans can fiat, but that limit is up for debate. Counterplans and DA's were my choice strategy, as such, I would rather teams attempt this over reading a kritik, but will judge it either way. Competition for counterplans is also something that is up for debate. Whether Textual, Functional, both can and should be debated when that is in question.

Kritiks: I do not exclude teams from running kritiks, though I would like a more conventional policy debate much more. That being said, I often judge kritiks, and probably require a higher degree of explination on both sides than other judges on both the High School and College circuits. As far as the framework debate goes I believe that Kritiks have thier purpose in debate, but the affirmative should also get to weigh the impacts of the hypothetical plan against the impacts of the kritik. I generally vote negative on the kritik 55% of the time it is in the 2nr. ((((Update)))) The neg winning percentage on the K is now way lower.

Paperless Debate: I have no problems with paperless debate. That said because theres is an art to debating paperlessly and some teams are better than others. Things that I think are a must. Every paperless team needs to have a viewing computer, and a jump drive. Jumping does not count as prep, but if you are excessively slow, I will dock you speaker points. I will also dock you speaker points if you don't have a jump drive or a viewing computer.

Specific Arguments
Aspec - to run this argument, you must ask in CX who the agent of the plan is. Only if the aff doesn't give a specific answers should this be in the round. If you do specify your agent, you must debate the merits of an agent counterplan rather than theory. If the negative doesn't ask in CX, 1 answer is sufficient to answer this arg, CX checks.

Critical Affs - If you read a plan, you must defend the plan. If you don't read a plan, don't pref. me. Though I think there should be a plan, I am fine with K's of DAs, and debates about how impacts should be weighed.

Those are the only things I can think of at the moment. I will post updates as they become known.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: