Andrew Baker -- Niles North

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 don’t know how most people read these sheets but my experience is that they just get skimmed for biases so I will try to be as up front as possible. If sometimes I deviate from what’s on this sheet, I’m sorry, but I can’t predict what is going to go down in every debate I judge and people change.

I debated for three years in high school for Shawnee Mission West and currently am a junior debater at the University of Texas at Dallas.

Dropped arguments = truth. It’s a question of the impact to those arguments at that point. Debates should be about impact calculus – you don’t want me doing it for you.

TOPICALITY – I tend to think these debates are generally underdeveloped early and usually end up being persuaded by the team that clarifies it the earliest. If the 1NC is a 8 second shell I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway once they figure out what the block actually thinks their interpretation is. I tend to default to a reasonability framework of evaluating topicality unless it’s argued otherwise. I lean towards the idea that all advocacies need a functioning text.

THEORY – I tend to error negative on CP theory but I understand why these debates are strategic (translation – I won’t punish you for reading/going for it). Cheap shots are a tough sell and all arguments (especially theory) should have a clearly articulated warrant.

COUNTERPLANS – I like. They should be competitive and have a clear net benefit.

DISADS – Also something I like. I believe terminal defense can exist, it needs to be labeled as such though because I default to relatively strict offense vs defense thinking quickly.

CRITICISMS – Criticisms should have a clear, competitive alternative that is superior to the advocacy of the affirmative. Remember that these debates for me are also about impact calculus – so don’t forget it. Critique v critique debates always seem the most muddled for me, clean it up with some basic offense vs. defense so I don’t end up with two un-impacted link claims...

PERFORMANCE – I’m not particularly experienced in these debates, but feel free to throw it out there. I tend to believe debate is an educational game we play so affs that “give the finger to the Bush administration” by playing Bob Marley probably aren’t going very far in front of me. I do believe, however, that if the activity of debate is set up in a harmful way now, it should be questioned – so those positions make more sense to me.

SPEED – Can do. You will get a clear shouted at you if you aren’t being clear.

100 point scale confuses me, bear with me. Here's the best guidance I've got
29.5 - 97
28.5 - 90
27.5 - 80

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: