Keith Johnson -- Detroit Country Day

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’ll start with the obligatory “don’t change how you debate” statement. With that out of the way here on some tips to maximize your persuasive appeal in front me:

1) My comfort zone is in debates where the plan is the focus of the negative arguments. This should mean a few things to you;
(a) Presumption is for a plan text.
(b) Absent a technical faux pas, the efficacy of the policy probably matters more than how one represents it.
(c) Critiques that posit the plan as objectionable are much more persuasive to me, but I still think I am not a top tier K critic as, all things equal, I lean aff on most of the meta issues.
(d) I am going to be more technical and less universal when using my flow to make decisions when the debate shifts away from my comfort zone, as my familiarity with these arguments is low.

2) The following are just general statements that may or my not be helpful;
(a) Risk isn't undermined by the presence of ink. Sometimes an argument you make actually increases the risk of your opponents argument.
(b) I'm a believer in the big picture. Answering the thesis of the argument is what counts.
(c) Evidence supports arguments, not the other way around. A persuasive link story that lacks evidence can be given a large risk.
(d) I am not a member of the politics DA isn’t competitive / intrinsic club.
(e) I am a big sucker for "try or die".
(f) Winning the direction of the link probably gives you the direction arrow.

3) Topicality debates that focus more around potential or actual ground loss are more persuasive to me than arbitrary limits on the topic. If the affirmatives solvency method inhibits negative links by defining the topic in a non predictable way, T might be a good 2NR choice. If the affirmatives interpretation of the resolution allows an increase in otherwise generic solvency mechanisms that the core negative research should link to anyway, I am probably sympathetic to "aff flexibility" type arguments.

4) A few distinctions between me and some other judges you may have when it comes to CP + Theory issues;
(a) "Conditionality" means the SQ is always an option for the judge (unless explained differently).
(b) The burden is on the team advancing the theory argument to prove “reject the team”.
(c) I am not persuaded that the negative gets unlimited worlds. I am strong neg leaning on one CP, one K, sq. I am neutral to aff leaning after that. That said I have voted aff on theory once, when it was dropped in the block.
(d) Multi-actor CPs are probably a reason to reject the CP.
(e) I am persuaded that fiat, especially durable fiat, should be limited to the agent of the affirmative plan.
(f) I don't think consult CPs / condition CPs can both solve the case and be competitive.
(g) I appreciate 2As that write out the text of the permutation.

5) - Paperless note – I won’t take off prep time to jump a file, but I will begin to get annoyed if this process takes longer than it should, and it will probably result in lower speaker points, because it gives off the feeling that you are poorly prepared.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: