Geoff Lundeen -- Johns Creek

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 debated for both Michigan State and the University of West Georgia in college. You shouldn't make snap assumptions about me based on that background. For instance, I am unlikely to call for every card and spend 3 hours reconstructing the debate, but I am also unlikely to be amused by arguments like "time cube."

I like good arguments, and I will evaluate any claim that is impacted. I will try to be as fair as possible to both teams, but here are a couple things which people have empirically had a difficult time selling me on (not saying I won't vote on it, but it might be an uphill battle...)

-Affs which don't affirm the resolution (I think that most 'framework' arguments against these affs should probably be couched in terms of Topicality)
-Counterplans which are potentially wholly plan inclusive (consult, delay, etc.)
-Cheap shots (i.e., "they concede the perm that they didn't go for was intrinsic, vote neg.")
-Pretty much any letter followed by "SPEC"

I ran the K a lot when I debated. This was a strategic move. If you want to talk about Baudrillard, Derrida, or Nietzsche for 8 minutes and ignore almost everything the aff said, you might not want to pref. me. In other words, don't pigeonhole me. I like good debates, of whatever variety.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: