Author Topic: NJDDT Prefs Open  (Read 3891 times)


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
NJDDT Prefs Open
« on: March 09, 2011, 01:20:11 PM »
Prefs are now open.  Please complete by 2pm on Friday.

Registration will be 6-9pm on Friday in the hotel bar.

Here is a judge philosophy for John Patten (debated at Wake -- is a hired judge for tournament)

i haven't judged all that many rounds on this topic and do not know very much about our visa system. but don't be deterred from going for topic-specific arguments. i'll probably be able to figure it out if you talk me through it.

i tend to think that the aff has got to read a plan and am generally unenthusiastic about contrived, metaphorical interpretations of the topic that are only loosely related to the literature base. i'd vote on framework against performance teams, but haven't always

this doesn't make me completely anti-k, i don't think. i think that the aff gets to access their case unless you challenge the epistemology that the advantages/solvency are premised on, or outweigh it/ turn the case.

hard to say what i think about topicality this year given that i don't know all that much about topic. in general, though, i'm not convinced that the most restrictive interpretation is always the best, and pretty good could be good enough for me if the aff proposes a clear, fair vision of the topic. case lists are helpful, for both the aff and the neg.

conditionality is probably always good, even when excessive.

i'd say i err neg on most counterplan theory
some aff theory makes sense to me. i'm in the minority on this one, but i think that non-intrinsicness can be a real argument if explained well, particularly against (reverse) politics.
compelling, unanswered analytical arguments are still unanswered arguments, and i see no reason why i wouldn't vote on them