Author Topic: Inaccurate/Incomplete judge philosophies  (Read 2798 times)

kelly young

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
    • Wayne State Forensics
Inaccurate/Incomplete judge philosophies
« on: December 08, 2009, 09:40:04 AM »

I have noticed this year a much higher rate of posted judge philosophies that are inaccurate or incomplete in regard to preferences and predispositions the judges have. Far too often, a philosophy will read "I let the students decide what to run--policy or K-- 'cause I'm totally cool and hip" and then at the end of round, the judge announces they only want to hear K debates and hate politics DAs, CPs and most policy debate. Or, if there is a section of the philosophy concerning theory predisposition--often there is no discussion whatsoever--it says something generally without mention of feelings towards dispo/conditionality/multiple perms etc.

Look, it's perfectly fine to have predispositions against certain arguments. But you MUST list these in your philosophies if you feel so strongly about them. I am growing very tired of hearing post-round judge comments such as, "I absolutely hate these kinds of arguments" or "you should know I would never vote for this strategy" when nothing in the judge's philosophy indicates this.

I ask that judges review their posted philosophies and update any relevant issues.
American Forensic Association Vice President,
Director of Forensics/Associate Professor/Area Head (Com Studies),
Department of Communication
Wayne State University
kelly.young [at]