Deutsch,+Joshua


 * Experience:** I debated varsity CX for 4 years from 1996-1999. I coached CX in 2001 and judged at every debate tournament. Since that time, I judge one tournament a year, usually Stanford or Berkeley. I have not yet judged this years topic.


 * Education/professional background:** I have a BA in legal studies and a masters in public health from UC Berkeley. I run a landscaping business focusing on local food issues. I keep up with current events and the relevant geopolitical and philosophical issues of our times. I'm generally familiar with space issues.


 * Judging Philosophy:** The best way to win my ballot is to make evaluative arguments, especially in the final rebuttals, that instruct me how to compare the relevant arguments in the round. For example, the disad outweighs the case... the timeframe of the case is immediate so I look their first before the disad. If you do not instruct me on how to evaluate the arguments in the round, I will have to impose my own criteria. I say this before every debate but find that very few debaters actually do it.


 * Topicality:** I certainly feel that it's a voting issue, but if the case seems relevant to the topic, I'm inclined to think that the negative ought to debate it. If there's predictability and a reasonable limit and no clear abuse, I don't see a reason to exclude cases that address the topic area.


 * Counter-Plans:** I generally feel the neg should get leeway with cp's regarding conditionality to balance out the Aff's advantages. However, utopian cp's that make use of actors that are not the federal government seem to distort the fundamental question of the resolution, which places us in the position of the federal government.


 * Critiques:** I like philosophy, I understand it fairly well. I certainly have no biases against it. However, philosophical arguments carry the same burden of proof as any other argument. If the critique does not give me a reason to reject the Aff, I'm unlikely to do it. To win on your critique, you need to show that: 1. your theory is correct. 2. the correctness of your theory means that I should reject the Aff. 3. there is a good reason to vote for you.


 * Speed/Coherency/evidence:** I'm comfortable with speed, but I'm going to give more weight to evidence that I can understand. Debaters have the responsibility to speak clearly. I will call for evidence after the round.