Andre,+Ross

=**Ross Andre**= Ross Andre – Emory 2009 Judging Philosophy

I debated for Emory from 2004 to 2008; I now judge for Emory. I coached and judged for Chattahoochee from 04-05 and have coached and judged for Westminster High School since 2005. I am currently in my second year at Emory Law.

I try to be as unbiased and objective as possible in debates but I am probably not the judge that you want in the back of the room if you think that the topic warrants rejection, if you don’t believe that you should read a plan, or if you think that audio/visual presentations supersede the value of speed-oriented technical debate. If you don’t strike me that isn’t to say that you can’t win, but I really tend to believe in the value of traditional debate. Convince me otherwise if that’s your goal.

In general, I prefer good technical debate with meaningful impact development on disads, engaging counterplans, critiques with an actual link to the affirmative and a reasonable alternative. There isn’t any counterplan that, off the top of my head, I think is unfair to debate. I will let the debaters decide that issue. Maybe I just haven't thought it through enough, but if something is truly unfair for one side or another, show me why.

I am not averse to any sort of technical argument like ASPEC or topicality and try to evaluate each according to the framework established in the debate—though, in the absence of one, I tend to default to competing interpretations.

I often read a lot of evidence. You should be the one telling me what cards to read if you think they win the debate for you. However, I am not going to do the work to understand your argument if you don’t explain it. I’ll read cards to assess the truth of what you say, not the substance of it from the outset. The onus is on you to explain.

When it comes to theory debates, I’m willing to listen to arguments on either side for any issue. The only one where I can see myself having a bias is on conditionality, where I lean aff, especially if there are multiple in-round counterplans or new non-strategic conditional counterplans in the 2NC.

98% of what I learned from debate came from David Heidt and Jon Paul Lupo – if you like the way that they debated and/or the way that they judge and decide debates, that is the closest approximation to how I inherently view debate. 98% of what I learned about judging came from Will Repko – if you like the way that he judges, that is an approximation of what I try for. But faster.