Hill,+Luke

2015-16 Judge Philosophy

NAME Luke Hill INSTITUTION National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Constraints- Northwestern YEARS OF COACHING: 12 Rounds on 2015-16 topic: 0 (outside of practice rounds at institute)


 * General thoughts: **

My main preference is that people debate about what they think is important, they have fun, and are courteous to other members of the community. I think that impact and link comparisons are very important and should dictate my final decision in a round. Whoever articulates the most probable significant harms not necessarily the largest usually wins the round. It is very important that rebutallists crystallize these scenarios and do not leave me to my own devices after the round.

I am comfortable with debaters presenting arguments and the fastest speed they can clearly communicate at. I will warn debaters once about clarity, after that speaker points will decline and flow accuracy will be in question. “The real measure of your speed is the number of arguments that the judge requires your opponent to answer” - RKS

I can be convinced to use any paradigm to evaluate a round. If no one in the debate directs me how to evaluate the round I default to a policy making paradigm.

I will read a limited amount of evidence after a round when directed to by the final speakers, by argument type and author, in order to resolve contested points in the round. Teams that explain how evidence relates to their opponents arguments in the round will be rewarded with speaker points and have a better chance for the win.


 * Topicality ** This argument should be used to create a vision for the topic outlining what type of debates should be encouraged and what type should avoided. You will need to win both that the Aff does not fit into your vision of the topic and why your vision of the topic should be preferred over others that the Aff does fit into. My default position is that the Affirmative team should read a topical plan. The burden is on the Affirmative to convince me that their advocacy requires a complete severance from the topic and definite course of action.


 * Counterplans: ** I like competitive literature based counterplans. I rarely find counterplans whose competition is based on possible implementations of the plan credible. Theoretical objections to counterplans are rarely reasons to vote against the team, but are often opportunities for Affirmative teams to justify creative arguments of their own devising.


 * Kritiks: ** Make your criticism specific to the affirmative case and advantages being argued. Remember to include reasons why the impact should outweigh or turn the case. A framework for evaluating impacts if very useful in comparing the two proposed worlds of the Aff and Neg. From the Aff a discussion of the importance of the affirmative plan or action and how those impacts outweigh or are not solved by the alternative are crucial. Links of omission and non-unique disads are not often winners for me. Both sides should explain their arguments in these rounds, especially if the subject matter is beyond traditional Foucault and Cap K’s. Aff teams often let negatives get away with far too much in how their alternative functions, be it in the vagueness of the alternative mechanism or the likelihood of the alternative fixing the problem outlined.