Johnson,+Paul

Johnson, Paul

Affiliation: Iowa

Rounds Judged: 12

Institutional History- debated at MBA, then four years in college at Pitt, have coached at Wake Forest and the University of Iowa, where I am currently seeking a PHD in communication studies.

Philosophy: I would like to say that I am “open” to any style or argument, but doesn’t everyone say that even if they don’t mean it? Well, I really mean it. I have little in the way of argumentative preferences in terms of what category of arguments you tend to gravitate towards. Within each genre- I have some thoughts, but one overarching meta-consideration should guide you: you should do what you think you need to do to win the debate, and you should do it well.

Idiosyncracies: I don’t always think you need a card to make an argument. I find textual competition to be stupid, and functional competition to be intelligent (with the caveat that textual competition becomes relevant depending on how framework/discourse questions are settled). Good strategic choice, cross-examination, and comparative analysis between your evidence/arguments and the other team’s will result in excellent speaker points. With kritks, the link is often the alternative (both negative and affirmative teams fail to point this out). I yearn for the golden era of the Clinton DA. Presumption is a gnarly beast- it lies with the negative unless the negative runs a counterplan, but if that counterplan does less change than the Aff plan.

Issues:

Disads and case arguments- ummm, everyone ever likes these. I’ll say no more.

Theory- I think that people should be able to adequately defend the practices that they employ. Defense is sufficient for me typically. I’ve particularly been known to vote on theory in debates involving say, consult counterplans. PICS, conditionality seem somewhat more legitimate to me. My threshold for these argument is still fairly high. Reject the argument not the team has always made some sense to me.

Counterplans- duh. These are great. Ones that cheat too much (Consult, International Fiat) may not be the best. Haven’t seen veto-cheato in a long time- which is good. I mean, its good that I haven’t seen it in a while.

Topicality- rock and roll. Reasonability is historically something I respond to. I have become a less liberal T judge over ver the last couple of years Kritiks- well I already addressed counterplans and disads, and in some ways both of those arguments are the two components of most critiques. A well done kritik debate is one of my favorites, a poorly done critique debate will always get my blood boiling. I think a lot of times everyone sort of loses sight of the LINK debate, and what that means. Generally, for the negative it means that a) you have access to an impact b) the affirmative’s ability to solve may be compromised. These are claims the negative must advance and explain. For the Aff, I’ve seen so many debates lost because the affirmative simply does not respond to thesis of the critique. Aff impacts that’s are outside of the access of the negative’s crtitique are often necessary.

Framework- I get it- if I think Euthanasia is a rock band, then I can’t have a discussion. Look, these debates always occur. They are important because they filter out what I, as a judge, am supposed to evaluate. But framework doesn’t answer every critique (just like every critique doesn’t answer every aff advantage). Don’t’ rely too heavily on this argument- to the critiques which it is responsive, like discourse critiques or dirty word K’s, yea, I get it. But if someone runs a critique which amounts to “your plan supports a bad system, don’t do that”, well look, if the negative can point out why that’s a reason I should not vote for you, makes sense to me.