Davis,+James

James Davis

Judging philosophy for james davis

I like judging debates…when they are good. I don’t like judging debates…when they are not good or when im not being paid.

I’m impressionable. You can convince me that I like anything. I’m a little bi-curious about arguments in general. So run what you want, and run it well and im sure I will vote for you…Or the other team…depending on circumstances.

I like counterplans. Sometimes I like two or three (in the 2nc). Russell told me I like textually competitive counterplans, but my heart tells me I also like functionally competitive counterplans…

I like disads…but generally I prefer the impact to disads be Dillon 99. okay fine, I like all kinds of impacts. I like really big…long…impact cards. But sometimes…big is too big, sometimes you can make big bangs happen with smaller…impacts and they are just as good.

My mind is not made up on critiques or kritiks…whatever you nihilists call em. Affs are stupid to not limit the scope of the alternative. And Negs are stupid for not completely abusing any aff who fails to limit their scope. You don’t get extra points for being “fair”…you get extra points for limiting the time it takes me to make a decision. Alright, so my mind might be made up now…I like critikques too. I like when the impacts of krittiques culminate in a trade war…okay fine I like all kinds of K impacts too….oh one more thing, I like for you to give your argument a cute name, anything other than “The K”…. the ontology of poon for example may be a lovely name for a K.

Topicality: I will vote on it. If you sound good at it I may even consider not jacking your speaks. But if you don’t…My mind will be replaying scenes in continuous loop of me dying in an airplane crash. Yes I will be imaging my own death throughout your speech and my decision. Imagine what your speaks might be when im constantly envisioning one of my greatest fears (note: I loath flying).

Non-traditional argumentation; I like arguments with claims and warrants. I like that they have a link and an impact. Im not so dumb that I can’t figure out what the claim/warrant/link/impact are though. You don’t have to call them a link/impact. Basically, make a justification for what you do and make it compellingly. If you don’t enjoy nontraditional arguments – you can still defeat them in conventional ways like framework…just interact with their arguments, make a justification and make it compellingly. A lot of you framework hacks need to know tho that….some good old fashion impact turns might just be the best route.

take it easy, -James P. Diddy Davis, but please...call me the mudman.