Bosserman,+Brad

Judging Philosophy for ==Brad Bosserman==

Framework: I will default to a policy making decision calculus. I prefer to judge debates about competing policy options, although I will evaluate a different framework as long as it is justified and defended.

Disads: This is usually a good start. Impact analysis is important because I don’t want to figure out how to weigh it for you. As the aff, I’m very receptive to smart internal link arguments, whether carded or not. Having offense on the flow is crucial given that I’m quite unlikely to assign zero risk to a disad based on purely defensive arguments.

Counterplans: A very good strategy in front of me. Make your net benefits clear and make sure to weigh any solvency deficit. I feel relatively strongly that all permutations need to have actual texts. “Do both” and things of that nature leave lots of ambiguity and confusion which only results in a messy debate. Take the extra 8 seconds and write out your texts. I tend to err neg on most traditional theory arguments associated with counterplans. This is mostly do to my dislike of slogging through poorly debated theory debates but doesn’t necessarily mean that I’ll never vote on a theory argument. If you’re going to go for a theory arg make sure to implicate it well. Explain your offense and defense. And spend more than 2 seconds on it.

Topicality: I find myself being quite receptive to good T arguments. Make sure to explain exactly what your interpretation is and what it allows and disallows, as well as why this is important. “We set better limits” isn’t an argument in and of itself. I’ll default to a competing interpretations standard although I can be persuaded that it’s not the best framework for any given round.

Kritiks: I think I’ve made it clear already that I prefer to judge a debate on competing policy options, but I do vote on critical arguments fairly often. It’s important to explain how you want your arguments to function, clearly articulate the link stories and the implications. As far as kritik theory goes, you can reference my feelings on counterplan theory. I also feel the same way about textual permutations. As far as performance advocacy, I’ve voted on it before, but you’re fighting an uphill battle.

Delivery: I have a pretty high speed tolerance as long as you have a modicum of clarity. It often helps my flow to slow down on theory flows and places where there are lots of quick analytical arguments. If I have trouble flowing you, I’ll let you know.

Evidence Reading: I am much less inclined to read evidence than most. This isn’t because I don’t appreciate high quality evidence, but because I feel it is your job to explain your cards to me. If the other team’s card sucks, re-read portions of it in cross-x rather than asking me to look at it after the round. I’ll read evidence in 3 situations. 1. If the content of the evidence is in dispute. 2. If an ethical allegation is made about the evidence. 3. If I want the cites.

Ethics: I take ethics VERY seriously. It is the only place I will intervene as a judge. If you make an ethical allegation such as card clipping or taking a piece of evidence out of context I will stop the debate. If you can prove the other team committed an ethical violation they will lose. However, this goes both ways. If you make an allegation that you can’t substantiate YOU will lose.

Don't hesitate to ask me any specific questions you have prior to a round.