Johnson,+Adam

Adam Johnson (BA – Political Science, Vanderbilt;    MA – Political Science, UNC-Chapel Hill) Director of Forensics - Parish Episcopal School (It’s a new school; that’s why you haven’t heard of it) Dallas, Texas Quick Bit About Me: I was a policy debater and extemper for Montgomery Bell Academy from 1996-2000. I was a CEDA/NDT debater for Vanderbilt (my partner was Jason Fernandez – we tend to view debate pretty similarly given our shared experiences). I coached at MBA for the last decade. I continue to direct the MBA LD and Extemp Round Robins. While I have judged piles of policy debate and extemp rounds in the past, this will be my first year as a “regular” LD judge. I have judged LD from time to time, but not on a national-circuit level consistently. What does that mean for you?? Well, good question! Mainly it means that you have a national circuit-style policy debate judge in the back of the room. Because of my background in extemp though, it also means that I like a series of clear reasons at the end of the round that depict why you won the debate. Final speeches should crystallize the debate and boil it down to a handful of issues – both offensive and defensive. Personal Preferences – Don’t be unpleasant. It isn’t fun for anyone. Speed – whatever you can do is fine with me. Policy Debate speed is not an issue for me. Despite my comfort level with fast debate, no one can understand you if you’re choppy or unclear. I’ll tell you once if you’re unclear (though, even that will hurt your points), but after that you’re pretty likely to lose if I can’t understand you. Points – the norm appears to be that a ‘28’ is the expected point value for clearing at a “good” tournament. I will apply that norm. The resolution – coming from the world of policy debate, I view the resolution as an opportunity to establish why a given view of the world is more or less desirable. As such, if the impacts on your side of the resolution are more compelling and have a higher risk, you will tend to win. Value/Criterion/Framework – I’m very flexible on what this looks like. It is in your interest though to clearly establish what you have to do to win the debate. How you do that though is entirely up to you. Theory debates – are just fine. I’m comfortable with them and I don’t mind them. In fact, given the wave of change that LD has experienced in the last decade, they are probably super important right now to remove absurd strategies that bias debates. To me, it all comes down to whether the practice is educationally beneficial and fair. Because of that, the interpretation and standards debate must be clearly developed to win on theory. I do share Joe Vaughan’s belief though that Theory debates are just begging for intervention. It is almost impossible to sort them out without intervening at some level, so proceed with caution. Evidence - I like it, but I probably like it differently than a lot of people. I like hard cord evidence throw downs, but do not just get up and read 4 cards to extend every argument and expect me to piece the debate together at the end. Evidence is a tool; it does not make an argument on its own. Good debates involve serious discussions about why a given piece of evidence is better than another. That means evaluating ** __WHO__ ** wrote it, evaluating ** __WHAT__ ** they wrote, and establishing ** __WHY__ ** the evidence maters in the debate. Simply telling me that a Harvard professor wrote something isn’t super persuasive – I think most of them are nuts. I want to know why this card makes a good argument and how it ** __INTERACTS__ ** with the argument that your opponent made. Policy style Arguments – are just fine. I am familiar with all of them. Here is my big picture comment though – having a T violation, a CP, and 2 DAs does not make you cooler. Use these tools when you think it presents a more compelling case for why your side of the debate wins. Critical Arguments – are fine. I’m definitely a blank slate and will listen to anything. My experience in policy debate leads me to believe that “many,” though certainly not all, critical debaters have selected critical arguments because they are somewhat lazy. They essentially read the exact same argument every round (aff or neg) and apply it very poorly to the situation at hand. If that is your style of critical debate, I am not the person for you! If you have a critical argument WITH AN ACTUAL LINK, then by all means proceed! The only caveat is that I am not a philosopher and I do not aspire to become one. I am not going to be at all familiar with your post-modern weirdo of the day. So you need to make sure that I understand what you’re talking about. Despite my previous comment about speed, an NC filled to the brim with 30 kritik cards is probably going to leave me wondering what your core argument actually intended to communicate. My degrees are in Political Science and I am very familiar with that literature. So, just remember that there is an exactly 0% chance that I have read what you’re now reading to me in a critical debate. I spend my free time playing with my kids, watching Vanderbilt sports, and paying attention to politics. I do not spend it reading new age philosophy. If you do, that’s great, but just know that I have ZERO familiarity with it. Language Kritiks – I’m just not the judge for these. I imagine that I could vote on one in the most egregious case ever, but I suspect that I am unlikely to ever see that situation. After the round – I am more than happy to discuss my decision with you. I am going to give you a handful of bullet points that attempt to share my thoughts on where my decision came from. In addition, if I have some big picture advice, I will share that as well. I think that our activity has gotten a little too into oral critiques. Our tournaments last hours longer into the night because we sit around and talk about the debate for 45 minutes every round. I am going to make my personal stand against this trend starting this year. So do not expect me to go through every single argument you make. If you do not understand something about my decision, feel free to ask – I’m friendly!