Herndon,+James

James H. Herndon Emory University

This paragraph isn't new, it was just at the bottom previously, and is edited now: *If I am judging you and you are freaking out about it, believe there is no way I would ever vote for you, or are just generally making assumptions about my world view, then I ask you to keep in mind that the preceding list are things I think I think. I have been wrong more often than I have been right. I will do my best to evaluate the debate neutrally. I view myself as an educator first, and do my best to neutrally evaluate the arguments as defended in front of me. Though, like all educators I have biases, those follow. I. New Statements These statements are things I believe to be true about my judging:

1. Debate is a game. I view all theory arguments through this lens.

2. If I don’t understand it I am probably not going to vote on it.

3. The Aff should have to defend a plan or advocacy statement that they can defend is topical.

4. Topic related critical literature should be debated.

5. I will deduct speaker points for rudeness.

6. I will reward good cross-x with speaker points bonuses.

7.. I tend to evaluate the strength of the link in tandem with uniqueness – neither exists in a vacuum.

8. Counterplans always switch presumption to the aff.

9. I will NOT kick counterplans for the negative. The 2nr is allowed to present me with a reason to vote for them, that is where the debating ended. If the neg says to kick the cp and the aff doesn’t answer it I will kick it. Absent that, I am not kicking arguments for one team. This applies to all speeches.

10. Dropped doesn’t mean you win. Dropped means that the other team has conceded that the premise of that argument is true. Your job is to explain the significance of that premise for the rest of the debate. This applys to everything.

11. literature shapes the topic. and what you get to do with it.

14. Telling me how to interpret your evidence versus their evidence is what speaker points are made of.

15. There is value to life.

16. Any and all references to "My Little Pony" will be rewarded with higher speaker points....unless they're really bad references, in which case you will lose speaker points.

Good luck.

This is my old judge philosophy and quotations I still think are true:

I just pulled quotations that I liked that wanted people to re-read.

1. “I like the politics disad” / “Politics. . I think teams over-rely on it” I like politics disads - particularly disads that link to the aff.

It’s great but there are other disads. I like all disads.

2. “Conditionality has gray areas”

Teams that can impact what the neg has specifically done as bad combined with a negative that remains generic will do well.

3. “Literature is a big thing for me in determining the abuse of an issue”

If you have evidence its probably legitimate to argue.

4. “I prefer debates about whether a plan should be done or not”

Pretty self explanatory.

5. “I like to have counterplans and alts explained to me at some point in the debate. If the first time I understand what they do is after the round it will greatly impact how much they solve.”