Hoggatt,+James

James Hoggatt LD Judging Paradigm:

Affiliation: Brookfield East High School, Competed nationally on the TOC circuit in LD during high school, competed in Parliamentary debate during college. Working on my Masters in Socio-Linguistics.

Value/Criterion: I'm extremely progressive on this topic. I feel that the debate is ultimately decided in the metaphysical realm and as there is very few empirics you can run strongly on the topic, however; this does not mean I am rejecting disads. Give me something to chew on here, more than usual. I think a lot of the debate is going to be framework and theory.

I will accept Anti-values, Standards, etc instead of a traditional V/VC structure. You can advocate a standardless debate as well as long as you give me good theory to back it up.

Definitions Debate: I will only vote on a definition if it goes dropped and really does redefine the debate in a way that I can only vote for one side. That being said, if you present me a really shady definition that defines it so that the Aff/Neg has no chance of winning the round and they provide a legitimate and fair definition in response I, as a judge, am always going to favor the definition that provides equality to the grounds of both sides. I have a degree in Linguistics, please don't BS me in the definitions debate.

Types of Arguments: I will accept any type of argumentation you throw at me as long as its well argued with warrants and impacts. You can kritik the resolution, read me poetry that helps me better understand the plight of the needy, K the opponents case, his language, run a narrative alternative, run a priori reasons to negate, or tell me my ballot is a tool and I should vote for you for some obscure yet well argued reason. I personally believe that good argument is good argument, and if you give me reason why it should be the voting issue in the round I will vote on it. That being said if you provide an argument that requires me to accept something completely non-sequitur with reality I will not vote on it, in other words if you tell me I should affirm because there are only 49 states and that is a prime number, I won't vote on it because, well, there aren't and its not. Otherwise I don't intervene.

I can easily follow complex philosophical theory, I have taught classes on modern postmodernist movements, so if you want to take a trip through the desert of the real, I have no issue with grasping your context.

Voters: Give them to me, if you don't I will intervene strangely and vote in ways you won't like. Tell me how to vote, this is your round and not mine. You don't have to give them all at once, but if they aren't given I am left without a methodology to adjudicate things

Speed: Go for it. However, a spreader beats a non-spreader about 50/50 in my world, because in the end they both come down to about the same number of arguments in the end, as generally spreaders don't provide quality argument. Quality over Quantity.

Decorum: Be nice. Otherwise I don't care. I don't watch the round, I listen to it, debate how you feel you will debate the best, if that means without your jacket on because its hot and constricting your neck, take it off. If your feet are pained because of 3 inch heels, take them off.

Weighing: Please weigh your impacts, if you tell me that I should vote aff for puppies, and I should vote neg for kitties, I'll be happy you've given me voters, but lost on how I'm supposed to weigh them, so link back through your criterion or make sure I understand they are real world impacts outside the resolution.

You can reach me at: James.hoggatt@Live.com for clarification or just ask me before round. If you want more clarification on an RFD feel free to email me as well.