Judge Philosophies

Bill - Eddy

Number of Judging
YEARS
High School 10
College 2
Number of Judged
TOURNAMENTS
High School 2
College 3
Number of Judged
ROUNDS
High School 10
College 20

Background:
Currently, I am a "Parli" debater for Vanguard University in Costa Mesa, CA.
Last year I debated both Parli and Policy (ICC mostly).
Prior to my returning to college, I have extensive judging in High School (Policy & LD).
I stopped judging and coaching back in 1995, and returned to college debate in 2000; so there are some gaps in my understanding of theory and practices that have been advanced since 1995.

In Round:
I prefer to have the debaters write my ballot for me by weighing the issues in the round. I vote on the flow, so the arguments advanced and defended are needed to be carried through to their logical extension - please bring the debate to a terminal level with severity and magnitude of the argument made explicit (especially in rebuttals).

Speed is fine, but I am not well enough practiced to keep up with the fastest speakers. Knowing this, I will mention it when you're going too fast for me.

If you're going for the Kritik, please give me justification for the framework that you are advancing. I prefer case clash, and have mentioned that I do not appreciate the use of Kritiks to distract us from the case presented - however, I do believe that a negative team can and should prove that the assumptions of the affirmative are flawed and that the consequences can be severe enough to turn the case, or warrant rejection of the affirmative altogether. I prefer an alternative for competitive arguments, if you go for negation you will be risking my internal bias that "no alternative" equates to "not competitive" and "wrong forum" responses thereby have more weight with me than my peers.

I enjoy PIC's especially celebrity ones. I prefer exclusionary CP's and believe two significant things about Counter-Plans;
1. That the negative should solve for the affirmative case harms, or at least explain/justify why they don't need to in this case (as I will still go for net-benefits).
2. A CP does not need to be non-topical, mutually exclusive, or anything else so long as there are "Net-Benefits." If it is possible to do both Plan and a part of CP, would it be most advantageous to do both all of plan and that part of the Counter-Plan?

Topicality is fine with me but I really prefer case clash to definitions clash. I prefer a negative team to demonstrate how the affirmative fails to meet their own interpretation rather than failing to meet the interpretation of the negative team. I have a predisposition toward "reasonability" as a primary standard. I tend to believe that the negative is entitled to "reasonable" ground and not necessarily the negative's preferred ground.

In terms of other procedural arguments, I prefer articulated and proven abuse rather than simply claiming some potential for abuse. I thereby require justification for any technical argument that either team attempts to advance in the round. I am very partial to arguments that clearly demonstrate any attempts to shift advocacy; mostly on the part of the affirmative, but I also believe that the negative must remain consistent in the positions that they advance. A contradicting affirmative risks losing the ballot, and I give some lenience to the contradicting negative, who risks the positions not necessarily the ballot.

Finally:
Please be respectful to the other team. This is your activity, so I will listen to you and will vote based on the framework that you provide in the debate round. Have fun, be aggressive with your positions, and feel encouraged to try any type of argument that you believe gives you a strategic advantage – all I ask is that you justify the position with evidence, reasoning, or both.

Best Regards,
Bill-Eddy