Judging Philosophy
Anne Marie Todd
University of Southern California
Rounds on the Topic: 40+
I am willing to listen to any argument. I vote on arguments that are well articulated--with some semblance of an overview--and have warrants and implications. I try to only read evidence that is referenced in the debate, and I prefer evidence that is really used in a debate, not just read--that is, explain the argument of the card, and any reasons given. I am skeptical of new arguments in general, particularly in the last two rebuttals, but my decision is more influenced by your identification of specific instances. Teams that compare evidence and arguments are more likely to win my ballot. Specifically, I vote negative on Topicality about 60% of the time, when teams have a compelling interpretation combined with reasons to vote that have warrants and implications. Affirmatives are more likely to win topicality debates when they have counter-interpretations or actually defend their plan as topical. I do not have any specific biases regarding theory debates, but I am not persuaded by theory 'arguments' that are not explained or do not have warrants. I vote on kritiks about 50% of the time, when they have SPECIFIC links and well-explained implications. Affs tend to lose kritik debates when they do not answer the link. In general offensive 2ACs help the aff win my ballot, as do negative temas that capitalize on the obscure complextities of their strategy (and affirmative mistakes). Finally, please talk about the relationships between arguments, and when in doubt, be funny. Ask my any questions, or points of clarification you may have--AMT