FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Andrew Harvey - GCC

n/a

Bob Becker - Northwest

As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round.  I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so.  To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues.  Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important.  All of that said, I am not an information processor.  I am a human being and so are you.  If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance. When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose.  I think there needs to be resolutional analysis to justify affirmative choices.  Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions.  Left to my own devices, I will evaluate procedurals (topicality), then look to disadvantages and then case. I’ll evaluate kritiks wherever you tell me to place them in the order of things. I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast.  I will tell you if I can't understand you.  Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying.  Above all, be professional. This activity is fun.  That’s why I’m here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well. I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. I’m fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. “We don’t like the resolution” doesn’t cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some “contradictory arguments good” answers. Performance based arguments need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you don’t tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I don’t require competing interpretations. I think PICs are abusive, but that doesn’t make them bad. If they are so awful, you ought to be able to beat them. There are theoretical arguments to be made as to why they are bad, as well as why they are good. Make some arguments. I think the opp should, at least as a courtesy, identify the status of the CP and explain what that means. Mostly I think textual competition of perms is all right but, if pressed, probably an aff will want to show that it is functionally competitive as well. As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says “one million deaths” and the other says “dehume,” but doesn’t explain why dehume is worse than deaths, I’ll vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then I’ll vote for dehume. I think I’m telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.

Dylan Brugman - ACU

TL;DR version: I don’t think that my job is to define for you the way that debate should be done. You should debate what you’re good at, not what I did/liked as a debater. **The only caveat: Please read interpretations/plan texts/and alt texts twice. That is the best way for me to get them down. Texts would be even better, but do what you want there. Longer version: General: I think that debates are won on offense, and I think that debates are won on strategy. I think that debate is capable in some ways of being a tool of liberation and expression, but I think that it is primarily a game to be played by two teams. The educational aspect of debate is nice, but if debate were about education, I would expect both teams to read textbooks to me about calculus or something during their speech. Win however you can and in whatever way you can. Speed: Hardly ever an issue. Clarity and argument depth often is. The way I flow is: I flow the claim and then flow the warrants underneath them. If I miss the claim, I flow the warrants and infer the claim from those warrants. If I miss both, your arguments are not warranted enough for me to write them down, and I will tell you to slow down. If you are unclear, then I will yell clear. Your options are to either become more clear, or slow down until you are clear. Or keep mumbling I guess. Theory/T/Procedurals: Run them. I default to competing interpretations, and that is the best way for me to evaluate theory, because it comes down to whoever debated it best and requires (arguably) the least intervention on my part; however, if I am given arguments as to why potential/proven abuse is good reason to pull the trigger, or why I shouldn't evaluate T, and the other team fails to provide an adequate answer, I’ll bite. Topicality is a voting issue, it is not a reverse voting issue. It's your fault if you let T become a time-suck. SPECs are generally for bad debaters. The Criticism: Can be run on the aff or the neg. Affs can be topical or not topical (as long as you win that you get to run a non topical aff), and affs can use fiat or not use fiat. A note about the criticism: If it is general/you assume that both teams understand it, I don’t need a thesis. If you are running something that I’m not familiar with/is super complicated, I would run a SHORT thesis. Most of the criticism’s that I ran were environmental, fem, and queer. I understand race pretty well, but if you start into post-structural, European philosophers like Baudrillard, Agamben, Derrida or the like, I need some indication of the thesis of the argument. For some reason, reading a bunch of leftist white academics wasn’t a thing we did at ACU in my undergraduate. That being said, I like hearing new things, if they are explained to me. I debated the criticism a lot as a debater, but in my old age, I prefer a Disad/CP debate. I also like DA/CP/K debate a lot if the negative can win condo. Criticisms/Turns of language in the PMC/LO/MG are generally ok. They are arguments that force the other team to spend time answering, which is always a good thing. Sometimes they make the other team look silly too, that can’t hurt your chances, right? On narratives/performance: Do it if you want, but when you introduce your own stories and experiences into a competitive environment, you make them competitive, and weaponizing identity doesn't help anybody in my experience. Do not physically hurt yourself or others in front of me (I cannot believe that I have to put this in a judging philosophy now). We should protect our activity and the people in it, and physical violence, I'm afraid, is not a good way to do this. Permutations are good to run on the aff. So are impact turns, and so is framework. And if you want to run a framework that policymaking is the only way to evaluate the round, I’ll evaluate that. Framing them out of the round is a good way to win. In general, I default to seeing permutations as tests of competitiveness, but will gladly hear all of the arguments about why they’re more than that. In general, when answering the criticism, do anything to win. Conditionality/multiple worlds: I don’t mind voting for a conditional argument, I also don’t mind voting on condo. I don’t care if you run three counter plans and a K, I don’t care if they conflict, and I don’t care if you collapse out of all of them into case turns. You should be the best condo debaters you can be though, because if you lose on condo or multiple worlds, I’ll vote against you. My favorite opp strat to watch as a judge is DA/CP/K debate. But each team should have one strategy that they're going for in the rebuttals. Opposition, you should go for one sheet of paper in the block (unless its a Disad/CP combo). Don't you dare stick to both disads. That is so bad. It's like the worst part of debate. Trust me enough to vote in the direction that you tell me. Disads: Are good. I like them to be big, and really like to have “burnt, dead bodies” in a disad. Dehume impacts are fine, and so are value to life arguments. With all disads, specificity is key (especially with politics). Lazy debaters are rarely rewarded, and many disads are lazy. Counterplans: Run as many as you want and run whatever you want. If you’re on the aff, run theory and run disads to the Counterplans. Also, permutations. Those are always a good thing. Case Debate: Offense is better than defense, but I think that impact defense (or impact turns) can be a pretty powerful tool. A note on impacts: I like impact calc, and I think it makes things easier for me. I default to extinction outweighs Dehume, but I am also very open to hearing impact frameworks that prioritize certain impacts over others. Everybody should let Ben Campbell teach them how to do impact calc, because that's the exact way that I feel about it. Speaker Points/Etiquette/etc: I don't call the house to order, I don't even know how to do that. I don't particularly like thank yous, but go for it I guess. I don't care if you talk to your partner or prompt them. I don't care if you stand or sit. You should wear some kind of clothing, but beyond that, you do what you want. I pretty much roll out of bed every morning. I don't care if you stand or sit, if you say "point of information" or not, or if you do the little teapot shin-dig when you ask a question (you know the hand on the head and the other one outstretched? Yeah, that's pretty silly). I always liked it when I felt that debaters were friendly to me, and I always disliked debaters that were not friendly to me. I think that for a lot of teams, being welcoming to them is important, inside and outside the round. Last year, I felt that my own RFD's were kind of mean spirited, and I'm trying to be more helpful in giving debaters an RFD that seems well justified. Because of that, I'll always flow on paper, but I'll probably open up my laptop afterwards and type up my RFD to read back to you. This is the best way for me to lay out the round and make the best decision possible. In addition, I promise to be respectful of you in my decision, and will always say something that is honest, but also encouraging. That being said, during the debate, I'm not very expressive, and may even look a little perturbed. I'm not, I promise, that's just the way that my face looks. I like jokes and references from Dungeons and Dragons, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Warhammer 40k, Firefly, Isaac Asimov books, The Sopranos, The Wire, The West Wing, Slavoj Zizek, my main man Barry-O, Kim Il-Sung/Jong-il/jong-un, and other weird things. Speaker points: My speaker points were a little lower than average last year, so I tried to change that this year, and create a more reliable/valid scale for speaker points. It is as follows: if I give you a 27, I think that you are a good debater, if I give you a 28, I think that you should be breaking, if I give you a 29, I think that you should be getting a speaker award, If I give you a 30, I think that you should be in finals. You want good speaker points? Then your rebuttal should be my RFD.

Jason Edwards - GCC

n/a

Jeannie Hunt - Northwest

I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of  intervention on my part.  That means a couple of things.  You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round.  I don’t care what that framework is, but I want one. If there is debate about that criteria, make sure that the theory is clear and there are specific reasons why one framework is preferable to the other.  That framework is what I will follow, so please don’t set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits at the end.  More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.  I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, something tangible for me to vote on.  Absent that, I have to intervene.  There are no specific arguments that I prefer over another.  I will vote on pretty much anything and I am game for pretty much anything.  I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions or present narratives that you don't want attached to the curency of a ballot, which is what presenting the narrative in the round really comes down to.  If you run a k you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about.  However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out…  This is true of any theory based argument you choose to run.  I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important.  If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don’t have to spend time flowing it. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well. Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective.  I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K.  Make sure the framework is very specific so I don’t have to abandon objectivity all together. Finally, make your own arguments.  If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago.  Prompting someone with a statement like, “go to the DA” is fine.  Making an argument that is then repeated is not. Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn’t mean you should have no style.  You should be clear, structured and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is team).  You can at least take off your hat. Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.  Speed is not a problem if it is clear.  Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round - that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what could have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is really just you saying think you should have won on that argument. Because I don’t want to intervene, I don’t appreciate points of order.  You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way.  Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn’t vote on new arguments.  I won’t.  If you feel particularly abused in the round, and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill advised.  I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.

Kaylen Runyan - ACU

I am a graduate assistant at ACU. I did not debate in undergrad, but I was a Communication major and have minor experience through one debate class. With what I have learned this year as a Speech and Debate graduate assistant, I have received additional experience. I will evaluate rounds through the weighing of impacts. Due to lack of experience in debate, I prefer a conversational level of speaking though I will not vote down based on speed. The fairest way for me to evaluate will be through case-disadvantage rather than criticism or counter-plan.  If you have any questions please ask.

Lexi Weyrick - APU

n/a

Judge Philosophies

Andrew Harvey - GCC

Bob Becker - Northwest

Dylan Brugman - ACU

Jason Edwards - GCC

Jeannie Hunt - Northwest

Kaylen Runyan - ACU

Lexi Weyrick - APU

Sean Hansen - Pepperdine

Taya Stewart - Pepperdine

2017 AEI & CCU Values & Capitalism Invitational Tournament

Judge Philosophies

Andrew Harvey - GCC

Bob Becker - Northwest

Dylan Brugman - ACU

Jason Edwards - GCC

Jeannie Hunt - Northwest

Kaylen Runyan - ACU

Lexi Weyrick - APU

Sean Hansen - Pepperdine

Taya Stewart - Pepperdine