2011 D1 "Last Chance for Legs"
CSU, Northridge - Mar 4 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
AJ Moorehead - CSULA
n/a
Alan Campfield - CSUN
n/a
Alexis Gardner - CSULA
Andrew West - CSUN
n/a
Angela Gregory - Chabot College
n/a
Ben Miller - Long Beach
n/a
Brandon Anderson - Long Beach
n/a
J. Edward Stevenson - CSUN
n/a
Julianna Kirschner - CSUN
n/a
Mickey Korac - CSUN
n/a
Mike Harrison - CCSF
n/a
Mike Harrison - CCSF
n/a
Paul Davis - Azusa
Sue Peterson - Chico
<p>I primarily participated in CEDA/NDT debate as a competitor and coach for the last 20 years. We made the move to NFA-LD four years ago and I haven’t looked back. I consider myself to be open to most decision-making criteria, but I default to an offense/defense, cost-benefit calculus minus further instructions. </p> <p>I do not enjoy adjudicating performance debate. I like for affirmatives to have a plan text that clearly identifies the government action that is being advocated and then solvency advocates for that government action. </p> <p>I like when the debaters clearly identify the key voting issues from their perspective and do impact analysis in those areas. Simply said, I like for the rebuttals to “write my ballot” for me. </p> <p>The best rounds are those with good evidence AND good analysis. The worst rounds are those with neither of those things. I love a good topicality debate that gets to the heart of predictable, educational and fair ground on the topic. I also like good counterplan/disad debates that clearly identify the competitive points and focus the debate on that competition. I am okay with theory debates, but I think they need to have a real purpose in the round (read – I don’t like cheap shot theory arguments as voting issues) and they need to have clear warrants for why I should vote on the them other than “It’s abusive”. I have no problem with criticisms, but I feel like the limited speech time and having only two speeches usually results in an underdeveloped argument. So, if you run one, be sure to consider that and try to develop it as an argument, not just repeat taglines. </p> <p>Overall, be nice to one another, have fun, but most important, be smart!</p> <p>Because NFA-LD has an actual “rule” relating to speed of delivery, we should at least give that rule a “nod” in rounds. So, just because I am fine with you talking fast in a debate, if your opponent or other judges on a panel feel that speed is a hindrance to their performance and states that out loud before the round, we should honor it. My least favorite thing is listening to speed critiques or requests for others to slow down from someone who is talking relatively quickly – don’t be hypocritical. I also think that clarity is a key component in these discussions. Some people can talk fast and be totally understandable. Others, not so much.</p> <p><strong>Arguments that probably won't go well for you in front of me: </strong>Performance, debate bad arguments and reverse voting issues on topicality. Underdeveloped theory arguments. Critiques that are contradicted by other arguments you are making in the round without some justification for that contradiction. </p>