Judge Philosophies
Andrew Harvey - GCC
n/a
Bradley Murg - SeaPac
n/a
Katie Mullaney - Covenant
n/a
Kristina Campos - ACU
<p>I was a CX debater in high school (in the Dallas, TX circuit), and NDT/CEDA debater at ACU in college (we broke at CEDA nats several years), and now I coach Parli and Worlds at ACU.</p> <p>I have been away from the debate world for the last 12 years while pursuing a Ph.D. and starting out as a professor. So, I understand the basics of all the arguments you will make, however, I might not always know the latest name for it. So, make sure you explain to me what it is instead of assuming I know. </p> <p>--Speed is fine. If I can't understand you, I will let you know. </p> <p>--T debates are fine. </p> <p>--Theory debates are fine.</p> <p>--Critiques are fine. I used to run them all the time and enjoy a good critique debate</p> <p>--Framework debates are fine. </p> <p>--Normal policy debates are fine.</p> <p>--I'm iffy on performance debates, probably not a good idea with me.</p> <p>I prefer a strong overview and/or impact analysis in the PMR and LOR. </p> <p>My default judging paradigm is utilitarian, but I will let you put me in a different paradigm if the argument is good. </p> <p>I am still getting reacquainted with the nuances of arguments that are popular now. So, you probably will want to ask me some more specific questions before the round starts. </p> <p>After reading through other judging philosophies, I realized I have to tell you that I won't vote for teams that are rude or actually abusive to their opponents. (what?!?, how is this not common sense). Please use courtesy and be nice to each other, you can be assertive and make good arguments without being a jerk. I am not impressed by big egos or people who need to make themselves feel stronger by being ugly/rude/offensive to others. That is a good way to lose my ballot. </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Paul Broussard - Covenant
n/a
Sam Leist - Notre Dame
<p>My background includes three years of parliamentary debate experience in college, as well as one and a half years of coaching parli. I have judged multiple tournaments.</p> <p>My approach to decision-making is a form of tabula rasa. I endeavor to enter each roundas a blank slate, and will only use information given to me by the debaters. That said, if anargument is based on what is very obviously false information, then I reserve the right to ignore that argument. Essentially, I will accept information given to me as true unless it is very obviously not true; in such a case, I will either award points from that argument to the other team, or drop it completely. A team who encounters an argument based on clearly false information should point it out to me in order to better guarantee a win on that point; I will not make an argument for you.</p> <p>As far as presentation/communication skills are concerned, I do look for effectivecommunication of argument. That said, a team which sounds good but is lacking substance will always lose to a team with effective communication and substantive argumentation. Substance first, flash second. In a substantive tie, however, quality of communication may impact my decision.</p> <p>I don’t have any particular preference when it comes to balancing on and off-case argumentation, but I generally find that teams which argue both sides make the better arguments. Arguing that one case entirely offsets the other is a risky tactic, though one which can succeed. I don’t love kritik arguments, but a good kritik can be a valuable addition to a debate round. If the kritik is thrown in because a team’s argument is lacking substance, then it will generally not be well-received. If it is used in balance with substantive arguments, however, I generally don’t mind a K argument. Counterplans are encouraged where relevant. Topicality arguments are fine, as long as they are not used as a stalling tactic in order to disguise a lack of substantive arguments.</p> <p>Points of Order are fine, but make sure to: (1) make it obvious to the judge that a POI is being made and (2) where possible, reference which rule you believe the point falls under.</p>
Stephen McKerihan - Covenant
n/a
Taylor Katz - ACU
<p>I'm a new member of the debate community, so arguments that are highly technical, overly reliant on jargon, or exotic in nature are not likely your best bet. I'm interested in narrative, so the best way to gain my support is to have a clear story. Give me a strong summary and let me know why you deserve my vote. I'm not particularly familiar with the customs, rituals, or culture of the debate community, so the best thing you can do is be courteous and professional.<br /> <br /> Quickness of speech is welcome if accompanied by an equal measure of clarity of speech. Arguments that are out of place have little impact on me, so make sure to signpost. An argument that doesn't seem to be anywhere may as well not be anywhere.<br /> <br /> Emotional appeals and shock value are more likely to draw my scrutiny than my praise. I respect levelheadedness and clear reasoning. You're welcome to use any kind of argument you'd like, but I tend to find it more compelling when the debate sticks close to the topic at hand and does not become a debate about the nature of debate.<br /> <br /> On a personal note, almost no Star Trek reference will be lost upon me.</p>