Judge Philosophies
Abby Surprenant - UNO
n/a
Allison Bonander - UNL
n/a
Andrew Moffitt - Concordia
n/a
Anthony Cavaiani - William Woods
<p>First, I need to hear you make a clear and concise resolutional analysis. I find that when debaters cut this short and move onto their plan and advantages that arguments get misunderstood by all parties involved (competitors, judges, observers). So, lay it out clear and don’t rush through it.</p> <p>Next, your contentions should be clear and not contain a ton of wordiness. Link your contentions back to your criterion and explain the significance of your arguments. There isn’t anything that I consider to be “out of bounds” in a round. I’ll listen to any argument you want to make, but if it isn’t clearly articulated I will throw it out. I also don’t have much patience for circular logic or reasoning—so use examples and don’t over explain things just to sound intelligent.</p> <p>I’ll listen to your counterplans as long as it is mutually exclusive from the GOVs plan. I don’t care for counterplans that extend the original plan to solve for a bunch of other stuff that isn’t relevant to the round. However, if you run a counterplan I need to hear you, first, refute why the original plan is not beneficial rather than just ignoring everything the GOV has said to get to your CP. I prefer direct refutation to many CPs.</p> <p>I do make my voting decisions from the flow but if you can crystallize the issues to a few voters during your rebuttal than you really get my attention. Basically, don’t assume that just because you flowed everything over that you’ll get my vote. That is necessary but I also want to hear you explain to me why the plan should/should not be adopted according to your criterion.</p> <p>Fourth, if you run topicality don’t argue that the educational value of debate is decreased because your opponent wasn’t topical. I consider that side-stepping the issue and I will drop you because of it. Make a cogent argument for why T is appropriate and make the violation clear. I don’t consider a lack of educational value a violation. When you run T you are being forced to make a larger argument about the plan and its practicality.</p> <p>Finally, I began my forensics career as an IE judge and competitor. I don’t mind if you spread, but I do vote on delivery and presentation. I value delivery and its role in competitive debate. So, if you are rushed, have a lack of eye contact, don’t address the room, and just do not care about your audience I will probably not vote for you.</p> <p>I am always learning about the nuances of debate. I respect and delight in the pedagogy of debate. So, if you have any questions before the round feel free to ask. J</p>
Austin McDonald - HC
n/a
Craig Brown - Kansas State
n/a
Gabbi Ray - Northwest MO
n/a
Hannah Duke - HC
n/a
Harold Hynick - MOVAL
n/a
Jacob Miller - Kansas State
n/a
Joe Davis - Concordia
n/a
Kristina Medero - UNO
n/a
Mallory Marsh - UNL
n/a
Michael Taylor - Bethel
n/a
Nataleigh Brull - Northwest MO
n/a
Nick Van Ross - Northwest MO
n/a
Noelle Anderson - UNO
n/a
Tom Pinney - Northwest MO
n/a