FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Amanda Lovelace -

Speak clearly and if you argue topicality...do so and then move on. Use stock issues as core arguments but also be able to expound. Be respectful and have fun.

Ashley Coker - Ball State

n/a

Betty Kash - TTU

n/a

Catalina Giraldo-Reyes - WKCTC

n/a

Chad Woodward - UIndy

n/a

Clint Jones - Transy

n/a

Dr. Karen Hill-Johnson - WKCTC

n/a

Gary Deaton - Transy

n/a

Graham Kash - TTU

n/a

Ian Smith - Transy

n/a

Jacob Metz - TTU

n/a

Joe Blasdel - McKendree

n/a

John DeBerry - GCTC

In NPDA I don't have a philosophical bias towards any issue on face.  Run what you think gives you the best opportunity to win.  However, please tell me why it’s a voting issue.  If you don't then you leave it up to me to decide why it’s important and you might not like my decision.  I don't have a problem with Topicality when warranted, but "stupid T" really annoys me.   Don't run topicality just to run topicality because you've been taught to always run topicality.  Remember topicality is essentially arguing that your opponents have broken the rules and you should not make that claim unless it’s warranted.  I will vote on RVI's on topicality if I think the t argument is stupid.  Finally, while I don't have any issues with the standard voting issues (i.e. Topicality, Solvency, Harms, etc.), I warn you again running some type of performativity case with me as your judge.  While I believe some of them have merit in their intent, most of the ones I have seen are simply attempts to skew the round to the point that there is no way for your opponent to win, or to make your opponent have to argue a very morally reprehensible position.  I have seen what the proliferation of these type of cases has done in CEDA and do not wish to see the same craziness come to NPDA.

Kendall Harris -

Raven Mineo - Transy

n/a

Rebekah Watson - UIndy

n/a

Rich Charley -

jay bourne - cumberlands

Background of the critic: Debated policy 2 years in high school, CEDA and NFA LD in college, coached at Asbury College for 8 years, where we competed in IE, NFA LD, and Parli, and coached past 9 years at University of the Cumberlands, where we do mainly parli,  IPDA and IE's Rounds judged this year- 50 + Judging/ Coaching - 20+ years (CEDA 2 years, NFA LD 6 years, 15 years NPDA) Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I am a flow judge. I don't subscribe to the tabula rasa approach- I think that everyone has preferences and biases, overt or latent. However, I attempt to remove any of my personal beliefs from the debate round (try to have metaphorical horse blinders) and let the debate be what the teams construct during the round . Personally, I fit best with a gaming paradigm, where everything is pretty much fair within the basic debate framework and guidelines. I do believe that there are other formats to debate than just policy, so yes, I am open to the trichotomy. For me, resolutions of fact are a legitimate form of debate- although I prefer a detailed level of analysis more than an example war with that approach.. If teams want to take a resolution of fact with a policy res, and the other team clashes, then that is fine with me. Since I also have a background in CEDA, value debate is legitimate also. Policy is what I judge most often in rounds, and I am very comfortable with that format. Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making : Minimal in decision of win loss. Does factor into speaker points. I dislike cursing. Speed is not a factor for me with CEDA background, but I don't believe parli was a format meant to be done at CEDA speed- that it should be at least a bit slower. Ideally, parli can cover a variety of issues at a good clip and throw in a good joke or two whereby a general audience could understand most of what was said, save for procedural jargon.   Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: whatever provides clash is fine with me. Ideally, opp will have a lot of on case argumentation in their speeches, but sometimes gov frames the debate poorly, so the round makes more sense and can be more organized off case. I prefer it when gov teams don't ignore their entire case argumentation after the PMC. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: Kritiks are fine with viable alternative frameworks provided. I have voted on them a few times, but to be honest, it seems they often were run as a time suck or an attempt to snow the other team with debate jargon. I guess I am old school.   I really don't go for performance styles, or using debate as a platform to discuss an issue that may be of great importance to you personally but does not fit into the framework of the resolution. Any additional comments: <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:24.1pt; margin-left:.25in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 0in left .25in; text-autospace:ideograph-numeric"> 1.I prefer NOT to intervene- make my decision for me. Tell me how to vote. <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:24.1pt; margin-left:.25in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 0in left .25in; text-autospace:ideograph-numeric"> 2.If I nod my head during the debate, it means "I got it"- so if you want to move on fine- if not, fine also. Nodding my head does not mean I buy your position, just that I understand your argument. <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:24.1pt; margin-left:.25in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 0in left .25in; text-autospace:ideograph-numeric"> 3.I prefer nontopical counterplans 4.One of my majors in college was philosophy, so I prefer in depth argumentation. Give warrants, don't just blip responses 100% of speaking time. Tell me why your argument is better, impact it out.   5. Regarding POI's, I will give everyone plenty of time to make the arguments they wish, don't interrupt each other here.  Usually you will do best in defending yourself by exactly pointing out on flow where you think you addressed the issue or where you are cross applying previous comments made.

justin durbin - cumberlands

n/a

2014 21st Annual BBQ Capital of the World Speech and Debate Tournament