FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Anthony Cavaiani - William Woods

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

Billy Wooten - Berea College

n/a

Courtney Wright - UIndy

n/a

Dr. Crystal Rae Coel -

DyNishia Miller - UIndy

n/a

Eric Hogsten - Berea College

n/a

George Collins -

Graham Kash - TTU

n/a

Gregory Tillman - Lane

n/a

Jacob Metz - TTU

n/a

Jason Stahl - Belmont

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.

Logan Hurley - Boyce College

I competed for 4 years in Parliamentary Debate and 3 years in IPDA for the University of Kentucky.  That was usually pretty traditional/communicative debate, though I have experience reading and watching more technical/theoretical/critical debates.  I work hard to not impose my preferences upon the round, but I'm self-aware enough to know that I have preferences and instincts.  Here's a brief list of thoughts/opinions/expectations I have that a competitor who knew me well would probably know so you're all on the same page.   <ul> <li> The most fun debate is one where really interesting arguments related to the stock issues come up.  I'll vote for DAs and Advantages on impact, but if you really want to be sure that you're making me happy, tell me why their plan is unworkable, or their inherency is wrong leading to the SQ solving, or why your advantages clearly resolve the problems.  Simple arguments done cleverly makes my heart happy.</li> <li>In LD, feel free to do whatever makes you happy with speed, Ks, narrative, etc. Just make sure I look like I'm flowing and tracking with you and all that. I wear my heart on my sleeve when I judge, so it shouldn't be hard to figure out.  If I look confused, I am.  If I look like I'm digging your argument, I probably am.  If I look annoyed, there's at least a decent chance that something is going wrong for you.</li> <li>For Parli, I expect you to remain pretty close to the topic of the resolution.  You do not have time to draft a legitimate Kritik in 15 minutes, unless it's something trivially obvious like Americentrism/Racism-Bad or whatever.  And if your opponents argue in a way that is that problematic, go for it.  You speed should never be faster than a rushed conversation.</li> <li>For IPDA, keep policy pragmatic, value inspiring and philosophical, and fact straight-forward.  Speak like you're talking to a lay judge.  I will be flowing, because I am easily distracted otherwise, but an IPDA debater should be able to seem coherent without the judge writing a word.</li> <li>For Advantages and Disadvantages, the name of the game is (probability)x(impact).  I will tend to prefer something very likely and a step in the right direction to something that's absurdly unlikely but massive.</li> <li>The above said, I really, really, really like novel arguments.  I'll let you skimp on the actual risk being low if the argument is neat.</li> <li>  </li> </ul>

Matt Crane -

Raven Webster - Transy

n/a

Rebecca Radcliffe - Transy

n/a

Rebekah Watson Gaidis - UIndy

n/a

Stephanie Tanksley - TTU

n/a

Tony Boese - UVA

n/a

Tyler Rosso - Berea College

n/a

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.

katie detherage - cumberlands

n/a

2016 23nd Annual BBQ Capital of the World Speech and Debate Tournament