Judge Philosophies
Bria Woodyard - ASU
n/a
Connie McKee - WTAMU
n/a
Emily Shaffer - NAU
<p>Emily Shaffer</p> <p>NPDA Judging Philosophy</p> <p> </p> <p>Whatever Caitlyn Burford said. But also:</p> <p> </p> <p>I believe the debate space belongs to the competitors and shouldn’t be dictated by what I used to run as a debater. You should run what you’re best at and/or what you care most about. I don’t believe in rules, which means you’re going to have to justify your procedural arguments (probably applies more to LD than parli). I am comfortable with whatever position you want to run. Speed is fine, as long as it isn’t used as a tool of exclusion. Give me a clear weighing mechanism, and I will vote where you tell me to vote. Most of my judging philosophy is contextual to the round being run. You should be kind to your opponents and conscious of the language you’re using in round. Unless otherwise told I will prioritize animal life over human life.</p>
Heather Goheen - WTAMU
n/a
Jess Ayres - NAU
Katherine Alanis-Ramirez - UTEP
Kristy McManus - WWCC
<p>I have been coaching since 2010. I competed for two years at the college level. I took a long break from forensics but returned when working on my second Master’s Degree in Communication. I am currently the DOF at Western Wyoming Community College.</p> <p>I try to remain as tab as possible. It is your responsibility to dictate what the round will look like.</p> <p>I put a lot of weight on the flow. I will not “do the work for you”.</p> <p>CP’s, DA’s, K’s – sure! Strategy is key for me but all must be done well and show understanding through warranted argumentation.</p> <p>Tell me what to do. This is your debate. Where should I look and how should I vote. Impact calk is a must.</p> <p>T’s are there for a reason – if you need to use them – you MUST. Otherwise, they are a waste of my time.</p> <p>Be civil – if you are rude, I stop listening.</p>
Matthew Minnich - UTEP
n/a
Michael Brooks - UTEP
<p>I believe debate can most effectively be thought of as a communication event; as such, ideas and arguments in a debate round become most accessible and finally, most persuasive, if stated clearly, utilizing a comprehensible rate of speed and without undue dependence on jargon. Clear signposting and effective organization throughout the debate enhances the clarity of argument. Consistent signposting creates a clean flow, with major arguments prominent in the mind of your judges. I tend to vote on the flow. I’m open to any strategy as long as it is explained well, organized clearly and makes sense. I use a tabula rasa approach as a judge, so don’t worry about what I may or may not believe in <em>re</em> whatever proposition is being debated, or what rhetorical strategies and/or debate conventions you choose to utilize. I enjoy a well-crafted and intellectually satisfying argument on any topic, from any viewpoint. Clash is the heart of debate, so keep on point. Please remember the value of transitions reinforcing the organization you’ve established throughout the round, and don’t forget to spend appropriate time on summary, most specifically in rebuttals. A strong rebuttal traces the evolution of the most important arguments used in the debate, showing how and why your version of the proposition should prevail. I do caution you against the use of offensive language or actual rudeness toward your opponents. NPDA debate should be an exercise not only in communication, but in the practice of good ethics in this formalized and rather ritualistic exchange of ideas. Wit and humor are appreciated, if you have the occasion to use such strategies.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Paxton Attridge - ASU
n/a
Sarah Hinkle - CC
Thomas Bovino - SCCC
n/a
Trent Webb - Nassau
n/a