2017 BullDog Battle
Butler University - Jan 14-15 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Ashley Coker - Ball State
n/a
Brianne Giese - Aurora Unv
n/a
Casey Sabella - Ball State
n/a
Cate Bruns - JMU
n/a
Chad Woodward - UIndy
n/a
Chrissy Bond - Marian Univ
n/a
Courtney Wright - UIndy
n/a
Dakota Wappes - Ball State
n/a
Dallis Pike - Ball State
n/a
Dan West - Ohio U
n/a
Dwight Podgurski - Butler
n/a
DyNishia Miller - UIndy
n/a
Eric Mishne - Ohio U
n/a
Geoff Klinger - DePauw
n/a
Harry Bodell - North Central
n/a
Jake Wrasse - JMU
n/a
Jessie Wangeman - Ivy Tech
n/a
Kathy Denker - Ball State
n/a
Kristi Scholten - FSU
n/a
Maggie Crawford - Butler
n/a
Mark Rittenour - Akron
n/a
Neil Decenteceo - Univ. of Florid
n/a
Nick Romerhausen - EMU IE
n/a
Nina Brennan - EMU IE
n/a
Paul Cummins - Southeastern IL
n/a
Rebekah Watson Gaidis - UIndy
n/a
Richard Paine - North Central
<p>Debate Philosophy:</p> <p> (1) CLASH. Don't let the debate turn into two ships passing in the night. Be sure you respond to what your opponents say. Carry through your own ideas (story) but also be sure you respond in detail to their story. In terms of the sheer amount of time spent on the stories, I prefer that the debate preference Gov. ground - Opp ground should clearly be an analysis of what the Gov. position is. Go line-by-line, be direct, be complete. Pull through dropped arguments.</p> <p> (2) STRUCTURE. I want to see it. I want to hear numbers/letters AND precise tags. If I don't know where you are, I can't flow it effectively.</p> <p> (3) SUPPORT your claims/assertions with specific concrete data whenever possible. </p> <p> (4) TAKE QUESTIONS. This is my pet peeve. If someone rises to ask a question, take it, and take it quickly. Statements like "I don't have time right now" or "I'll answer it at the end of the position" are a sure way to press all the wrong buttons with me. Questions are crucial to debate and must be honored. How many? Three allowed per speech sounds about right to me.</p> <p> (5) NEGATIVE RESPONSE OPTIONS. I am not a fan of Counterplans, and I am not a fan of Kritiks. If you choose to run them, I will of course listen to them and evaluate them - but I am not naturally inclined to embrace them.</p> <p> (6) DISADVANTAGES. I am not a fan of unrealistic high-impact disads ("Increasing grade school funding will lead to nuclear war"). Realistic and believable real-world consequences are more likely to carry weight with me. Disadvantages must be evaluated in terms of both their impact AND by how likely they are to occur.</p> <p> (7) SPEED. It should be easily comprehensible. </p> <p> (8) DEBATE JARGON. I want to hear the whole argument convincingly. Don't just toss out the lingo ("Turn! Perm!") and assume that's enough. You will have to explain the process by which the lingo applies.</p> <p> (9) SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. Partners should not talk to each other during their speeches or "cover mistakes" when the debater speaking starts to waver.</p> <p> (10) PLANS. In policy rounds, the plan should be fully provided in the PMC. It is not sufficient to say "any questions? No? Well, you had your chance." The burden is on the Gov. to provide a complete plan without prompting in the PMC. If that doesn't happen, I consider myself free (and likely) to vote on the basis of missing Plan planks.</p> <p> (11) OTHER THINGS? Please ask! I welcome all questions!</p> <p> (12) Have fun. Enjoy it. It's just a game!</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Timothy Bill - UK
Tralon Williams - Univ. of Florid
n/a