FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

AJ Taula - Truman

n/a

Arnesia Davis - Wiley

Carli Wrisinger - Truman

n/a

Chad Meadows - WKU

Debate should reward hard work. Your strategies and in round execution should reflect intensive research and thought about the topic/your opponents arguments. My speaker points AND ballot will be used to reinforce a curriculum that normalizes debate practices I believe are needed for the overall health of the community. 1 -Evidence Debate should be a referendum on the quality and quantity of research done first, and then a matter of execution later. I will reward debaters who do excellent and thorough research over debaters who have “slick tricks” to win debates. I think evidence is VERY important, its quality and qualifications should be debated. I will usually prefer excellent evidence to spin. When comparing a good card which was not well explained/had no spin vs. no card or a bad card with excellent spin I will typically prefer the good card. I will call for cards after the debate. I will generally only call for evidence which is referenced in the final two rebuttals. Refer to evidence by last name and date after it has been cited in the first instance. If you do not READILY share citations and evidence with your opponent in the round - I WILL be cranky, probably vote against you, or at the very least give you TERRIBLE speaker points. 2 - Speed/Flowing If speaking at a more rapid rate is used to advance more scholarship in the round, I encourage debaters to speak quickly. If speaking quickly devolves into assaulting the round with a barrage of bad arguments in the hope that your opponent will not clash with them all, my ballot and speaker points will not encourage this practice. I keep an excellent and detailed flow. However, winning for me is more about establishing a coherent and researched explanation of the world rather than extending a specific argument. An argument is not “true” because it is extended on one sheet of paper if it is logically answered by evidence on another sheet of paper or later on the line by line. You can check your rhetorical bullying at the door. Posturing, repeating yourself (even loudly), insulting your opponents (except during cross-x), or insisting that I will "ALWAYS vote here" are probably a waste of your time. 3 - Argument Selection Any argument that advances argument on the desirability of the resolution through valid decision making is persuasive. The source of argumentation should be left up to the debaters. I am very unlikely to be persuaded that the source of evidence justifies its exclusion. In particular I am unconvinced the methodology, epistemology, ontology, and other indicts pertaining to the foundation of the affirmative are unjustified avenues of research to explore in debate. Above all else, the content of your argument should not be used to duck clash. Specific Issues: 1 - Topicality is a voter and not a reverse voter. "Proving abuse" is irrelevant, well explained standards are not. 2 – The affirmative does not have to specify more than is required to affirm the resolution. I encourage Affirmatives to dismiss specs/vagueness and other procedurals without implications for the topicality of the affirmative with absolute disregard. 3 – Conditionality is logical, restraints on logical decision making are only justified in extreme circumstances.  4 – There is nothing implied in the plan. Consult, process, and other counterplans which include the entirety of the plan text are not competitive. 5 – I will decide if the counterplan is competitive by evaluating if the permutation is better than the counterplan alone or if the plan is better than counterplan. Ideological, philosophical, and redudancy standards for competiton are not persuasive and not useful for making decisions. 6 – I mediate my preferences for arguably silly counterplans like agent, international, and PICS/PECS primarily based upon the quality of the counterplan solvency evidence. 7 – Direction/Strength of link evidence is more important than “controlling uniqueness” This is PARTICULARLY true when BOTH sides have compelling and recent uniqueness evidence. Uniqueness is a strong factor in the relative probability of the direction of the link, if you don't have uniqueness evidence you are behind.  8 - I do not have a "threshold" on topicality. A vote for T is just as internally valid as a vote for a DA. I prefer topicality arguments with topic specific interpretation and violation evidence. I will CLOSELY evaluate your explanation on the link and impact of your standards. 9 - I am very unlikely to make a decision primarily based upon defensive arguments. <a href="mailto:chadwickmeadows@gmail.com">chadwickmeadows@gmail.com</a>

Chris Joffrion - WKU

Chris Medina - Wiley

Craig Brown - Kansas State

n/a

Daniel Hogan - Sterling

Darrell Farmer - UNL

n/a

David Bowers - Sterling

Generally speaking I think that you should do what you like in debate and I will do my best to evaluate whatever that may be, the more clear you can be the better RFD you’ll receive I imagine.  Please, ask questions if you have them, my email is <a href="mailto:dbowers01@sterling.edu">dbowers01@sterling.edu</a> if you have any prior to the tournament.  I debated in various places and in varied formats. Collegiate competition in CEDA, PARLI & LD for Hutchinson Community College, Barton Community College, Kansas City Kansas Community College and Sterling College. Theory—Competing interps makes the most sense to me, always, abuse in round is an impact to a standard.  This is probably the only place that I would make a definitive stand on anything.  Impacts to standards are critical in evaluating any procedural question, that doesn’t mean “education is important” it means “education is important because…” Counter plans—I don’t have any problem with any cp.  The only thing I’d have to add here is that is in regards to theory.  PICS, ect theory is probably a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Disads—These are neat things to do.  I need you to spend a second extending arguments that are winning you the round but PLEASE do not feel like you have to extend the entire shell.  Any impact is fine, I really don’t care as long as in some point in the debate there’s impact calc. Da K—This is fine.  I think that in order to vote on it I need more than “State bad”.  I also rarely think that framework means that you drop the team, but rather it means that you get to weight the aff. Performance—These are cool, and I know this sounds stupid but do them well.  Don’t do it because it’s weird, or fun, or something.  I feel like I haven’t said much, mainly it’s because I don’t have a ton of preferences.  Like I said above, I’d much prefer to let you do what you do in debates.  But please, if there are questions please ask.

David Bailey - SBU

n/a

Deanna Beaton - Webster

n/a

Glenn Prince - Rice U.

n/a

Jason Jordan - Utah

For the NPTE:   Name: ____Jason Jordan____________________ School: _____Ranger College__________________ <o:p> </o:p> Section 1: General Information <o:p></o:p> Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. I have very few, if any, normative beliefs about what debate should look like and/or ‘be’. Absent debate to the contrary, I default to voting for the advocacy with the most net beneficial post fiat impacts. Unless I am told to do otherwise, on all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments. I don’t evaluate speaking skills as part of my decision, nor do I have any value judgment attached to a proper “method” of speaking in debate rounds. Unless I am told to do otherwise I attempt to flow everything I possibly can. I think people should be nice, in round, out of round, etc. So, please try to be nice, in so far as you consider my value to life important. <o:p> </o:p> Section 2: Specific Inquiries  <o:p></o:p> Please describe your approach to the following.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  1.     Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?<o:p></o:p> For the NPTE I anticipate I will assign points on a range between 27-29.9, with 28 as an “average”. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  2.     How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?<o:p></o:p> Do what you want to do, just make an explicit framework argument if I am supposed to adjust my decision calculus from what I have elucidated above. My MS is in critical rhetoric, so I am comfortable with these arguments, but I try very hard to evaluate the arguments as presented in the round, so I vote both direction on the K quite a bit.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  3.     Performance based arguments…<o:p></o:p> See above. Do what you want, just tell me why it matters (the ‘impact’) and how I evaluate the merit/epistemic value of your argument.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  4.     Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?<o:p></o:p> I prefer debaters to make these framing arguments in the round. Absent debate to the contrary I will default to evaluating these debates through the lens of competing interpretations, and assuming in round abuse is a necessary pre-requisite to T being a voter. I tend to look at T and Theory debates as questions of methodological advantages/disadvantages, unless I am told to consider the argument in a different way.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace: none">  5.     Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?<o:p></o:p> I have no personal stance as a judge on any of these questions. Really. Make the theory argument. Absent an offensive reason to not grant a team their argument, I default to them getting access to it.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  6.     Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If debaters choose to do this, I have no problem with it.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  7.     In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?<o:p></o:p> Critical positions about debate-> ‘Rules’ arguments (Topicality, Theory, Procedurals, etc.)-> pre-fiat/discursive critical positions about the aff/neg-> post-fist impacts of enacting/not enacting an advocacy.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  8.     How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?<o:p></o:p> If these two are not compared (ie: otherization is not presented as an internal link to the nuclear war scenario, and/or nuclear war is not presented as the worst form of otherization/inclusive of such impacts) I will most likely default to preferring the “concrete” impacts, but I would greatly prefer for debaters to make comparisons of such claims in the round.<o:p></o:p>

Jay Self - Truman

Jerry Wemhoff - NECC

n/a

Jessica Brayton - Sterling

Joanna Runge - Hillsdale

n/a

Jordan Christiansen - Kansas State

n/a

Kaleb Jessee - WKU

Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale

n/a

Melissa Benton - Webster

n/a

Phil Tschirhart - Truman

n/a

Rebecca Godsey - SBU

n/a

Russ Luce - Truman

n/a

Sarah Backhaus - Truman

Sarah Rainey - Wiley

General Paradigm: Sarah Spiker Rainey<o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Background: 2011 NFA LD National Champion and Top Speaker. 4 year LD competitor at WKU with outrounds at nationals every year. 2011 State Champion in Parli. 4 year Parli competitor at WKU, although only 2 years were at the national circuit and I was a complete n00b back then so it doesn't really count; outrounds at NPDA/NPTE nats.   <o:p> </o:p>   Presumption: I presume neg, unless a CP is introduced in the round. Then presumption flips aff. Do NOT just say “Perm: Do both”. I need an exact perm text, preferably written down so that I can view the exact wording if it becomes an issue at the end of the round. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Defense v. Offense: Terminal defense is a winnable neg strategy, but you put all your eggs in one basket that way…it’s a risky way to get my ballot especially since most Affs will still show a propensity to solve. Your Terminal D better be baller. <o:p></o:p>   Extensions: I will not vote on arguments that are incompletely extended in rebuttals. If the warrant and impact are not articulated, I will cross out the argument from my flow. You need to extend your impact scenarios. Too many debaters get caught up in the link/link turn debate that they forget the impact. If an advantage or DA is dropped, tell me to “Extend Adv 1….this was 100% cold conceded with a dropped Nuke War/Global Warming/Extinction/5 million in poverty impact…at the end of the round, this is the most probably impact because there is zero defense/offense on the link or impact level.” Then give reasons why Adv 1 impacts o/w whatever other impacts are in the round. Just don’t tell me “Extend Adv 1” and move on. Do some impact calc. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Impact Calculus: I prefer impact calculus preferably in the 1NC (at the end of each DA or case turn). The 1AR at the latest. I flow impact calcs and consider them dropped weighing mechanisms for the ballot if unresponded to. If you don’t give impact calculus (or try/die or risk analysis), I default to probability over magnitude. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Counter Plans: I’m partial to good Devolve CPs. I’m definitely not a fan of poorly constructed Devolve CPs. Run them at your own risk…you may get chewed out on the ballot if you substantially mishandle a Devolve/States CP or Federalism DA. You need great topic-specific evidence to make me happy here. As for CPs in general, you need strong, intuitive mutual exclusivity arguments. Speaks: You should care about speaker points. They are absolutely critical to seeding and close breaks out of prelims. At NFA, your speaker points will certainly matter as you adapt back and forth between IE crossover judges and experienced policy judges. ADAPT. Speaking points and the flow are two separate issues. In general, wins are correlated with higher speaks, but that isn’t always the case. I deduct one point automatically for not reading full citations. You won’t lose the round for not reading full cites (unless there is a full cites procedural in the round) but you will lose one speaker point. I won’t hold it against you but I think the best debates occur when credentials are fully read as required by the rules (author’s name, qualifications, date, and publication source). If you are scoffing, laughing, snorting, etc during your opponent’s speeches, what’s wrong with you? 2 point deduction (or more depending on degree of infraction). Show some decorum! I won’t hold facial expressions against you, just don’t audibly interrupt your opponent. Double breathing and gasping while spreading will get you docked as well. Speed: Speed and clarity are two separate issues. Monotone speed reading, not a fan. Punch your words if you’re reading fast—articulate, articulate, articulate. Do pen drills. I also believe in accessibility. If your opponent cannot understand you, they have the right to call out “clear!” for clarity issues and “speed” for speed issues. Rules do states speed and spread is antithetical to this event. I believe that as long as everyone can access the round, I see no problem with speed delivery. And if your opponent really can’t flow that fast, you probably still won’t have issues winning the round at a slower pace anyway. Topicality: I do vote on T. However, too many T shells have generic violations/standards and not tailored to case. If you’re claiming ground abuse, I prefer you run the position you claim you should have access to (the DA or solvency press) and the T together. When your opponent no-links the DA/turn, then you collapse to T. Otherwise, I hate the mumbo jumbo of “I lost vague/nebulous/generic ground but I won’t specify what exactly” type T standards. Don’t just tell me “Limits good”. What kind of limits are good? Why are they fair? If you’re running Extra or Effects Topicality, your interpretation should include the words “direct” or “directly”…your violation should state “the plan is Extra/Effect Topical…[insert brief explanation]”. Effects/Extra T is NOT a standard. It is a violation. Your standards are why Extra/Effects T is bad. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   I rarely if ever vote on RVIs. I think they are easily answered. Negs can answer the RVI fairly concisely then kick T. 90% of the time, RVIs are run by people who were top heavy and couldn’t allocate time in their rebuttal properly. I’m not going to punish the Neg because Aff has poor time management skills. <o:p></o:p>   Reasonability begs judge intervention. Theory: Reading theory is fine…just tell me to “add another sheet on top of the CP” or whatever before you do. Otherwise, my flow gets crammed with the theory half and the on-position half of the debate. I may not like the particular theory shell you’re reading, but it’s not my fault if debaters can’t navigate answering the shell. I will not vote on theory if you forget to extend the internal link between the standard and the voter (or any other part of the shell, for that matter). Theory arguments should not be 10 second blips…you must development the argument if you plan to win on it. Otherwise, it’s wasted time for us both. Critical arguments: I stole this from a high school judge’s paradigm, but it fits what I believe: “I'm fine with critical arguments and am familiar with the basic gist of most arguments by continental philosophers, but I have not read any particular texts. I'll be upset if a debater's rebuttal massively clarifies the dense rhetoric of the constructive. I'm sympathetic to "if you didn't understand/flow it, don't vote on it" types of arguments. I will not vote on an argument that I do not understand.” I believe that far too often individuals hide behind the vocabulary of their K author without explaining its practical application in common language. This leads to frustrating CX as the opponent attempts to determine how these terms impact the debate. If you can’t explain a K position to the masses (i.e. imagine a bus driver judge) then you aren’t doing it right. I’m not stupid, but I won’t do K work for you by presuming you/I are on the same page regarding what these terms mean. K alternatives should have solvency. I much prefer CP alternatives as opposed to “reject ___________ and reconceptualize __________” alternatives. Reading the judge: I’m a fairly animated judge. If you (or your opponent) say something that is absolutely ridiculous and unwarranted, expect me to make a face. I grimace, nod in affirmation, and give quizzical looks regularly. Just giving you honest facial feedback throughout the round. It would be great if you could act accordingly because then we will all be happy. If I look like I’m not flowing in your rebuttal, that doesn’t mean you’ve lost. In fact, it may mean you’ve already made the argument that wins the round. Only in close rounds am I flowing up until the final second of the 2AR. I do read evidence when either a) you call for me to read it or b) the claim/counter claims are just too close to play by ear.<o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Sharing evidence: If you read it in round, you’re sharing it. Period. Your opponent and/or judge must be given a copy of anything and everything you read in the round if requested—during CX or immediately following the round. I don’t care if they hand write out the citations, take photos, or scan it with one of those fancy pens that capture digital text. Your integrity is at stake. Take pride in the quality of your evidence and your ability to debate. I strongly believe one of the only ways to verify that evidence is being accurately cited is to allow competitors to check the evidence of their opponent’s in between rounds or after tournaments. On more than one occasion, I would find individuals who were being unethical in their evidence. We were able to uncover such abuses only by verifying the evidence after round. Therefore, you must share (if requested) if I’m your judge. If you have any other questions, my email is <a href="mailto:srainey@wileyc.edu">srainey@wileyc.edu</a> or <a href="mailto:sarah.spiker@gmail.com">sarah.spiker@gmail.com</a> <o:p></o:p>

Scott Jensen - Webster

n/a

Judge Philosophies

AJ Taula - Truman

Arnesia Davis - Wiley

Carli Wrisinger - Truman

Chad Meadows - WKU

Chris Joffrion - WKU

Chris Medina - Wiley

Craig Brown - Kansas State

Daniel Hogan - Sterling

Darrell Farmer - UNL

David Bowers - Sterling

David Bailey - SBU

Deanna Beaton - Webster

Glenn Prince - Rice U.

Jason Jordan - Utah

Jay Self - Truman

Jerry Wemhoff - NECC

Jessica Brayton - Sterling

Joanna Runge - Hillsdale

Jordan Christiansen - Kansas State

Kaleb Jessee - WKU

Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale

Melissa Benton - Webster

Phil Tschirhart - Truman

Rebecca Godsey - SBU

Russ Luce - Truman

Sarah Backhaus - Truman

Sarah Rainey - Wiley

Scott Jensen - Webster

Sean Allen - Wiley

Todd Rainey - Wiley

2012 Dale Carnegie Swing

Judge Philosophies

AJ Taula - Truman

Arnesia Davis - Wiley

Carli Wrisinger - Truman

Chad Meadows - WKU

Chris Joffrion - WKU

Chris Medina - Wiley

Craig Brown - Kansas State

Daniel Hogan - Sterling

Darrell Farmer - UNL

David Bowers - Sterling

David Bailey - SBU

Deanna Beaton - Webster

Glenn Prince - Rice U.

Jason Jordan - Utah

Jay Self - Truman

Jerry Wemhoff - NECC

Jessica Brayton - Sterling

Joanna Runge - Hillsdale

Jordan Christiansen - Kansas State

Kaleb Jessee - WKU

Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale

Melissa Benton - Webster

Phil Tschirhart - Truman

Rebecca Godsey - SBU

Russ Luce - Truman

Sarah Backhaus - Truman

Sarah Rainey - Wiley

Scott Jensen - Webster

Sean Allen - Wiley

Todd Rainey - Wiley