2013 Dale Carnegie Swing
Univ of Central Missouri - Oct 20 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Ailey Pope - Wiley
n/a
Brian Swafford - Northwest MO
n/a
Brin Walters - UNL
n/a
Brittney Means - NECC
n/a
Brock Ingmire - Kansas State
n/a
Bryan Brooks - Hillsdale
n/a
Carli Wrisinger - Truman
n/a
Darrell Farmer - UNL
n/a
David Bailey - SBU
n/a
Gary Jackson - Webster
n/a
Glenn Prince - ISU
<p>Background: I competed in policy debate for most of my career before transitioning to college parliamentary debate and LD. I cleared at CEDA Nationals, have a national championship in parliamentary debate, and currently coach LD. I am currently the Director of Debate at Illinois State University. I've been competing or coaching debate for 18 years. While they may make me seem like a dinosaur, I keep up with what goes on in debate and attempt to judge the debate based on the parameters provided by the debaters. I default to a policy making paradigm. I will default to humanistic impacts if given no other options in the debate. I tend to think all arguments are conditional.<br /> <br /> SPECIFIC ISSUES:<br /> <br /> TOPICALITY:<br /> I vote on topicality more than most people, but that doesn't really mean much because most debates don't come down to T. I am willing to vote against the affirmative because it just isn't an example of the resolution, but will default to whatever evaluative framework you decide in the debate.<br /> <br /> DISADVANTAGES:<br /> <br /> 1. Uniqueness debates often decide these questions.<br /> 2. A good link turn is always better than a generic impact turn.<br /> 3. Clearly explained/evidenced internal link claims are key to winning a substantial impact.<br /> 4. Equal scrutiny is given to the internals of disadvantages and affirmative advantages.<br /> 5. Impact evidence needs to actually provide an impact: far too many stop at a descriptive, internal linkish sounding argument.<br /> <br /> COUNTERPLANS:<br /> <br /> 1. I like all kinds of them: delay, multiple, unconditional, conditional, whatever.<br /> 2. I tend to view theory debates on counterplans as reason to reject the argument, not the team.<br /> 3. Solvency arguments on counterplans should open to the same consideration as affirmative solvency claims.<br /> 4. Permutations are only a test of competitiveness.<br /> <br /> KRITIKS:<br /> <br /> 1. Specificity of the link is key--generic link debates are just that: generic.<br /> 2. I prefer alternatives that move past rejection and into something more pragmatic.<br /> 3. Topic specific criticisms are a lot more interesting/compelling to me.<br /> 4. Seeking out specific links found in the 1AC are key to solidifying the debate.<br /> <br /> OTHER STUFF:<br /> <br /> 1. I love debate. You should too. I will do my best to evaluate the debate in the fairest, most equitable way possible.<br /> 2. Be kind to each other. I love a good snarky cross-x, but have fun doing it and don't make people miserable or feel bad about themselves. Debate should be a space of fun, engaged disagreement, but there's no need to be a jerk.<br /> 3. My speaker points range 26-30. A 30 happens once every other year or so. A 29 is really good from me.<br /> 4. Paperless debate is great, but be proficient in how to use it and efficient in executing it during the round. It shouldn't add 20 minutes to the debate.<br /> 5. I'm happy to answer any specific questions you have before the debate about me and after the debate about my decision in your round.</p>
Gregory Owen - CMU
n/a
Jane Munkgaard - Wiley
n/a
Jeremy Hutchins - Tx State
n/a
Jessica Furgerson - WKU
John Stanley - North Central
John Spears - North Central
Jon Carter - UNL
n/a
Jordan Christiansen - Kansas State
n/a
Jory Baker - Northwest MO
n/a
Josh Ritchey - Webster
n/a
Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale
n/a
Nodira Berdieva - North Central
Rayla Crawford - Wiley
n/a
Robert Krzyzanowski - North Central
Russ Luce - Truman
n/a
Scott Jensen - Webster
n/a
Sean Allen - Wiley
Shanna Carlson - ISU
<p>Background: I competed in parliamentary and LD debate for Washburn University for five years. I am currently the assistant debate coach at Illinois State University.<br /> <br /> I believe that the debate is yours to be had, but there are a few things that you should know:<br /> <br /> 1. Blippy, warrantless debates are mind numbing. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. This usually occurs at the top of the AC/NC when you are trying to be "clever." Less "clever," more intelligent. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence.<br /> 2. I don't really care about speed--go as fast as you want as long as you are clear and warranted. I will give you two verbal "clears" if you are going too fast or I cannot understand you. After that I quit flowing and if I do not flow it I do not evaluate it.<br /> 3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not like moral obligations as I do not believe that they are usually warranted and I caution you in running these in front of me. I do not believe that all impacts have to go to extinction or nuclear war, but that they should be quantifiable in some manner.<br /> 4. Run whatever strategy you want--I will do my best to evaluate whatever you give me in whatever frame I'm supposed to--if you don't give me the tools...I default to policy maker, if it's clearly not a policy maker paradigm round for some reason I'll make something up to vote on...basically, your safest bet is to tell me where to vote.<br /> 5. If you are rude, I will not hesitate to tank your speaker points. There is a difference between confidence and rudeness.<br /> 6. I am not the best with kritiks. I will vote on them, but you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative, and alt solvency (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like and how my ballot functions to get us there.<br /> 7. If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow.<br /> 8. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round.<br /> 9. Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches.</p> <p>10. I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision.</p> <p><br /> Really, I'm open to anything. Debate, have fun, and be engaging. Ask me any questions you may have before the start of the round so that we can all be on the same page :)</p>
Susan Taylor - WKU
Terry Nelson - NECC
n/a
Todd Rainey - Wiley
Tom Pinney - Northwest MO
n/a