Judge Philosophies
Ben Cecka - Clark CC
<p>My competitive background is purely in NPDA, of which I was a competitor in for just shy of 2 years at the collegiate level. I've been judging it for a cumulative 3 years, along with some experience in IPDA and BP/Worlds.</p> <p> </p> <p>I consider myself <em>tabula</em><em> </em><em>rasa</em> as well as a flow judge, and I will pay special attention to your rebuttal. If you have a winning argument in a member speech, but fail to give it due attention at the conclusion, I will do the same. I will happily entertain any and all arguments (creativity should be rewarded), provided that you articulate them fully and, most importantly, tell me why I care (impact). I prefer rational and realistic arguments over fantasy, but don't let that preclude you from using some humor and having fun when possible. T, K, and various types of CP's are fine as long you<em>clearly </em>link <em>and</em> warrant them. With regard to speed, I will sympathize with teams that are struggling to keep up if a) I agree, and b) they voice that concern early in the PMC -- waiting until theLOC is too late. Lastly, Wheaton's Law matters.</p>
Bryan Hunt - MHCC
Chris Reinhold - Clark CC
Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia
<p>Dr. Dan Schabot</p> <p>Lower Columbia College</p> <p>Years Debating: 5 total (1 years NFL LD; 4 years CEDA/NDT )</p> <p>Years Coaching/Judging: 15 Total (2 years CEDA/NDT; 13 Years NPDA)</p> <p> </p> <p>General Philosophy:</p> <p>Each team should make good (well supported and well-reasoned) arguments and clash with each other. I prefer 2 or 3 in depth positions to 5 or 6 blipped positions.</p> <p> </p> <p>Specifics:</p> <p>Affirmative teams: At this point in my judging life I am no longer interested in listening to debates that do not at least make an attempt to address the topic in the resolution. You can run any position you want as long as you explain why what you are arguing deals with the topic.</p> <p> </p> <p>Negative Teams: I also feel that negative teams have the responsibility to address affirmative arguments as well as presenting their own. Positions just run for the sake of filling time (such as generic T) have little weight with me. Each position should be part of a coherent strategy to win.</p> <p> </p> <p>Speed and Presentation: If you feel the need to go fast that is fine. However, running a bunch of positions just so you can go fast is useless. Speed as a strategy (in and of itself) will not be rewarded. </p> <p> </p> <p>RFD: My preferences are listed above. I have and will vote for just about any argument type. A team must clearly explain why their advocacy is superior to other team’s advocacy to win a round. </p>
Elsie Praeger - MHCC
Justin Wiley - MHCC
Micah Waterlander - MHCC
<ul> <li>Background of the critic: I competed in high school policy as well as competing 2 years in NPDA in college. This is my 2nd Year coaching, I coach both IPDA and NPDA formats.</li> <li>Approach of the critic to decision-making: I consider myself to be pretty tabula rasa and will vote for whatever the debaters tell me is important for me to vote on. I think that the trichotomy argument is a worthwhile argument, as well as most procedural arguments. I will vote on T if there is clear abuse, but I don't think the team has to only go for Topicality to show abuse. While I will listen to any argument ran in front of me I don't particularly like kritiks, especially in NPDA style debate, since any real evidence need to back up the kritik can't be brought into round. Furthermore, I think the kritik needs to show real world impacts to outweigh. But with that being said, if the kritik is necessary for your strategy then by all means run it. Also, I tend to think that a lot of debate hinges on solvency so this could win or lose a round easily. </li> <li>Communication/presentation: I'm pretty comfortable with most aspects of speed, but feel like clarity and signposting should falter because of your speed. Also I am a pretty expressive judge so if you pay attention you will know if I am getting down what you are saying. </li> </ul> <ul> <li>Preferences on calling Points of Order: I have no issue with POI being called, I think that if it is warranted you should call your opponent out on it. </li> </ul>
Phil LePoidevin - MHCC
Ryan Rhoades - MHCC
Sallie Fisher - CBC
n/a