Judge Philosophies
A. J. Davis - CBC
n/a
Anita Smith - CBC
n/a
Charles Kincy - Bellevue
<p>~~(0) RESPECT THE INCREASED EQUITY CONSCIOUSNESS. Especially with your jokes and language. I don't want to ruin anyone's fun, but keep the humor harmless along lines of sexism, racism, and other frequent hotpoints of inclusivity. If you can't be "humorous" without trashing the feelings of others, then you suck at humor and should stick to business.</p> <p>If you feel at any point your opponents or I have acted in a way that is inappropriate, you have two options. You can immediately call a point of privilege, stop the clock, and we'll get it out in the open. That's especially important if the transgression was minor and probably unintentional, because it encourages us to talk about these things more.</p> <p>Or, if you don't feel comfortable with that, please explain the situation after the round to either the tournament director or the tournament equity officer/ombuds.</p> <p>(1) GROUND-LOSS AND ABUSE COMPLAINTS REQUIRE PERSUASIVE WARRANTS.</p> <p>You all know what's up in NPDA these days and you should expect anything. However, people get out of line, so you sometimes need some redress.</p> <p>(1a) The easiest way to warrant loss-of-ground claims is to run a speculative argument that you would've been able to run but for the loss of ground or abuse. For instance, if you're asking for a ballot on T because of loss of ground, read me the DA you should've been able to run. This allows AFF to concede a link to the DA if they're treading the line and allows the debate to proceed. If they're smart.</p> <p>(1b) If it's egregious abuse (eg. severe abuse of conditionality) calmly state your case and I'll evaluate it. The key thing to remember is you need to try to have a round anyway. If it's something involving social aggression (sexism, racism, harrassment, etc.), see point (0).</p> <p>(1c) Similarly, the biggest. pet. peeve. I have in NPDA is complaining about loss of ground in a pro-forma T argument and then reading 4 DAs with clean links. I know the game was played this way for years but I'm sick of it, and it's the kind of crap that ruins this event. STOP DOING IT.</p> <p>Penalty: If you do this, your opponents can simply say: "WE MEET and their DAs externally link" and I'll consider that adequate refutation of the T.</p> <p>(2) FRAME CONTROL IS THE NAME OF THE GAME. You’re not reading cards, so you need to project rhetorical confidence and power. You must not only tell me what issues are more important in the round, but you should also do this at the end of every non-PMC speech.</p> <p>(3) ESTABLISH THE FRAMEWORK BY STATING IT EXPLICITLY. This is easy--say “value is X, criteria is Y” or something similar. Opposition teams can either accept the framework and show why we should reject the topic OR provide a counter-framework and show why it is better.</p> <p>(4) IN REBUTTALS, ALWAYS ANALYZE CLASH OF FRAMEWORK OR IMPACTS. The easiest way to do this in the rebuttal is to crystallize the framework or impacts and say “we said this, they said that, we win because such and so.” If you need an explanatory overview, go for it. All else being equal, this will win you the round if the other team flubs it.</p> <p>(5) OFFENSE IS BETTER THAN DEFENSE. You can win on terminal D, but it shouldn't be your game plan. If you don’t go on offense, you won’t be able to weigh impacts. Further, you’re not reading cards, so standing for something is simply more persuasive than standing against your opponent. While I don't believe the policy debate notion of "presumption" applies to Parli, I will not vote Gov unless Gov has at least some surviving offense, which has the same effect as presumption.</p> <p>(6a) PRE-PROCEDURALS REQUIRE WARRANTS FOR PRE-PROCEDURALITY. You must explicitly demonstrate how the theoretical, procedural, or kritikal implications of your argument block access to your opponents’ impacts.</p> <p>(6b) USE WEIRD OR SILLY TACTICS AT YOUR PERIL... This includes things like performance, laughably silly stock politics DAs, RVIs, wacky existentialism Ks, K-Affs, plan-minus PICs, Ospecs, and other stuff like that. Sure I'll listen and flow it, but then I'll probably wrinkle my nose and drop you, because I'm old school like that.</p> <p>(6c) ...BUT I'M FAR MORE LIKELY TO ENTERTAIN THE UNUSUAL IN ROUNDS WITH BAD TOPICS.... If I feel the standard approach to your side of a topic is likely to force you to argue something absurd or offensive, I will give you a larger amount of latitude for nonstandard approaches. (Even though I will always intervene like this if I am aware of the imbalance, it's safer to point out to me that this principle should be in play.) A recent example is "USFGS mandate that blood donors cannot be discriminated against based on sexual orientation." Opposition teams are in the uncomfortable position of either advocating for discrimination or bad science if they are forced into the policymaker framework. K's and politics DAs are really the only ground they have, so I'm giving them a lot more weight.</p> <p>(6d) ...OR IF YOUR OPPONENTS ARE ABUSIVE. See point (0) on equity and point (1) on warrants.</p> <p>(7) SPEED DOESN’T KILL, BUT IT PROBABLY DOESN’T HELP. I’m probably about twice your age and don’t follow things nearly as well as I used to. A well-developed single argument wins against eight blippy and hard-to-follow ones. I’ll do the best I can, but it works better for all of us if you save your breath and show some quality of thought.</p> <p>(8) IF I SUSPECT YOU'RE MAKING CRAP UP, I WILL “GOOGLE IT”. I won’t entertain arguments that are patently absurd just because they are theoretically proper, and if the round comes down to a factual dispute, I will do as much research as I can in 5 minutes. If that doesn’t resolve it, I will consider the argument a wash.</p> <p>(9) SPEAKS. Speaks. I use something close to the last NPTE rubric. PMs and LOs start with 27. Members start with 27.5. Then you depart from there in 0.5 increments. Your speaks will be between 26 and 29 unless something highly unusual has happened. In novice or junior, these numbers measure your progress against the progress I expect from developing debaters (that is, it's much harder to get a 28 in March than in October).</p> <p>(10) YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?</p> <p>Seriously, you worry way too much about these things. If you want to know the detailed crap like whether I prefer functional or textual competition or junk like that, just ask before the round.</p> <p> </p>
Darren Meaney - MHCC
Dave Kosloski - Clark CC
David Scott - CBC
n/a
David Childers - MHCC
Denise Vaughan - Bellevue
<p>General information:</p> <p>I did LD in High School, CEDA in College and now coach NPDA. I am open to a variety of forms of debate. Each round should take on its own form. Any form or strategy is fine as long as everyone is the room can communicate. I attempt to bring as little to the debate as possible although no judge can be totally tabla rosa.<br /> <br /> Specific information:<br /> <br /> Topicality: I appreciate strategic interpretations of resolutions and will give a fair amount of room for the government to interpret the resolution. They key is that everyone has some ground and some ability to debate. I will also give a fair amount of room for novices to work on format and learn the rules. </p> <p>Counterplans: CPs are great. Condo is ok if well argued. Disclose condo or no condo in the first speech. My strong feeling is that it should not be about tricking the other team but going after a higher level of argumentation.</p> <p><br /> The kritik: Kritiks are great--aff or neg. Make a good, well-reasoned argument and have a reason for the K. Then make sure to engage. </p> <p><br /> Theory: Great. Go nuts.<br /> <br /> Disads: Cool. Link them.<br /> <br /> </p>
Don Humphrey - CBC
n/a
Drew Proctor - CBC
n/a
Ginny Quinley - CBC
n/a
Jana Freese - CBC
n/a
John Jablonski - Clark CC
Kyle Pollington - CBC
n/a
Le'Ana Freeman - CBC
n/a
Liz Kinnaman - MHCC
Nick Mauer - CBC
n/a
Nik Vaughn - Clark CC
Primm Linda - CBC
n/a
Ryan Lowe - CBC
n/a
Sara Seyller - Clark CC
<p>I have enjoyed participating in the collegiate debate community since 2007. I have participated in, coached, and judged NPDA, IPDA, and BP debate. I think any form of debate is both fun and educational!! While I enjoy sharp, pointed styles I am averse to disrespectful treatment of competitors, and find that it detracts from the whole of the debate. Overall, in each form of debate I am well versed in rules and expectations and hold firm to them. They are there for a reason and ought to be respected. This does not mean I lack flexibility, but it does mean that outright violations will be noted in nowhere else but in speaker point awards.</p> <p>In many ways I consider myself a hybrid, I am a flow judge with a speed govern of just short of ludicrous speed (IE spittle running down face as they gasp for air every few minutes), but I also appreciate arguments that use persuasive rhetoric and style rather than reliance on an excess of words to win solely by tabulating dropped arguments.</p> <p>As far as Procedurals, liked or otherwise, is becoming an important if not critical component to debating in NPDA. As such, I am open to all forms of arguments so long as they are connected to the case, it doesn’t take much to make it applicable. I am not a big fan of winning on dropped arguments alone unless the drop so large that the gaping hole left is enough to sink the case. I leave it up to the competitors to set the rounds as they see fit. </p> <p>In IPDA and BP there is a heavier reliance on style and persuasion rather than procedurals. As such, I tend to be less about detailed flows and more attentive to the connections made both within the cases and through clash provided connected to the opponents case. In these rounds, the devil is in the details. I am most appreciative of competitors that can connect to the people in the room by explaining how it might impact us, why it matters to us, or the harms and benefits we would be exposed to should something occur. Ivory tower syndrome, arguing so far up in the building that it become abstract concepts of competing theory, is extraordinarily hard to do given the time frame and is more often isolates competitors and judges from the argument rather than including them.</p>
Sarah Watson - CBC
n/a
Sheri Wilcox - CBC
n/a