Judge Philosophies
Aaron Duncan - UNL
n/a
Abbie Syrek - UNO
n/a
Brian Hoffman - HC
n/a
Chris Joffrion - WKU
Dan West - Ohio U
n/a
Darrell Farmer - UNL
n/a
Darren Epping - Miami U
n/a
David Tuck - UNL
n/a
David Worth - Rice
n/a
Dawn Lowry - WKU
Dustin Haider - Concordia
n/a
Glenn Prince - Rice
n/a
Jenn Sullivan - Rice
n/a
Jeremy Christensen - Hillsdale
n/a
Jessica Furgerson - Ohio U
n/a
Joel Hefling - SD State
n/a
John Price - CMU
n/a
Julie Harley - NECC
n/a
Kaleb Jessee - WKU
Kittie Grace - HC
n/a
Kris Stroup - Longview
n/a
Kristi Scholten - Truman
n/a
Mark Baechtel - Grinnell
n/a
Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale
n/a
Meadows Chad - WKU
<p> </p> <p><strong>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.</strong></p> <p>1 -<strong>Evidence</strong></p> <p>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.</p> <p><br /> 2 - <strong>Speed</strong>/<strong>Flowing</strong><br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 3 - <strong>Argument Selection</strong><br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Specific Issues:<br /> 1 - Topicality is a voter and not a reverse voter. "Proving abuse" is irrelevant, well explained standards are not.<br /> 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.<br /> 3 – Conditionality is logical, restraints on logical decision making are only justified in extreme circumstances. <br /> 4 – There is nothing implied in the plan. Consult, process, and other counterplans which include the entirety of the plan text are not competitive.<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> 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. <br /> 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.<br /> 9 - I am very unlikely to make a decision primarily based upon defensive arguments.<br /> <br /> <a href="mailto:chadwickmeadows@gmail.com">chadwickmeadows@gmail.com</a></p> <p> </p>
Nikki Freeman - UCM
Rachel Haider - Concordia
n/a
Russ Luce - Truman
n/a
Valerie Melton - UCM
n/a
William Murphy - Metro
n/a