Judge Philosophies
Bob Becker - NWC
As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round. I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so. To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues. Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important. All of that said, I am not an information processor. I am a human being and so are you. If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance.
When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose. Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I dont require competing interpretations.
I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. Im fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. We dont like the resolution doesnt cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some contradictory arguments good answers.
Performance based argument need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you dont tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round.
As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says one million deaths and the other says dehume, but doesnt explain why dehume is worse than deaths, Ill vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then Ill vote for dehume. I think Im telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.
I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast. I will tell you if I can't understand you. Also, one new trend I find frustrating in LD is tag lines that are multiple sentences long. Your tag line is a claim, but make it a brief one. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. Thats why Im here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.
Greg Gorham - GCU
Jacob Kirksey - Hired
n/a
Jenn Sides - CC
n/a
Jessica Jatkowski - NWC
I have been judging debate since 2015. However, this is only my first year coaching.
The most important element for me as a judge is to be respectful.
We are all coming to debate with our own preferences for issues, but I genuinely put my feelings and thoughts aside and will look at both sides to see who is giving the best argument. It is in the general framework of debate for you to tell me as a judge what I am weighing the debate on and bring evidence to the round. If you are unable to do so, then my general stance of how I judge is on the quality of evidence that both sides are bringing to the round.
In terms of actual speeches, it is important for everyone to understand what the issues and topics are, so speed may not be a benefit if I have to tell you to slow down.
Jillian Jaeger - CC
I competed in policy and NPDA and currently coach IPDA, NPDA, and BP styles of debate.
I have no preference in terms of what arguments are run in a round, but do expect that there is clash with the Aff's case and that you explain why the argument matters and why it is a voting issue.
- Topicality is always an apriori issue (if it is applicable) and will be voted on first.
- Kritiks need to explain what the alternative does and why voting for it matters - I'm not convinced by "nuclear war will never happen, but your ballot is a stand against racism." Do better. Be thoughtful. I seldom believe that Kritiks should be run as an Aff plan, but if they strongly link to the resolution, I may be persuaded.
Johnny Ranck - Hired
n/a
Keliann Nash - GCU
n/a
LJ Gomez - ASU
n/a
Mark Bittle - Hired
n/a
Mateo Munoz - Hired
n/a
Michael Dvorak - GCU
Mykah Vockel - Hired
n/a
Natalie Wellman - Maricopa
n/a
Noah Hirshorn - CC
n/a
Risa Katz - CC
n/a
Sarah Hinkle - CC
I mostly live in the world of IEs (read: 20 years of either
competing or coaching) but have moderate experience training in Worlds and IPDA-style
debate.
I like speakers who are fair and balanced: Ethics, Argumentation, Strategy, and Style.
Construct your case carefully with well-developed arguments. Build a foundation with clean definitions. Create values/criteria so I know how to weigh out the evidence. Provide Impacts and explain how you get there. I want a lively debate with good clash. Be well-versed in the topic while implementing high quality and recent research. Respect each other.
By the end of the debate, I should be able to clearly
understand the significance of your position to the resolution.
I tend to prefer argumentation to be grounded somewhat in
the real world and prefer depth rather than rattling off a list of contentions.
Tell me a story. Paint a picture. Speakers who effectively demonstrate why an issue is significant and/or relevant are building strong ethos. I want to be as
involved as possible.
Have fun and ignore my non-verbals! I tend to look surly but
that's just my face. J
Shaylyn Scheer - ASU
n/a
Shelby Bland - CC
n/a
Stephanie Bland - Hired
n/a
Stephen Sigman - CC
n/a
Victor Torres III - CC
I have competed in Speech and Debate in college as well as
coached it at my Alma Mater. I am very familiar with the IE side of things;
however, I can hold my own in comprehension and analysis of debate arguments.
I expect you to tell me where
we are and how to vote. I will watch time, but I prefer you to time yourselves
in case I am flowing. I would also appreciate if the burdens were introduced
early in the debate (e.g., criteria, key values, decision-rules, framework-type
arguments, moral imperatives, and etc.). I would lastly emphasize the
importance of a clear impact analysis. Be clear on your positions and be
careful to present it in a clear an organized fashion that is easy for me to
digest.
With regards to critical arguments, I need you as the debater
to explain to me how your argument impacts the round. These points are
important for me to see in your argument: be sure to explain your view of the
world and of your own argument, link to some sort of advocacy for the other
team and offer a constructive solution. I support critics that offer solutions
to the problems they bring up.
Performance debate arguments are fine; however, I need to
see that you have clear framework on how I should vote. I like to know the role
of the ballot and why I should vote the way I should.
I do not have much experience
as a debate judge so be careful with the technical finer points of your debate
strategy. Also please be aware of your speed. I am fine with you speaking fast;
however, please be cognizant that I may not be able to flow that fast. If there
is some point or argument topic that you would like me to write down, please
repeat it so that I have the signal âOh that is importantâ? and then will write
it down. Be sure to speak clearly, annunciate, and have fun.
Victoria Vockel - Hired
n/a
Zak Kroger - Hired
n/a