FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Aly Fetzer - Pacific

<div> Speed is not a tool for intentionally skewing someone else out of a round. I will vote on this.</div> <div>  </div> <div> Ts are not your chance to whine. And you should understand grammatical structure before running one.</div> <div>  </div> <div> I hate perms. I think PICs are smart.</div> <div>  </div> <div> I like case-specific Ks.</div> <div>  </div> <div> I take speaker points seriously--if you're a poor speaker or rude to your opponents, you will not win very many points. If you're a good speaker, you will. Simple as that.</div> Have fun!

Ben Robin - WKU

Chad Meadows - WKU

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. 1 -Evidence 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. 2 - Speed/Flowing 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. 3 - Argument Selection 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. Specific Issues: 1 - Topicality is a voter and not a reverse voter. "Proving abuse" is irrelevant, well explained standards are not. 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. 3 – Conditionality is logical, restraints on logical decision making are only justified in extreme circumstances.  4 – There is nothing implied in the plan. Consult, process, and other counterplans which include the entirety of the plan text are not competitive. 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. 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. 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.  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. 9 - I am very unlikely to make a decision primarily based upon defensive arguments. <a href="mailto:chadwickmeadows@gmail.com">chadwickmeadows@gmail.com</a>

Darrell Farmer - UNL

n/a

Dave Trumble - St. A\'s

n/a

Heather Erickson - Emerson

n/a

Ian Hopkins - Miami U

n/a

Jeremy Frazier - WKU

John Stanley - North Central

John Boyer - Lafayette

n/a

Jordan Compton - Ohio U

n/a

Josh Rocha - Akron

n/a

Kaleb Jessee - WKU

Kristi Scholten - Truman

n/a

Mark Rittenour - Akron

n/a

Marlin Bates - Pacific

ection 1 – General Information Dr. Marlin Bates University of the Pacific Years judging LD:  I judged your coaches. Years coaching:  I coached your parents. Decision calculus:  I will generally decide where and how I am instructed to decide by the debaters themselves.  I am generally open to any arguments.  However, in my old age, I have determined the following: <ol> <li>This is a communication event.  Communicate. Speed is discouraged.  I am fully capable of flowing any speed demon.  However, I choose not to. </li> <li>Cross-examination is binding & important.  You should address your questions and answers to the critic, not each other.</li> <li>Be polite and have fun.</li> </ol> Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters.  Please be specific and clear.  This may include your background, delivery preferences and general thoughts on paradigms (stock issues, policy maker, tabula rasa, etc). Section 1 – General Information Dr. Marlin Bates University of the Pacific Years judging LD:  I judged your coaches. Years coaching:  I coached your parents. Decision calculus:  I will generally decide where and how I am instructed to decide by the debaters themselves.  I am generally open to any arguments.  However, in my old age, I have determined the following: <ol> <li>This is a communication event.  Communicate. Speed is discouraged.  I am fully capable of flowing any speed demon.  However, I choose not to. </li> <li>Cross-examination is binding & important.  You should address your questions and answers to the critic, not each other.</li> <li>Be polite and have fun.</li> </ol> Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters.  Please be specific and clear.  This may include your background, delivery preferences and general thoughts on paradigms (stock issues, policy maker, tabula rasa, etc). If someone wants to run a procedural, I will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round.  As with ALL arguments, I have no pre-existing prejudices. In general, I think critiques discussed at high rates of speed are antithetical both to the event and to the subject matter under discussion, but, as I just said, I have no biases to vote for or against them. Stand up when speaking.

Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale

n/a

Mike Storr - Miami U

n/a

Nichole Evans - North Central

Nick Garcia - OSU

n/a

Noah Rosenthal - UPenn

Section 1 – General Information<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> What is your background?  What are your thoughts on judging paradigms (e.g. - stock issues, policy maker, tabula rasa, NFA rules, etc.)?  How do you choose who wins the round?  What makes for good debate in your opinion?  What don’t you like to see in a debate round?  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I like good debate, and I believe that good debate is most likely to happen when the debaters get to choose what to argue and how to argue it. There are definitely a lot of arguments that I DO like, but there are pretty much no arguments that I DON'T like.  Just make sure you have good warrants for your claims, and you will be fine.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I was a national circuit policy debater in high school, and I did NFA-LD during my freshman and sophomore undergrad years. During my junior and senior years I have been coaching the activity. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I do have one particular preference, but I'm pretty sure that this applies to almost every judge: If you are going to make a claim in a round, make sure you back it up with supporting reasons. (Note that "reasons" don't necessarily have to be "cards.") For the most part, this isn't really a problem; giving reasons is a natural part of argumentation for most people. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The one area where this does create problems is when arguments are based on "common sense." For example, when their opponents read nuclear war impacts, some debaters like to reply with "nuclear war won't happen - that's just common sense!" What you are essentially saying is that "most people don't think nuclear war will happen," but that does not mean your claim is true; in 1491, most people thought the world was flat, even though there was good evidence to the contrary. Instead, you should say something like "nuclear war won't happen - diplomacy will prevent conflicts from escalating" or "states won't use nuclear weapons because they fear mutually assured destruction" or "their nuclear war claims aren't true - the author of their card is being deliberately hyperbolic." These are actual reasons that can help me decide whether or not your claim is true. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> (Note that "common sense" is different from common knowledge. Common knowledge are basic things on which every reasonable person would agree, e.g. that the sun rises in the east or that there are 26 letters in the English alphabet. You certainly don't need to provide evidence in support of basic claims like these.) <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Finally, I want to address the NFA-LD rules. If you want me to enforce any or all of the rules (and, in your speeches, you give me good reasons why I should), I will. If you want me to not enforce them (and, once again, give me good reasons in your speeches), I won't. I think that this closely mirrors the real world. The Constitution functions as the "rules" for our government. We enforce the constitution when it makes sense (e.g. we protect the right to free speech...) but make exceptions when it doesn't (...unless there is a "clear and present danger"). <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Section 2 – Specific Inquiries<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 1. How do you adjudicate speed?  What is the role of communication and delivery?  What is the value of C-X?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Personally, I am fine with speed. During high school, I "spread" in every round. When I was debating in college, I spread whenever I could. If you want to speak fast, I will have no problem flowing. If I had to choose between listening to a slow round and a fast round, I would choose the fast round. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> That being said, if you want to make an argument that I should enforce the "speed rule" and vote down a spreading opponent, I will certainly listen. And, if you win the argument that enforcing the rule is good, I won't hesitate to vote for you. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Being fast or alow will never influence your speaker points. I care about clarity, efficiency, and argument quality. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> C-X is not a speech. I will listen to C-X, but I won't flow it. If you make an argument in C-X but don't mention it in a speech, I can't evaluate it. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> In my opinion, C-X is binding. Of course, you can always argue that it isn't, and I'll certainly listen to these arguments. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 2. How do you weigh and compare impacts?  Do you have a preference for certain kinds of impacts?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> You (the debater) should tell me what impacts are important and how I should compare impacts. If your reasons are good, I'll do what you tell me to. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 3. How do you view topicality?  Do you think topicality is jurisdictional?  What are your thoughts on abuse, standards, and voters?  What do AFF and NEG have to do to win topicality?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If the negative convinces me that the affirmative plan isn't topical and tells me that this is a voting issue, I will vote negative. I'm pretty sure that this is how every judge in the world evaluates topicality. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Two things to note: <o:p></o:p> According to the NFA-LD rules, affirmatives must be topical. See my discussion of rules above. <o:p></o:p> I am probably more amenable to Topicality than a lot of judges in NFA-LD. This is not because topicality is my favorite argument (although I do enjoy a good T debate), but rather because I don't actively *dislike* topicality. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 4.  What are your thoughts on Counterplans and Kritiks?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> CPs and Ks are fine. I ran counterplans/kritiks in a lot of rounds. I didn't run counterplans/kritiks in other rounds. You can run a counterplan/kritik if you want. You can not run a counterplan/kritik if you want. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Note that there are rules about negative advocacies. See my discussion of the rules above. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 5. How important is evidence?  What is the role of analysis? <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Evidence is important. Analysis is also important. You probably need both to win a debate round. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> One final note: I will ALWAYS do my best to evaluate your arguments. I will NEVER say anything like "the aff has some good arguments and the neg has some good arguments, so I treat this flow as a wash." Your job is to (1) make arguments and (2) compare your arguments to your opponents'. My job is to determine whose comparisons are better. <o:p></o:p>

Patricia Morrison - Capital

n/a

Rahul Guha - ISU

Russ Luce - Truman

n/a

Sam Howe - OSU

n/a

T. Elliot Gaiser - Hillsdale

n/a

Thomas Holt - Hillsdale

n/a

Tiernan Cahill - Emerson

n/a

Travis McLaughlin - UC

n/a

Whitney Hart - Pacific

Experience: I have been around some form of debate since 2003. I debated policy in high school for two years; in college, I debated LD four years and parli for a semester at Missouri Southern State University. And I’ve been coaching/judging in some capacity since 2009. <o:p> </o:p> In general, run whatever you want. As long you as explain how the position accesses my ballot, I will vote on it. Debate is a game. Be strategic to win. The round is yours and you should make it your own. The following information is about my general judging philosophy, but I am willing to suspend my ow<a name="_GoBack"></a>n preconceived notions to vote where the debaters tell me to vote. These are my defaults. <o:p> </o:p> Please do impact calculus. I have found myself having to weigh issues in such a way that it gives me a headache, so do it for me to make my decision easy. I tell debaters to “write my ballot for me.” What I mean by that is do sophisticated comparative analysis and explain exactly what I should vote on and why and you will probably come out ahead. Impact calculus does not necessarily mean that your argument “outweighs” in a traditional sense of the word. But each argument you make in the debate round should serve a purpose and you should make that purpose explicit to me. On a related note, I am really tired of hearing ridiculous impact scenarios without internal links. If your impact is global nuclear war, tell me how you get there in a way that actually makes sense. Too often, positions are much like fat bottom girls (bottom/impact heavy and not link heavy) … and while they do make the rockin’ debate world go ‘round, they give me a headache. I am more likely to vote on probability than magnitude if you neglect your internal links. And do not tell me something is dehumanization without explaining HOW it is dehumanizing. An individual not getting paid what they deserve is not dehumanization. <o:p> </o:p> Speaker points: I award these based on a combination of how well you present yourself and the quality of your arguments. If you are excessively rude, your speaker points will reflect that. If you argue with me about a decision I have made, expect to see 1 speaker point on your ballot (yes, that’s o-n-e). Also—do not prompt your partner. This annoys me beyond all else. They are your partner. You should trust them. If you must help them, pass them a note. If you have to tell them what they should say every time they start a sentence, you need a new partner or you need to stop being such a control freak. I will tank your speaker points for this. Also, if the person who is giving the speech doesn’t say it, I don’t flow it. <o:p> </o:p> Speed: I do not care how quickly you speak. I will keep up. I really love listening to someone who is fast and articulate. As long as you do not sacrifice clarity to speed, we will be fine. If you are gasping for air and incomprehensible, your speaker points will suffer. I want a good, substantive debate. Speed should not be used to exclude others from the round, but should be used to enhance the quality of the debate by allowing debaters to a greater number of warranted arguments. <o:p> </o:p> Procedurals: I love debates about debate. Specification arguments regarding funding, enforcement, agent, etc. are great, but I prefer they be resolution-specific and the negative must explain how that particular specification is important. It’s difficult to convince me that the resolution sets a precedent for what the plan text should include since everyone has only known about it for about 20 minutes, so be prepared for me to be empathetic to a “normal means” response. I default to competing interpretations, but part of the standards debate should probably be ground arguments. Topicality: I love topicality debates and I view topicality as an issue of competing interpretations. Don’t blip out voters. I don’t know why I would vote on “fairness and education.” I have never heard a compelling RVI. I do not really know what it means to be “reasonably topical” because I have only heard it articulated in a way that wasn’t totally asinine once. The opposition can just as easily come up with an arbitrary interpretation of the resolution and use topicality to exclude the government as the government can arbitrarily demonstrate the resolution with their case to exclude the opposition. <o:p> </o:p> Criticisms: I was not a K debater, but that does not mean I have not voted for them. However, a clearly articulated alternative is a must. To win the K in front of me, you have to win the framework and the alternative. Do not assume that I know the same things you do about what your specific author says. Explain the thesis of their argument to me and explain why your criticism accesses my ballot. This is largely neglected. What role does my ballot serve? This needs to be explicit. Critical affirmatives: I will listen to them, but I will also listen to arguments about why your critical affirmative isn’t topical. <o:p> </o:p> Counterplans: are conditional unless otherwise specified. Counterplans should be held to the same standards of solvency as the affirmative. <o:p> </o:p> General information: When the PMR or LOR makes a new argument, I cross through it on my flow, whether you call the point of order or not. Call points of order if you’d like; they are a useful check against your opponent and a tool only available to parli debaters. But if you’re going to call a point of order, explain why your opponent’s argument is new. Also, if you’re going to respond to points of order, explain why it’s not new with direct reference to the previous argument (speech where the argument was originally made, how it was phrased, etc.) so I know what you are talking about and can rule accordingly. But I don’t evaluate new arguments. <o:p> </o:p> I don’t believe in shadow extensions. If you are the LO and you make an argument in the LOC and your MO does not extend it, an LOR extension is a new argument to me. Same thing goes for PMs and MGs.

2012 Frolic Some More

Judge Philosophies

Aly Fetzer - Pacific

Ben Robin - WKU

Chad Meadows - WKU

Darrell Farmer - UNL

Dave Trumble - St. A\'s

Heather Erickson - Emerson

Ian Hopkins - Miami U

Jeremy Frazier - WKU

John Stanley - North Central

John Boyer - Lafayette

Jordan Compton - Ohio U

Josh Rocha - Akron

Kaleb Jessee - WKU

Kristi Scholten - Truman

Mark Rittenour - Akron

Marlin Bates - Pacific

Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale

Mike Storr - Miami U

Nichole Evans - North Central

Nick Garcia - OSU

Noah Rosenthal - UPenn

Patricia Morrison - Capital

Rahul Guha - ISU

Russ Luce - Truman

Sam Howe - OSU

T. Elliot Gaiser - Hillsdale

Thomas Holt - Hillsdale

Tiernan Cahill - Emerson

Travis McLaughlin - UC

Whitney Hart - Pacific

William Miller - North Central

2012 Frolic Some More

Judge Philosophies

Aly Fetzer - Pacific

Ben Robin - WKU

Chad Meadows - WKU

Darrell Farmer - UNL

Dave Trumble - St. A\&#039;s

Heather Erickson - Emerson

Ian Hopkins - Miami U

Jeremy Frazier - WKU

John Stanley - North Central

John Boyer - Lafayette

Jordan Compton - Ohio U

Josh Rocha - Akron

Kaleb Jessee - WKU

Kristi Scholten - Truman

Mark Rittenour - Akron

Marlin Bates - Pacific

Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale

Mike Storr - Miami U

Nichole Evans - North Central

Nick Garcia - OSU

Noah Rosenthal - UPenn

Patricia Morrison - Capital

Rahul Guha - ISU

Russ Luce - Truman

Sam Howe - OSU

T. Elliot Gaiser - Hillsdale

Thomas Holt - Hillsdale

Tiernan Cahill - Emerson

Travis McLaughlin - UC

Whitney Hart - Pacific

William Miller - North Central

Dave Trumble - St. A\'s