FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alex Jubb - Tulane

n/a

Amani Sapp - Spelman

n/a

Brittany Russell - Spelman

n/a

Elise Matton - Tulane

I view my paradigm as a set of preferences to aid debaters in understanding how I view a round, but I do not believe debaters should completely alter their styles of debate to fit my paradigm. Debate is about advocating for your views, so ultimately just do what you do best and what you feel most comfortable with. I’m not going to vote you down simply because you have a different opinion than me. EXPERIENCE I’ve been active in the debate community since 2005, when I started as a high school policy debater at Albuquerque Academy. I competed in the New Mexico circuit primarily in policy from 2005-2010, but also traveled to 3 national tournaments in the 2009-2010 year for policy debate. In 2011, I became a founding member of the Tulane University Debate Team. We competed for 2 years in the college IPDA format before making the switch to NPDA in 2013. Since graduating in 2014, I attend their practices regularly to judge practice rounds and have judged at Rice and LSU Shreveport NPDA tournaments in the 2015-2016 year. I’ve also judged the high school Louisiana circuit of policy, LD, and PF regularly from 2011 to the present. I also coach the middle school MSPDP format for the Crescent City Debate League, which is extremely similar to college parli, but with 3 debaters on each team. In sum, I was as a high school policy debater, competed parli in college, and now judge several formats regularly.   APPROACH TO DECISION-MAKING I firmly believe that debaters should be able to determine and advocate for the style of debating that best fits them, so I will go with whatever framework or weighing mechanism is given to me.  If none are specified, I weigh the arguments according to their offensive/defensive role in the round for either team. With regard to trichot, I don’t necessarily believe that just because a resolution is written a certain way necessitates a team to interpret or present a case in a particular manner. Simply saying “this isn’t a policy round” is not enough- you need to actually make a framework or theory argument to explain to me why their framing is flawed, offer an alternative, and weigh your counter-interpretation for me. I usually adhere to trichot with regard to policy/value/fact resolutions. However, I’ve seen debaters use this either incorrectly or abusively, so two things to note <ol> <li> In my opinion, while “should” resolutions typically call for a policy style case with a cost/benefit analysis weighing mechanism, I do not believe that Government teams should be required to present a full policy case using a policy action/actor/funding mechanism, etc. Especially because they have the right to define, I won’t give much weight to opp teams that argue about it not being a full policy case. There’s a reason policy is a separate event from parli, and it is totally possible to debate “should” resolutions simply using a cost/benefit approach, i.e. “we should/should not do this because of x, y, z.” I typically think that in parli, due to the changing topics each round and 30 minutes of prep, this presents much fairer rounds with better ground given to opposition teams. </li> <li> For “Fact” resolutions, weighing mechanisms that use preponderance of evidence/logic are preferred since we need to evaluate whether or not the resolutions appears to be more true than not. However, I’ve seen gov teams be extremely abusive in defining their terms in a way that makes the fact-based resolution a truism, leaving the Opposition no ground or possible arguments against this. Don’t do this. </li> </ol>   In sum, I default to tabula rasa (I’ll view the round in whatever way you argue that I should), and usually adhere to trichotomy interpretations of resolutions. “Should” resolutions do not have to be policy cases.   PRESENTATION AND COMMUNICATION: Debate is an activity focused on public speaking skills, so I do value debaters who are also good speakers. However, this usually has no bearing on my actually decision of who wins/loses a round. I have given low-point wins before when an excellent, eloquent team makes strategic errors or drops key points in a round. Cases with exceptions: In high school debate, sometimes I have rounds (typically novice) with NO weighing or clash of arguments. I usually will default Government in these cases since I believe it is Opposition’s burden to refute the Government's case, but will take into account speaking/presentation if I view teams as virtually “tied.”   ON-CASE ARGUMENTATION: Government teams should affirm the resolution using contention level analysis, and have the burden of proof. Opposition teams have the burden of refuting this case, but they can make their own offensive arguments using a separate case presented negating the resolution. If an opp team does not interact at all with the gov case, there’s no clash, it’s not a debate, and I have no means of weighing who is winning or losing points. Make sure you’re refuting the gov’s points, but I’ll definitely weigh your own offensive arguments on your case against theirs.   PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS: I was a policy debater, so I’ll understand whatever Topicality/Kritik/Counterplan, etc. you throw at me. I don’t think they always have a place in the round. Sometimes it’s fine, but make sure whatever means of presenting it you’re doing would be fair in a parli format. For Opposition teams, don’t run T or theory arguments unless a Government team is actually being abusive or unfair (unlike in policy when it can be run as part of a time-strat). If you really don’t have to run topicality, then don’t – it takes time away from the possible education in the round. In sum I’m fine with procedural arguments, but only make them if they will add value to the round. POINTS OF ORDER: Since points of order exist in parli, I believe teams themselves are responsible for calling their opponents for new arguments and won’t discount it from the round unless you do so. When making points of order, I will pause the time, allow the opponent to present their point, say “taken under consideration”, and then resume time. I will resolve it myself by checking against my flow after the round. In sum, you’re responsible for making them yourselves.   OTHER THINGS TO NOTE/PREFERENCES: Debate should be a safe space, and be focused on education in the round. I will intervene in cases where debaters are being exclusionary or violating that safety. I like humor, and appreciate civil interactions between teams. Passionate/heated debates are fine so long as people aren’t being disrespectful to their opponents. I flow on a computer, and am fine (and encourage) debaters to approach me post-round if they have any questions. I can flow and will understand a rapid delivery (speed), but view it as a debate skill that should only be used when everyone in the room (competitors and judge) are ok with using that skill. I typically don’t really think it has a place in NPDA however, since college policy also exists as a separate format. In sum, I flow and am fine with speed, but don’t really like it in NPDA.

Jan Wimmer - Tulane

Lauren Massey - Spelman

n/a

Sina Mansouri - Tulane

n/a

Storey Clayton - Tulane

I have been actively involved with formal competitive debate for 15 years, 10 of it at the collegiate level.  Most of my background is on APDA, where I competed for four years for Brandeis University (1998-2002) and coached professionally for five years for Rutgers University (2009-2014).  I am currently a volunteer coach for the Tulane University NPDA team.  This is my first year involved in NPDA and I’ve judged at Morehouse and, as of this submission, am planning on judging at two more tournaments before Nationals.  Before college, I did LD for five years in New Mexico (1993-1998), when it was much slower and less technical than it currently is.  I also competed sporadically in BP debate, including two trips to Worlds.  I won the North American Parliamentary Debate Championship in 2001, broke at Worlds in 2000, coached Rutgers to the APDA National Finals in 2014, and was in the APDA Nationals tab room at three different Championships (2003, 2007, 2011).   While I come from a strong background in APDA, I am adjusting to the style of NPDA.  However, I still bring with me many preferences about debate, many of which relate to an APDA perspective:   -Speed/eloquence is probably the biggest issue you’ll want to know about.  I cannot keep up with spreading and I find it to be unpersuasive debate.  Almost all debaters who speak quickly compromise rhetoric, persuasion, and often fluency.  I believe the purpose of debate is to make you good at speaking as well as thinking and no one in the outside world will be persuaded by you speaking at top speed.  Unfortunately, I can’t give you the perfect wpm that are the top of my threshold (and you don’t have to speak comically slowly or even at a “normal” pace to persuade me – I recognize this is still debate), but if trying to bombard your opponent with more arguments by speaking faster is part of your strategy, you will likely not do well with me.   -I dislike debates that come down to a question of facts.  This is not to say that what NPDA calls a “fact debate” is impossible for me, but your arguments should hinge on logically examinable ideas, not a they-said/they-said over facts.  Facts are innately inadjudicable for a judge and it’s frustrating to have a debate come down to something where I have to insert my own understanding of the issue into it.  I would prefer to be able to be tabula rasa and judge on how well you justified your perspective.  In questions of fact, the most persuasive team will show me how they win regardless of which side of a factual question is correct (“even if this fact is not true…”)   -I flow heavily and care about the flow, but I also need you to show me why arguments matter.  Every argument should follow the claim, warrant, impact structure, at least implicitly.  And examples certainly help make your point clear.  I would always rather see one strong, fleshed out response to a point than four blippy unwarranted responses.   -Rebuttals should be summations that pretty much entirely focus on voters and weighing.  Don’t hit the flow in rebuttals, other than PMR responding to critical new arguments in MO.   -I largely see technical debate as a remedy for unfairness, not as a general strategy to employ whenever.  Technical debate is less enjoyable, but certain technical elements such as topicality, must exist to keep the event fair to all competitors.  If you need to call T, by all means call T.  But don’t do it if you don’t need to.  I am definitely open to kritiks of all kinds, including as a strategy, but I need to believe that it’s sincere.  This is where your rhetoric and persuasion come into play.  If a kritik feels gimmicky, I’m not likely to be persuaded.  If it feels honest and real, then I’m more than open to it.  Counterplans are fair game whenever, but I think they can be strategically dangerous, especially when they minimize the clash in the round.  My favorite counterplans are clash-maximizing and really open up ground for the debate.   -I have a mild preference for you starting off-case and then going on-case in LOC, MG, and MO.  I could write a ten-page paper on why I think this is a better strategic approach to these speeches, but this is already pretty long.  But as long as you give me a clear roadmap and follow it (or clearly signpost deviations from it), you’re good.   -Call points of order if you need to.  Don’t be shy, they’re there for a reason.  This especially applies to time considerations – don’t pound or be obnoxious if your opponent is 30 seconds over – just call the point politely.  For new arguments, I weigh an argument that I know is new but doesn’t get called at 50% credit, because I don’t want you to try to get away with things that don’t get called.  That said, don’t rest on this laurel and decide not to call new points.  I have given multiple RFDs where I told a team that if they had literally called one point new in the opponent’s rebuttal, they would have won.  All that said, if I feel like you’re just trying to interrupt the rebuttal speaker and disrupt their flow, I will be annoyed.  I usually take new points “under consideration” unless I’m really sure, because I don’t want you to be sitting there for 30 seconds in the middle of your speech while I think about it.  I will look at the flow when I’m deciding the round and take it into account. Finally, I see debate as a holistic event.  It’s a combination of quality and quantity of arguments, persuasive speaking and logical backing, the flow and weighing.  I have judged literally hundreds of parliamentary debate rounds and I look forward to hearing and discussing yours!

2016 Green Wave Classic