FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Ailey Pope - Wiley

n/a

Andy Luster - PVAMU

n/a

Cary Chavis - Wiley

n/a

Rayla Crawford - Wiley

n/a

Sarah Rainey - Wiley

General Paradigm: Sarah Spiker Rainey<o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Background: 2011 NFA LD National Champion and Top Speaker. 4 year LD competitor at WKU with outrounds at nationals every year. 2011 State Champion in Parli. 4 year Parli competitor at WKU, although only 2 years were at the national circuit and I was a complete n00b back then so it doesn't really count; outrounds at NPDA/NPTE nats.   <o:p> </o:p>   Presumption: I presume neg, unless a CP is introduced in the round. Then presumption flips aff. Do NOT just say “Perm: Do both”. I need an exact perm text, preferably written down so that I can view the exact wording if it becomes an issue at the end of the round. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Defense v. Offense: Terminal defense is a winnable neg strategy, but you put all your eggs in one basket that way…it’s a risky way to get my ballot especially since most Affs will still show a propensity to solve. Your Terminal D better be baller. <o:p></o:p>   Extensions: I will not vote on arguments that are incompletely extended in rebuttals. If the warrant and impact are not articulated, I will cross out the argument from my flow. You need to extend your impact scenarios. Too many debaters get caught up in the link/link turn debate that they forget the impact. If an advantage or DA is dropped, tell me to “Extend Adv 1….this was 100% cold conceded with a dropped Nuke War/Global Warming/Extinction/5 million in poverty impact…at the end of the round, this is the most probably impact because there is zero defense/offense on the link or impact level.” Then give reasons why Adv 1 impacts o/w whatever other impacts are in the round. Just don’t tell me “Extend Adv 1” and move on. Do some impact calc. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Impact Calculus: I prefer impact calculus preferably in the 1NC (at the end of each DA or case turn). The 1AR at the latest. I flow impact calcs and consider them dropped weighing mechanisms for the ballot if unresponded to. If you don’t give impact calculus (or try/die or risk analysis), I default to probability over magnitude. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Counter Plans: I’m partial to good Devolve CPs. I’m definitely not a fan of poorly constructed Devolve CPs. Run them at your own risk…you may get chewed out on the ballot if you substantially mishandle a Devolve/States CP or Federalism DA. You need great topic-specific evidence to make me happy here. As for CPs in general, you need strong, intuitive mutual exclusivity arguments. Speaks: You should care about speaker points. They are absolutely critical to seeding and close breaks out of prelims. At NFA, your speaker points will certainly matter as you adapt back and forth between IE crossover judges and experienced policy judges. ADAPT. Speaking points and the flow are two separate issues. In general, wins are correlated with higher speaks, but that isn’t always the case. I deduct one point automatically for not reading full citations. You won’t lose the round for not reading full cites (unless there is a full cites procedural in the round) but you will lose one speaker point. I won’t hold it against you but I think the best debates occur when credentials are fully read as required by the rules (author’s name, qualifications, date, and publication source). If you are scoffing, laughing, snorting, etc during your opponent’s speeches, what’s wrong with you? 2 point deduction (or more depending on degree of infraction). Show some decorum! I won’t hold facial expressions against you, just don’t audibly interrupt your opponent. Double breathing and gasping while spreading will get you docked as well. Speed: Speed and clarity are two separate issues. Monotone speed reading, not a fan. Punch your words if you’re reading fast—articulate, articulate, articulate. Do pen drills. I also believe in accessibility. If your opponent cannot understand you, they have the right to call out “clear!” for clarity issues and “speed” for speed issues. Rules do states speed and spread is antithetical to this event. I believe that as long as everyone can access the round, I see no problem with speed delivery. And if your opponent really can’t flow that fast, you probably still won’t have issues winning the round at a slower pace anyway. Topicality: I do vote on T. However, too many T shells have generic violations/standards and not tailored to case. If you’re claiming ground abuse, I prefer you run the position you claim you should have access to (the DA or solvency press) and the T together. When your opponent no-links the DA/turn, then you collapse to T. Otherwise, I hate the mumbo jumbo of “I lost vague/nebulous/generic ground but I won’t specify what exactly” type T standards. Don’t just tell me “Limits good”. What kind of limits are good? Why are they fair? If you’re running Extra or Effects Topicality, your interpretation should include the words “direct” or “directly”…your violation should state “the plan is Extra/Effect Topical…[insert brief explanation]”. Effects/Extra T is NOT a standard. It is a violation. Your standards are why Extra/Effects T is bad. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   I rarely if ever vote on RVIs. I think they are easily answered. Negs can answer the RVI fairly concisely then kick T. 90% of the time, RVIs are run by people who were top heavy and couldn’t allocate time in their rebuttal properly. I’m not going to punish the Neg because Aff has poor time management skills. <o:p></o:p>   Reasonability begs judge intervention. Theory: Reading theory is fine…just tell me to “add another sheet on top of the CP” or whatever before you do. Otherwise, my flow gets crammed with the theory half and the on-position half of the debate. I may not like the particular theory shell you’re reading, but it’s not my fault if debaters can’t navigate answering the shell. I will not vote on theory if you forget to extend the internal link between the standard and the voter (or any other part of the shell, for that matter). Theory arguments should not be 10 second blips…you must development the argument if you plan to win on it. Otherwise, it’s wasted time for us both. Critical arguments: I stole this from a high school judge’s paradigm, but it fits what I believe: “I'm fine with critical arguments and am familiar with the basic gist of most arguments by continental philosophers, but I have not read any particular texts. I'll be upset if a debater's rebuttal massively clarifies the dense rhetoric of the constructive. I'm sympathetic to "if you didn't understand/flow it, don't vote on it" types of arguments. I will not vote on an argument that I do not understand.” I believe that far too often individuals hide behind the vocabulary of their K author without explaining its practical application in common language. This leads to frustrating CX as the opponent attempts to determine how these terms impact the debate. If you can’t explain a K position to the masses (i.e. imagine a bus driver judge) then you aren’t doing it right. I’m not stupid, but I won’t do K work for you by presuming you/I are on the same page regarding what these terms mean. K alternatives should have solvency. I much prefer CP alternatives as opposed to “reject ___________ and reconceptualize __________” alternatives. Reading the judge: I’m a fairly animated judge. If you (or your opponent) say something that is absolutely ridiculous and unwarranted, expect me to make a face. I grimace, nod in affirmation, and give quizzical looks regularly. Just giving you honest facial feedback throughout the round. It would be great if you could act accordingly because then we will all be happy. If I look like I’m not flowing in your rebuttal, that doesn’t mean you’ve lost. In fact, it may mean you’ve already made the argument that wins the round. Only in close rounds am I flowing up until the final second of the 2AR. I do read evidence when either a) you call for me to read it or b) the claim/counter claims are just too close to play by ear.<o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Sharing evidence: If you read it in round, you’re sharing it. Period. Your opponent and/or judge must be given a copy of anything and everything you read in the round if requested—during CX or immediately following the round. I don’t care if they hand write out the citations, take photos, or scan it with one of those fancy pens that capture digital text. Your integrity is at stake. Take pride in the quality of your evidence and your ability to debate. I strongly believe one of the only ways to verify that evidence is being accurately cited is to allow competitors to check the evidence of their opponent’s in between rounds or after tournaments. On more than one occasion, I would find individuals who were being unethical in their evidence. We were able to uncover such abuses only by verifying the evidence after round. Therefore, you must share (if requested) if I’m your judge. If you have any other questions, my email is <a href="mailto:srainey@wileyc.edu">srainey@wileyc.edu</a> or <a href="mailto:sarah.spiker@gmail.com">sarah.spiker@gmail.com</a> <o:p></o:p>

Judge Philosophies

Ailey Pope - Wiley

Andy Luster - PVAMU

Cary Chavis - Wiley

Rayla Crawford - Wiley

Sarah Rainey - Wiley

Sean Allen - Wiley

Todd Rainey - Wiley

2014 The HBCU National Speech and Debate Championship

Judge Philosophies

Ailey Pope - Wiley

Andy Luster - PVAMU

Cary Chavis - Wiley

Rayla Crawford - Wiley

Sarah Rainey - Wiley

Sean Allen - Wiley

Todd Rainey - Wiley