Judge Philosophies
Alex Aebly - NIU
n/a
Amanda Pettigrew - Moraine Valley
n/a
Andrew Robinson - Aurora Unv
n/a
BRIAN CAFARELLI - Parkland
n/a
Bonnie Gabel - McHenry
n/a
Brianne Giese - Aurora Unv
n/a
Bryan Asbury - ICC
n/a
Chase Budziak - Kishwaukee
n/a
Chris Langone - OCC
n/a
David Nadolski - OCC
n/a
Ed Schwarz - PSC
n/a
Jill Laumbacher - North Central
John Nash - Moraine Valley
n/a
Jude Geiger - COD
Kacy Abeln - Kishwaukee
n/a
Kelsey Figiel - COD
<p>Organization is key! Along with that, please do not speed, as that does not show me your critical thinking or argumentation skills. When you present a weighing mechanism, please bring it throughout the entire debate. For me, that continues the organization of the debate from start to finish. Finally, respect each other! Enjoy yourself and learn something from your competitors! </p>
Lauren Fowkes - NIU
n/a
Lauren Morgan - COD
<p>I coach parliamentary debate at a community college on a circuit that emphasizes clear communication (no speed and spread), use of general knowledge, and persuasiveness. My teams do not debate on NPDA or IPDA circuits, so I am not used to hearing speed and spread; it is difficult for me to follow. I appreciate debaters who are able to adjust their speaking style. I stress use of the weigining mechanism; if it is the criteria by which debaters ask me to judge the debate, I expect debaters to make use of the weighing mechanism throughout the debate. I am also <em>not</em> impressed by "preponderance of evidence," especially if it is simply meant to overwhelm the other team. I expect strong argumentation (reasoning and evidnece), but teams may utilize different types of evidence (i.e. reasoning by sign). Avoidance of logical fallacies is paramount. Topicality arguments are okay, but a team must have very strong, clear reasoning to call T. If teams are condescending or overly aggressive in their communication style, that is cause for me to stop listening and may cost you the debate. </p>
Lynn Harper - CLC
n/a
Matt Beifuss - COD
Melissa Entzminger - Highland
n/a
Melissa Gomez - COD
NATHAN STEWART - Parkland
n/a
Nathan Carter - NOVA
n/a
Richard Paine - North Central
<p>Debate Philosophy:</p> <p> (1) CLASH. Don't let the debate turn into two ships passing in the night. Be sure you respond to what your opponents say. Carry through your own ideas (story) but also be sure you respond in detail to their story. In terms of the sheer amount of time spent on the stories, I prefer that the debate preference Gov. ground - Opp ground should clearly be an analysis of what the Gov. position is. Go line-by-line, be direct, be complete. Pull through dropped arguments.</p> <p> (2) STRUCTURE. I want to see it. I want to hear numbers/letters AND precise tags. If I don't know where you are, I can't flow it effectively.</p> <p> (3) SUPPORT your claims/assertions with specific concrete data whenever possible. </p> <p> (4) TAKE QUESTIONS. This is my pet peeve. If someone rises to ask a question, take it, and take it quickly. Statements like "I don't have time right now" or "I'll answer it at the end of the position" are a sure way to press all the wrong buttons with me. Questions are crucial to debate and must be honored. How many? Three allowed per speech sounds about right to me.</p> <p> (5) NEGATIVE RESPONSE OPTIONS. I am not a fan of Counterplans, and I am not a fan of Kritiks. If you choose to run them, I will of course listen to them and evaluate them - but I am not naturally inclined to embrace them.</p> <p> (6) DISADVANTAGES. I am not a fan of unrealistic high-impact disads ("Increasing grade school funding will lead to nuclear war"). Realistic and believable real-world consequences are more likely to carry weight with me. Disadvantages must be evaluated in terms of both their impact AND by how likely they are to occur.</p> <p> (7) SPEED. It should be easily comprehensible. </p> <p> (8) DEBATE JARGON. I want to hear the whole argument convincingly. Don't just toss out the lingo ("Turn! Perm!") and assume that's enough. You will have to explain the process by which the lingo applies.</p> <p> (9) SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. Partners should not talk to each other during their speeches or "cover mistakes" when the debater speaking starts to waver.</p> <p> (10) PLANS. In policy rounds, the plan should be fully provided in the PMC. It is not sufficient to say "any questions? No? Well, you had your chance." The burden is on the Gov. to provide a complete plan without prompting in the PMC. If that doesn't happen, I consider myself free (and likely) to vote on the basis of missing Plan planks.</p> <p> (11) OTHER THINGS? Please ask! I welcome all questions!</p> <p> (12) Have fun. Enjoy it. It's just a game!</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Richard Singletary, II - McHenry
n/a
Ricky Lopez - Elgin
n/a
Ryan Most - North Central
Tim Anderson - Elgin
n/a
Trent Webb - Nassau
n/a