FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Amanda Pettigrew - Moraine Valley

n/a

Anne Green - North Central

n/a

Annie Sauter - Harper

n/a

BRIAN CAFARELLI - Parkland

n/a

Bill Lucio - HCC

n/a

Bonnie Gabel - McHenry

n/a

Brandon Wood - COD

Brian Shelton - Harper

n/a

Brianne Giese - Aurora Unv

n/a

Carolyn Nivling - COD

n/a

Charlie Mulvey - Harper

Chris Langone - OCC

n/a

Darren Elliott - KCKCC

Darren Elliott “Chief”------Director of Debate and Forensics—Kansas City Kansas Community College  Head Coach—16 years.  I competed in college at Emporia State. I was a Graduate Student coach at Wichita State in the late 90's when WSU returned to the NDT for the first time in a couple decades, and in my two years there we qualified 3 teams to the NDT. At KCKCC I've coached multiple elim participants at CEDA, NDT qualifiers, coached numerous CEDA CC and PRP National Title winners, NPTE qualifiers, NFA LD National Tournament Qualifiers, in 2015 we won the NPDA National Championship. A first for any CC, and also in 2015 became the first CC in the history of the NDT to qualify two teams in one year, and the first to qualify a team 4 years in a row.  In 2016 we became the only CC to win the NFA LD National Championship. I enjoy and support all formats of debate and think each one provides unique opportunities to students. I am convinced there are really only 2 things debaters want to know and 1 thing you SHOULD know.  What you want to know:  1) Will I vote for you on your argument? Does not matter to me how fast or slow it is or what genre (performance, policy, project, theory, procedural) your arguments take. I have voted for and against everything imaginable. Probably the least interventionist judge you know. You need to frame the debate so I know “what happens” when I vote for/against you. Impact your arguments and undercut the impacts of the other team. Pretty simple. I have zero preference as to the type of arguments you run and enjoy a mix of arguments. Do what you do best. I think given that many of my teams recently have engaged in "personal politics debates" or "performance debates" that people assume that is what I want to hear. I will vote on T, framework, disads, cp's, k's, etc.  I am certainly not a "pigeon hole" judge and quite frankly love coaching and hearing all kinds of debate arguments. It is why I choose to coach so many different formats.  Good debate is good debate and that can take many forms.  Bottom line is I will always give you and your arguments a fair shake and I hope we can both learn from each other. 2) What kind of points do you give? Probably tend to be on the high(er) side but I view the 1/10th scale like this—30 is a 100%. 29.9 is a 99%. Etc. I will award points based on a combination of percentages for the speeches you give, any question you answer and any question you ask-Do you control cx, is it strategic, is it worthwhile? Speeches—Do you do everything you need to do, put offense where it needs to be, have defense where it needs to be, engage the other teams arguments, close doors, make impact calculations when important, not drop important args, fulfill the duties of the speech you are giving? Think of it like a speech grade and if you are perfect I have no problem giving a 30. If you need a lot of revisions and suggestions for improvement and are below average for your Division, than a D or something in the 26’s might be appropriate.  It is a cold day in L.A.  when I ever give anything in the 26’s unless you are rude/offensive. What you need to know:  One thing that will affect speaker points other than what addressed above is this—excessive rudeness and/or offensive language/cursing will not be rewarded and likely affect your points. Here’s the deal—I cuss at times. I should do it less. I never did it in debate rounds. I think we need to appear more educated than that and we need to do a better job looking like a worthwhile activity to Administrators. I wonder how many debates I tape would cast that positive light on the schools in those debates and how they would be perceived by their Admins if posted publicly. I, and many others, also bring their kids to tournaments. I don’t really want my 14 year old daughter hearing it. Her vocabulary is much more advanced than that and yours should be too. Maybe this makes me cranky. So be it. But I am right. (One caveat—if your argument/performance is such that using that language is called for because of artistic/educational purposes I will not hold that against you. It probably/maybe needs to have a grounding in the lit though and not just a cx response of “F your hegemony”!).   I think civility and professionalism has seen a significant drop in the last few years.  Be professional and respectful to each other in the debate, before the debate, and after the debate.  This includes coaches who I see yelling at/cursing at undergrads from other schools.  How would your Administrators react?  I am certain you are not allowed to do that in your classes. Don't let competition blur the line between adult and undergrad.   I love debate. You should too. Good luck, have fun, and I am always a fan of humor!

David Nadolski - OCC

n/a

David Rosnovjak - Harper

n/a

Doug Hall - Casper

Argumentation: I am a flow judge. I only vote on what is on the flow, I will NOT intervene or do work for you. I vote primarily on the merit of the arguments made in the round. Are arguments covered, defeated, or dropped? I will vote on these sorts of things. Speed: I do NOT like speed and your speaker points will be decreased for poor communication. I will also not flow something if I can't follow it due to speed. Again, if it's not on the flow, its as if I didn't hear it. In this vein, I do NOT like spreading either. The point of this activity is to not see how much crap you can get to stick, it is to make good arguments that defeat your opponent. Think of it in the context of the real world, would a representative in a parliament win over her colleagues just by making a lot of arguments? Even if some, or most, of them were weak? No, she would focus on the strongest arguments and present those. If you choose to spread, I will not punish your opponent for dropped arguments. Civility: I will judge you harshly if you behave rudely in round. This can be through aggressive tone and/or behavior, caustic sarcasm, using insulting or demeaning language, or displaying a general lack of respect for your opponents. You may not drop the round for this type of behavior, but your speaks will be greatly reduced. Partner Help: I am okay with this as long as the person who is recognized to speak is doing the large majority of the speaking. If the person who is not recognized to speak is speaking, it is as if I cannot hear them and I will not flow it unless it is said by the recognized speaker. Round Etiquette: I would prefer that recognized speakers please stand while speaking. If you would like to ask a question, I ask that you stand to be recognized and not simply raise your hand or interrupt. Procedurals: I do not vote on procedurals unless there is a clear violation and that case is made articulately by the opposition team. I will almost never reward the use of procedurals as gamesmanship. Permutations: Permutations must be clearly laid out with a perm text for me to consider them. I have to know what the plan is for which I would be voting. Kritiques: I am not a fan. The rules of Parliamentary Debate clearly state that you cannot bring pre-prepped materials into the round with you. I, in most cases, do not believe that the Kritique was solely prepared during the prep period and therefore have trouble accepting them as legitimate. That being said, if I do find your "K" to be legit, I will be looking for a clear link and alt. Without these components I cannot vote on the "K". In other words, if you are a team that is going to be running a project "K", you should just strike me now.

Ed Schwarz - PSC

n/a

Erica Lucio - HCC

n/a

Harry Bodell - NIU

n/a

Jeff Przybylo - Harper

Jessica Bozeman - NIU

n/a

Jim Dittus - Elgin

n/a

Jim Snyder - COD

n/a

Joe Wentzel - COD

n/a

John Nash - Moraine Valley

n/a

John Stanley - North Central

Josh Sunderbruch - Harper

Josh Sunderbruch I am a former debater (many styles) who dislikes the lack of impact and analysis in policy debate.  I dislike watching students run cases, strategies, and ideas that are not their own and that they do not understand. Please keep this in mind.  I look for clash and dislike teams that try to win on technicalities or procedurals (T, K, RVI, etc).  Ultimately, I see debate as an event about logic, flexibility, and adaptability.  Still, I will vote for topicality if there is cause, not just if there is insufficient ground (I will also vote for a well-argued RVI on T, though, etc.). As a former debater tired of lay judges, my biggest pet peeve is misrepresentation of the flow—don’t tell me that the rival team said something they didn’t (or vice versa); it’s the easiest way to lose my ballot (if I know I can’t trust you on one issue, why would I trust you about the rest?). Recently, I have developed an equal dislike for debaters who try to sneak new arguments into rebuttals or who insist that because of a magical rule that they really don’t understand, themselves, they should win. If you are going to tap into debate theory, make sure you understand it. Debate the issues, demonstrate the links in the arguments, and have fun up there.  Savor debate for what it is—don’t turn it into something else. I like debate styles that encourages analysis and comm<a name="_GoBack"></a>unication skills as well as debate strategy. I like all forms of resolutions, and I flatly reject the notion that all resolutions are best served as policy arguments. Research is less impressive to me than the mind behind it.  The more traditional/philosophical approaches are the most likely to influence me.  I probably vote for three counter-plans a year, and most of those are Plan Exclusive/Counter Resolutional. You will not be saved by a ‘card.’ Don’t invent rules that really don’t exist. I will enforce the pleasant delivery standard of NFA-LD, and if you turn an argument into an auction I’ll just stop flowing you. Speed isn’t a strategy; it’s a sign you don’t trust your actual arguments to win, head-to-head. Please feel free to ask for clarification in person.

Julia Boyle - NIU

n/a

Justin Dougherty - Nassau

n/a

Kelly Bressanelli - North Central

n/a

Lauren Morgan - COD

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 not 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.

Margaret Bilos - Harper

n/a

Matt Beifuss - COD

Meghan Cwiok - Harper

n/a

Neal Heatherly - Harper

n/a

Paul Cummins - Southeastern IL

n/a

Qiyuan Zhou - Illinois Tech

n/a

Richard Paine - North Central

Debate Philosophy:      (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.      (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.      (3) SUPPORT your claims/assertions with specific concrete data whenever possible.        (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.      (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.      (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.      (7) SPEED.  It should be easily comprehensible.         (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.      (9) SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.  Partners should not talk to each other during their speeches or "cover mistakes" when the debater speaking starts to waver.      (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.      (11)  OTHER THINGS?  Please ask!  I welcome all questions!      (12)  Have fun.  Enjoy it.  It's just a game!

Sarah Metivier Schadt - McHenry

n/a

Scott Elliott - KCKCC

Scott M. Elliott., Ph.D., J.D. Years Judging: 25.  Special Note for Novice and Junior Varsity Debaters: After years of consideration, I have made the decision to make TOPICALITY an absolute voting issue in novice and junior varsity debate. By this I mean that if the affirmative's 1AC is not topical, they will lose the debate. Extra-topical advantages or extra-topical or non-germane critical aspects of the affirmative 1AC will not be considered in my reason for decision. That being said, what constitutes a "topical" affirmative case is still open to debate. Especially given this year's college topic wording, the traditional framing of the agent of action, or whether really is an agent of action is very much open to debate. Competing interpretations should be debated out. In other words, addressing why one interpretation is better for debate, education or better for students is still open to debate. You can use whatever types of warrants and data to support the claim (the resolutional statement). This means that if you want to "perform" your 1AC (all 1AC speeches are performances anyway), that is fine. If you want to use forms of poetics or aesthetics to support your defense of the resolution, I am willing to listen to it.  Topicality is a gateway issue and will be decided before anything else in my decision except for instances of some egregious behavior from debate particpants that violates standards and norms of the activity (.e.g. ethics challenge, certain language choices, intimidation or physical confrontation). Topicality is a minimum affirmative burden of proof. It is not a reverse voter. I do not want any more persons telling stories thirty years from now about the time they won a debate round on an RVI. In case you are confused, let me give you some examples of 1AC's that would not be topical, and would thus LOSE the debate, if the negative team made and properly defended a topicality argument all the way through the debate: 1) Debaters need to eat healthier; 2) not enough ramps on campus for disabled debaters; 3) debate participants have been somehow abused or neglected by the debate community, other debaters, or coaches prior to the reading of the 1AC; 4) the general shittiness of your ontological or epistemological existence; 5) the refusal to affirm the resolution because you object to one or more of its terms; 6) you feel like academic policy debate unfairly constrains your freedom; 7) the world, or the debate activity, is generally racist, homophobic, abelist, sexist, capitalist and any other form of oppression that is not tied directly to affirmation of the 2014-2015 Cross Examination Debate Association resolution for policy debate for CEDA/NDT tournaments or the assigned resolution in a parlimentary debate tournament.  If you do not like this portion of my judging philosophy, I suggest that you either do not pref me or debate in open division. For persons in open/varsity debate and other issues related to debate: I prefer a standard topical plan with advantages affirmative case versus counterplans and disads from the negative team. That being said, I listen to, and vote for, critical affirmatives and I have voted for many kritiks. Common Issues: Topicality and Framework. I will vote on topicality. I think a lot of negative teams allow themselves to be run over by critical affirmatives’ framework arguments. There are good reasons why topicality should be a voting issue. Develop them. I think the smartest argument I have heard on the T/framework debate is, “it’s not the ground we lose, it’s the ground you gain.” That pretty much encapsulates why T should be a voter. That being said, I often vote for critical and non-topical affirmatives because the negative team fails to make good arguments, or kicks T/framework in the 2NR. Disadvantages. Run them if you have them. There should be plenty on this topic this year. I am usually not a fan of politics debates. However, on this topic, I think there are actually real links to political capital and elections disads. I think link turns are really good offense because, at worst, they function to take out the link to a disad, or make it a wash. Affirmatives should note, impact turns are fine with me. Counterplans. Please do. There should be plenty of counterplan ground on this topic. Agent counterplans seem pretty legit (Ex-O, Congress, maybe courts or States) until proven otherwise on theory or based on the topic literature. Consult---maybe, but you are going to have to read some topic specific evidence to justify it. As long as it is grounded in the topic literature, I am probably going to accept the legitimacy of a counterplan. PIC’s….I think people read blocks that are nonsensical on both sides. Kritiks: I will vote for them. I find a lot of them to be nonsense. But, many affirmatives do not know how to respond to nonsense. Debate it out. Affirmatives probably need to discuss the transition to the end-state envisioned by the K authors. Things I tend to do in rounds:  1) I try to be fair to the teams. That means I will listen to any argument and try to figure out to the best of my ability what the speaker is trying to say;  2) I protect the 2NR. I don't give much weight to new 2AR arguments. The 1AR better extend and explain an argument if you want the 2AR to go for it;  3) I evaluate what went on in the round, not what I think your (K or solvency) author really thinks;  4) I usually look at evidence only when the last two speakers ask me to make an evaluation or comparison. I will rarely call for every card read in the round and reconstruct it as I see fit.  5) I like the last two speakers to tell me, "we win this debate for the following reasons" and "even if they win this argument(s), we still win because." On the other hand, I tend to dislike five minute overviews. Be responsive to the other team's arguments. Do not make me do all the work. Allowing me to connect the dots will often lead to an outcome that you did not anticipate and you will not like; 6) If I think I missed something in your speech, I will ask during the round what the argument was. If I say clear, and you don't change your rate or style, be prepared to not have those arguments evaluated in the round. I don't read your speech documents as you speak. But I will ask for it after the round as a matter of team policy; so I can post cites and argument outlines to the debate caselist. Memorable examples of ways teams have unexpectedly picked up my ballot:  1) Voted for Baylor one time because Emory misspelled their plan text;  2) Voted for Emporia once because their plan wiped-out the universe, destroying all life (you had to be there);  3) Voted numerous times on anthro kritiks, De-Dev, Cap K's, anarchy, malthus, space, aliens A-Life, etc.; 4) voted for a counter-performance because it made me feel more emotional than the 1AC narrative;  5) voted for porn good turns;  6) voted for genocide reduces overpopulation turns;  7) did not vote, but the team won, because they took my ballot filled it out, gave themselves the win and double 30's;  8) voted once on a triple turn--link turned, impact turned, and turned back the impact turn (had to be there);  9) voted on inherency; 10) voted on foul language in a round--both ways--foul language bad and "yeah, we said F***, but that's good" turns; 11) voted for veganism K while eating a cheeseburger. One last point: All of you need to flow the round. The speech document they flash over to you is not the debater's actual speech. Look. Listen. You may be surprised what the other team is actually saying.

Shannon Linares - Illinois Tech

n/a

Shawn Anaya - North Central

Stephen DeFalco - COD

n/a

Thea Klinker - Illinois Tech

Above all, I value organization and clarity of argumentation. Debate is not a game in my opinion, but I am willing to listen to any topicality or K if there are significant impacts. If you have a specific question, please ask. I am tabula rasa (excluding sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist rhetoric) and judge based on stock issues.

Tim Anderson - Elgin

n/a

Tom Tracy - Harper

n/a

Tommy Lucio - HCC

n/a

Trent Webb - Nassau

n/a

Tyler Billman - Southeastern IL

n/a

Tyler Pierce - Casper

Rate of Delivery: I don’t like speed, but it’s not something that ALONE will lose you a ballot, it just won’t do you any favors. On this same not, quantity or arguments doesn’t matter to me in the slightest, I want fully developed arguments, not just a wall of half arguments to set back your opponent. Communication and Issues: This is obviously the most important thing in ANY debate round. I am a flow judge, so if something isn’t said, is said to quickly that I don’t notice it, or is said with no indication as to where on the flow it should be: I will not weigh this point, it will be as if you never said it. Make sure all claims are backed up with argumentation or have a source of some kind applied to them, I am not in the habit of taking debaters words at face value, so make yourself credible. A claim alone doesn’t count as a line of argumentation, if it isn’t backed up in some way it isn’t going on my flow. Speaking ability alone won’t win or lose you a round either, though I do expect clarity and organization as a bare minimum from every competitor. Theory and Procedurals: Again, I am not outright opposed to these types of arguments; they just aren’t going to do you any favors. As far as procedurals go, I will only vote on them if a clear violation of rules is outlined. If it seems frivolous or like no more than a strategic edge, I will not weigh it at all. This goes for K’s as well. If it feels genuinely warranted and is justified with STRONG links then I am absolutely open to your argument, but as I hate pre-prepared materials being brought into parli (it’s against the rules guys) and often they are clearly used frivolously and without much regard for the text of the resolution or the arguments made by opponents, I’m heavily skeptical about this type of argumentation.

Tyler Gillette - KCKCC

Whitney Keller - Aurora Unv

n/a

2018 Litrenta Triangle Speech & Debate Tournament