2015 6th Annual Orv Iverson/Krista Bacon-Vickrey Memorial Forensics Tournament
Clark College - Dec 11-12 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Chris Josi - MHCC
<p>Judging a round isn’t very complicated, unless you make it. That being said, I love<br /> rounds where I REALLY have to think about who I pick at the end. I’ve been noticing a lot of<br /> competitors arguing with their critics. I don’t like being argued with about my decision. Asking<br /> questions is perfectly fine, but I leave my speaker points unmarked until I reach the ballot table.<br /> On topicality: I am fine with legitimate topicality. Every good neg team knows to prep<br /> procedurals before entering a round, in the event they need them. However, I dislike teams<br /> running topicality as a time suck. I think it subtracts from debate, especially when aff answers<br /> your topicality with on simple delink,<br /> but still has to go through the entire process anyways.<br /> On kritiques: I am also fine with legitimate kritiques. However kritiques get a little more<br /> grey area to work with. This is because kritiques have been utilized to make stances in the<br /> debate community itself, I am a little more lax with them, especially for those who know how to<br /> prepare and link to any resolution. This leans more into program/kritikal aff territory though, but<br /> I feel the same way about these as well. Kritiques are not a “time and place” arguments like<br /> topicality, but more about knowing the art and properly applying it.<br /> Rate of delivery. I am fine with debaters going quickly as long as they properly tagline<br /> everything. For example, when you are at the link level, give me one quick one word to explain<br /> it, then go into details. I comprehend faster than I write, and if you don’t tell me what’s<br /> important, I may write down the wrong information, and that puts your team in a bad position.<br /> The details I can listen too, and I just need a word to spark my memory when going over the<br /> debate.<br /> Attitude in round. I enjoy light hearted debate, but not at the expense of anyone in the<br /> round, or outside. Unless it's a jab at a politician, they aren’t people.</p>
Cody Shaw - MHCC
Colten Sullivent - Lower Columbia
<p>Though my background is principally in IPDA and I place a high value on communicative style, over time I have come to appreciate the structure and clarity of Parliamentary style debate. That said, there are a few things that are easily stated and understood about my judging philosophy.</p> <p> </p> <p>Speed is not a rhetorical virtue. It serves only to confound those who would find the most value in clarity. It is to be avoided.</p> <p> </p> <p>Decorum is paramount. Competitors must remain polite throughout the event lest they see their speaker points drop. What’s more, decorum extends beyond behavior in round. Competitors should appear professional and well groomed.</p> <p> </p> <p>Procedural arguments made for their own sake are tedious. Topicality, critiques, and similar arguments must be well supported and reasoned.</p> <p> </p> <p>Otherwise, standard expectations apply. Road mapping and signposting are appreciated. Arguments should be well impacted. Be polite and professional. And have fun. Debate should be an enjoyable experience!</p> <p> </p>
Dan Broyles - Pacific
n/a
JM Sproles - Pacific
n/a
Leah Moore - Lower Columbia
Lilly Huynh - Pacific
n/a