FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Andrew Eilola - GMU

n/a

Aurellia Wagner - TSU

n/a

Ben Pyle - WKU

Calvin Abraham - Brooklyn Colleg

n/a

Danielle Ohrenberger - GMU

n/a

Dawn Lowry - WKU

Debra Gensheimer - WKU

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.

Evan Mann - WKU

Gloria Batiste- Roberts - TSU

n/a

Gretchen Wheeler - Casper

Harrison Postler - GMU

n/a

Jace Lux - WKU

Jay Arntson - Glendale CC

Jeff Archibald - Mt SAC

n/a

Jeremy Hodgson - GMU

n/a

Jeremy Frazer - WKU

Jessica Hurless - Casper

Jessica Furgerson - WKU

Jim Dobson - LPC

n/a

Jimmy Gomez - GMU

n/a

Joe Dineen - GMU

n/a

Kate DeNardi - GMU

n/a

Ken Corbit -

Ken Klawitter - Mt SAC

n/a

Kent Wayson - GMU

n/a

Kevin Sanford - Mt SAC

n/a

Kim Perigo - Mesa

~~Content: I am looking for good argumentation structure and realistic/logical arguments—keep your slippery slopes to yourself. I do not appreciate stock cases or arguing definition that go well beyond what would be reasonably inferred via the resolution. I like good empirical analysis based on common knowledge and not one article that one person read. I am fine with debate cases being creative but will always consider topicality as a viable voting criterion. I will always look to the resolutional analysis first when I make my final decision. I crave organization—don’t make me think! It should be clear at the end of the debate what is on the table. Don’t ask me to make inferential leaps or assume that I see that world the way you do. I do not like off-case positions in the MOC unless it is in direction refutation of a new position in the MGC. Critiques should only be used if there is a really compelling reason to offer one. Generic Ks to me are a lazy way to approach debate. So, if you haven’t gotten the hint—I like good resolutional debate with plenty of analysis and impacts. I consider myself tabula rasa and try very hard not to interject my own political leanings into the debate. I will look at what is left on the flow at the end and weigh it out with the voting criteria levied. I do believe that there are three types of resolutions and do not appreciate quasi-advocacy cases—make up your mind, is it fact or policy? I believe that quasi-advocacy is abusive to the Opposition and will listen to any Opposition argument that makes this point. I am a traditionalist to a degree and prefer a stock issues debate for policy. I do not believe that the Government must be predictable but I do believe they must provide fair grounds for the Opposition. Delivery: To me, what sets parliamentary debate apart from other debate forms, is delivery and I expect to see good delivery skills. I do not like speed and will stop flowing if you are pushing me to the point of arthritis trying to keep up with you. I “grew” up in CEDA and believe spread is the worst part of that style of debate and will do everything in my power to keep it from happening in parli. Because of presumption, lack of in-round prep time, lack of cross examination and the block, I think spread is HIGHLY abusive; and therefore, never, ever, ever give my ballot to the team that spreads largely because you didn't win the argument you simply out-talked them. I like compelling, passionate argumentation and can live in complete harmony without one single ad hominen attack. I like wit, humor, and great analysis. I expect delivery to be as important as content and will be willing to give high speaker points to anyone whom possesses both the ability to understand the resolution/debate and the ability to competently deliver the content.

Larry Williams - TSU

n/a

Liesel Reinhart - Mt SAC

n/a

Linda Farnan - Mesa

n/a

Lisa Heisler - LPC

n/a

Loren Schwarzwalter - Glendale CC

Megan Bauer - OSU

n/a

Megan O'Connell - Casper

Mickey Cox - GMU

n/a

Nick Cox - GMU

n/a

Peter Pober - GMU

n/a

Rob Warchol - GMU

n/a

Roxan Arntson - Glendale CC

Sam Hopkins - GMU

n/a

Seth Peckham - WKU

Seth Fendley -

Debate Experience: 1 year Parli/1 year IPDA at Arkansas Tech University Judging Experience: 4 years Policy/Parli/LD/IPDA in both high school and college Education: B.A. Speech Communication/Public Relations (ATU)/ 2nd year M.A. Student in Communication Studies at ASU (ADOF)   Overall Philosophy: I typically vote on case. That being said if you read below you will find when I vote based on other issues and my overall decision process. I Will Not vote based off evidence not presented in round. It’s unfair to you as the debater and the overall educational experience.   Speaker Points: I start out in the middle. If you provide a flawless speech you will receive perfect speaks. That being said a bad round will not mean you receive low speaks. I typically only drop below 50% on speaks for people who forfeit rounds, don’t make arguments, or are otherwise jerks in round.   Rate of Speech: I would prefer to experience a traditional Parli round. This seems to be an unrealistic expectation. I need to be able to flow your case in order to completely judge your round. I can tolerate a decent paced speech but if I cannot write down your entire argument then I’m unable to offer a cohesive decision. In this manner ensure that you clearly signpost and tag your points. Doing this will generate positive speaker points and can result in a ballot in your favor.   Argument Structure: Please ensure that all arguments are informed and based. In this manner there should be clear links, brinks, and impacts for each point. If an argument does not have an impact then I have no way to determine if the argument is warranted and thus will be unsure how to vote.   T-Case: I do not appreciate teams that always run T as the OPP. T is meant for teams who have been completely defined out of a round and have no ground for debate. I should be able to clearly see that a T-Case is needed for me to see it as a valid issue.   K-Case: I prefer that K-cases have a direct correlation to the resolution. Both the government and opposition teams can run a K-Case. However, the K should be warranted and clearly explained in order to be considered on the ballot.   CPs: Counter plans are not needed for the OPP to win. Counter plans are a great opportunity for the OPP to show that the status quo should be changed. Counter plans should be unique and completely explained why they are more beneficial in order to be warranted a win and not be permed by the government team.   Perms: If a counter plan is non-unique then it should be permed. The government should be careful to explain why the plan is not competing in order to successfully perm a case. As the opposition adequately show how the counter plan is unique in order to avoid the perm.   Performance Debates: In over 200+ debates given and judged competitively I am yet to experience a performance round. Running a performance round can be effective. Explain the concept and it will be considered on the ballot based on the performance and understanding of the argument presented.   Overall Decision: I vote Topicality -> Solvency -> Kritik -> Harms. Solvency and Kritiks are interchangeable depending on where they are placed in the case. If a case is ran straight up I will vote based off the arguments presented in the case. In the event that none of the above mentioned things happen then I will vote for the opposition based on presumption. I’ve only had to do this once though and that was in a high school round with novice debaters.

Sondera Malry - TSU

n/a

Susan Taylor - WKU

Thomas Bovino - SCCC

n/a

Tim Heisler - LPC

n/a

Trent Webb - Nassau

n/a

Wendell King II - TSU

n/a

Wilbert Howard - TSU

n/a

2014 International Forensics Association Tournament