FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Baker - MHCC

Alek Traczyk - Clark CC

Badger LaJoie - MHCC

Beau Woodward - UP

I am ok with meta debate arguments (Topicality, Ks, etc.) as long as they are called for.  In NPDA, I don't mind speed, as long as it is understandable. We don't pass cards so please be clear. In IPDA, speed is not encouraged because the format encourages the public to attend and judge.  I really like structure and clear links. I am not going to do work for you, so make sure you are laying out a link story that is rational.  Impacts are necessary for me to judge the round, so give them to me. I love values and critiria, and I will use any resolutional analysis you give me.  Please try to act like your opponents are people, with valid opinions and points of view.

Benjamin Brockman - Clark CC

n/a

Beth Hewes - CSI

n/a

Bohn Lattin - UP

Brian Simmons - UP

I consider my role as the judge in a debate round as being similar to that of a U.S. Supreme Court judge. Such a judge not only assess "who won" arguments between debaters, such a judge also assess the quality of arguments made "to the judge" simply becasue the arguments were brought into the round. That said, I strongly believe in the necessity for debaters to honor their opponent's arguments by directly clashing with them. I am impressed by debaters that demonstrate critical thinking--questioning assumptions, pointing out contradictions, showing how contentions don't meet stated values or criteria. I believe IPDA ought to be a highly communicative event filled with what Qunitillian might call "good people speaking well." That doesn't mean you have to talk to me like I am Forrest Gump, but it does mean that style matters. Finally, I believe there is a proper decorum and courtesy in any forensic context; be nice to each other!  FYI: My background: I was a policy debater in high school, a CEDA debater at Oklahoma Christian University, a CEDA graduate assistant at Pepeprdine University and now I coach IPDA at University of Portland where we previously competed in and I coached BP and NPDA.

Bryan Hunt - MHCC

Chris Reinhold - Clark CC

Dan Broyles - Pacific

n/a

Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia

Dr. Dan Schabot Lower Columbia College Years Debating: 5 total (1 years NFL LD; 4 years CEDA/NDT ) Years Coaching/Judging: 15 Total (2 years CEDA/NDT; 13 Years NPDA)   General Philosophy: Each team should make good (well supported and well-reasoned) arguments and clash with each other. I prefer 2 or 3 in depth positions to 5 or 6 blipped positions.   Specifics: Affirmative teams:  At this point in my judging life I am no longer interested in listening to debates that do not at least make an attempt to address the topic in the resolution.  You can run any position you want as long as you explain why what you are arguing deals with the topic.   Negative Teams:  I also feel that negative teams have the responsibility to address affirmative arguments as well as presenting their own.  Positions just run for the sake of filling time (such as generic T) have little weight with me.  Each position should be part of a coherent strategy to win.   Speed and Presentation:  If you feel the need to go fast that is fine.  However, running a bunch of positions just so you can go fast is useless.  Speed as a strategy (in and of itself) will not be rewarded.     RFD:  My preferences are listed above.  I have and will vote for just about any argument type. A team must clearly explain why their advocacy is superior to other team’s advocacy to win a round.

Doyle Srader - NCU

Doyle Srader Associate Professor of Communication Northwest Christian University Debated LD/CX/NDT 1981-1992. Judged NDT/CEDA/NPDA/NFA LD/IPDA 1992-2005, off and on. Since 2007, judged mostly BP and IPDA, and once in a blue moon, NPDA. Very not current, but very caught up on sleep.     You, and your arguing   Whispering lunar incantations Dissolve the floors of memory And all its clear relations Its divisions and precisions, -T. S. Eliot, Rhapsody On A Windy Night   And I must borrow every changing shape To find expression … dance, dance Like a dancing bear, Cry like a parrot, chatter like an ape. - T.S. Eliot, Portrait of a Lady   HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME If you don't like it you can get on with it, I said. Others can pick and choose if you can't. - T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land   Our dried voices, when We whisper together Are quiet and meaningless As wind in dry grass Or rat's feet over broken glass In our dry cellar - T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men       Me, and my deciding   HERE I am, an old man in a dry month, Being read to by a <s>boy</s>, waiting for rain. - T.S. Eliot, Gerontion   I am moved by fancies that are curled Around these images, and cling: The notion of some infinitely gentle Infinitely suffering thing. Wipe your hand across your mouth, and laugh; The worlds revolve like ancient women Gathering fuel in vacant lots. -T. S. Eliot, Preludes   Would it have been worth while, To have bitten off the matter with a smile, To have squeezed the universe into a ball To roll it toward some overwhelming question, To say: “I am Lazarus, come from the dead, Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all”- If one, settling a pillow by her head, Should say: “That is not what I meant at all. That is not it, at all.” - T.S. Eliot, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock   He laughed like an irresponsible foetus. -T. S. Eliot, Mr. Apollinax     This, and the difference it makes   I saw the ’potamus take wing Ascending from the damp savannas, And quiring angels round him sing The praise of God, in loud hosannas. -T. S. Eliot, The Hippopotamus

Elsie Praeger - MHCC

Gabrielle Guerrero - MHCC

Heather Lindberg - Clark CC

n/a

Jennifer Conner - Pacific

n/a

Jessica Mohr - Clark CC

n/a

Joe Gantt - Lewis & Clark

If you drew me as a judge, you’re probably thinking “Gantt doesn’t judge, he tabs tournaments. I have no idea how he sees a debate.” That is a fair statement. In fact, it has been a while since I have consistently been in the judge pool, so I should give you some insight into my philosophy. However, you should know that since I have not judged consistently in the past few years, I can easily be convinced otherwise on some of the following statements, i.e., make the theory argument in the round even if the below seems to indicate I may not agree with your perspective. I am always listening as to why I should evaluate the debate differently and I will vote on that if properly persuaded. I try to avoid intervention in general, but beware, we are all interventionists. Topicality: Yup, yup, run it. I will vote on it. In my pre-tab judging life, I was known as a T hack. I probably have a lower threshold here than most. I’ll default to competing interpretations and T as a voter unless convinced otherwise. Theory: I will reject the team, not the argument, if a theory position is won that asks me to make that determination. I am also open to listening why I should not do so. CPs: Love them. I think a well-crafted PIC may be my favorite argument in debate. If Neg runs a “Cheater CP” (delay/consult), I will still vote for the CP- it is the job of the Aff to show me why that CP is not legitimate. One theory position that is a hard win for me is text comp- I generally believe that if a CP has achieved functional competitiveness, I will vote there. You need case specific solvency to win here. I see CPs as opportunity costs to plan, so I default to conditionality as OK because there can be multiple opportunity costs to plan. Once again, win the condo bad argument and I’ll vote there. I have some qualms about that because that condo can be abused and hurt fairness (see perms), but from the pure theoretical side I have no problem with it. Ks: I love Ks. I do find, though, that as Ks have increased in popularity, they have decreased in their explanatory nature. Do not expect me to know the argument, it’s your job to explain (and if you do not, you should expect me to give Aff a lot of leeway in explaining your argument when answering it). Permutations: “Going for the perm” –ugh. Most of the time, no. Perms are not advocacies, they are tests of competition. At the very least, you need to explain to me why the permutation can be advocacy when making the argument, because if you don’t, I am going to default back to tests of competition- which means that if I buy the perm, I’m back to evaluating plan vs. SQuo. I am more likely to allow the perm as advocacy if Neg runs multiple conditional advocacies. Especially on K perms, I need to explicitly know how the permutation functions. Without such an explanation, I am much more likely to accept Neg’s explanation and reject the perm. Impact Calc: Teams underuse probability. If you’re able to utilize risk analysis well, you have a better chance of winning my ballot. In the rebuttals, in general, if you’re not weighing, you’re losing. Offense/Defense: Yes, terminal defense exists. It is rare. I do want a combination of offense and defense. You will probably not find a judge that values good defense more than me, but it is helpful to use that to leverage your offense, not as a winning strategy alone. Speed: I have no problem with speed. BUT- GIVE ME PEN TIME! Remember I haven’t been consistently judging for a while. If you’re going too fast/not clear enough for me to catch arguments, that’s on you, not on me. Civility: I like fun debates. A little bit of clowning done with a smile is a great thing. When it becomes mean/rude, expect your speaker points to take a gigantic hit.

Jon Enos - Clark CC

n/a

Justin Wiley - Lower Columbia

Justin Wiley - MHCC

Leah Moore - Lower Columbia

Lilly Huynh - Pacific

n/a

Liz Kinnaman - MHCC

Megan Bauer - OSU

n/a

Micah Waterlander - MHCC

<ul> <li>Background of the critic: I competed in high school policy as well as competing 2 years in NPDA in college. This is my 2nd Year coaching, I coach both IPDA and NPDA formats.</li> <li>Approach of the critic to decision-making: I consider myself to be pretty tabula rasa and will vote for whatever the debaters tell me is important for me to vote on. I think that the trichotomy argument is a worthwhile argument, as well as most procedural arguments. I will vote on T if there is clear abuse, but I don't think the team has to only go for Topicality to show abuse. While I will listen to any argument ran in front of me I don't particularly like kritiks, especially in NPDA style debate, since any real evidence need to back up the kritik can't be brought into round. Furthermore, I think the kritik needs to show real world impacts to outweigh. But with that being said, if the kritik is necessary for your strategy then by all means run it. Also, I tend to think that a lot of debate hinges on solvency so this could win or lose a round easily. </li> <li>Communication/presentation: I'm pretty comfortable with most aspects of speed, but feel like clarity and signposting should falter because of your speed. Also I am a pretty expressive judge so if you pay attention you will know if I am getting down what you are saying. </li> </ul> <ul> <li>Preferences on calling Points of Order: I have no issue with POI being called, I think that if it is warranted you should call your opponent out on it. </li> </ul>

Shannon Valdivia - MHCC

Simone Walter - Lewis & Clark

Simone Walter – 2012 Judging Philosophy   Background: I competed for Oregon for 4 years. This is my second year at Lewis & Clark.   How I conceptualize the round: the duty of the affirmative is to provide a policy action* that will provide a substantial benefit to the resolution-specific context; the duty of the opposition is to prove why the affirmative should be rejected (ie. why the disadvantages of the AFF plan outweigh its advantages). I will conceptualize ‘the world’ in which the round is located based on how I am ‘told’ to adjudicate the round, the ballot, and the in-round arguments. On a side note, this is not to say that I enjoy being ‘spoken for’ as a critic.   *I am not opposed to hearing critical affirmatives. In fact, I think they can be awesome if deployed strategically. If you do not read a plan text, you still must defend a stable advocacy. To win my ballot with a critical affirmative, it is imperative for the AFF – a) If you do not read a plan text, you still must defend a stable advocacy; and b) demonstrate that the critical affirmative is topical, competitive, and permissible.   Debate is a game, a really fun game; most so when the players engage in ways that best suit their interests and knowledge base. As a judge, I will listen to anything. But do not be morally repugnant. Even so, I find tricot to be silly (in other words, awful). I saw a few of these rounds last year. They were bad and just got worse. As a judge, I will do my best to not intervene. Except for tricot. So, just don’t do it.   Prior to giving my RFD, while I am making my decision, I would appreciate your silence. You can leave the room if you would like. If you have questions following the round, please talk to me immediately. Three rounds later, I guarantee that I have already stopped thinking of YOUR round.   Arguments:   Theory – Raising theoretical objections to whether a team’s strategy is justified is always permissible. Demonstrating tangible in-round abuse over potential abuse is preferable.   I assume theory arguments to be voting issues on competing interpretations. The specificity of the standards in justification of your interpretation is imperative to providing an effective comparison of why I should preference/reject an interpretation.   The Kritikkkk –   Discursive implications are real and so we should be held responsible for our rhetorical choices. Thus, my default mechanism for evaluating the K is that the critical implications presuppose the impacts of the affirmative. If the AFF team does not want me to default to this assumption, then explain to me how you would prefer me to evaluate the K in juxtaposition to the affirmative. For an AFF team to pick up my ballot against the K, I need tangible reasons as to not only why I should weigh the case against the K but also why doing plan is still a good idea.   I enjoy the critical debate. I will preference unique topic-specific critical arguments over generic backfiles. Nevertheless, I am often disappointed by the lack of explanation awarded to the nuance of the literature from which the K is derived. So please, fully articulate the thesis of your argument, its application (ie. framework/link arguments) and thus, its implications to the “world” in which the debate is located.   I believe that the most effective critical arguments are topic specific and function essentially as disadvantages that turn the affirmative. If you choose to operate outside the realm of “playing as policy-making,” then you must still defend a stable advocacy. Thus, your alternative should DO something. Often times, critical debates frustrate me because the alternative does not solve and/or the function of the alternative is not adequately explained, which causes me to err that plan is still a good idea. Though I may default to the assumption that the impacts of the K presuppose the case, if the alternative doesn’t do anything, then you will not win my ballot.   Counterplans – Please read text twice (This also applies to the PMC plantext, perm texts, the alternative to the K, and the T violation). A written copy would be preferable if the CP text is particularly long/convoluted.   In regards to specific CP theory arguments (ie. PICS good/bad, the status of the CP, textual v. functional competition, etc.), I assume these to be negotiable questions to be decided in the round and not based on my predisposition towards these arguments. So long as they are deployed strategically, I do not perceive to Consult/Delay to be inherently illegitimate. I tend to favor the arguments that best support topic-specific education, rather than fairness or predictability.   For me, CP theory arguments are most effective if accompanied with nuanced impact calculus as to their implications upon decision-making processes. In other words, the substantive solvency evidence in favor of your CP (or AFF plan) is what is going to win my ballot on this part of the flow.   LOR/PMR – please help me by providing substantive comparisons of the world of plan/perm and counterplan. How actually am I suppose to evaluate the risk of the solvency deficit to the risk of the DA if you do not explicate this for me?   Disadvantages – I will award full potency to defensive arguments. Even so, (particularly in the rebuttals) I would like a clear articulation of how the probability/risk/timeframe arguments interact with offensive arguments on magnitude. Also, be realistic about what offense you are winning and what offense the other team is winning. Don’t assume that you are winning ALL the things because then you will fail to explicate why what you are legitimately winning is more important than the other team’s offense.   If there is a NO link to the DA, then there is no link. If there is a link turn argument without any arguments at the uniqueness level, then I will still evaluate the argument (assuming the no link argument is fully articulated): for me, the no link isn’t washed away by what is happening at the uniqueness level.   Presentation:   Speed is fine; delivery that is unclear is not fine. If the other teams calls you out for your poorly articulated plantext/cptext/whatever, then do not assume that it was clearly articulated to me either.   In terms of speaker points, I award them based on a few things – <ol> <li>fulfilling the duties of your speaker position</li> <li>good smart arguments – multiple warrants are better than claims with none</li> <li>you debate the side of the resolution that you are given, but I don’t think that this is an excuse to be a prick</li> <li>if you teach me something</li> </ol>

2013 Iverson/Bacon-Vickrey

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Baker - MHCC

Alek Traczyk - Clark CC

Badger LaJoie - MHCC

Beau Woodward - UP

Benjamin Brockman - Clark CC

Beth Hewes - CSI

Bohn Lattin - UP

Brian Simmons - UP

Bryan Hunt - MHCC

Chris Reinhold - Clark CC

Dan Broyles - Pacific

Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia

Doyle Srader - NCU

Elsie Praeger - MHCC

Gabrielle Guerrero - MHCC

Heather Lindberg - Clark CC

Jennifer Conner - Pacific

Jessica Mohr - Clark CC

Joe Gantt - Lewis & Clark

Jon Enos - Clark CC

Justin Wiley - Lower Columbia

Justin Wiley - MHCC

Leah Moore - Lower Columbia

Lilly Huynh - Pacific

Liz Kinnaman - MHCC

Megan Bauer - OSU

Micah Waterlander - MHCC

Shannon Valdivia - MHCC

Simone Walter - Lewis & Clark

Tim Lortan - UP

2013 Iverson/Bacon-Vickrey

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Baker - MHCC

Alek Traczyk - Clark CC

Badger LaJoie - MHCC

Beau Woodward - UP

Benjamin Brockman - Clark CC

Beth Hewes - CSI

Bohn Lattin - UP

Brian Simmons - UP

Bryan Hunt - MHCC

Chris Reinhold - Clark CC

Dan Broyles - Pacific

Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia

Doyle Srader - NCU

Elsie Praeger - MHCC

Gabrielle Guerrero - MHCC

Heather Lindberg - Clark CC

Jennifer Conner - Pacific

Jessica Mohr - Clark CC

Joe Gantt - Lewis &amp; Clark

Jon Enos - Clark CC

Justin Wiley - Lower Columbia

Justin Wiley - MHCC

Leah Moore - Lower Columbia

Lilly Huynh - Pacific

Liz Kinnaman - MHCC

Megan Bauer - OSU

Micah Waterlander - MHCC

Shannon Valdivia - MHCC

Simone Walter - Lewis &amp; Clark

Tim Lortan - UP

Joe Gantt - Lewis & Clark

Simone Walter - Lewis & Clark