Judge Philosophies
Bill Sheffield - WNCC
n/a
Carlos Tarin - UTEP
<p>I consider myself to be fairly straightforward in my approach to debate. I think the best debates happen when teams actually engage the issues invoked by the resolution, rather than getting bogged down in pointless meta-theoretical exercises. I am open to a variety of perspectives, but will generally default to a policy-making paradigm that evaluates net benefits unless I am given a reason to do otherwise. If you want to run more creative positions (critical or otherwise) I’m okay with that as long as I am given a rationale that substantively articulates the importance or worth of those arguments. Basically, don’t play games with the round for the sake of playing games; warrant your positions and give me a clear way of evaluating the claims you are making. </p> <p>I am okay with some speed, but generally don’t appreciate spreading (and, in all fairness, I probably won’t catch everything if you’re going crazy fast). I try to stick to the flow as much as possible, but if you arguments aren’t clearly labeled or are rushed, I’ll eventually give up trying to follow along. Tell me where to go on the flow and where I should be (cross)applying arguments if necessary. </p> <p>Things I generally don’t like: unnecessary topicality (usually won't vote for this unless there is demonstrable abuse happening in round), convoluted theory arguments (of the debate variety; I dig philosophical arguments), time sucks, rudeness.</p> <p>Your chances of winning my ballot will be greatly improved if you: clearly give me reasons why I should vote for you in rebuttals, weigh impacts, provide actual clash, win frameworks. </p> <p>Miscellaneous: I’m usually pretty nice with speaker points (just don’t be a jerk). Points of order are fine (I won't consider new arguments in rebuttals, but you might be hearing things differently -- so feel free to call them), but don't go overboard with them -- if a team is making lots of new arguments, I won't flow them. </p>
Ciera White - USAFA
n/a
Frankie Marchi - ASU
n/a
Ian Summers - Utah
<p>My background is primarily in individual events, both as a competitor and as a coach. My only debate experience was doing policy and public forum in high school, which was over ten years ago. I come from an extemp background so I will understand and appreciate well-developed and explained arguments, but I do not like spreading and am rusty on debate jargon. I will evaluate rounds based on the soundness and internal logic of arguments more than esoteric terminology and tactics. </p>
John Grimm - ASU
n/a
Kristy McManus - WWCC
<p>I have been coaching since 2010. I competed for two years at the college level. I took a long break from forensics but returned when working on my second Master’s Degree in Communication. I am currently the DOF at Western Wyoming Community College.</p> <p>I try to remain as tab as possible. It is your responsibility to dictate what the round will look like.</p> <p>I put a lot of weight on the flow. I will not “do the work for you”.</p> <p>CP’s, DA’s, K’s – sure! Strategy is key for me but all must be done well and show understanding through warranted argumentation.</p> <p>Tell me what to do. This is your debate. Where should I look and how should I vote. Impact calk is a must.</p> <p>T’s are there for a reason – if you need to use them – you MUST. Otherwise, they are a waste of my time.</p> <p>Be civil – if you are rude, I stop listening.</p>
Loretta Rowley - Utah
<p>I am primarily an individual events coach. I did not compete in, nor do I coach debate. I have taught and continue to teach argumentation courses and thus, I prefer slower delivery and well-developed arguments. Essentially, I am not well-versed in debate jargon so don't assume that I will have the exact understanding of your version of debate theory. That said, I can follow and assess any debate as long as the competitors explain themselves fully and weigh their arguments. </p>
Matthew Minnich - UTEP
n/a