Judge Philosophies
Aaron Fullman - Long Beach
n/a
Adriena Young - APU
n/a
Angelica Grigsby - Concordia
Baker Weilert - stAte
<p>Experience: 4 years policy debate in Kansas, 4 years parliamentary debate at Louisiana Tech University, and Arkansas State University. Currently Assistant Debate Coach at Arkansas State University. I was predominantly a one off K debater, if that tells you anything about my preferences. Paradigm: Tab, but I will default flow (in the most literal since of the word, which means you probably won’t like my RFD) so, PLEASE give me the lens you want to be applied so that can be avoided. Speed: You can fly like the wind, with the caveat that I truly believe the best debate occurs at a moderate rate of speed. That being said use whatever strategy you deem necessary, speak as fast as you’d like. Positions: I will listen to anything, as long as it has clear structure, and you articulate why/how I should evaluate the position. Abuse: Must show articulated abuse, for example: throw out a crappy DA and point to the No Link as reason why abuse has occurred, or any other creative way you can show me abuse. In Round Behavior: DO NOT BE MEAN, I will tank speaks. Totally fine to be witty, and slightly confrontational, but avoid personal attacks, I would much rather hear you actually debate. Generics: I don’t mind generic canned positions, but please take the prep time to make the link level specific. Overall: I believe debate is a creative space, so feel free to run literally anything you want. Enjoy and respect the debate space, and we should be all good. Don’t hesitate to ask for clarification on any of the above.</p>
Barry Regan - Grand Canyon
Ben Krueger - NAU
Brandan Whearty - Palomar
Caitlyn Burford - NAU
<p>Burford, Caitlyn (Northern Arizona University)</p> <p>Background: This is my eigth year judging and coaching debate, and I spent four years competing in college. Please feel free to ask me specific questions before the round.</p> <p>Specific Inquiries 1. General Overview</p> <p>I think debate is a unique competitive forum to discuss issues within our rhetoric about the state, power, race, gender, etc. in a space that allows us to rethink and critically assess topics. This can come through a net benefit analysis of a proposed government plan, through a micro political action or statement, through a critique, or through some other newfangled performance you come up with. In that sense, I think debate is a rhetorical act that can be used creatively and effectively. Running a policy case about passing a piece of legislation has just as many implications about state power and authority as a critique of the state. The differences between the two types just have to do with what the debaters choose to discuss in each particular round. There are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. Thus, framework is imperative. I’ll get there shortly. You can run whatever you want as long as a) you have a theoretical justification for running the position, and b) you realize that it is still a competitive debate round so I need a reason to vote for something at some point. (a.k.a Give me a framework with your poetry!).</p> <p>2. Framework This often ends up as the most important part of a lot of debates. If both teams are running with net benefits, great, but I still think there is area to weigh those arguments differently based on timeframe, magnitude, structural weight, etc. This kind of framework can make your rebuttal a breeze. In a debate that goes beyond a net benefits paradigm, your framework is key to how I interpret different impacts in the round. Choose your frameworks strategically and use them to your advantage. If the whole point of your framework is to ignore the case debate, then ignore the case debate. If the whole point of your framework is to leverage your case against the critique, then tell me what the rhetorical implications (different than impacts) are to your case.</p> <p>3. Theory It’s important to note that theory positions are impact debates, too. Procedural positions, topicalities, etc. are only important to the debate if you have impacts built into them. If a topicality is just about “fairness” or “abuse” without any articulation as to what that does, most of these debates become a “wash”. So, view your theory as a mini-debate, with a framework, argument, and impacts built into it.</p> <p>4. Counterplan Debate This is your game. I don’t think I have a concrete position as to how I feel about PICS, or intrinsicness, or textual/functional competition. That is for you to set up and decide in the debate. I have voted on PICS good, PICS bad, so on and so forth. That means that it all has to do with the context of the specific debate. Just make your arguments and warrant them well. Unless I am told otherwise, I will assume the CP is unconditional and my role as a judge it to vote for the best advocacy.</p> <p>5. Round Evaluation Again, framework is important. Procedurals, case debate, and critique debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality/procedurals, then the case. Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team. (Again, this is only absent any sort of weighing mechanism for any of the arguments.) If there is a topicality/procedural run without any voters, I won’t put them in for you and it will be weighed against the case. I will not weigh the case against the critique unless I am told how and why it can be weighed equally. A concrete argument is always going to have a bit more weight than an abstract argument. A clear story with a calculated impact will probably outweigh an uncalculated potential impact. (i.e. “15,000 without food” vs. a “decrease in the quality of life”). But, if you calculate them out and do the work for me, awesome. If I have to weigh two vague abstract arguments against each other, i.e. loss of identity vs. loss of freedom, then I will probably revert to the more warranted link story if I must. 6. Speed, Answering Questions, and Other General Performance Things I’m fine with speed. Don’t use it as a tool to exclude your other competitors if they ask you to slow down, please do. I don’t really care about how many questions you answer if any, but if you don’t then you are probably making yourself more vulnerable to arguments about shifts or the specificities of “normal means”. It’s your round! Do what you want!</p>
Caleb Sutherlin - APU
n/a
Christina Marquez - EPCC
n/a
Daniel Elliott - Biola
<p>Experience:</p> <ol> <li>Competing: I was trained for CEDA though our small school did not have the time or funds to keep up with the research so I did Parli for two years back when Parliamentary Debate was just getting started in the west, 1996-1998.</li> <li>Judging: I have since = judged in many different tournaments as an assistant coach. I took a couple of years off to get married and now I am back as the Director of Forensics at Biola University. I have judged too many rounds to sit down and try to do the math. I have been around a while.</li> </ol> <p>Decision making:</p> <ol> <li>I first make my decision according to my flow. I could totally disagree with you but if you say something is important or critical to the round I will write it down. If there is no response from the other team then that argument might win the round.</li> <li>I make my decision according to logic. I do not believe in tabula rosa. I will look at the arguments, especially in a round of a lot of clash, and decide what is supported with the best evidence and what makes the most sense.</li> <li>I accept procedurals. You do not need to prove abuse to run a T. You can run solvency presses, specs, Kritics, and tricot. I will listen to them all. I do not buy the risk of solvency arguments. If you have a plan that is likely not to solve that is the place where I will pull the trigger for the neg.</li> <li>Finally on Kritics, I do not like Kritics that are really nonlinear disadvantages in disguise just dressed up like K’s so that you can kritic the mindset. They K itself is nonlinear. The harm is already in the status quoe. There is no bright line to suggest that the rhetoric will make it worse. So save yourself the trouble and do not run them because I do not want to hear them.</li> </ol> <p>Presentation:</p> <ol> <li>I think speed is antithetical to debate. Debate is about persuading your critic. Debate is supposed to train you for real world debates. How does talking at 200+ words per minute train students to argue in the real world? It robs debate of Ethos and Pathos which are just as important to logos in Aristotle’s paradigm. Logos is the most important of the triad but I want to see the other two.</li> <li>So please rise and speak if there is a lectern available. If not then you may speak from your seat.</li> <li>Be as professional as you can. It makes you more credible as a speaker. The more credible you are the more persuasive your arguments will seem. There is plenty of great research to support this.</li> </ol> <p>On Case arguments:</p> <ol> <li>I like on case arguments. I don’t want the debate to become like two ships passing in the night.</li> <li>I do not want the Aff to spend 30 minutes of prep only to spend the hour of our lives listening to Neg’s off case positions. Since logic is very important to me I would advise Neg teams to try case turns and presses in addition to K’s and DA’s It can only help you.</li> </ol>
Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC
n/a
David Berver - Mesa
Holland Smith - CSULA
JD Sterkin - Grand Canyon
Jason Jordan - Utah
<p>*I have fairly significant hearing loss. This is almost never a problem when judging debates. This also doesn't mean you should yell at me during your speech, that won't help. If I can't understand the words you're saying, I will give a clear verbal prompt to let you know what you need to change for me to understand you (ex: 'clear,' 'louder,' 'slow down,' or 'hey aff stop talking so loud so that I can hear the MO please'). If I don't prompt you to the contrary, I can understand the words you're saying just fine. <br /> <br /> *make arguments, tell me how to evaluate these arguments, and compare these arguments to the other teams arguments and methods of evaluating arguments. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to place me within. I have very few, if any, normative beliefs about what debate should look like and/or ‘be.’ </p> <p> </p> <p>*Unless I am told to do otherwise, on all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments.</p>
Joe Sindicich - CSUF
n/a
Joel Anguiano - EPCC
n/a
Juan Garcia - EPCC
n/a
Kacy Abeln - COD
Kelly Lootz - Pacific
<p><span dir="ltr">I am an Interper by trade and currently an Individual Events coach. That being said, I’ve been around debate in various capacities for over eight years and love the activity. Some things to consider if you find me at the back of the room:</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr"> </span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Speed – Take it down a notch or two and enunciate. If I can’t understand you I can’t vote for you.</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Arguments – Anything goes. Just make sure you take the time to explain what you are going for. Impact Calculus is always a great thing!</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Jargon – Be sure to explain exactly what you mean. If you just throw debate jargon at me, I may not catch it.</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr"> </span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">At the end of the day, tell me why I should vote for you. As a former interper I love to see the passion in a round – in your last speech break it down for me and tell me why you win! </span></p> <p> </p>
Lane Schwager - CSULA
n/a
Lauren Morgan - COD
<p>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 <em>not</em> 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. </p>
Marquesa Whearty - Palomar
Megan Truesdell - Grand Canyon
Michael Dvorak - Grand Canyon
Michael Gray - stAte
<p>This pertains mostly to Parli.</p> <p>Debated for A-State from 2007-2011; mostly Parli, but some IPDA and Worlds. Assistant coach for A-State from 2011-2013 and Director of Debate for A-State from 2016-present. </p> <p>I'll listen to anything, but I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants and/or logical impact scenarios. So, if you blip out a turn that doesn't make any sense and they don't respond to it, I don't care. I don't need them to respond because you didn't make an argument. Debate jargon is useful, but it is not some magic trick that replaces argumentation. Don't take short-cuts and expect me to fill in the blanks for you. That's called intervention.</p> <p>Speaker Points: These exist to reward good speakers. What is a good speaker? For me, a good speaker has nothing to do with who won the round. I have been known to give out more than a few low-point wins. Speed doesn't make you good. Knowing lots of stuff doesn't make you good. Winning an argument doesn't make you good. It's that other thing - a certain qualia or affect - that makes you good. Do that, whatever it is, and you'll get the speaker points. Make sense?</p> <p>Case: The Aff has the burden of proof & the burden of rejoinder. It is your job to fairly limit the round and present a clear case that upholds the resolution. If you can convince me otherwise, do it. I'll vote on an Aff K if it makes sense and wins. </p> <p>T: I love a well-run topicality. It's especially nice if your opponent is actually not topical. Potential abuse is sometimes enough, if potential harms are articulated and impacted out. Look at it this way: President Blank bans certain travelers because he BELIEVES there is a potential harm in allowing them into the country. THAT is why un-articulated potential abuse is often not enough; you should clearly articulate the abuse, potential or actual. T is not a debate trick. T is a debate nuclear bomb and, if you use it correctly and at the appropriate time, you'll probably win (pay attention, Aff). </p> <p>Other Procedurals: run them correctly, tell me how to evaluate them and where they belong in order of evaluation, and you're good to go. </p> <p>K: Yes, please. However, let's avoid any blatant misreadings or wildly alternative applications of theory and philosophy... unless there's a realy good reason. If there is a really good reason, please include that very clearly in your overview or framework. </p> <p>DA/CP/Condi: structure, structure, structure. My default stance is that all Neg arguments are conditional. If, however, the debate turns to theory, Aff can win CondiBad. I'll listen. I need CLEAR ARTICULATION of theory arguments, not just blippy responses that require me to intervene to fill in the blanks. It's your job to do the work, not mine. I can't grade work that isn't there and I can't judge arguments that aren't actually made.</p> <p>Performance & Breaking the Rules: I will (usually) NOT break the (important) rules of debate. I will not "call it a draw" and write "debate is terrible" on my ballot. I love debate. I feed my family with debate. I will not participate in any "overthrow of the establishment." Don't even bother asking your opponent to concede the round and embrace some anti-debate standpoint - that has no functional place here. If you must advocate for something like that, do it in IEs. I'm not an IE performer - never did them - but I love IEs and I believe they should make fun of debate as often as possible. </p> <p>That does not mean I'm opposed to participants finding creative ways to engage the debate space. Have fun. Do cool stuff. Entertain me. Keep it classy and excellent. </p> <p>Speed and Speed K: I prefer upbeat debate and a good pace. If you've clocked yourself, I am comfortable with a clear rate of speech around 275-325wmp. I can flow faster, but I'd rather not. To be honest, I've rarely seen a real need for anyone to actually argue that fast and the pseudo-analyses I've done seem to indicate that a strong vocabulary and controlled clear-rate-of-speech lead to more success than jarbled bursts of extreme speed followed by lengthy pauses or incoherent utterances. In all honesty, parli is at its best when highly-trained, charismatic debaters engage in argumentation at about 200-250wpm. Anything faster and you're probably repeating yourself too much or missing good arguments for the sake saying more words. If I or your opponent calls clear or speed and you do not respond appropriately, you will receive the lowest speaker points you've ever gotten. I promise. If you say anything that even gets close to "get better" to your opponent, you will receive the lowest speaker points you've ever gotten. I promise. You may well win the round, but you will have done so unethically and I cannot award high speaks to unethical debaters who intentionally ignore a legit request like "clear."</p> <p>I will vote on a speed K... IF it is run correctly, makes sense, and defended appropriately. I will not vote on "they talk fast and it's not fair."</p> <p>Rebuttals: By the time we get to the rebuttals, I've heard enough line-by-line. Some may be needed, but if your rebuttal sounds exactly like your previous speech (pay attention, Neg), I'm already bored. Come on, this is your chance to really secure those speaker points. Show me that you can tend to the line-by-line and cover the flow and still give me a clear summarization of advocacy, impact analysis, and something to reward at the bottom. </p> <p>Timer Beeps: I prefer you time one another. If you are unable, I'll start my timer when you start debating. When my timer beeps, I stop flowing. I've had more sentence fragments at the bottom of a flow than I can count. A fragment is not a complete... </p> <p>Just time your arguments. It's not difficult to just be done talking 1 second before the timer goes... it's impressive and judges notice it. Be impressive.</p> <p> </p>