FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Chris Leland - CCU

Debate has always been and always will be an academic lab for the articulation of good argumentation.  I have competed, judged and coached programs at the university level in IE, CEDA, NDT and Parli.  As such I am not a novice to debate, but I am relatively new to some forms of theoretical arguments and especially the more recent lingo that surrounds them.  I have been out of coaching for 14 years, but have been putting into practice the debate skills in the public forum against philosophers, theolgians, cultural critics, politicians, free thinkers, etc.  So I have seen what debate does in the "real world."  As such I am not yet convinced that some of the culture of debate doesn't force us into a box that is really pretty particular to our little world.  I say that to say,  I am not opposed to T or "Kritique" (which I guess is the hip postmodern spelling) or any other theoretical arguments but I can say I would much rather see clearly articulated and communicated arguments that are well constructed and well thought out.  It is fair to say I have a much higher threshold for those types of arguments.  Debate, I recognize, is also about strategy, but not at the expense of solid argumentation.  Having coached CEDA and NDT and now Parli for the last couple of years, I can flow.  Have to use my glasses to see what I wrote, which is different from the good ol' days, but ...  I will say that the thing that has shocked me the most this year is the casual way in which language is thrown around.  I fully don't expect it at this tournament, but there is no room in academic debate (even with the idea of free speech in  mind) for foul language.  It is unprofessional and rude.  Might be considered cool for some, but it is not accepted in any of the professions for which we are training up this group to move onto in the future.  Otherwise, I am excited to be back in the debate realm the last couple of years.   Chris Leland, Ph.D. Asst. VP for Academic Affairs, Professor of Communication & Director of Debate Colorado Christian University

Fred Ebert - Northwest

Years Coaching Parliamentary: 6 Most Important Criteria: I tend to look at the argument as a whole. That being said, I'll listen to and evaluate a wide variety of strategies with an open mind. If at the end of the round, your strategy solves most in regard to the topic, that's where my vote will lie. Expectations of Decorum: I expect people to be respectful of each other. Having some good fun is fine but being mean to each other isn't. I expect the seated partner to be mostly quiet while the standing partner is speaking. Notes are fine but adding to the speech is not. Predispositions: As I said earlier, I will listen to a wide variety of strategies and positions with an open mind. I get pretty annoyed with 'time-suck' strategies such as an unfounded T. If you are going to ask me to vote on procedurals, please follow it all the way through. In the event that you want to run a K, don't do it unless you really understand what's behind it Speech/Jargon/Technical: I flow reasonably well. Speed is fine as long as what you are saying is clear and understandable. Don't try to dazzle in the round with excess jargon. I understand what you are talking about but if it doesn't add to the debate, I'm left un-impressed.

Jeannie Hunt - Northwest

I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of  intervention on my part.  That means a couple of things.  You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round.  I don’t care what that framework is, but I want one. If there is debate about that criteria, make sure that the theory is clear and there are specific reasons why one framework is preferable to the other.  That framework is what I will follow, so please don’t set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits at the end.  More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.  I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, something tangible for me to vote on.  Absent that, I have to intervene.  There are no specific arguments that I prefer over another.  I will vote on pretty much anything and I am game for pretty much anything.  I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions or present narratives that you don't want attached to the curency of a ballot, which is what presenting the narrative in the round really comes down to.  If you run a k you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about.  However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out…  This is true of any theory based argument you choose to run.  I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important.  If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don’t have to spend time flowing it. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well. Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective.  I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K.  Make sure the framework is very specific so I don’t have to abandon objectivity all together. Finally, make your own arguments.  If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago.  Prompting someone with a statement like, “go to the DA” is fine.  Making an argument that is then repeated is not. Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn’t mean you should have no style.  You should be clear, structured and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is team).  You can at least take off your hat. Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.  Speed is not a problem if it is clear.  Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round - that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what could have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is really just you saying think you should have won on that argument. Because I don’t want to intervene, I don’t appreciate points of order.  You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way.  Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn’t vote on new arguments.  I won’t.  If you feel particularly abused in the round, and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill advised.  I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.

Jessica Hurless - Casper

John Hansen - EWC

Debate / Judging Philosophy - John A. Hansen My philosophy of debate is constantly evolving or devolving depending upon your locus of control within the continuum.  Philosophically I think in order to understand my orientation you have to understand my background of debate and experience.  I’ve been associated with debate for nearly 20-years; I started as an old school Lincoln Douglas debater (value / criteria) from there I transitioned to CEDA and NDT, and now coach NPDA and IPDA. Each format has revealed nuances about argumentation and theory and allowed me to refine my views on what ‘debate is.’ The overarching ‘rule’ I ascribe to debate, is the notion of reciprocity meaning that if neg wishes to disco, dispo, challenge on multiple levels, etc. Aff is also able to engage within the same constructs to challenge the negatives suppositions.  Inherently debate introduces strategy into a normative oppositional framework; hence, I am open to speed, jurisdiction, the K, framework conditionality / dispositionality, etc.  Each strategy bends the goal of communication and have their own inherent strengths and weaknesses and just because I am o.k. with the bleeding edge of speed doesn’t mean that I am not sympathetic to a critique of said strategy.  This dichotomy is emblematic of my views on debate, I think its important to try new forms of argument/strategy but be mindful of how such constructs are impacted by reciprocity. My debate philosophy has transitioned beyond the tabula rasa judge because (literally not all arguments are equal {‘racism good’ never a ‘good idea’} and I am incapable of subjugating all past experiences) into viewing the communication medium as Habermas does- one whereby individuals evaluate their motives amongst the technical, the practical, and the emancipatory.  Each of these categories demarcate debate theory and communicative action and provide a scaffold for understanding our own constructions. Please impact your arguments, weigh the round, provide judging / evaluative standards and be respectful of one another. Regards, Hansen

Kristy McManus - WWCC

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. I try to remain as tab as possible.  It is your responsibility to dictate what the round will look like. I put a lot of weight on the flow.  I will not “do the work for you”. CP’s, DA’s, K’s – sure!  Strategy is key for me but all must be done well and show understanding through warranted argumentation. Tell me what to do.  This is your debate.  Where should I look and how should I vote.  Impact calk is a must. T’s are there for a reason – if you need to use them – you MUST.  Otherwise, they are a waste of my time. Be civil – if you are rude, I stop listening.

Mary Aragon - LSC NH

n/a

Matt Lenell - CCU

I’m a recent graduate serving as an assistant coach, with 5 years competition experience in high school and collegiate debate. As with anyone recently changing sides at a tournament, I understand the difficulty arising from the vast differences in judging paradigms. I’ll listen to any reasonably sound arguments you want to make, but I do judge through the lens of logic.   Don’t make up facts; I’ll probably know…   I tend to be mostly flow based and tabula rasa when I can stifle my personal opinion. Sarcasm is acceptable, and persuasion is a must. I will vote on whatever criteria and voters you offer within reason. Whatever you do, don’t run a procedural half-heartedly. Example: NEG offers T and claims education as a standard/ voter, NEG then proceeds to adapt DA’s to apply to on case; BAD IDEA, you just delinked your own T. Debate lingo is fine. Spread debating is not. I’m looking for quality ideas. Adding metaphors to explain link stories is also a plus.   Any other paradigm Q’s may be asked in round.   ML

Ron Bronson - EWC

Background: I competed in parliamentary debate at Washington University in St. Louis and revived the debate programs at Monmouth College & Knox College in Illinois. I competed at NPDA nationals twice and organized the first midwest tour of the Oxford Debate Union, also competing against the English during that time. I co-founded the Central Debate Conference, a former confederation of liberal arts college programs throughout the midwest. I'm in my 2nd year coaching parli at Eastern Wyoming College, though my day job is actually as the college's digital strategist. You'd be safer thinking of me as a lay judge with insider knowledge into the activity than a formal debate judge. Approach to judging: I tend to view debate as a game and enjoy fun debates where teams are matching wits up against a topic. The key is people actually knowing what they’re talking about or sounding like it. Nothing frustrates me more than hearing people spew on misrepresenting an issue wildly for 45 minutes.  That being said, it’s your round. Impacts are fine, but I like things to be weighed. My opinion shouldn’t matter as much as your arguments and I don’t make a habit of inserting myself into rounds. I want debate with warrants and substance and strongly prefer debate that’s clear and persuasive over speedy drivel, but will vote for the latter so long as it gets the job done.   Counterplans are fine and DAs are super so long as each one of them doesn’t result in nuclear war. I’ve got a strong public policy background and so, it’s often hard to be tabula rasa when people get up and say wildly ridiculous things (though I’ll vote for it if the other team leaves it on the flow untouched.) Long story short is: Know what you’re talking about. I don’t expect you to speak with the breadth of a Ph.D., but I do expect both teams to understand the case they’re running at some base level.    Splitting the block is cool with me. I abhor tricotomy, run it at your own risk.

2013 Mustang Round Up