FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

zz-bye

n/a

zz-bye

n/a

zz-bye

n/a

A.J. Moorehead - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Aaron Cannistraci - Bethany

n/a

Adam Gonzales - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Alexander Mrad - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Allan Axibal - Azusa

n/a

Alyssa Pearson - Malone

n/a

Annie Berry - Azusa

n/a

Austin Furey - Malone

n/a

Brandiann Molby - Cedarville

Name: Brandiann Molby School: Cedarville University   Section 1: General Information   My debate experience is in NPDA, first as a student and for the past several years as a judge and coach.    I will listen to any argument as long as it is reasonably well-structured and well-thought out; I have no prejudices against any particular argumentation.  I have arguments I like better than others, but all are valuable tools in this game.   Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.   1.Speaker Points:  I typically give speaker points in the 20-30 range, with 20 being extremely poor novice debate (which we will not see at NPTE), and 30 going to the most accomplished speakers.  My average range for experienced debaters is 25-29 points.   2.Critical Arguments:  Critical arguments are a fantastic, increasingly neglected strategy in debate.  As an off-case position, I weigh it before case debate.  Affirmatives are able to run critical arguments on the resolution, should the wording of the resolution warrant it; however, K is most effective when Aff or Neg use it as part of a larger strategy that informs their other positions.   3.Performance-based Arguments:  Performative arguments should be used sparingly, although I will hear them as I will any type of argument.   4.Topicality: Topicality is a contest of competing interpretations; simply crying "abuse" does not do nearly enough work to address the complexities of this argument.  Argue proven abuse by all means, but it must be predicated on the inadequacies of the Aff’s interpretations.  You must prove all aspects of your interpretation and its consequences for the round.   5.Counterplans:  PICs are fine, but Neg needs to demonstrate clearly why changing only a portion of the plan is preferable.  Any CP works best in conjunction with a cohesive Neg strategy.  I do believe PICs need to be substantively competitive from the original plan, but whether that is on a functional or textual basis, or both, depends on the particular round.   6.Sharing Flowed Arguments:  Partners should be able to share whatever flowed information they have; however, I think it is unnecessary for flows to be shared with the opposing team.  If teams require clarification, they can ask for it.   7.Order of Evaluating Argumentation:  I prefer to have debaters weigh the round themselves and demonstrate the ability to think critically about their own argumentation.  In the absence of this very necessary analysis, I evaluate critical argumentation first, then procedurals like T, and finally look to the case debate and any advantages or disadvantages.   8.Weighing Arguments not Weighed by Debaters or Weighing Conflicting Claims:  In a comparative advantage context, I tend to prefer probability over strict magnitude.  I find it difficult to determine whether genocide is preferable to nuclear winter, and generally look a little further up the flow to more realistic impacts.  I often prefer concrete impacts over abstract ones, but I will vote on either type depending on its context in the round.  That said, impact calculus usually devolves into the world of fallacy, and while I will entertain any argument, I prefer to see a more sophisticated, substantive analysis from the debaters.

Brooke Adamson - NNU

n/a

Caitlyn Burford - PLNU

n/a

Carl Simmons - CBU

Cathy Glenn - SMC

Chip Hall - CNU

n/a

Chris Gutierrez - PLNU

Chris Estrada - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Dan Sietman - Wheaton

Bottom Line: Run your positions, and defend them. Warrant your arguments. Avoid fallacious arguments. I value probable impacts affecting smaller localized populations over apocalyptic ones. Weigh your arguments. Concentrate more on the holistic arguments than the line-by-line. I’d like to think that I’m one of the most fair-minded judges you’ll face. Background: I have a BA in Comm from Cedarville University. My program heavily emphasized public speaking, and so I am well-trained in argumentation, persuasion, etc. I hold a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I began judging in NPDA in 2003 when my wife was hired as the Cedarville University DOF; she is now the DOF at Wheaton College. Approach: I will try not to intervene in the round, but I am not perfect. I will assess the quality of your arguments; I will not necessarily vote for you on the basis of an absurd argument to which your opponents do not respond; you must both persuade me and defend your position. I will adjudicate the interactions of your arguments according to the relative weight you give them; if you do not weigh your arguments then I will do so according to my own standards. I believe in the legitimacy of fact, value, and policy debates, but feel free to run Tricot-Bad positions; you can win on nearly anything so long as you warrant and defend it well. I believe that in most cases “normal means” covers stock issues adequately, and in general I am willing to grant risk of solvency. I would rather hear how a policy decision will impact things like marginalized individuals, single communities, regional economies, or local conflicts than how it will prevent or devolve into a global extinction scenario. Presentation: NPDA’s ideal is that you present your arguments clearly such that a total stranger could walk into the room and render a decision. As far as ideals go, I think it’s a good one. Good delivery enhances your ethos and pathos. I am used to Midwestern speeds (slowish) but I can flow all but the fastest West Coast speakers effectively. Those of you who wish you could speed, but can’t, please don’t. True speed is both fast and coherent. On/Off Case: Case is as important as you make it. Remember that if you under-cover or fail to cover case, and if I don’t buy your off-case, then you lose. I value offence; simple mitigation on case generally won’t win you the round, but every once in a while a given round just needs a good well-warranted defensive strategy. Remember that “turn” isn’t a magic word; warrant your turns. Procedurals, CP, & Kritiks: I give Gov wide latitude under the right to define, but run T as necessary. K, including Gov Res-K is fine. Feel free to put an RVI on any a-priori position, but like anything else, if you expect me to vote on it, warrant it. Counter Plan can be whatever you make it in the round. Points of Order: By all means, call Points of Order in the rebuttals. They are your protection against your opponents. I cannot promise to protect you as well as you can protect yourself.

Daniel Elliott - Biola

Experience: <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> Decision making: <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> Presentation: <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> On Case arguments: <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>

David Dickmeyer - Wheaton

David Bailey - SBU

n/a

Derrick Green - Cedarville

n/a

Dustin Haider - Concordia

n/a

Ebony Taylor - Concordia-CA

n/a

Elisha Nix - HPU

n/a

Emily Aldana - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Eric Mishne - Cedarville

n/a

Erick Roebuck - JBU

n/a

Ericka Llerena - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Esther Minell - Bethel

Faith Kroeker Maus - Bethel

Grant Beeson - PLNU

n/a

Griffith Vertican - Concordia-CA

n/a

Ira Green - Concordia-CA

n/a

J. Edward Stevenson - Azusa

n/a

Jaimie Franklin - Pepperdine

n/a

Jameson Gavin - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Jana Hall - CNU

n/a

Jason Stahl - Belmont

n/a

Jason Hosfield - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Jen Soto - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Jennifer O'Brien - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Jeremy Smith - Vanguard

Jessica Samens - Bethel

Jessica Samens  - Bethel University<o:p></o:p> Debate Judging Philosophy<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Years judging Debate – 4<o:p></o:p> Number of Rounds judged – 50 +<o:p></o:p> Tournaments judged – 25<o:p></o:p> Average Speaker points - 27<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> While I am a relatively new Parli judge, I have a strong grasp on what I like and dislike in a debate round.  I have worked hard to become a respected judge on the circuit and have proven myself to be such. Overall, I want this to be a good learning experience for all involved, which translates into what I like and dislike. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I like a round that is civil, well set up, and easy to understand. While I expect students to stand firm in their arguments, I do not tolerate being rude to the other team. Sarcasm, being disrespectful, and bullying do not make me happy. I also like  a debate that is well presented and follows an organized fashion set out by the Gov. This way I don’t have to make the decision if you dropped arguments or not, plus it makes it easier for everyone to follow (especially the judge who will be making the ultimate decision).  A messy debate forces all involved to make a lot of assumptions. I also like a round that is easy to understand – I fully admit to not always following the news as well as I should.  Please explain arguments for the sake of the judge and the other team.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Speaking of Topicality, I am fine with you running this as long as it is justified.  However, don’t spend precious time arguing it hurts the education system and is abusive.  I know what the grounds are and do not want you to waste time you could be spending on the case.  I am accepting of counter plans as long as they are not just the gov plan modified – I also need to see they are justified by the opp.  I feel the same out K’s, etc – impress me with our debate skills. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> In order to win my round,  I want to see that you have learned something about debate and fought a clean round. When teams are equally paired, I am fine with a little humor and sarcasm to each other (while this may seem to go against my earlier claim, I do appreciate the spirit of debate when done fairly),  but not when you are the stronger team – you take away from the other teams ability to learn. Also,  be sure to tell me why you win – I appreciate voters in the rebuttals to tell me why you are the winning team. Never leave the debate in the judge’s hand, there is a lot of information going back and forth and you don’t want me to miss the main arguments you have provided. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Happy Debating!<o:p></o:p>

Jon Loging - Bethany

<h2>Jon Loging - Bethany Lutheran College</h2> Question 1 : Please provide significant details on how your approach and evaluate debate rounds. Especially helpful are details about approaches or arguments that you either enjoy or dislike. Years of competition in Parliamentary Debate - 4 Number of years coaching/judging Parliamentary Debate - 14   I firmly believe Parliamentary debate is an excellent Communication activity and should be carried out with that intention.  I like to observe all the formalities that go along with Parli.  Delivery should be clear, well paced, and organized.  Debaters should use logic, wit, examples, and style to convince a person that their perspective of a resolution is the correct one.  Overall, I want you to persuade me on the issue presented in the resolution.  I don't want you to stand up there and tell me the other team is stupid.  Stand up there and tell me why I should vote for you.  Persuade me!  Don't simply bash the other team. Technical debating does not impress me.  I don't care how many levels you have for your topicality argument if the Government team was topical.  If the Government team goes way off base with their case, then a simple explanation of why they are not topical is called for.  DON'T tell me that they are decreasing the educational value of the debate.  Using the same old, tired arguments is what is decreasing the educational value of debate.  Meta-debate is a fun activity, but when we are talking about cutting taxes, I don’t want to hear argumentation theory; I want to hear why we should or should not cut taxes. I dislike "road maps".  In normal public speaking, a preview is incorporated into an introduction.  When you start speaking, I start timing.  When my timer says you are done, I stop listening.   I judge a round based on the quality of debate, not quantity.  Some arguments might be dropped by the other team.  That is not a reason that they should lose.  It might be they spent time on the arguments that mattered and not the 12 disads you sped through in 1 minute.   Other idiosyncrasies:  I don’t flow rebuttals.  Anything you bring up in a rebuttal should have been talked about in the constructives.  Anything brought up in a constructive is fair game in the rebuttals.  I don’t care if it wasn’t touched by their partner.  (Read the rules of debating, I have!)  I dislike “conversational” debates when everyone decides to speak.  The person at the podium has the floor and should be the only one speaking unless a point of information is raised.  (By the way, points of information can be a question or a statement.) At the end of the round I ask the question:  Who did the better debating on the resolution at hand?  That is the team that will get the win.

Jon Sonoda - PLNU

n/a

Jonathan Burrello - Biola

n/a

Jordan Compton - SBU

n/a

Josh Kammert - CBU

Josh Cangelosi - SDCC

Background: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Current parli coach and philosophy, communication, and English instructor  ·      Past collegiate parli debater Preferences: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Debaters who present their ideas with passion, personality, spirit, spunk, liveliness, affability, respect, and conviction.  ·      Anything you want to do is fine with me! I will make my decisions based on the arguments in the round and don’t have any preconceived dislikes of any debate positions or strategies.  ·      Big-picture voting issues that weigh everything out for me, not line-by-line analysis, in the rebuttals.  ·      I’d love to see some performance debates and critical affirmatives; just be clear rather than opaque and abstruse in the theory/story you are telling. I like critiques as well, but again it’s important that all the theory make clear sense instead of being a bunch of impenetrable jargon.  ·      I vote for clear arguments that I can understand, which is why the big-picture reasons why I should vote for you are so important.  ·      Some speed is okay, but I vote for convincing arguments, not blips on the flow.  ·      Have fun, and be creative. I like out-of-the-box debating, so I’m the judge for running that crazy case you’ve always wanted to run. Just don’t be boring!  ·      If you are a novice, relax and have fun. The most important thing to remember is that debate is an educational and social event, so just do your best and enjoy yourself. In the end, it’s all about the skills and friendships you develop.

Karen Nishie - Vanguard

<h2>Karen Nishie - Vanguard University</h2> Question 1 : Background of the critic Two and a half years college parliamentary debate 11 years coaching parliamentary debate.  DOF at Vanguard University.   Question 2 : Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) I am often called an "old school" critic -- which I think means I adhere to trichotomy (believing that there are three distinct types of resolutions with three types of argumentation that follow), I also follow stock isues with the rationale that they make for a cleaner debate than not. While I am well read I am not in the round -- meaning you don't have to argue the other team AND my biases/opinions. You should appreciate this. I have voted on positions that are, frankly offensive to my world view because that's where the debate went. I have never (to my knowledge) voted because the debaters did not cater to my world view nor have I assigned ballots to bad arguments that supported my personal world view -- I think that answers the question on tabula rasa. I may be the last judge standing who believes that opposition has presumption entering the round and that affirmative has specific burdens (like upholding the resolution, defining terms etc -- see stock issues). I am not a fan of claims that aff did not have to fufill primae facia because poi's "check back". Opps ability to ask questions is not a responsibility to make sure Aff is doing their job. Question 3 : Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making Very. This is a communication event preparing (in my mind) you to be better citizens and better communicators. I can keep up with speed, I just don't want to have to. You should be persuasive, this activity is great training for a future in advocacy, law, education, ministry, homemaking...fill in the blank -- and in no profession (other than auctioneer or voice telling me the potential harms of some new medicine) is speaking as fast as you can possibly spew words out a positive. In fact, a lot of what I see (lack of professionalism, lack of politeness, lack of respect) will likely COST you in the "real world". If you are speaking so fast that you spit on me -- it will not reflect well on the ballot -- and if you have to breathe in so hard that you break a rib let it be known that I do not know first aid.   Also, as a side note, I don’t appreciate foul language at all, but particularly in public presentations that are meant to be persuasive.  Dropping the F bomb in front of me is likely to earn you ridiculously low speaker points. Question 4 : Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making Very. Especially for the affirmative. For opposition you can stay off case, but all aff has to say is flow across and every argument they made stands -- in net benefits this may not benefit opp. Unlike some critics I think the opp has very few burdens (I believe they begin the debate with presumption and aff must prove other than the SQ is good) other than refutation and good argumentation. I will never drop an opposition team that did not run a counterplan.   One more thing – each speaker is given a set amount of time to speak – don’t talk over your partner during their time – I’m only flowing the person who’s turn it is to speak – so, make each other look strong and credible by giving your own speech. Question 5 : Concerns about any particular argumentative approach/arguments which the critic rarely/never will vote for I find Kritiks over used and under impacted. I like links so if the kritik is well articulated, well linked and well argued, I will buy it -- otherwise leave if for other critics. Arguments about how vampires have rights, or how the X-men function are probably better left for other critics also. I am a pretty pragmatic person so being overly creative (modern dance, hand puppets, arguments in the form of Haiku) are probably lost on me. I see my role in rounds simply to evaluate the claims you make and weigh them in the ways that you tell me to. If you fail to tell me how things weigh out then you give me permission to make up my own weighing paridigm -- and that will be bad for you. <hr />

Keith Blazer - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Kelsey Masters - PLNU

n/a

Kim Bryant - HPU

n/a

Konrad Hack - Concordia-CA

n/a

Lacy Larson - Bethel

LeAnn Burton - PLNU

n/a

Leah Griffin - SPU

n/a

Letha Quinn - NNU

n/a

Lorina Tamayo Schrauger - Biola

n/a

Maria Bastasch-Harris - Concordia-CA

n/a

Mark Bentley - Cedarville

Name: Mark Bentley School: Cedarville University   Section 1: General Information   4 years high school policy, 2 years college policy and 2 years parli (at Cedarville), 8 years judging policy/parli, currently the Director/Coach at Cedarville.     I typically evaluate arguments in a net benefits / comparative advantage framework. I usually do not vote on solvency defense alone, and prefer offensive arguments on positions rather than defensive. When weighing net benefits/comparative advantage, I weigh probability over magnitude and timeframe.   I have a rather high threshold for spec arguments and need to see clearly articulated in-round abuse, or I will not vote on them. This usually manifests itself as obvious underspecified, groundshift-ready plan situations. Spec arguments generally function best for me as link insurance for other positions. Asking questions are a must when running spec arguments (also, as a general rule, don’t be a dork, answer some questions).   I do not like splitting the block. I consider any LOR responses to MG arguments dropped by the MO to be new, and I rarely (if ever) vote on MO arguments not extended in the LOR. I tend to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but like POO’s called when the whoever’s giving the rebuttal thinks they’re getting away with sneaking new arguments in.  I tend to protect the PMR against arguments suddenly blown up in the MO, and the opposition from arguments suddenly blown up in the PMR.     Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.   1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 25-30. 27-30 is my typical range, 26 and below is for really bad/abusive people.   2.  How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I definitely prefer kritiks that are “grounded in the specificity” of the resolution, over overused, overly generic kritiks usually run. I will vote on permutations and theoretical objections (I also like performative contradiction arguments..maybe b/c I find them a little funny..maybe b/c I get bored with highly generic kritiks). I will also vote on topicality for nontopical aff k’s. That said, I really like kritiks when they’re not generic and the ideas are clearly articulated (that’s not a speed commentary, just be able to explain your ideas)   3.   Performance based arguments… ...are lame...especially with topic areas.   4.   Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I tend to weigh topicality through competing interpretations (make them clear what they are), but a clear “we meet” by the Aff can also be sufficient..if it’s obvious. I prefer specific ground abuse stories when voting on topicality, though they don’t have to be “articulated in-round” abuse.   5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? I tend to view most counterplans as theoretically legitimate and like to leave it up to the debaters to determine what is or is not legitimate in the given round. I don’t like delay counterplans, and will not be likely to vote on a PIC when the resolution calls for a specific plan action on the part of the affirmative. Neg should also give CP status.   6.   Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Yeah, I don’t really care what you share...but that also doesn’t mean you don’t have to flow and just bum the other team’s flows.   7.   In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? First off, you should definitely tell me which order I should evaluate and why. If you haven’t, this usually tells me you haven’t done your job. I usually evaluate K’s and T’s, then impact calculus. As stated above, I weigh probability over magnitude or timeframe.     8.   How do you weigh arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? Again, if it gets to this point, you haven’t done your job and I won’t be real happy, and you probably won’t be happy with my decision. I don’t automatically weigh death more than dehumanization, but can go either way based on the context. Yeah, that’s vague, so just do your job...well warranted impacts are always prefered over poorly warranted ones.

Matthew Alan Gerbig - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Michael Marse - CBU

I am a traditional debate theorist.  I have coached and competed in Parli, NFA L/D, and CEDA for more than fifteen years.  I have been a DoF and taught Argumentation full time for 10 years. What I do not like: Kritiks - I have never voted for a K, because nearly every one I have ever heard is a non-unique DA dressed up in the shabby clothes of an intellectual argument.   Topical Counterplans - I have a resolutional focus, not a plan focus.  If the neg. goes for a topical counterplan, I vote in affirmation of the resolution regardless of who "wins" the debate. Speed - Going faster than quick conversational rate robs the activity of many of its educational outcomes, though not all.  It is good for winning in some instances, bad for education in many others.  Therefore I will allow you to go as fast as you would like, but I will vote quickly on any claim of abuse on speed.  Asking a question in the round like, "Do you mind speed?" in such a way as to really ask, "Are you going to be a stupid judge?" is going to annoy me.  The emperor has no clothes, many debaters are afraid to say anything for fear of looking stupid in rounds.  Same goes for most judges who are proud of their ability to flow quickly.  The best you can do if you spread in a round is to win with very low points. What I do like: Topicality Arguments - The deeper into linguistic philosophy, the better.  Have bright lines, don't kick-out of T without demonstrating how they have truly clarified their position since the 1st Aff. speech.  Otherwise, it is a timesuck and I will vote on abuse in those instances.  My opinion on T comes from my resolutional focus.  I don't believe it is good debate theory to argue that the affirmative plan replaces the resolution, since that would lead to more pre-written cases and a devaluing of the breadth of knowledge required to be an excellent citizen after graduation. Negative going for a win on stock issues - If it's a policy round and the negative wins (not mitigates, but wins outright) any stock issue, they win. Collegiality - I believe in debate as a tool of clarity and invitational rhetoric.  If you are mean, or deliberately use a strategy to confuse, you will lose.  Common examples are affirmatives not taking any questions to clarify on plan text in Parli, using unnecessarily academic terms without given adequate synonyms, etc.  If you win on the flow, but demonstrate unethical practices, you lose in life and on my ballot. To conclude: The proper metaphor for debate is not "a game", but is instead "a laboratory".  The laboratory is looking to achieve truth, and have proven methods for getting there.  We should be experimenting, and in some cases pushing boundaries.  We must also be able to deal with the failures that sometime come with those experiments.  The point of debate is not to win rounds, but to produce good people who know how to think and speak effectively after they graduate. Please feel free to ask and question to clarify these statement, or anything I might have missed.

Michael Palmer - Bryan

n/a

Natalie Sintek - Concordia-CA

n/a

Paul Davis - Azusa

n/a

Rachel Haider - Concordia

n/a

Rebecca Sietman - Wheaton

I am a former policy debater, and I have been coaching NPDA parli for 12 years. I believe it’s my responsibility to do everything I can to vote based on the arguments made in the round, and I will default to a policy/net benefits framework if not told otherwise. With that said, run the arguments you want to run. While I do my best to set aside my own preferences, here are a few specific things you should know about me: I will vote on procedurals and Ks, although procedurals are not my favorite arguments to vote on. Ks can be one of my favorite arguments or least favorite arguments, depending on how well you run your K. I typically find proven abuse most compelling on a T or spec debate because I give Gov wide latitude in interpreting/defending the resolution. I prefer depth of analysis/warranted arguments over generic shells/tag lines. I understand why certain arguments inevitably impact out to nuclear war, but I can grow weary of nothing but extinction scenarios. I will vote on politics disads, but they are one of my least favorite arguments because they often break down at the link/internal link level. I usually side with Gov on perm debates and think PICs are fine, but I’ll listen to any CP theory arguments you want to make. I enjoy case turns. I prefer that you use your rebuttal to tell me where you’re winning and why I should vote there, and I am more compelled by weighing that is extended into the rebuttals from previous speeches. I don't like to be yelled at. I enjoy spirited debate but want to see you treat one another with respect. I will protect you as much as possible by discounting new arguments in rebuttals, but I still prefer that you call points of order since it’s a good check against the effects of any sleep deprivation I might be experiencing at the moment. :) Since I'm from the Midwest, I never hear project debates so I will listen respectfully but might not know what to do with it if you run one. Being from the Midwest also means that the speed I'm used to is a little slower than some west coast teams. I prefer speed that is used to deepen your arguments rather than speed to proliferate blippy arguments. If you have questions about anything, please ask.

Robert Davis - HPU

n/a

Ryan Greenawalt - Belmont

n/a

Sarah Colome - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Sean Carmody - Vanguard

n/a

Shannon Scott - SPU

n/a

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

<h1>Skip Rutledge                                                                 Point Loma Nazarene University</h1> 25 +/- years judging debate                                                    14+ years judging NPDA Parliamentary 6 +/- years as a competitor in policy debate (college and high school)   Academic Debate Background: Competed 6 years +/- in team policy in High School and College (NDT at Claremont). Then coached and judged at the high school level for a number of years as a part time volunteer.  Returned to academia and have coached since 1989 in CEDA, we switched to Parli in about 1995. In addition to coaching teams and judging at tournaments I have been active in NPDA and helped at Parli Summer Workshops to keep fresh and abreast of new ideas.  I have also tried to contribute conference papers and a few journal articles on debate.  I love well reasoned and supported theory arguments where debaters are aware of the foundational issues and prior research on topic.   Judging Paradigm: For lack of a better term, I embrace what I know of as the Argumentation Critic paradigm, but certainly not to the exclusion of appreciating strong delivery skills.  I encourage fewer, well-developed arguments with clear claims, reasonable warrants, and strong evidentiary support to back up those warrants, rather than the shotgun method of throwing lots of claims out, hoping something slips through the others’ defense.  That probably makes me more of a big picture critic, rather than one that gets fixated on the minutia. I do recognize too, that big pictures can be defined by small brushstrokes, or that details can count heavily in proving big arguments. I don’t hold Parli case/plans to the same level of proof that I might in CEDA/NDT since they are constructed in 15 minutes without direct access to deep research, so spec arguments are not very compelling in many cases.  Disadvantages, solvency arguments, or counter-plans share the same burden of proof that the government does. Impacts are very important, but the establishing the links are critical. Debaters should be well read in current events, philosophy and especially political philosophy.  Poorly constructed arguments and/or blatant misstatements will not prevail just because someone happens to not respond to them.  While I attempt to minimize intervention, claims like “200 million Americans a year are dying of AIDS” does not become true just because it might be dropped (taken from an actual round).  I think your word is your bond.  If you say it with conviction, you are attesting that it is true.  If you are not quite certain, it is preferable to frame a claim in that manner.  The prohibition on reading evidence in a round is not carte blanche to make up whatever unsubstantiated claims you think may advance your arguments. I enjoy case clash, smart arguments, exposing logical fallacies, using humor, etc. . .  I dislike rudeness, overly quick delivery, or presenting counter warrants rather than engaging case straight up.  I will try to make the decision based the content of the arguments and also rely on delivery for determining speaker points.  It is not uncommon for me to give low point wins.  I also think it is the debaters’ job to debate the resolution, not my own views on styles of debate I prefer to hear.  If a resolution has strong value implications, please debate it as such. Likewise if there is a strong policy slant, debate it as such.  Additionally, I do not feel that there is only one way to debate.  I will not try to implement unwritten rules such as the Government must argue for a change in the status quo.  They certainly should if the resolution requires it, but may not have to if it does not.  I think the resolution is key to the debate.  This does not negate Kritiks. It invites sound logic and framing of Kritiks and alternatives. I do have some a priori biases.  I believe the resolution is what is being debated. That has implications on counter plans.  My a priori bias is that they should not be topical and should be competitive.  Just because the negative team finds another, perhaps even “better way” than the affirmative chose, to prove the resolution is true, does not seem to me to automatically warrant a negative ballot. I am though open to good theory debates, You should first know my beginning basis of understanding on this issue.  And although I enjoyed debating in NDT and CEDA, I think the speed of delivery in that format was built around the need to read evidence and specific research to back up the claims and warrants.  The absence of such evidence reading in NPDA should invite more considerate and slower argument analysis, not provide opportunities to shotgun out many more, less developed arguments.  I believe the reason for not allowing researched evidence briefs to be read in this particular format of debate was to encourage public focused debate, which implies a slower rate of delivery and genuine consideration of case.  The gamey technique of negatives throwing out lots of flak, or obfuscating issues to throw off governments time use, only to collapse to a few key arguments, does not seem to advance strong argumentation development, a fair testing of the resolution, or solid speaking skills..

2011 National Christian College Championships

Judge Philosophies

zz-bye

zz-bye

zz-bye

A.J. Moorehead - NCCFI Hired

Aaron Cannistraci - Bethany

Adam Gonzales - NCCFI Hired

Alexander Mrad - NCCFI Hired

Allan Axibal - Azusa

Alyssa Pearson - Malone

Annie Berry - Azusa

Austin Furey - Malone

Brandiann Molby - Cedarville

Brooke Adamson - NNU

Caitlyn Burford - PLNU

Carl Simmons - CBU

Cathy Glenn - SMC

Chip Hall - CNU

Chris Gutierrez - PLNU

Chris Estrada - NCCFI Hired

Dan Sietman - Wheaton

Daniel Elliott - Biola

David Dickmeyer - Wheaton

David Bailey - SBU

Derrick Green - Cedarville

Dustin Haider - Concordia

Ebony Taylor - Concordia-CA

Elisha Nix - HPU

Emily Aldana - NCCFI Hired

Eric Mishne - Cedarville

Erick Roebuck - JBU

Ericka Llerena - NCCFI Hired

Esther Minell - Bethel

Faith Kroeker Maus - Bethel

Grant Beeson - PLNU

Griffith Vertican - Concordia-CA

Ira Green - Concordia-CA

J. Edward Stevenson - Azusa

Jaimie Franklin - Pepperdine

Jameson Gavin - NCCFI Hired

Jana Hall - CNU

Jason Stahl - Belmont

Jason Hosfield - NCCFI Hired

Jen Soto - NCCFI Hired

Jennifer O&#039;Brien - NCCFI Hired

Jeremy Smith - Vanguard

Jessica Samens - Bethel

Jon Loging - Bethany

Jon Sonoda - PLNU

Jonathan Burrello - Biola

Jordan Compton - SBU

Josh Kammert - CBU

Josh Cangelosi - SDCC

Karen Nishie - Vanguard

Keith Blazer - NCCFI Hired

Kelsey Masters - PLNU

Kim Bryant - HPU

Konrad Hack - Concordia-CA

Lacy Larson - Bethel

LeAnn Burton - PLNU

Leah Griffin - SPU

Letha Quinn - NNU

Lorina Tamayo Schrauger - Biola

Maria Bastasch-Harris - Concordia-CA

Mark Bentley - Cedarville

Matthew Alan Gerbig - NCCFI Hired

Michael Marse - CBU

Michael Palmer - Bryan

Natalie Sintek - Concordia-CA

Paul Davis - Azusa

Rachel Haider - Concordia

Rebecca Sietman - Wheaton

Robert Davis - HPU

Ryan Greenawalt - Belmont

Sarah Colome - NCCFI Hired

Sean Carmody - Vanguard

Shannon Scott - SPU

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

Stephanie Gomez - CBU

Jennifer O'Brien - NCCFI Hired