FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Kaio last 2 rounds - Judge Pool

n/a

Brent Northup - Carroll

n/a

Chen Xiangjing - Linfield

n/a

Courtney Walsh - Judge Pool

n/a

Dan Broyles - Pacific

n/a

David Kearney - Judge Pool

n/a

Debbie Steckmann - Judge Pool

n/a

Elsie Praiger - Judge Pool

n/a

Jackson Miller - Linfield

n/a

Jenni Simmonis after 10 - Judge Pool

n/a

Jennifer Conner - Pacific

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.

Justin Wiley - Judge Pool

n/a

Kyle Cheesewright - IDAHO

“All that you touch   You Change.   All that you Change   Changes you.   The only lasting truth   Is Change.   God Is Change.” –Octavia Butler, “Parable of the Sower.”   Debate is a game. Debate is a strange, beautiful game that we play. Debate is a strange beautiful game that we play with each other.   I love debate. It’s the only game that exists where the rules are up for contestation by each side. There are some rules that aren’t up for discussion, as far as I can tell, these are them:   1/ Each debate will have a team that wins, and a team that looses. Say whatever you want, I am structurally constrained at the end of debate to award one team a win, and the other team will receive a loss. That’s what I got.   2/ Time limits. I think that a discussion should have equal time allotment for each side, and those times should probably alternate. I have yet to see a fair way for this question to be resolved in a debate, other than through arbitrary enforcement. The only exception is that if both teams decide on something else, you have about 45 minutes from the start of the round, to when I have to render a decision.   Pretty much everything else is open to contestation. At this point, I don’t really have any serious, uncontestable beliefs about debate. This means that the discussion is open to you. I do tend to find that I find debates to be more engaging when they are about substantive clash over a narrow set of established issues. This means, I tend to prefer debates that are specific and deep. Good examples, and comparative discussion of those examples is the easiest way to win my ballot. Generally speaking, I look for comparative impact work. I find that I tend to align more quickly with highly probable and proximate impacts, though magnitude is just so easy.   I tend to prefer LOC strategies that are deep, well explained explorations of a coherent world. The strategy of firing off a bunch of underdeveloped arguments, and trying to develop the strategy that is mishandled by the MG is often successful in front of me, but I almost always think that the round would have been better with a more coherent LOC strategy—for both sides of the debate.   At the end of the debate, when it is time for me to resolve the discussion, I start by identifying what I believe the weighing mechanism should be, based on the arguments made in the debate. Once I have determined the weighing mechanism, I start to wade through the arguments that prove the world will be better or worse, based on the decision mechanism. I always attempt to default to explicit arguments that debaters make about these issues.   Examples are the evidence of Parliamentary debate. Control the examples, and you will control the debate.   On specific issues: I don’t particularly care what you discuss, or how you discuss it. I prefer that you discuss it in a way that gives me access to the discussion. I try not to backfill lots of arguments based on buzzwords. For example, if you say “Topicality is a matter of competing interpretations,” I think I know what that means. But I am not going to default to evaluating every argument on Topicality through an offense/defense paradigm unless you explain to me that I should, and probably try to explicate what kinds of answers would be offensive, and what kinds of answers would be defensive. Similarly, if you say “Topicality should be evaluated through the lens of reasonability,” I think I know what that means. But if you want me to stop evaluating Topicality if you are winning that there is a legitimate counter-interpretation that is supported by a standard, then you should probably say that.   I try to flow debates as specifically as possible. I feel like I have a pretty good written record of most debates.   Rebuttals are times to focus a debate, and go comprehensively for a limited set of arguments. You should have a clear argument for why you are winning the debate as a whole, based on a series of specific extensions from the Member speech. The more time you dedicate to an issue in a debate, the more time I will dedicate to that issue when I am resolving the debate. Unless it just doesn’t matter. Watch out for arguments that don’t matter, they’re tricksy and almost everyone spends too much time on them.   Before I make my decision, I try to force myself to explain what the strongest argument for each side would be if they were winning the debate. I then ask myself how the other team is dealing with those arguments. I try to make sure that each team gets equal time in my final evaluation of a debate.   This is a radical departure from my traditional judging philosophy. I’ll see how it works out for me. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. For the record, I have strong opinions on just about everything that occurs in a debate round—but those strong opinions are for down time and odd rants during practice rounds. I work to keep them out of the debate, and at this point, I think I can say that I do a pretty good job on that account.   I just thought of a third rule. Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I thought speeches are. If you tell me what speaker points I should give you, I will listen, and promptly discard what you say. Probably.   For the sake of transparency: My personal gig is critical-cultural theory. It's where my heart is. This does not mean that you should use critical theory that you don't understand or feel comfortable with it. Make the choices in debate that are the best, most strategic, or most ethical for you. If your interested in my personal opinons about your choices, I'm more than happy to share. But I'll do that after the debate is over, the ballot submitted, and we're just two humans chatting. The debate will be decided based on the arguments made in the debate.   “[Y]ou can’t escape language: language is everything and everywhere; it’s what lets us have anything to do with one another; it’s what separates us from animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so on.” -David Foster Wallace, “Authority and American Usage.”   Old Philosophy A Body's Judging Philosophy Debate has been my home since 1996— and when I started, I caressed Ayn Rand and spoke of the virtue of selfishness.   I am much older than I was. These days, I am trying to figure out how subjectivity gets created from the raw material of words and research.   I have no interest in how well you can recite the scripts you’ve memorized. Or at what speed.   I will not be held responsible for adjudicating your bank balance. And I will not provide interest on your jargon. I will listen to your stories and I will decide which story is better, using the only currency I am comfortable with: the language of land, and the words that sprout from my body like hair.   I remember the visceral intensity of the win and loss, and the way that worth was constructed from finishing points. I am far too familiar with the bitter sting of other names circled.   I think that the systemic is far more important than the magnitude. Politics make me sick. And I know that most of the fun with words, has nothing to do with limits, because it’s all ambiguous. And nothing fair.   These days, I read Deleuze and Guattari, and wonder what it means when classrooms are madhouses. And all that remains is the affect.

Lilly Huynh - Pacific

n/a

Liz Kinnaman - MHCC

Mandi Oropeza after 10 - Judge Pool

n/a

Marianne Martini - Judge Pool

n/a

Megan Bauer - OSU

n/a

Megan Towles - Carroll

n/a

Neo Gomez - Judge Pool

n/a

Nick Mauer - Judge Pool

n/a

Patrick Lairson - Judge Pool

n/a

Ron Price - IDAHO

Background: Did policy and LD in high school. Debated for Boise State. Have been the assistant coach for C of I for the past 8 yrs. Have been involved with this activity for the past 15 yrs or so. Please make your arguments logical and cohesive. Ok with speed, but if you are not organized or clear then your arguments may get “lost” somewhere and it’s up to you to “find” them again. Will vote on Topicality; include standards, voters, etc. Ok with critical arguments but make sure your advocacy doesn’t contradict itself. Make sure your links story is solid. A to B to C works, but A to B to Z is a no go.  Have a plausible link/ impact story (not everything has to lead to or end in nuke war and extinction). Also not a huge fan of morally repugnant arguments (i.e. all gays will psychologically damage their children when raising them) so don’t make them.   Hmmm, so basically I will vote on the most convincing and logical arguments you present in the round so make smart choices and arguments, have fun and we’ll see what happens on the flow.

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Kaio last 2 rounds - Judge Pool

Brent Northup - Carroll

Chen Xiangjing - Linfield

Courtney Walsh - Judge Pool

Dan Broyles - Pacific

David Kearney - Judge Pool

Debbie Steckmann - Judge Pool

Elsie Praiger - Judge Pool

Jackson Miller - Linfield

Jenni Simmonis after 10 - Judge Pool

Jennifer Conner - Pacific

Joe Gantt - Lewis & Clark

Justin Wiley - Judge Pool

Kyle Cheesewright - IDAHO

Lilly Huynh - Pacific

Liz Kinnaman - MHCC

Mandi Oropeza after 10 - Judge Pool

Marianne Martini - Judge Pool

Megan Bauer - OSU

Megan Towles - Carroll

Neo Gomez - Judge Pool

Nick Mauer - Judge Pool

Patrick Lairson - Judge Pool

Ron Price - IDAHO

Ryan Rhoades - Judge Pool

Shane Kwiatkowski - Pacific

Shannon Valdivia - MHCC

Shelby Smith - Lewis & Clark

Steve Hunt - Lewis & Clark

Will Blackmore - Judge Pool

2014 NIET District 2 Qualifier

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Kaio last 2 rounds - Judge Pool

Brent Northup - Carroll

Chen Xiangjing - Linfield

Courtney Walsh - Judge Pool

Dan Broyles - Pacific

David Kearney - Judge Pool

Debbie Steckmann - Judge Pool

Elsie Praiger - Judge Pool

Jackson Miller - Linfield

Jenni Simmonis after 10 - Judge Pool

Jennifer Conner - Pacific

Joe Gantt - Lewis &amp; Clark

Justin Wiley - Judge Pool

Kyle Cheesewright - IDAHO

Lilly Huynh - Pacific

Liz Kinnaman - MHCC

Mandi Oropeza after 10 - Judge Pool

Marianne Martini - Judge Pool

Megan Bauer - OSU

Megan Towles - Carroll

Neo Gomez - Judge Pool

Nick Mauer - Judge Pool

Patrick Lairson - Judge Pool

Ron Price - IDAHO

Ryan Rhoades - Judge Pool

Shane Kwiatkowski - Pacific

Shannon Valdivia - MHCC

Shelby Smith - Lewis &amp; Clark

Steve Hunt - Lewis &amp; Clark

Will Blackmore - Judge Pool

Joe Gantt - Lewis & Clark

Shelby Smith - Lewis & Clark

Steve Hunt - Lewis & Clark