2017 Ohio Forensic Association Championship Tournament
Capital University - Feb 17-18 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Amanda Layman - Akron
n/a
Brent Brossmann - JCU
Note: For those who’ve known me as a judge previously, things have changed. I have been in debate continuously since 1976. I am a policy maker. I believe in the value of policy debate. The organization specifies that it embraces policy debate. I will make my decisions on policy. Thus, there are two ways you can win my ballot: 1. Have the best policy. 2. Prove that your opponent’s practice is so egregious that I need to vote against them regardless of the policy. That could be for offensive discourse or a theory violation. If you want to make that “three reasons,†go ahead. Topicality is a voting issue. It is not a reverse voting issue. The negative doesn’t actually win topicality without demonstrating in-round abuse. In-round abuse can be proven by demonstrating that arguments to which you should have access were denied to you by the affirmative’s plan. You don’t actually have to run and lose the arguments, but you do need to win that these were arguments you should have had access to, that they were important and that the plan denied you access. Counterplans need to be competitive. The counterplan must be better than the combination of the plan and counterplan (net benefits) or better than the plan alone IF the policies are mutually exclusive. As a policy maker, risk is important. Please use impact comparisons to weigh rounds for me. Probability, magnitude, risk and time frame are arguments that both debaters should use in rebuttals to weigh the round for me. Prioritize those that help you win and explain why they are more important. Some kritiks are legitimate arguments in policy debate. Others are not. If the kritik impacts the round at a policy level, it is clearly legitimate. Some of the philosophical or discourse assumptions behind a policy or its presentation need to be challenged with respect to the policy itself. Some kritiks may identify particularly nasty things your opponent has done in a round. These kritiks are legitimate. The rest should not be run in front of me. I’ll be happy to explain if you ask. The bottom line is that debaters need to respond to each other’s arguments in meaningful ways. However, there is a strong presumption against any argument which does not directly relate to the policy being discussed in the round, unless it is a compelling argument as to why your opponent is abusive either in theory (not playing fairly) or in discourse (is actually offensive). I will continue to defend the value of policy debate. To help the tournament run on time, I’ll submit a ballot before I comment. After that, I’ll be happy to disclose. The best education in debate happens in the post-round discussion and the more quickly that follows the end of the round, the more relevant the information is. I don’t care about speed, per se. I do care about clarity. I know that some debaters care about speed. My policy is that the person who wants it to be slower “wins†that issue. So, if someone is too fast, simply say “slower please.†If someone says that to you, slow down. Have fun. Be kind. Learn a lot. Don’t forget to smile or laugh. Remember, your opponents are here because they share your love of the event. We all dedicate huge amounts of time and passion. Respect that and them. (And, the last name is pronounced with a long O, like a bro.)
Buffy D'Amico - Otterbein
n/a
Carson Kay - Ohio U
n/a
Dan Higgins - Heidelberg
n/a
Derrick Green - Cedarville
n/a
Eric Mishne - Ohio U
n/a
Eric Bonilla - Akron
n/a
Greg Bennett - Akron
n/a
Jeremy Himmelright - JCU
<p>This is my first year judging LD, but I come from policy debate and I am now acquainted to LD after judging two tournaments. I follow the rules of LD, such as, speed reading is possible in my rounds, but only if both sides can understand the reader. I will listen to Counter-plans, and K’s though for me to vote on a CP or K the threshold is pretty high. As a judge I want to know the role of the ballot, andi want to have a clear understanding of the Alternative, for the K. For the Cp, Net benefit should be paired with some case offence. I will give oral critiques if the tournament allows. I will vote on case defense if the story is well presented, but my threshold is pretty high, so turns and offence are a great thing to help the negative. I also have a high threshold for Topicality, but have, and will, vote for neg on T. I believe in Tabula Rasa, and try for as little judge intervention. I rarely call for cards, and typically vote for try or die with probability, timeframe, and impact calc. </p>
Josh Rocha - Akron
n/a
Kaitlin Dockry - Akron
n/a
Kristina Kearns - Capital
n/a
Lanie Presswood - Ohio U
n/a
Mark Rittenour - Akron
n/a
Rachel Pollock - Muskingum
n/a
Regan Fallon - Akron
n/a
Savannah Sanburg - Ohio U
n/a