Judge Philosophies
Aaron Duncan - UNL
n/a
Amy Martinelli - UNL
n/a
Andrew Moffitt - Concordia
n/a
Cameron Logsdon - UNO
n/a
Cassidy Stefka - Kansas State
n/a
Craig Brown - Kansas State
n/a
Darren Epping - Kansas State
n/a
Jason Edgar - MoWestern
<p><strong>Background:</strong> Professor of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making at Missouri Western State University. For 20 years I have competed, coached, and judged Cross Examination Debate, Public Forum, NFA Lincoln Douglas, Traditional Parliamentary Debate and NPTE circuit Parliamentary Debate. This year I have judged about 30 rounds of intercollegiate debate.</p> <p><strong>Approach of the Critic to Decision Making: </strong> When I competed in high school and college, Comparative Advantage was the most prevalent criterion. Thus, I understand and enjoy those types of rounds the most (ex. Ads, Disads, CPs). Having said that, I am open to critical arguments on both the Aff and Neg side as long as there is a clear framework and impacts. I don't really buy role of the ballot arguments unless you say the role is to circle a winner and award speaker points. Topicality is a voting issue and I'll listen if there is clear abuse in round. </p> <p><strong>Relevant Importance of Presentation/Communication Skills: </strong>I'd prefer that you make cogent arguments as opposed to a speaking race, but other than that I am fine with speed and you won't lose me. If you aren't comfortable with speed but you attempt it anyways, or you cannot stop buffering, it typically irritates me. Debate isn't a race, it's a search for truth. </p> <p><strong>Relevant Importance of On-Case Argumentation to the Critic in Decision Making: </strong>In order to make an effective argument and for me to make a critical decision at the tournament, a case will need to have (at least) inherency, significance(harms), and solvency. Prima Facie is a voting issue. So if the negative can prove that the current system can solve the problem, or proves that the harms are insignificant, or the plan cannot solve, then I can definitely see myself voting neg. If Aff can defend those stock issues without causing massive impacts, then they win. </p> <p><strong>Preferences on Procedural Arguments, Counterplans, and Kritiks: </strong>As mentioned above Topicality is a voting issue but should only be ran if there is clear abuse in round. When people asks for my "threshold" I usually just tell them that it depends on the round. I love counterplans because it allows the negative to not have to support current system (Trump). As for Kritiks, they are the only arguments that I didn't myself run or run into when I was a competitor, so don't expect a thoughtful disclosure if you go all in on the K. That being said, "non-uniqueness doesn't stop the pain" and I'll definitely listen as long as you provide clarity. </p> <p><strong>Preferences on Points of Order: </strong>I don't think there is much of a community issue with an overabundance of Point of Orders, so feel free to use them if there is a clearly a new argument or abuse in round. </p> <p><strong>Closing Thoughts: </strong>I'd like you to do whatever you want in the round. Sure, I have my preferences, but I want the debaters to feel most comfortable. I do love my career, so running arguments that view debate in a negative light, I probably won't vote for. In round, it would be in your best interest to not be rude. JE</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Jennifer Torres - Doane College
n/a
Joe Davis - Concordia
n/a
Kittie Grace - HC
n/a
Melanie Hiatt - HC
n/a
Nathaniel Wilson - Doane College
n/a
QueenTara Pimentel - UNO
n/a
Traelon Graham - UNO
n/a