FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Abby Surprenant - UNO

n/a

Allison Bonander - UNL

n/a

Andrea Carlile - SDSU

n/a

Andrew Moffitt - Concordia

n/a

Anthony Cavaiani - William Woods

First, I need to hear you make a clear and concise resolutional analysis. I find that when debaters cut this short and move onto their plan and advantages that arguments get misunderstood by all parties involved (competitors, judges, observers). So, lay it out clear and don’t rush through it. Next, your contentions should be clear and not contain a ton of wordiness. Link your contentions back to your criterion and explain the significance of your arguments. There isn’t anything that I consider to be “out of bounds” in a round. I’ll listen to any argument you want to make, but if it isn’t clearly articulated I will throw it out. I also don’t have much patience for circular logic or reasoning—so use examples and don’t over explain things just to sound intelligent. I’ll listen to your counterplans as long as it is mutually exclusive from the GOVs plan. I don’t care for counterplans that extend the original plan to solve for a bunch of other stuff that isn’t relevant to the round. However, if you run a counterplan I need to hear you, first, refute why the original plan is not beneficial rather than just ignoring everything the GOV has said to get to your CP. I prefer direct refutation to many CPs. I do make my voting decisions from the flow but if you can crystallize the issues to a few voters during your rebuttal than you really get my attention. Basically, don’t assume that just because you flowed everything over that you’ll get my vote. That is necessary but I also want to hear you explain to me why the plan should/should not be adopted according to your criterion. Fourth, if you run topicality don’t argue that the educational value of debate is decreased because your opponent wasn’t topical. I consider that side-stepping the issue and I will drop you because of it. Make a cogent argument for why T is appropriate and make the violation clear. I don’t consider a lack of educational value a violation. When you run T you are being forced to make a larger argument about the plan and its practicality. Finally, I began my forensics career as an IE judge and competitor. I don’t mind if you spread, but I do vote on delivery and presentation. I value delivery and its role in competitive debate. So, if you are rushed, have a lack of eye contact, don’t address the room, and just do not care about your audience I will probably not vote for you. I am always learning about the nuances of debate. I respect and delight in the pedagogy of debate. So, if you have any questions before the round feel free to ask. J

Austin McDonald - HC

n/a

Craig Brown - Kansas State

n/a

Hannah Duke - HC

n/a

Harold Hynick - MOVAL

n/a

Jacob Miller - Kansas State

n/a

Joe Davis - Concordia

n/a

Keith Corley - Jewell

My name is Keith Corley and I currently am the Assistant Debate Coach at William Jewell College. My experience in the activity is 2 years at Moorpark College and 3 years at Concordia University Irvine. My goal with this philosophy is to try and be as honest as possible with those who read it as it is my experience that quite a few individuals tend to mislead in order to be part of the in group. KvsPolicy: During my debate career I spent a majority of it debating policy and case debate. That being said my final year in the activity I debated the K more than 70% of the time. As far as policy debate goes, I expect warrants for arguments. I know that all judges says this but I want to make it extremely clear that you need specific warrants to back up your claims. If you do not have it, often times I will accept the other team to just articulate a lack of warrants in order to refute the argument. Other than that I feel like I view policy in the same way that almost every other person does. Theory: When I was debating I was really into theory debate, it was something that I really enjoyed winning on. While I am more than willing to listen to you read these, I think it should be pointed out that I really dislike listening to theory that is not strategic or meaningful, aka something that is meant just to waste the other team's time. More often than not I think that the questions that theory is asking is important and as such in this aspect of the debate I do not like gamesmanship.  Conditionality I was coached by Kevin Calderwood and while I buy into his thoughts in regards to conditionality I want to make it clear that I do not think that one conditional advocacy is necessarily bad. That being said I will definitely listen to a condo bad shell for a variety of reasons. Specifically, I suggest you not run an argument such as whiteness or fem conditionally as I believe that is ethically bankrupt. However, I will not vote anyone down for this if the other team does not win a condo bad theory position. The K: Like I said, I ran these quite a bit during my last year, however, I do not want you to think that I am up on every single bit of critical literature. I prefer a very explained out thesis for K's that arent cap or something basic. Additionally, you need to explain to me in a very clear way what the alt text does. I truly dislike utopian alternatives with no explanation as to how they function. As far as K's on the aff go I am fine with them, but I would prefer you to make it resolutional. I do not need you to make it topical or use fiat (though that can and should be argued by the neg if they so choose) but I would prefer if the resolution was incorporated somewhere. Miscellaneous If you only read one part of my philosophy please read this part: Debate was my home and identity for a long time. However, I realize that they type of debate and the space in which I engage in it are not home for many people that do not have my privilege. I want everyone to be able to run the type of arguments that make them feel most at home. That being said, I think that on some occasion in an effort to run arguments that they feel most comfortable with debaters will do so at the expense of the team that they are facing. What I mean by this is that I believe there is a way to run arguments that do not make your opponent feel like shitty people. I understand that some arguments can get real. I think those arguments are fantastic. However, I do not think that it is beneficial for anyone involved to traumatize someone in order to win a ballot. I believe that this space is a place for us to grow an think and learn a bunch of new and different types of education that aren't offered anywhere else whether that be upper level international relations or very critical queer theory. My belief is that our community is at our best when people can experience these hard truths without being brought to tears because the round made them feel like shit. My last note is that most of the fastest speakers in the community often times were not clear enough for me to flow at full speed. If you believe you are in this group please drop to 80% of your speed or wait for me to clear you, whatever you prefer.   TL;DR THESE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ME <ol> <li>Do not make the other team want to leave the activity</li> <li>No matter what you are running, please make sure that you have a solvency that explains how your plan, alt, advocacy, etc. function</li> <li>I NEED WARRANTS</li> <li>Please for the love of god somebody do impact calculus</li> <li>Totally down with theory, just not as a time suck</li> <li>If you make a good Hamilton reference, 30 speaks</li> </ol>

Kristina Medero - UNO

n/a

Mallory Marsh - UNL

n/a

Michael Taylor - Bethel

n/a

Nataleigh Brull - Northwest MO

n/a

Nick Lorang - SDSU

n/a

Nick Van Ross - Northwest MO

n/a

Noelle Anderson - UNO

n/a

Paul Wesley Alday - BGSU

n/a

Tom Pinney - Northwest MO

n/a

Ziling He - BGSU

n/a

2017 Once A Bearcat Swing