FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Brooke Adamson - NNU

n/a

Dan Broyles - Pacific

n/a

Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell

General information: I did LD in High School, CEDA in College and now coach NPDA.  I have been coaching for 8 years and have been involved in the activity for many more. I don't keep track of the specific number of rounds I have judged this year. More than 40. I am open to a variety of forms of debate.  Each round should take on its own form.  Any form or strategy is fine as long as everyone is the room can communicate.  I attempt to bring as little to the debate as possible although no judge can be totally tabla rosa. Arguments matter to me more than style.  I judge in a clear order. Kritik (if they are in the round) then procedurals (again, if they are present in the round) then case (government must prove that it is worth attempting plan) then weighing advantages against disadvantages.  Specific information: Topicality: I appreciate strategic interpretations of resolutions and will give a fair amount of room for the government to interpret the resolution.  They key is that everyone has some ground and some ability to debate.  I will also give a fair amount of room for novices to work on format and learn the rules.   Counterplans: CPs are great.  Condo is ok if well argued.  Disclose condo or no condo in the first speech.  My strong feeling is that it should not be about tricking the other team but going after a higher level of argumentation. I am not a huge fan of PICs. I would be open to argumentation on the issue. Points of Order are fine. The kritik: Kritiks are great--aff or neg.  Make a good, well-reasoned argument and have a reason for the K.  Then make sure to engage.  Theory: Great.  Go nuts. Disads: Cool.  Link them.

Jackson Miller - Linfield

n/a

Jacob Landsberg - UW Bothell

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.

Kym Davis - OSU

n/a

Letha Quinn - NNU

n/a

Mark Porrovecchio - OSU

n/a

Melissa Warren - SMU

n/a

Robi Mahan - Lewis & Clark

Ryan Tinlin - Lewis & Clark

Stephanie Saracco - OSU

n/a

Tanner VanWyck - Carroll

n/a

Taylor Farris - Pacific

n/a

2015 Pirate-Boxer Rebellion - Day1