Judge Philosophies
Amy Arellano - KCKCC
Bobby Imbody - Kansas State
n/a
Brent Friedeman - Doane
n/a
Cassy Blakely - Doane
n/a
Christina Ivey - KCKCC
Christina Luster - Kansas State
n/a
Dan Reeker - UNO
n/a
Esther Minell - Bethel Univ
n/a
Jessica Samens - Bethel Univ
<p>Jessica Samens, ADOF - Bethel University</p> <p>Debate Judging Philosophy</p> <hr /> <p>Years judging Debate – 6</p> <p>Number of Rounds judged – 50 +</p> <p>Tournaments judged – 25</p> <p>Average Speaker points - 27</p> <hr /> <p>While I am a relatively new Parli judge, I have a strong grasp on what I like and dislike in a debate round. I have worked hard to become a respected judge on the circuit and have proven myself to be such. Overall, I want this to be a good learning experience for all involved, which translates into what I like and dislike.</p> <hr /> <p>I like a round that is civil, well set up, and easy to understand. While I expect students to stand firm in their arguments, I do not tolerate being rude to the other team. Sarcasm, being disrespectful, and bullying do not make me happy. I also like a debate that is well presented and follows an organized fashion set out by the Gov. This way I don’t have to make the decision if you dropped arguments or not, plus it makes it easier for everyone to follow (especially the judge who will be making the ultimate decision). A messy debate forces all involved to make a lot of assumptions. I also like a round that is easy to understand – I fully admit to not always following the news as well as I should. Please explain arguments for the sake of the judge and the other team.</p> <hr /> <p>Speaking of Topicality, I am fine with you running this as long as it is justified. However, don’t spend precious time arguing it hurts the education system and is abusive. I know what the grounds are and do not want you to waste time you could be spending on the case. I am accepting of counter plans as long as they are not just the gov plan modified – I also need to see they are justified by the opp. I feel the same out K’s, etc – impress me with your debate skills.</p> <hr /> <p>In order to win my round, I want to see that you have learned something about debate and fought a clean round. When teams are equally paired, I am fine with a little humor and sarcasm to each other (while this may seem to go against my earlier claim, I do appreciate the spirit of debate when done fairly), but not when you are the stronger team – you take away from the other team's ability to learn. Also, be sure to tell me why you win – I appreciate voters in the rebuttals to tell me why you are the winning team. Never leave the debate in the judge’s hand, there is a lot of information going back and forth and you don’t want me to miss the main arguments you have provided.</p> <hr /> <p>Happy Debating!</p>
Jon Loging - Bethany
<h2>Jon Loging - Bethany Lutheran College</h2> <p><strong>Question 1 : Please provide significant details on how your approach and evaluate debate rounds. Especially helpful are details about approaches or arguments that you either enjoy or dislike.</strong></p> <p>Years of competition in Parliamentary Debate - 4</p> <p>Number of years coaching/judging Parliamentary Debate - 14</p> <p> </p> <p>I firmly believe Parliamentary debate is an excellent Communication activity and should be carried out with that intention. I like to observe all the formalities that go along with Parli. Delivery should be clear, well paced, and organized. Debaters should use logic, wit, examples, and style to convince a person that their perspective of a resolution is the correct one. </p> <p>Overall, I want you to persuade me on the issue presented in the resolution. I don't want you to stand up there and tell me the other team is stupid. Stand up there and tell me why I should vote for you. Persuade me! Don't simply bash the other team.</p> <p>Technical debating does not impress me. I don't care how many levels you have for your topicality argument if the Government team was topical. If the Government team goes way off base with their case, then a simple explanation of why they are not topical is called for. DON'T tell me that they are decreasing the educational value of the debate. Using the same old, tired arguments is what is decreasing the educational value of debate. Meta-debate is a fun activity, but when we are talking about cutting taxes, I don’t want to hear argumentation theory; I want to hear why we should or should not cut taxes.</p> <p>I dislike "road maps". In normal public speaking, a preview is incorporated into an introduction. When you start speaking, I start timing. When my timer says you are done, I stop listening. </p> <p>I judge a round based on the quality of debate, not quantity. Some arguments might be dropped by the other team. That is not a reason that they should lose. It might be they spent time on the arguments that mattered and not the 12 disads you sped through in 1 minute. </p> <p>Other idiosyncrasies: I don’t flow rebuttals. Anything you bring up in a rebuttal should have been talked about in the constructives. Anything brought up in a constructive is fair game in the rebuttals. I don’t care if it wasn’t touched by their partner. (Read the rules of debating, I have!) I dislike “conversational” debates when everyone decides to speak. The person at the podium has the floor and should be the only one speaking unless a point of information is raised. (By the way, points of information can be a question <em>or a statement</em>.)</p> <p>At the end of the round I ask the question: Who did the better debating on the resolution at hand? That is the team that will get the win.</p> <p> </p>
Laura Keimig - Creighton
n/a
Marty Birkholt - Creighton
n/a
Melanie Hiatt - HC
n/a
Sara Ninabuck - HC
n/a
Sarah Jones - UNL
n/a
Vanessa Hatfield - UNO
n/a