FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Donaldson - Clark CC

I have enjoyed participating in the collegiate debate community since 2000. I have watched, coached, and judged primarily NPDA/PTE debate with some bits and pieces of novice NDT/CEDA and "World's" B/P thrown in. I think all debate activities are incredibly important and equally educational. In NPDA/PTE, I consider 25 speaker points (out of 30) as "average," 26-27.5 as "outround ready," 28-9 as "see you in the final" and 30 as outstanding. I do not typically give 30's to teams who do not create a welcoming and inclusive atmostphere, as I believe those aspects of our performances in-round are most important.   I try hard not to supplement justifications or warrants for or against arguments I engage as a judge.This means bad arguments that are not responded to can be exploited for a win, it also means dropped arguments that are underdeveloped in the constructive speeches may not get much weight in the rebuttals. It does not take much to develop the "arch" of an early argument, but one or two word phrases can quickly become suspect.   I believe procedural arguments are an important part of the "real world," that many parties will exploit these arguments and that for these reasons they are an integral part of debate education. I do not see much substantive value between debates about "the issues" and debates about debate, if anything I tend to lean towards the sides which argue that the rules to the activity that we play matter more than the imaginary worlds of our advocacy. I love a good T debate more than just about anything but I do not like 1-word arguments at the voter level of these pages. I think procedural arguments need to have clear consequences on the strategic decisions of the debate (this can include prep time) and that these consequences need to be articulated not only as reasons to prefer but also assesed as examples of why I should vote. I presume procedural arguments are strategic unless they are labled a-priore.   I believe critical or "kritikal" arguments are like any other argument. As with the procedural debate, if anything I tend to believe that the consequences for our performances, mindsets, and strategies in the educational activity we are all wrapped up in are more immediate than those of the imaginary world of our advocacy but those implications still need to be spelled out and clearly developed to win my ballot. As with procedural arguments I will assume these arguments are strategic unless they are labled as a-priore.   Counter-plan and/or Alternative debate (particular debates involving the theory and/or "status" of the C/P and/or ALT) is probably one of my weaker areas. Until I resolve that "blind spot" all I can do is offer fair warning.   I think rate of delivery has proven to be one of the most divisive and potentially abusive aspects of our activity. Teams who "weaponize" speed against new debaters or against those who, in my mind, are obviously struggling to participate risk losing the debate. If your opponents are fast I have no problem with fast debate - I will say "clear" or "slow" if I am struggling to follow. If they are not I don't mind so long as you are not excessively ignoring them, mocking them, or otherwise neglecting their attempts to participate. Most speed-bad arguments I have seen break down at the standard level, there is obviously no brightline, but more than anything I feel that debate should be inclusive and rate-of-delivery, among all else, jeopardizes that. Fast debate that is only repetitive can cost speaker points, fast debate that I feel is unneccesarily abusive can cost you the ballot.

Adam Testerman - Lewis & Clark

Background   Hi there!  I have competed in debate and forensics for over 10 years.  I participated in parliamentary debate during college, with two years at Southern Illinois University and two years at Texas Tech University.  I feel comfortable judging any “genre” of argument and have no real argument preference beyond the desire to see clash.  This is my second year coaching for Lewis & Clark College.    General Issues   It is my goal to involve myself in the debate round as little as possible.  I have no preference for any particular kind of argument and generally feel that almost every debate issue can be resolved in the round.  I will vote for arguments with warrants. I will try my best to synthesize your arguments, but I also believe that to be a central skill of effective debaters.  The only thing that I hate is awkwardness.  Please don’t be rude or overly confrontational with your opponents, because it makes me feel awkward and I will probably try to reassure myself with your excess speaker points.  I will vote for arguments I think are stupid 10 out of 10 times if they are won in the round.    Etiquette   Emphasize explanation early… don’t let your argument make sense for the first time in the LOR or PMR etc.  All constructive speeches should take a question if asked, and it’s strategic to ask questions.  Theory interpretations and advocacy statements should be read slowly and read twice.  It will be difficult to explain why fact or value debates aren’t horrible, so roll that way at your own risk.  Points of Order should be called, but I will also do my best to protect new arguments… don’t be excessive with them though [I’ll be vague about what that means, but see above for awkwardness.]  RVI’s have never been good arguments, read them at your own risk.  <a name="_GoBack"></a>I am not the best judge when it comes to speaker points.  I tend to average a 28-point something, but I don’t vary outside of that range much.  I am trying to adjust my scale, but fair warning that I’m not the judge giving everyone 30s.    Theory/Procedurals   I cut my teeth on procedural arguments in college, so I understand why they can be useful.  It is probably true that debates are less substance-driven when they become about procedurals, but that won’t impact my decision at all.  To vote on a procedural, I require an interpretation explaining how the debate should be evaluated, a violation detailing specifically why the other team does not fit within that interpretation, standards that explain why the interpretation is good, and a voter that outlines why I should vote on the argument.  PLEASE read your interpretation/definition slowly and probably repeat it.  I think bad T arguments are REALLY bad, but good T arguments are some of my favorite debates to watch, so… have an interpretation that makes some sense.    DAs/Advantages   DAs and Advs. Require uniqueness arguments that explain why the situation the affirmative causes is not happening in the status quo.  If you plan on running linear DAs, please spend time explaining how the affirmative triggers a new impact that is not present in the status quo [or makes a current impact worse.]  Defensive arguments are useful, but they often serve to make offensive arguments more impactful or serve as risk mitigation, as opposed to terminal takeouts.    I ran politics in a majority of my negative rounds and I coach my teams to read the position often as well.  So, I will totally vote on politics every time when it’s won.  That being said, I’m finding the position to be one my least favorite and least compelling these days.  The obscene nature of congress these days makes the position even more laughable than it was in the past [and it’s always been sketchy at best, without cards].  Read the DA if you’re a politics team, but there are almost always better arguments out there.    Critiques   Critique debates can be fun to watch, but only when the position is clear at the thesis level. If your shell argues that the K is a prior question or something like that, spend some meaningful time explaining why that’s the case instead of “shadow” extending an argument from the shell.  I am familiar with a lot of the literature, but you should argue the position as if I am not.  I really hate when critiques prove the “people who hate critiques crowd” right, by being excessively confusing and blippy.  Critiques are totally dope, but only because they have the potential to make compelling arguments… not because they are obtuse.    Framework debates are a waste of time a vast majority of the time.  I don’t understand why teams spend any substantive amount of time on framework.  The question of whether the affirmative methodology/epistemology/whatever vague term you want to use, is good or bad should be determined in the links and impacts of the criticism.  I see almost no world where framework matters independent of the rest of the shell.  So… the only K framework questions that tend to make sense to me are arguments about why it’s a prior question.  It makes sense that if the critique wins that the affirmative impacts are threat constructions that I’m not going to weigh the affirmative impacts against the position.  That’s not a framework debate though, that’s a question determined by winning the thesis of the position.    Critical affirmatives can be cool, but they also put me in a weird position as a judge sometimes.  If your affirmative is positioned to critique DAs, then I still want to see specific applications of those arguments to the DAs.  I need to see how the DA demonstrates your argument to be true in some specific way.  By that I mean, if the negative outright wins a DA, I would need to see why that would mean the affirmative shouldn’t lose early, often, and specifically.  The same is true of any set/genre of negative positions.    CPs   There are probably enough arguments on both sides to justify different interpretations of how permutation or CP theory in general should go down, that I don’t have strong opinions about many CP related issues.  In general, the CP/DA debate is probably what I feel most comfortable judging accurately and I think CPs that solve the aff are very strategic.  Multiple CPs in the round is probably bad for education and not strategic.

Amanda Feller - PacificLutheran

n/a

Anna Lorton - UP

Beau Woodward - UP

I am ok with meta debate arguments (Topicality, Ks, etc.) as long as they are called for.  In NPDA, I don't mind speed, as long as it is understandable. We don't pass cards so please be clear. In IPDA, speed is not encouraged because the format encourages the public to attend and judge.  I really like structure and clear links. I am not going to do work for you, so make sure you are laying out a link story that is rational.  Impacts are necessary for me to judge the round, so give them to me. I love values and critiria, and I will use any resolutional analysis you give me.  Please try to act like your opponents are people, with valid opinions and points of view.

Ben Cecka - Clark CC

My competitive background is purely in NPDA, of which I was a competitor in for just shy of 2 years at the collegiate level. I've been judging it for a cumulative 3 years, along with some experience in IPDA and BP/Worlds.   I consider myself tabula rasa as well as a flow judge, and I will pay special attention to your rebuttal. If you have a winning argument in a member speech, but fail to give it due attention at the conclusion, I will do the same. I will happily entertain any and all arguments (creativity should be rewarded), provided that you articulate them fully and, most importantly, tell me why I care (impact). I prefer rational and realistic arguments over fantasy, but don't let that preclude you from using some humor and having fun when possible. T, K, and various types of CP's are fine as long youclearly link and warrant them. With regard to speed, I will sympathize with teams that are struggling to keep up if a) I agree, and b) they voice that concern early in the PMC -- waiting until theLOC is too late. Lastly, Wheaton's Law matters.

Bohn Lattin - UP

Brian Simmons - UP

I consider my role as the judge in a debate round as being similar to that of a U.S. Supreme Court judge. Such a judge not only assess "who won" arguments between debaters, such a judge also assess the quality of arguments made "to the judge" simply becasue the arguments were brought into the round. That said, I strongly believe in the necessity for debaters to honor their opponent's arguments by directly clashing with them. I am impressed by debaters that demonstrate critical thinking--questioning assumptions, pointing out contradictions, showing how contentions don't meet stated values or criteria. I believe IPDA ought to be a highly communicative event filled with what Qunitillian might call "good people speaking well." That doesn't mean you have to talk to me like I am Forrest Gump, but it does mean that style matters. Finally, I believe there is a proper decorum and courtesy in any forensic context; be nice to each other!  FYI: My background: I was a policy debater in high school, a CEDA debater at Oklahoma Christian University, a CEDA graduate assistant at Pepeprdine University and now I coach IPDA at University of Portland where we previously competed in and I coached BP and NPDA.

Bryan Hunt - MHCC

Clarkus Peters - Pacific

n/a

Dan Broyles - Pacific

n/a

Darren Meaney - MHCC

Esther Lattin - UP

Gabrielle Guerrero - MHCC

Jackson Miller - Linfield

n/a

Jennifer Conner - Pacific

n/a

Justin Eckstein - PacificLutheran

n/a

Lilly Huynh - Pacific

n/a

Liz Kinnaman - MHCC

Megan Bauer - OSU

n/a

Melissa Franke - SeattleU

n/a

Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Nik Vaughn - Clark CC

Sara Seyller - Clark CC

I have enjoyed participating in the collegiate debate community since 2007. I have participated in, coached, and judged NPDA, IPDA, and BP debate. I think any form of debate is both fun and educational!! While I enjoy sharp, pointed styles I am averse to disrespectful treatment of competitors, and find that it detracts from the whole of the debate.   Overall, in each form of debate I am well versed in rules and expectations and hold firm to them.  They are there for a reason and ought to be respected.  This does not mean I lack flexibility, but it does mean that outright violations will be noted in nowhere else but in speaker point awards. In many ways I consider myself a hybrid, I am a flow judge with a speed govern of just short of ludicrous speed (IE spittle running down face as they gasp for air every few minutes), but I also appreciate arguments that use persuasive rhetoric and style rather than reliance on an excess of words to win solely by tabulating dropped arguments. As far as Procedurals, liked or otherwise, is becoming an important if not critical component to debating in NPDA.  As such, I am open to all forms of arguments so long as they are connected to the case, it doesn’t take much to make it applicable.  I am not a big fan of winning on dropped arguments alone unless the drop so large that the gaping hole left is enough to sink the case.  I leave it up to the competitors to set the rounds as they see fit.  In IPDA and BP there is a heavier reliance on style and persuasion rather than procedurals.  As such, I tend to be less about detailed flows and more attentive to the connections made both within the cases and through clash provided connected to the opponents case.  In these rounds, the devil is in the details.  I am most appreciative of competitors that can connect to the people in the room by explaining how it might impact us, why it matters to us, or the harms and benefits we would be exposed to should something occur.  Ivory tower syndrome, arguing so far up in the building that it become abstract concepts of competing theory, is extraordinarily hard to do given the time frame and is more often isolates competitors and judges from the argument rather than including them.

Shannon Valdivia - MHCC

Simone Walter - Lewis & Clark

Simone Walter – 2012 Judging Philosophy   Background: I competed for Oregon for 4 years. This is my second year at Lewis & Clark.   How I conceptualize the round: the duty of the affirmative is to provide a policy action* that will provide a substantial benefit to the resolution-specific context; the duty of the opposition is to prove why the affirmative should be rejected (ie. why the disadvantages of the AFF plan outweigh its advantages). I will conceptualize ‘the world’ in which the round is located based on how I am ‘told’ to adjudicate the round, the ballot, and the in-round arguments. On a side note, this is not to say that I enjoy being ‘spoken for’ as a critic.   *I am not opposed to hearing critical affirmatives. In fact, I think they can be awesome if deployed strategically. If you do not read a plan text, you still must defend a stable advocacy. To win my ballot with a critical affirmative, it is imperative for the AFF – a) If you do not read a plan text, you still must defend a stable advocacy; and b) demonstrate that the critical affirmative is topical, competitive, and permissible.   Debate is a game, a really fun game; most so when the players engage in ways that best suit their interests and knowledge base. As a judge, I will listen to anything. But do not be morally repugnant. Even so, I find tricot to be silly (in other words, awful). I saw a few of these rounds last year. They were bad and just got worse. As a judge, I will do my best to not intervene. Except for tricot. So, just don’t do it.   Prior to giving my RFD, while I am making my decision, I would appreciate your silence. You can leave the room if you would like. If you have questions following the round, please talk to me immediately. Three rounds later, I guarantee that I have already stopped thinking of YOUR round.   Arguments:   Theory – Raising theoretical objections to whether a team’s strategy is justified is always permissible. Demonstrating tangible in-round abuse over potential abuse is preferable.   I assume theory arguments to be voting issues on competing interpretations. The specificity of the standards in justification of your interpretation is imperative to providing an effective comparison of why I should preference/reject an interpretation.   The Kritikkkk –   Discursive implications are real and so we should be held responsible for our rhetorical choices. Thus, my default mechanism for evaluating the K is that the critical implications presuppose the impacts of the affirmative. If the AFF team does not want me to default to this assumption, then explain to me how you would prefer me to evaluate the K in juxtaposition to the affirmative. For an AFF team to pick up my ballot against the K, I need tangible reasons as to not only why I should weigh the case against the K but also why doing plan is still a good idea.   I enjoy the critical debate. I will preference unique topic-specific critical arguments over generic backfiles. Nevertheless, I am often disappointed by the lack of explanation awarded to the nuance of the literature from which the K is derived. So please, fully articulate the thesis of your argument, its application (ie. framework/link arguments) and thus, its implications to the “world” in which the debate is located.   I believe that the most effective critical arguments are topic specific and function essentially as disadvantages that turn the affirmative. If you choose to operate outside the realm of “playing as policy-making,” then you must still defend a stable advocacy. Thus, your alternative should DO something. Often times, critical debates frustrate me because the alternative does not solve and/or the function of the alternative is not adequately explained, which causes me to err that plan is still a good idea. Though I may default to the assumption that the impacts of the K presuppose the case, if the alternative doesn’t do anything, then you will not win my ballot.   Counterplans – Please read text twice (This also applies to the PMC plantext, perm texts, the alternative to the K, and the T violation). A written copy would be preferable if the CP text is particularly long/convoluted.   In regards to specific CP theory arguments (ie. PICS good/bad, the status of the CP, textual v. functional competition, etc.), I assume these to be negotiable questions to be decided in the round and not based on my predisposition towards these arguments. So long as they are deployed strategically, I do not perceive to Consult/Delay to be inherently illegitimate. I tend to favor the arguments that best support topic-specific education, rather than fairness or predictability.   For me, CP theory arguments are most effective if accompanied with nuanced impact calculus as to their implications upon decision-making processes. In other words, the substantive solvency evidence in favor of your CP (or AFF plan) is what is going to win my ballot on this part of the flow.   LOR/PMR – please help me by providing substantive comparisons of the world of plan/perm and counterplan. How actually am I suppose to evaluate the risk of the solvency deficit to the risk of the DA if you do not explicate this for me?   Disadvantages – I will award full potency to defensive arguments. Even so, (particularly in the rebuttals) I would like a clear articulation of how the probability/risk/timeframe arguments interact with offensive arguments on magnitude. Also, be realistic about what offense you are winning and what offense the other team is winning. Don’t assume that you are winning ALL the things because then you will fail to explicate why what you are legitimately winning is more important than the other team’s offense.   If there is a NO link to the DA, then there is no link. If there is a link turn argument without any arguments at the uniqueness level, then I will still evaluate the argument (assuming the no link argument is fully articulated): for me, the no link isn’t washed away by what is happening at the uniqueness level.   Presentation:   Speed is fine; delivery that is unclear is not fine. If the other teams calls you out for your poorly articulated plantext/cptext/whatever, then do not assume that it was clearly articulated to me either.   In terms of speaker points, I award them based on a few things – <ol> <li>fulfilling the duties of your speaker position</li> <li>good smart arguments – multiple warrants are better than claims with none</li> <li>you debate the side of the resolution that you are given, but I don’t think that this is an excuse to be a prick</li> <li>if you teach me something</li> </ol>

2013 41st Smelt Classic

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Donaldson - Clark CC

Adam Testerman - Lewis & Clark

Amanda Feller - PacificLutheran

Anna Lorton - UP

Beau Woodward - UP

Ben Cecka - Clark CC

Bohn Lattin - UP

Brian Simmons - UP

Bryan Hunt - MHCC

Clarkus Peters - Pacific

Dan Broyles - Pacific

Darren Meaney - MHCC

Esther Lattin - UP

Gabrielle Guerrero - MHCC

Jackson Miller - Linfield

Jennifer Conner - Pacific

Justin Eckstein - PacificLutheran

Lilly Huynh - Pacific

Liz Kinnaman - MHCC

Megan Bauer - OSU

Melissa Franke - SeattleU

Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ

Nik Vaughn - Clark CC

Sara Seyller - Clark CC

Shannon Valdivia - MHCC

Simone Walter - Lewis & Clark

Tim Lortan - UP

Will Blackmore - MHCC

2013 41st Smelt Classic

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Donaldson - Clark CC

Adam Testerman - Lewis &amp; Clark

Amanda Feller - PacificLutheran

Anna Lorton - UP

Beau Woodward - UP

Ben Cecka - Clark CC

Bohn Lattin - UP

Brian Simmons - UP

Bryan Hunt - MHCC

Clarkus Peters - Pacific

Dan Broyles - Pacific

Darren Meaney - MHCC

Esther Lattin - UP

Gabrielle Guerrero - MHCC

Jackson Miller - Linfield

Jennifer Conner - Pacific

Justin Eckstein - PacificLutheran

Lilly Huynh - Pacific

Liz Kinnaman - MHCC

Megan Bauer - OSU

Melissa Franke - SeattleU

Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ

Nik Vaughn - Clark CC

Sara Seyller - Clark CC

Shannon Valdivia - MHCC

Simone Walter - Lewis &amp; Clark

Tim Lortan - UP

Will Blackmore - MHCC

Adam Testerman - Lewis & Clark

Simone Walter - Lewis & Clark