FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Donaldson - CBC

n/a

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.

Anisa Betlemsani - Lower Columbia

Brandon Stickels - SeattleU

n/a

Carly Sharman - Humboldt

n/a

Cassie Crosman - Corban

n/a

Collin Anderson - Lower Columbia

Colten Sullivent - Lower Columbia

Though my background is principally in IPDA and I place a high value on communicative style, over time I have come to appreciate the structure and clarity of Parliamentary style debate. That said, there are a few things that are easily stated and understood about my judging philosophy.   Speed is not a rhetorical virtue. It serves only to confound those who would find the most value in clarity. It is to be avoided.   Decorum is paramount. Competitors must remain polite throughout the event lest they see their speaker points drop. What’s more, decorum extends beyond behavior in round. Competitors should appear professional and well groomed.   Procedural arguments made for their own sake are tedious. Topicality, critiques, and similar arguments must be well supported and reasoned.   Otherwise, standard expectations apply. Road mapping and signposting are appreciated. Arguments should be well impacted. Be polite and professional. And have fun. Debate should be an enjoyable experience!

Dan Broyles - Pacific

n/a

Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia

Dr. Dan Schabot Lower Columbia College Years Debating: 5 total (1 years NFL LD; 4 years CEDA/NDT ) Years Coaching/Judging: 15 Total (2 years CEDA/NDT; 13 Years NPDA)   General Philosophy: Each team should make good (well supported and well-reasoned) arguments and clash with each other. I prefer 2 or 3 in depth positions to 5 or 6 blipped positions.   Specifics: Affirmative teams:  At this point in my judging life I am no longer interested in listening to debates that do not at least make an attempt to address the topic in the resolution.  You can run any position you want as long as you explain why what you are arguing deals with the topic.   Negative Teams:  I also feel that negative teams have the responsibility to address affirmative arguments as well as presenting their own.  Positions just run for the sake of filling time (such as generic T) have little weight with me.  Each position should be part of a coherent strategy to win.   Speed and Presentation:  If you feel the need to go fast that is fine.  However, running a bunch of positions just so you can go fast is useless.  Speed as a strategy (in and of itself) will not be rewarded.     RFD:  My preferences are listed above.  I have and will vote for just about any argument type. A team must clearly explain why their advocacy is superior to other team’s advocacy to win a round.

Donald Kimball - NU

n/a

Emily Spannring - Lower Columbia

Erin Lewis-Lusso - Humboldt

n/a

Gabrielle Guerrero - MHCC

Hank Steele - Lower Columbia

Heather Jacobs - Lower Columbia

Holly Lemmons - Lower Columbia

J Wylie - Lower Columbia

Jacob Witt - NU

n/a

Jade Pham - Corban

n/a

Jennifer Conner - Pacific

n/a

Jessica Clark - Lower Columbia

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark

Joe Provencher – Lewis and Clark   The Quick hits for Prep time:   Unless told otherwise, I default to net-bens/policy making.   If you want me to evaluate topicality via competing interpretations, slow down a bit through your interpretations so I have the text exactly as you intend it. You should also probably take a question on your definition/interp if it's particularly long/nuanced/complex/crazy.   I used to tell teams I believed all advocacies in round should be unconditional. However, a lot of the conditionallity debates I saw were really terrible, and probably had PMRs going for the theory without really understanding it, and then expecting me to vote every time for the aff as a result of my philosophy. So I'll try my best to explain it more below, but for your quick evaluation of me now, know that I don't really think conditionality is necessary (maybe not even good), but will do my absolute best to be open to the theory arguments made in round.   I think that counter-plans must compete via net-benefits or mutual exclusivity. Other CP theory arguments are going to be an uphill battle for my ballot.   I don't think I'm biased one way or another on the kritik. I think good K debate is good, and bad K debate is bad (and good theory debate is good, bad theory debate is bad, etc, etc). Just get small in the rebuttals, one way or the other, and pick your winning argument. Like any argument, if you suspect I may not be 100% familiar with the literature you are using, then make the tag line very clear so you can read your warrants as fast as you want.   Take some points of information. Be cordial. Call as many points of order as you want, but it should be limited to the individual calling the point of order, and a response from the opposing individual making the argument. There should never be a debate, or any back and forth, about whether an argument is new. Make your point, respond to it.      Some further reading for your strikes:   On conditionality: I would never explicitly tell a team not to run a certain argument in front of me. However, out of all the reading I've done, and rounds I've seen, I can't imagine a world in which the MG puts out a good Condo bad shell, the PMR goes for it sufficiently, and I do not vote for it. Maybe the reading I've done is insufficient, but I'm not convinced yet, and the limited condo debates I've seen have been bad ones that only reinforce that opinion. However, I'm trying to stay open to furthering my education in the activity and would encourage anyone to come find me and talk (maybe outside of round) so we can keep the discussion going.   On topicality: I believe that T is a discussion to find the best definition of a word in the resolution. The standards debate is a debate about why a particular definition is very good. A lot of times, especially with teams yelling about ground to DAs they're supposed to have, I think that focus gets lost. If a plan doesn't link to your DA, it might not be because they have mis-defined a word. It might just be that the DA is not good. Consequently, the claim that NEG can read DAs is not a reason your definition is good. That just means they can run DAs. Most debaters are good enough to come up with some kind of offense on the spot.   In general: Good debate gets small at the end of the rounds. Rebuttal speeches should be deep and specific, and focussed around why I must prioritize a single given story. Do that, you win.

Justin Wiley - MHCC

Kambra Johnson - Lower Columbia

Kori Thornburg - CBC

n/a

Kristanna Eveland - Lower Columbia

Kyle Bidwell - Lower Columbia

Leah Moore - Lower Columbia

Lee Kessler - Lower Columbia

Liz Kinnaman - Clark CC

n/a

Marcy Halpin - LCSC

n/a

Mark Porrovecchio - OSU

n/a

Melissa Franke-Young - SeattleU

n/a

Micah Waterlander - MHCC

<ul> <li>Background of the critic: I competed in high school policy as well as competing 2 years in NPDA in college. This is my 2nd Year coaching, I coach both IPDA and NPDA formats.</li> <li>Approach of the critic to decision-making: I consider myself to be pretty tabula rasa and will vote for whatever the debaters tell me is important for me to vote on. I think that the trichotomy argument is a worthwhile argument, as well as most procedural arguments. I will vote on T if there is clear abuse, but I don't think the team has to only go for Topicality to show abuse. While I will listen to any argument ran in front of me I don't particularly like kritiks, especially in NPDA style debate, since any real evidence need to back up the kritik can't be brought into round. Furthermore, I think the kritik needs to show real world impacts to outweigh. But with that being said, if the kritik is necessary for your strategy then by all means run it. Also, I tend to think that a lot of debate hinges on solvency so this could win or lose a round easily. </li> <li>Communication/presentation: I'm pretty comfortable with most aspects of speed, but feel like clarity and signposting should falter because of your speed. Also I am a pretty expressive judge so if you pay attention you will know if I am getting down what you are saying. </li> </ul> <ul> <li>Preferences on calling Points of Order: I have no issue with POI being called, I think that if it is warranted you should call your opponent out on it. </li> </ul>

2014 42nd Smelt Classic

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Donaldson - CBC

Adam Testerman - Lewis &amp; Clark

Anisa Betlemsani - Lower Columbia

Brandon Stickels - SeattleU

Carly Sharman - Humboldt

Cassie Crosman - Corban

Collin Anderson - Lower Columbia

Colten Sullivent - Lower Columbia

Dan Broyles - Pacific

Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia

Donald Kimball - NU

Emily Spannring - Lower Columbia

Erin Lewis-Lusso - Humboldt

Gabrielle Guerrero - MHCC

Hank Steele - Lower Columbia

Heather Jacobs - Lower Columbia

Holly Lemmons - Lower Columbia

J Wylie - Lower Columbia

Jacob Witt - NU

Jade Pham - Corban

Jennifer Conner - Pacific

Jessica Clark - Lower Columbia

Joe Provencher - Lewis &amp; Clark

Justin Wiley - MHCC

Kambra Johnson - Lower Columbia

Kori Thornburg - CBC

Kristanna Eveland - Lower Columbia

Kyle Bidwell - Lower Columbia

Leah Moore - Lower Columbia

Lee Kessler - Lower Columbia

Liz Kinnaman - Clark CC

Marcy Halpin - LCSC

Mark Porrovecchio - OSU

Melissa Franke-Young - SeattleU

Micah Waterlander - MHCC

Micah Shea - Lower Columbia

Michael Dugaw - Lower Columbia

Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ

Nick Mauer - Lower Columbia

Patrick Carrico - Lower Columbia

Phil LePoidevin - MHCC

Phil Bernard - Humboldt

Richie Laursen - Clark CC

Rick Beck - Lower Columbia

Ryan Tinlin - Lewis &amp; Clark

Shannon Valdivia - MHCC

Skyler Gregory - Lower Columbia

Stefanie Neill - Lower Columbia

Stephen Young - SeattleU

Tanner Wiley - Lower Columbia

Vaughn Ellis - Lower Columbia

Adam Testerman - Lewis & Clark

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark

Ryan Tinlin - Lewis & Clark