Judge Philosophies
Ben Cecka - Clark CC
<p>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.</p> <p> </p> <p>I consider myself <em>tabula</em><em> </em><em>rasa</em> 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 you<em>clearly </em>link <em>and</em> 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.</p>
Beth Hewes - CSI
n/a
Bohn Lattin - UP
Brian Simmons - UP
<p>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! </p> <p>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.</p>
Cami Smith - Boise State
Cole Franklin - ETBU
n/a
Dan Broyles - Pacific
n/a
Danna Andersen - Lane
n/a
Dave Kosloski - Clark CC
David Childers - MHCC
Doyle Srader - NCU
<p>Doyle Srader</p> <p>Associate Professor of Communication</p> <p>Northwest Christian University</p> <p>Debated LD/CX/NDT 1981-1992.</p> <p>Judged NDT/CEDA/NPDA/NFA LD/IPDA 1992-2005, off and on.</p> <p>Since 2007, judged mostly BP and IPDA, and once in a blue moon, NPDA.</p> <p>Very not current, but very caught up on sleep.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>You, and your arguing</strong></p> <p> </p> <p>Whispering lunar incantations</p> <p>Dissolve the floors of memory</p> <p>And all its clear relations</p> <p>Its divisions and precisions,</p> <p>-T. S. Eliot, Rhapsody On A Windy Night</p> <p> </p> <p>And I must borrow every changing shape</p> <p>To find expression … dance, dance</p> <p>Like a dancing bear,</p> <p>Cry like a parrot, chatter like an ape.</p> <p>- T.S. Eliot, Portrait of a Lady</p> <p> </p> <p>HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME</p> <p>If you don't like it you can get on with it, I said.</p> <p>Others can pick and choose if you can't.</p> <p>- T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land</p> <p> </p> <p>Our dried voices, when</p> <p>We whisper together</p> <p>Are quiet and meaningless</p> <p>As wind in dry grass</p> <p>Or rat's feet over broken glass</p> <p>In our dry cellar</p> <p>- T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Me, and my deciding</strong></p> <p> </p> <p>HERE I am, an old man in a dry month,</p> <p>Being read to by a <s>boy</s>, waiting for rain.</p> <p>- T.S. Eliot, Gerontion</p> <p> </p> <p>I am moved by fancies that are curled</p> <p>Around these images, and cling:</p> <p>The notion of some infinitely gentle</p> <p>Infinitely suffering thing.</p> <p>Wipe your hand across your mouth, and laugh;</p> <p>The worlds revolve like ancient women</p> <p>Gathering fuel in vacant lots.</p> <p>-T. S. Eliot, Preludes</p> <p> </p> <p>Would it have been worth while,</p> <p>To have bitten off the matter with a smile,</p> <p>To have squeezed the universe into a ball</p> <p>To roll it toward some overwhelming question,</p> <p>To say: “I am Lazarus, come from the dead,</p> <p>Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all”-</p> <p>If one, settling a pillow by her head,</p> <p>Should say: “That is not what I meant at all.</p> <p>That is not it, at all.”</p> <p>- T.S. Eliot, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock</p> <p> </p> <p>He laughed like an irresponsible foetus.</p> <p>-T. S. Eliot, Mr. Apollinax</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>This, and the difference it makes</strong></p> <p> </p> <p>I saw the ’potamus take wing</p> <p>Ascending from the damp savannas,</p> <p>And quiring angels round him sing</p> <p>The praise of God, in loud hosannas.</p> <p>-T. S. Eliot, The Hippopotamus</p>
Esther Lattin - UP
JayLynn Ingram - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Jennifer Conner - Pacific
n/a
Jim Gatfield - CWI
<p>I am a Comms judge.</p> <p>Make it your goal to teach me and your opponent something. This is a chief aim of debate.</p> <p>Approach debate as a conversation . . . not an opportunity to overwhelm your opponent.</p> <p>I prefer eloquence over speed. </p> <p>Respect your opponent . . . respect the event . . . show me that you want to be here. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>NPDA Debate</strong></p> <p>I don't like K's. I don't vote on them. I view them as too generic and think they largely avoid an opportunity to explore a specific issue. </p>
John Louthan - Lane
n/a
Johnny Rowing - CWI
<p><strong>General Comments - Across Styles</strong></p> <p>I will generally prefer Aff framework. I believe they have the peragotive to frame the round. They must do so fairly and in a predictable fashion.</p> <p>Signpost your argumentation. Help me to flow by telling me what you are entering/answering.</p> <p>Listen. I want you to honor your opponent by giving ear to their thoughts and arguments. On a related note, I do not like it when your arguments are mischaracterized (straw man). </p> <p>Please sum up the round for me in 3-4 big picture/summation voters. I will do my level best to vote based solely upon what the summation speeches tell me to vote on.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>IPDA</strong></p> <p>I appreciate creative opens/salutations and courtesy.</p> <p>Be kind and considerate to one another.</p> <p>Unless the aff framework is wanky . . . I expect us to debate under their framework. It bothers me when we don't.</p> <p>I don't like C/Ps.</p> <p>If we are running a policy resolution . . . I prefer Harms Plan Solvency Advantages as the stock issues framework. I don't understand Uniqueness - Link - Impact as acceptable framework for a policy res.</p> <p>Please make sure that you define and describe your weighing mechanism (WM) for the round and . . . please frame your argumentation around that WM. Don't tell me this is the WM and then never mention it again until your final speech. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>NPDA</strong></p> <p><em>Open - Junior</em></p> <p>If you are a junior and/or open level NPDA debater . . . I doubt that you will like me. </p> <p>I am more of a Comms judge. I do not like excessive speed. I do not like K's. I really dislike Affirmative K's. I don't like unnecessary Topicality, etc. I really prefer for issues to be explored rather than generic philosophical questions or debating about debate styles.</p> <p>T - I won't vote on potential abuse. I need to see actual in round ground loss. </p> <p>So - if you draw me - I expect less speed (I drop my pen when you are too fast). I expect the issues to be described. I expect jargon to be defined.</p> <p><em>Novice</em></p> <p>Novice level NPDA debaters may find me as a more satisfactory judge. I don't believe K's should be ran at the Novice level. I can usually help novice debaters improve through comments on structure and the implications of D/As to case - presumption - solvency attacks - etc. </p> <p> </p> <p>BP</p> <p>I will most likely be in the wing, if I am a BP judge. I have very little experience in this style. But, we now have 2 teams competing in this style and I would love to serve on a panel.</p> <p>Big picture - I prefer for this style to be considerate and I put an emphasis on unique contributions to the round both in the manner in which points are rebutted and the manner in which unique positive argumentation is offered. </p>
Jordan Director - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Kathleen Rose - CWI
Kym Davis - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Leah Griffin - SPU
n/a
Lilly Huynh - Pacific
n/a
Liz Kinnaman - MHCC
Lori Welch - Whitworth Univ
n/a
LynDel Simmons - Lane
n/a
Manda Hicks - Boise State
Matt Vander Boegh - CWI
Michelle Bennett - CWI
Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Nik Vaughn - Clark CC
Norell Conroy - Boise State
<p>I've been involved in forensics/parli for five years.</p> <p>I prefer real-world probability over magnitude in impact calculus, even when faced with systemic v. hypothetical if the arguments are well-warrented. I think the k debate can be super interesting. I will probably only vote on t if you demonstrate actual in-round abuse--most t debates are less interesting/important than others.</p> <p>Call points of order.</p> <p>Speed is fine, but to a point. If I can't understand you, I will make it clear. At that point, if you do not slow down so I can understand you, that is bad for you because I vote based on what is on my flow. Also, if you don't say something, I won't write it for you--that is, I will (to the best of my ability) not intervene--however, I will hold you accountable if you make offensive claims for the sake of winning (i.e. anything advocating for things like genocide, rape, etc. because you think such an argument functions in a compelling way--in front of me, it doesn't) </p> <p>Courtesy and civility are vital to this activity. You will lose if you are outwardly rude or uncivil. Sass and humor are swell, being purposefully mean-spirited is not.</p>
Regan Charlton - Boise State
Rhylee Smith - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Sallie Fisher - CBC
n/a
Sara MIchaud - ETBU
n/a
Sara Seyller - Clark CC
<p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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. </p> <p>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.</p>
Shannon Scott - SPU
n/a
Sunny Lucich - CWI
Vikki Andersen - Lane
n/a