Judge Philosophies
Beau Woodward - UP
<p>I am ok with meta debate arguments (Topicality, Ks, etc.) as long as they are called for. </p> <p>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. </p> <p>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. </p> <p>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. </p> <p>Please try to act like your opponents are people, with valid opinions and points of view. </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>
Clarkus Peters - Pacific
n/a
Colin Hesse - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Dan Broyles - Pacific
n/a
Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia
<p>Dr. Dan Schabot</p> <p>Lower Columbia College</p> <p>Years Debating: 5 total (1 years NFL LD; 4 years CEDA/NDT )</p> <p>Years Coaching/Judging: 15 Total (2 years CEDA/NDT; 13 Years NPDA)</p> <p> </p> <p>General Philosophy:</p> <p>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.</p> <p> </p> <p>Specifics:</p> <p>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.</p> <p> </p> <p>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.</p> <p> </p> <p>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. </p> <p> </p> <p>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. </p>
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>
Jackson Miller - Linfield
n/a
JayLynn Ingram - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Jennifer Conner - Pacific
n/a
Jennifer Andersen - Lane
n/a
Justin Wiley - MHCC
Kristanna Eveland - Lower Columbia
Kyle Cheesewright - IDAHO
<p> “All that you touch </p> <p>You Change. </p> <p>All that you Change </p> <p>Changes you. </p> <p>The only lasting truth </p> <p>Is Change. </p> <p>God Is Change.”</p> <p>–Octavia Butler, “Parable of the Sower.”</p> <p> </p> <p>Debate is a game. Debate is a strange, beautiful game that we play. Debate is a strange beautiful game that we play with each other.</p> <p> </p> <p>I love debate. It’s the only game that exists where the rules are up for contestation by each side. There are some rules that aren’t up for discussion, as far as I can tell, these are them:</p> <p> </p> <p>1/ Each debate will have a team that wins, and a team that looses. Say whatever you want, I am structurally constrained at the end of debate to award one team a win, and the other team will receive a loss. That’s what I got.</p> <p> </p> <p>2/ Time limits. I think that a discussion should have equal time allotment for each side, and those times should probably alternate. I have yet to see a fair way for this question to be resolved in a debate, other than through arbitrary enforcement. The only exception is that if both teams decide on something else, you have about 45 minutes from the start of the round, to when I have to render a decision.</p> <p> </p> <p>Pretty much everything else is open to contestation. At this point, I don’t really have any serious, uncontestable beliefs about debate. This means that the discussion is open to you. I do tend to find that I find debates to be more engaging when they are about substantive clash over a narrow set of established issues. This means, I tend to prefer debates that are specific and deep. Good examples, and comparative discussion of those examples is the easiest way to win my ballot. Generally speaking, I look for comparative impact work. I find that I tend to align more quickly with highly probable and proximate impacts, though magnitude is just so easy.</p> <p> </p> <p>I tend to prefer LOC strategies that are deep, well explained explorations of a coherent world. The strategy of firing off a bunch of underdeveloped arguments, and trying to develop the strategy that is mishandled by the MG is often successful in front of me, but I almost always think that the round would have been better with a more coherent LOC strategy—for both sides of the debate.</p> <p> </p> <p>At the end of the debate, when it is time for me to resolve the discussion, I start by identifying what I believe the weighing mechanism should be, based on the arguments made in the debate. Once I have determined the weighing mechanism, I start to wade through the arguments that prove the world will be better or worse, based on the decision mechanism. I always attempt to default to explicit arguments that debaters make about these issues.</p> <p> </p> <p>Examples are the evidence of Parliamentary debate. Control the examples, and you will control the debate.</p> <p> </p> <p>On specific issues: I don’t particularly care what you discuss, or how you discuss it. I prefer that you discuss it in a way that gives me access to the discussion. I try not to backfill lots of arguments based on buzzwords. For example, if you say “Topicality is a matter of competing interpretations,” I think I know what that means. But I am not going to default to evaluating every argument on Topicality through an offense/defense paradigm unless you explain to me that I should, and probably try to explicate what kinds of answers would be offensive, and what kinds of answers would be defensive. Similarly, if you say “Topicality should be evaluated through the lens of reasonability,” I think I know what that means. But if you want me to stop evaluating Topicality if you are winning that there is a legitimate counter-interpretation that is supported by a standard, then you should probably say that.</p> <p> </p> <p>I try to flow debates as specifically as possible. I feel like I have a pretty good written record of most debates.</p> <p> </p> <p>Rebuttals are times to focus a debate, and go comprehensively for a limited set of arguments. You should have a clear argument for why you are winning the debate as a whole, based on a series of specific extensions from the Member speech. The more time you dedicate to an issue in a debate, the more time I will dedicate to that issue when I am resolving the debate. Unless it just doesn’t matter. Watch out for arguments that don’t matter, they’re tricksy and almost everyone spends too much time on them.</p> <p> </p> <p>Before I make my decision, I try to force myself to explain what the strongest argument for each side would be if they were winning the debate. I then ask myself how the other team is dealing with those arguments. I try to make sure that each team gets equal time in my final evaluation of a debate.</p> <p> </p> <p>This is a radical departure from my traditional judging philosophy. I’ll see how it works out for me. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. For the record, I have strong opinions on just about everything that occurs in a debate round—but those strong opinions are for down time and odd rants during practice rounds. I work to keep them out of the debate, and at this point, I think I can say that I do a pretty good job on that account.</p> <p> </p> <p>I just thought of a third rule. Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I thought speeches are. If you tell me what speaker points I should give you, I will listen, and promptly discard what you say. Probably.</p> <p> </p> <p>For the sake of transparency: My personal gig is critical-cultural theory. It's where my heart is. This does not mean that you should use critical theory that you don't understand or feel comfortable with it. Make the choices in debate that are the best, most strategic, or most ethical for you. If your interested in my personal opinons about your choices, I'm more than happy to share. But I'll do that after the debate is over, the ballot submitted, and we're just two humans chatting. The debate will be decided based on the arguments made in the debate.</p> <p> </p> <p>“[Y]ou can’t escape language: language is everything and everywhere; it’s what lets us have anything to do with one another; it’s what separates us from animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so on.”</p> <p>-David Foster Wallace, “Authority and American Usage.”</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Old Philosophy</strong></p> <p><em>A Body's Judging Philosophy</em></p> <p>Debate has been my home since 1996—</p> <p>and when I started, I caressed Ayn Rand</p> <p>and spoke of the virtue of selfishness.</p> <p> </p> <p>I am much older than I was.</p> <p>These days, I am trying to figure out</p> <p>how subjectivity gets created</p> <p>from the raw material of words</p> <p>and research.</p> <p> </p> <p>I have no interest in how well</p> <p>you can recite the scripts you’ve memorized.</p> <p>Or at what speed.</p> <p> </p> <p>I will not be held responsible</p> <p>for adjudicating your bank balance.</p> <p>And I will not provide interest on your jargon.</p> <p>I will listen to your stories</p> <p>and I will decide which story is better,</p> <p>using the only currency I am comfortable with:</p> <p>the language of land,</p> <p>and the words that sprout from my body</p> <p>like hair.</p> <p> </p> <p>I remember the visceral intensity</p> <p>of the win and loss,</p> <p>and the way that worth was constructed from finishing points.</p> <p>I am far too familiar with the bitter sting</p> <p>of other names circled.</p> <p> </p> <p>I think that the systemic is far more important</p> <p>than the magnitude.</p> <p>Politics make me sick.</p> <p>And I know that most of the fun with words,</p> <p>has nothing to do with limits,</p> <p>because it’s all ambiguous.</p> <p>And nothing fair.</p> <p> </p> <p>These days,</p> <p>I read Deleuze and Guattari,</p> <p>and wonder what it means when classrooms are madhouses.</p> <p>And all that remains is the</p> <p>affect.</p>
Kym Davis - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Leah Griffin - SPU
n/a
Leah Moore - Lower Columbia
Lilly Huynh - Pacific
n/a
Liz Kinnaman - MHCC
Lori Welch - Whitworth Univ
n/a
LynDel Simmons - Lane
n/a
Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Mykylie Myzak - SPU
n/a
Peter Norland - NCU
n/a
Ron Price - IDAHO
<p> </p> <p>Background: Did policy and LD in high school. Debated for Boise State. Have been the assistant coach for C of I for the past 8 yrs. Have been involved with this activity for the past 15 yrs or so.</p> <p>Please make your arguments logical and cohesive. Ok with speed, but if you are not organized or clear then your arguments may get “lost” somewhere and it’s up to you to “find” them again. Will vote on Topicality; include standards, voters, etc. Ok with critical arguments but make sure your advocacy doesn’t contradict itself. Make sure your links story is solid. A to B to C works, but A to B to Z is a no go. Have a plausible link/ impact story (not everything has to lead to or end in nuke war and extinction). Also not a huge fan of morally repugnant arguments (i.e. all gays will psychologically damage their children when raising them) so don’t make them. Hmmm, so basically I will vote on the most convincing and logical arguments you present in the round so make smart choices and arguments, have fun and we’ll see what happens on the flow.</p>
Ryan Rhoades - MHCC
Sallie Fisher - CBC
n/a
Sam Robison - NCU
n/a
Shannon Scott - SPU
n/a