Judge Philosophies
Abby Zerull - Akron
n/a
Andrew Harvey - GCC
n/a
Ashley Hendricks - BGSU
n/a
Booker Mendes - JCU
n/a
Carson Kay - Ohio U
n/a
Charlie Rinehart - Oakland
n/a
Dan Higgins - Heidelberg
n/a
Emily Stolfer - JCU
n/a
Eric Mishne - Ohio U
n/a
Jeremy Himmelright - JCU
<p>This is my first year judging LD, but I come from policy debate and I am now acquainted to LD after judging two tournaments. I follow the rules of LD, such as, speed reading is possible in my rounds, but only if both sides can understand the reader. I will listen to Counter-plans, and K’s though for me to vote on a CP or K the threshold is pretty high. As a judge I want to know the role of the ballot, andi want to have a clear understanding of the Alternative, for the K. For the Cp, Net benefit should be paired with some case offence. I will give oral critiques if the tournament allows. I will vote on case defense if the story is well presented, but my threshold is pretty high, so turns and offence are a great thing to help the negative. I also have a high threshold for Topicality, but have, and will, vote for neg on T. I believe in Tabula Rasa, and try for as little judge intervention. I rarely call for cards, and typically vote for try or die with probability, timeframe, and impact calc. </p>
Katie Giglia - Akron
n/a
Kelsey Jones - Akron
n/a
Laura Seroka - BGSU
n/a
Noel Massarelli - JCU
<p>My debate history is policy debate for four years in high school and three years in college. I did college LD debate for one semester.</p> <p>Ultimately I think the debaters are in charge of their own destiny and I’ll vote wherever/however you tell me I should. I like offense. I am willing to vote on defense, but unhappy about it.</p> <p>Good line by line argumentation is always awesome. Good analysis will beat just reading a card (a good card PLUS good analysis is even better). I prefer not to read cards after a round unless there is contention on what that cards actually says.</p> <p>I tend to have an expressive face, not much I can do to stop that. Use this flaw to your advantage! For example if I look baffled, then your argument makes no sense to me. </p> <p>My policy experience makes me very comfortable with speed. That being said, PLEASE only speak quickly if your words are clear. Speak as fast as you are capable of, not as fast as you potentially could. Slow down during analytical argumentation, I find debaters speed through them and the details become muddled.</p> <p>My policy experience makes me very comfortable with speed. That being said, PLEASE only speak quickly if your words are clear. Speak as fast as you are capable of, not as fast as you potentially could. Slow down during analytical argumentation, I find debaters speed through them and the details become muddled.</p> <p>There are not many arguments that I do not like hearing. I like to think I would vote for anything. That being said, I’m a T hack. But don’t think that means I vote on T left and right. Don’t be afraid to run it if they aren’t topical, but poorly thought out T arguments won’t get you anywhere and might hurt your speaks. </p> <p>The Kritik is a special animal, in my opinion. If you run the K like the NDT/CEDA people do I think you’re doing it wrong. Keep your implications tied to policy and try to avoid flowery and long tags on evidence. </p> <p>Be kind to each other. Ultimately this whole thing is a game and we’re here to have fun. Feel free to ask me any questions you like both before and after the round. </p>
Paul Wesley Alday - BGSU
n/a
Rachel Pollock - Muskingum
n/a
Scott Crabill - Oakland
n/a
Susan Millsap - Otterbein
n/a
Ziling He - BGSU
n/a