Judge Philosophies
Andy Christensen - Idaho State
n/a
Andy Christensen - Idaho State
n/a
Austin Miller - NAU
Ben Mann - Utah
They/them or he/him (gender non-binary).
tl;dr for prep time: I evaluate comparative access to comparative impacts. In other words, I will vote for the team that demonstrates to me that they best access the most important impacts in the round. Feel free to read whatever arguments you feel most comfortable with in front of me, including advantages/disadvantages, counterplans, theory, Ks, performance-centered arguments, or any other arrangement inclusive or outside of these categories. I can efficiently flow fast debates, but will say SLOW¢ if youre speaking too quickly (generally not an issue) or CLEAR¢ if I cannot understand your words, regardless of your rate of delivery. I take my role as a critic very seriously and my goal in RFDs is to clearly explain how I reached my decision and offer suggestions in the role of an educator. I will disclose speaker points after my RFD if you ask me to, because I want to be held accountable for why I assign the speaker points that I do. If you have additional questions, feel free to contact me at benwmann@gmail.com
Everything below is more extensive and substantially less important.
---
Experience: this is my ninth year involved in NPDA debate (fifth year out of competing) and tenth year involved in forensics. I competed in NPDA debate on the national circuit for four years at Lewis & Clark College, coached NPDA for two years at University of the Pacific where I received my Masters degree in Communication, and am currently in my third year coaching NPDA at the University of Utah, where I am a primary NPDA coach and a Ph.D. student in Communication.
Things I like:
1. Strategic decision-making and collapse in the back half of debates.
2. Clear impact and warrant comparison in rebuttals.
3. Specific, well-developed link arguments.
Things I dont like:
1. Blips in constructive speeches that suddenly metamorphize into well-developed arguments in rebuttals.
2. Using speed and esoteric postmodern jargon for the purposes of excluding other teams.
3. Treating other teams/competitors poorly, especiallyif said competitors come from community/junior college programs and/or programs with limited resources.
Other notes:
1. My average speaker points are 27.5, and will go up or down from there.
2. Parli is not a textual event. I do not want copies of your advocacies. I dowant you to slow and/or repeat your advocacies or theory interps.
3. Call points of order if theyre close. Ill protect against blatantly new arguments.
4. MG theory is more in vogue these days, and Im fine with these arguments. I am, however, sympathetic to neg arguments telling me I should evaluate MG theory differently than other theory arguments because the block is the only chance to respond.
5. I prefer advocacy-based debates on policy resolutions, but I will listen to debaters/programs who want to engage in trichot-based rounds. If you engage in those debates, I would prefer that you give some sort of stable advocacy statement.
6. I think conditional Ks are often poorly executed, especially on the framework level. I am not opposed to you reading these arguments, but I am persuaded, for example, by two white people kicking a conditional Wilderson K probably being a link to anti-blackness.
7. My research areas pertain to disability rhetoric and disabilitys relationship to gender identity/expression. I do not see this being expressly relevant to evaluating debates, but I will call out ableism and disrespect for gender identity/expression.
8. Im autistic. I have next-to-no awareness of my affect, including my facial expressions, and I will probably give you little-to-no eye contact. Nothing personal.
9. I really, really do not care about the impact of my decisions on the community¢ for many reasons, in part because it would compromise my integrity as a critic, and in part because there is no debate community (Jordan & Stewart, 2017).
Bob Becker - NWC
As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round. I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so. To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues. Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important. All of that said, I am not an information processor. I am a human being and so are you. If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance.
When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose. Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I dont require competing interpretations.
I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. Im fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. We dont like the resolution doesnt cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some contradictory arguments good answers.
Performance based argument need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you dont tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round.
As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says one million deaths and the other says dehume, but doesnt explain why dehume is worse than deaths, Ill vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then Ill vote for dehume. I think Im telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.
I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast. I will tell you if I can't understand you. Also, one new trend I find frustrating in LD is tag lines that are multiple sentences long. Your tag line is a claim, but make it a brief one. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. Thats why Im here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.
Caitlyn Burford - NAU
Burford, Caitlyn (Northern Arizona University)
She/her are my pronouns.
Background:
This is my ninth year judging and coaching debate, and I spent four years competing in college. Please feel free to ask me specific questions before the round.
Specific Inquiries
1. General Overview
I think debate is a unique competitive forum to discuss issues within our rhetoric about the state, power, race, gender, etc. in a space that allows us to rethink and critically assess topics. This can come through a net benefit analysis of a proposed government plan, through a micro political action or statement, through a critique, or through some other newfangled performance you come up with. In that sense, I think debate is a rhetorical act that can be used creatively and effectively. Running a policy case about passing a piece of legislation has just as many implications about state power and authority as a critique of the state. The differences between the two types just have to do with what the debaters choose to discuss in each particular round. There are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. Thus, framework is imperative. I’ll get there shortly. You can run whatever you want as long as a) you have a theoretical justification for running the position, and b) you realize that it is still a competitive debate round so I need a reason to vote for something at some point. (a.k.a Give me a framework with your poetry!).
2. Framework
This often ends up as the most important part of a lot of debates. If both teams are running with net benefits, great, but I still think there is area to weigh those arguments differently based on timeframe, magnitude, structural weight, etc. This kind of framework can make your rebuttal a breeze. In a debate that goes beyond a net benefits paradigm, your framework is key to how I interpret different impacts in the round. Choose your frameworks strategically and use them to your advantage. If the whole point of your framework is to ignore the case debate, then ignore the case debate. If the whole point of your framework is to leverage your case against the critique, then tell me what the rhetorical implications (different than impacts) are to your case.
3. Theory
It’s important to note that theory positions are impact debates, too. Procedural positions, topicalities, etc. are only important to the debate if you have impacts built into them. If a topicality is just about “fairness” or “abuse” without any articulation as to what that does, most of these debates become a “wash”. So, view your theory as a mini-debate, with a framework, argument, and impacts built into it.
4. Counterplan Debate
This is your game. I don’t think I have a concrete position as to how I feel about PICS, or intrinsicness, or textual/functional competition. That is for you to set up and decide in the debate. I have voted on PICS good, PICS bad, so on and so forth. That means that it all has to do with the context of the specific debate. Just make your arguments and warrant them well. Unless I am told otherwise, I will assume the CP is unconditional and my role as a judge it to vote for the best advocacy.
5. Round Evaluation
Again, framework is important. Procedurals, case debate, and critique debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality/procedurals, then the case. Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team. (Again, this is only absent any sort of weighing mechanism for any of the arguments.) If there is a topicality/procedural run without any voters, I won’t put them in for you and it will be weighed against the case. I will not weigh the case against the critique unless I am told how and why it can be weighed equally.
A concrete argument is always going to have a bit more weight than an abstract argument. A clear story with a calculated impact will probably outweigh an uncalculated potential impact. (i.e. “15,000 without food” vs. a “decrease in the quality of life”). But, if you calculate them out and do the work for me, awesome. If I have to weigh two vague abstract arguments against each other, i.e. loss of identity vs. loss of freedom, then I will probably revert to the more warranted link story.
6. Speed, Answering Questions, and Other General Performance Things
I’m fine with speed. Don’t use it as a tool to exclude your other competitors if they ask you to slow down, please do. It’s your round! Do what you want!
Carlos Tarin - UTEP
n/a
Collette Blumer - CSUF
n/a
Euni Kim - Utah
My debate background is in British Parliamentary, which means a couple things:
1. I dont like spreading, period.
2. I like when debaters debate the topic, which means Ts should only be for when the aff is non-topical, theorys a pretty hard no, and Ks should be at your own discretion.
3. You should be actually making arguments. Theres nothing persuasive or smart about fancy jargon and/or buzzwords.
In closing, a quote/reminder by someone smarter than either of us:
Be excellent to each other.¢ - Michel Foucault
Harry Schulte - EPCC
n/a
Jeannie Hunt - NWC
I want to be able to judge the round with very little intervention on my part. That means a couple of things. You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round. I dont care what that framework is, but I want one policymaking, critical, big picture, etc. That framework is what I will follow, so please dont set the round up as a stock round, and then ask me to look at the big picture at the end. More importantly, give me something to look at in the end. I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, and something tangible for me to vote on. Absent that, I have to intervene.
There are no specific arguments that I prefer over another. I will vote on pretty much anything, and I am game for pretty much anything. I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions. If you run a k, you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about. However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out This is true of any theory-based argument you choose to run. I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important. If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I dont have to spend time flowing it.
Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective. I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K. Make sure the framework is very specific so I dont have to abandon objectivity all together.
Finally, make your own arguments. If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago. Prompting someone with a statement like, go to the DA is fine. Making an argument that is then repeated is not.
Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesnt mean you should have no style. You should be clear, structured, and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is a team). You can at least take your hat off and make some eye contact. Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument. Speed is not a problem if it is clear. PLEASE do not abuse flex time or add 20 minutes to an LD round through evidence exchange. This will make me grouchy and your points will suffer. You don't get to say flex will start when the other team has accomplished something or complied with a request - flex starts when the previous speech is over. Prep time doesn't stop only to take another 2 minutes to process evidence. Time limits exist for a reason.
Because I dont want to intervene, I dont appreciate points of order. You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way. Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldnt vote on new arguments. I wont. If you feel particularly abused in the round, and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill-advised.
Jeremy Hutchins - TxState
I’ve been involved in competitive forensics in one way or another for 30 years. I competed primarily in pre-merger CEDA and have coached CEDA/NDT, NPDA, IPDA, BP, and NFA LD at various points during that time.
I don’t think I’m absolutely ideologically opposed to any particular type or form of argument.
I’m probably a bit behind the times in terms of theory.
Topicality: I think the topic matters. I’m more open to discussions about how it matters or what role it plays in the debate but, in my opinion, the proposition is a critical stasis point that encourages argumentative clash. I don’t have a good answer for what my threshold on topicality is. I think it’s a viable check for the negative. However, if the affirmative interpretation is reasonable, I probably wouldn’t spend much time on T. If you don’t think the affirmative interpretation is reasonable, you should spend time explaining and comparing implications of the competing interpretations.
Critical Arguments: Link work is critical. I’m more flexible in terms of alternatives. Explanation is important. Don’t assume that I’m familiar with the esoteric literature base that your argument is grounded in. I’m a fan of performative consistency.
Counterplans: The opp should invest time in explaining and applying standards for competition. The gov should do the same with permutations and relevant theory. Because participants often take those theory debates for granted and make assumptions about what is known, agreed upon, and understood, I tend to prefer substantive debates on counterplans.
I also have some stylistic preferences.
I like judging debates when I can keep up and when I feel like I’m in the loop. I haven’t been in a lot of fast or highly technical debates in a while. Plus, I never had the best flow. So, you’ll probably want to slow down and give me pen time.
I enjoy debates when there is a clear and well justified framework for how arguments interact with each other and, as a result, should be evaluated. My default is to put procedural questions first, critical questions second, and policy questions third. The lines between those are sometimes blurry. Feel free to make arguments that would rearrange that hierarchy or, assuming you have an alternative, that suggest those categories are outdated, arbitrary, exclusionary, etc.
I like listening to debaters who see the big picture and are able to figure out which arguments matter and which ones don’t. Make smart choices. World building and comparison is appreciated.
I don’t have fun judging when arguments are underdeveloped or lack explanation, when you assume that I’m going to do work for you, when you assume that we’re all on the same page about some theoretical precept, when you make ten blippy claims when two or three well developed arguments will do, when you throw everything at the wall and expect me to figure out what sticks, when you continue to talk about an argument even though I’ve turned that page over and haven’t been flowing for a minute.
I don’t like watching debates where participants are smug, rude, overly aggressive, dismissive, mean, etc.
Jeremy Hutchins - TxState
I’ve been involved in competitive forensics in one way or another for 30 years. I competed primarily in pre-merger CEDA and have coached CEDA/NDT, NPDA, IPDA, BP, and NFA LD at various points during that time.
I don’t think I’m absolutely ideologically opposed to any particular type or form of argument.
I’m probably a bit behind the times in terms of theory.
Topicality: I think the topic matters. I’m more open to discussions about how it matters or what role it plays in the debate but, in my opinion, the proposition is a critical stasis point that encourages argumentative clash. I don’t have a good answer for what my threshold on topicality is. I think it’s a viable check for the negative. However, if the affirmative interpretation is reasonable, I probably wouldn’t spend much time on T. If you don’t think the affirmative interpretation is reasonable, you should spend time explaining and comparing implications of the competing interpretations.
Critical Arguments: Link work is critical. I’m more flexible in terms of alternatives. Explanation is important. Don’t assume that I’m familiar with the esoteric literature base that your argument is grounded in. I’m a fan of performative consistency.
Counterplans: The opp should invest time in explaining and applying standards for competition. The gov should do the same with permutations and relevant theory. Because participants often take those theory debates for granted and make assumptions about what is known, agreed upon, and understood, I tend to prefer substantive debates on counterplans.
I also have some stylistic preferences.
I like judging debates when I can keep up and when I feel like I’m in the loop. I haven’t been in a lot of fast or highly technical debates in a while. Plus, I never had the best flow. So, you’ll probably want to slow down and give me pen time.
I enjoy debates when there is a clear and well justified framework for how arguments interact with each other and, as a result, should be evaluated. My default is to put procedural questions first, critical questions second, and policy questions third. The lines between those are sometimes blurry. Feel free to make arguments that would rearrange that hierarchy or, assuming you have an alternative, that suggest those categories are outdated, arbitrary, exclusionary, etc.
I like listening to debaters who see the big picture and are able to figure out which arguments matter and which ones don’t. Make smart choices. World building and comparison is appreciated.
I don’t have fun judging when arguments are underdeveloped or lack explanation, when you assume that I’m going to do work for you, when you assume that we’re all on the same page about some theoretical precept, when you make ten blippy claims when two or three well developed arguments will do, when you throw everything at the wall and expect me to figure out what sticks, when you continue to talk about an argument even though I’ve turned that page over and haven’t been flowing for a minute.
I don’t like watching debates where participants are smug, rude, overly aggressive, dismissive, mean, etc.
Joe Sindicich - CSUF
n/a
Kourtney Maison - Utah
Sarah Partlow Lefevre - Idaho State
n/a
Sonali Bhat - Brooklyn College
I am a novice judge for IE Events and look to see how well the speaker has fulfilled all that was expected. I look at the clarity with which the speaker is able to demonstrate ideas and also the examples that speakers use to support their points (for specific IE events such as limited-prep). I try to see gauge how nuanced the speech is and how it aims to engage with the audience.