Judge Philosophies
Alley Agee - Utah
<p>General overview: I consider myself a very open judge. I do not care what you run, as long as you do it well and justify it. I vote for the team that gives me the easiest out without or with minimal intervention. The only position I will not vote for out of principle is the argument that I personally have to affirm with my ballot that debate is meaningless. Arguments that ask me to personally affirm some philosophical position with my ballot also do not sit well with me. I think these types of positions do violence to the critic (or have no solvency, probably this one). So, keep my name or the phrase “the judge” out of your advocacy and solvency and you should be fine. Additionally, I usually prefer topical affs, though what counts as topical for me is pretty broad—make some link arguments or impacts specific to the resolution and you’re probably topical. This is because I think part of the unique education that you get from parli debate comes from changing topics. Even if you want to talk about your critical aff, considering the topic specific implications, link stories, or just general ways your critical position relates to the topic gives you a new way to think about that critical aff and probably does more for your education. This being said, I certainly have no problem voting up non-topical affs, and I’ve done it plenty of times. But I’m going to be swayed by theory with a good education voter a little more easily than other critics. Finally, the part that everyone says in every philosophy—be courteous, acknowledge your privilege or position of power and don’t exert it, respect your competitors and the arguments they make, and be respectful of me. If you don’t do these things I can assure you your speakers points will reflect it.</p> <p>If you want to know more specifics, you can keep reading.</p> <p>Experience: I competed in NPDA all four years of undergrad with appearances at two NPTE tournaments. This is my third year coaching college parli, and my second year at the University of Utah.</p> <p>Critical arguments and K’s: Run them. I love a good K debate. However, I do find them harder to judge if they get messy. This usually happens when the links are not clear, the team does not understand their lit, or the alt and alt solvency aren’t clearly explained. This becomes particularly problematic when both teams run critical positions. I will like you and your K more if you have topic specific links or implications. See my comment above about non-topical K affs. This season, I’m becoming increasingly more frustrated with sloppy alternatives that do not solve or make sufficient arguments about solvency, so you should take time on your alt and alt solvency in prep time. Framework/methodology always come first for me in K debates, whether its K on K or otherwise. Spend time telling me why your framework and methodology is best in comparison to the other team’s framework/methodologies. Additionally, don’t forget to deal with the links page.</p> <p> **This doesn’t mean that you have to run critical positions in front of me. I actually really dig a good straight up debate, increasingly more so because I rarely get to see them. I don’t think teams use the DA/CP strat as often as they should.**</p> <p> Theory/T: Also fine. I do not believe that in-round abuse has to have occurred to vote on T, mostly because I’m not really sure what in round abuse vs. potential abuse actually means (though you can certainly make arguments about that). I believe that T is a position just like any other position. If you win that sheet of paper and you tell me why that sheet of paper means you win the whole round, then I will vote for you. This goes for all theory positions. In general I think if you’re going to win T or any other theory position in front of me then you need to collapse down to just that position. If your theory position is really a priori, then you don’t need anything else to win the debate. Usually, I think you should only run theory to get you something in the round, i.e. to protect your links. (But just because they no link your DA doesn’t mean you automatically win T).</p> <p> Speaker points: I give speaker points ranging from 26-28 points. My average this semester has been around a 27.5. I determine speaker points based on the arguments you make and strategy. A killer MO collapse will get you a 29/30. An LOR that doesn’t stick with her MOs collapse will lose points. If you are mean or rude I have no problem giving you 0 points. Seriously, I’ve done more times than I can count.</p> <p> General Practice: Be smart and make good arguments. Tell me why you should win the debate. <strong>I like it when my RFD is literally a quotation from one of the rebuttals.</strong> I’ve bolded this because too often debaters forget to contextualize the round in the rebuttals for me. I think the constructive speeches are you just laying the groundwork for you to make your actual argument in the rebuttal. Clear voters are key. Finally, debates should start smaller than where they began. </p>
Andrea Carlile - SDSU
n/a
Angelica Grigsby - Concordia
April Griffin - Cerritos College
Ben Mann - Utah
<p>I am currently the Director of Debate at the University of Utah. This is my eighth year involved in college parli debate: I competed from 2010-14 on the national circuit at Lewis & Clark College, coached and judged parli extensively for two years at the University of the Pacific, and am now in my second year as a coach at Utah.</p> <p> </p> <p>I take my role as a critic very seriously. My goal is to limit judge intervention and allow you to debate the way you would like to debate. I am comfortable with a variety of argument types, including Ks, theory, CPs, critical affs, and so forth. I evaluate debates based on 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 debate.</p> <p> </p> <p>In front of me, success can best be achieved through resolving areas of tension in rebuttals (such as explaining why your uniqueness or link warrants should be preferred) along with using impact calculus (such as timeframe/magnitude/probability) to highlight the most important arguments. I appreciate collapse (external and internal) in the block and the PMR, as it typically makes for cleaner and more substantive debates. I also appreciate clear, specific warrants and smart offense. I will assign an “average” speaker point total of 27.5, and move up or down from there. I am not okay with sexism, racism, and other forms of oppression that occur within the debate round, nor am I okay with rudeness or personal attacks.</p> <p> </p> <p>Last season, I judged a fair number of critical debates. I am not sure if this is a product of parli’s increasingly critical turn, assumptions about my argument preferences, or both, but I enjoy either policy or critical debate. I have a somewhat decent background in critical theory (my primary research is in critical/rhetorical approaches to disability and gender) but do not take this as an invitation for me to fill in arguments for you. I will also do my best to evaluate any framework/theory arguments against critical debate fairly.</p> <p> </p> <p>One final note: the one and only time in which I did not feel like I could vote for an argument comfortably due to my own background came from a round last season in which a team suggested that death would “solve” disability issues. You can d-dev, but know that my own background means I am likely uncomfortable voting on arguments that specifically argue for death to disabled populations. It’s too close to home.</p> <p> </p> <p>Any other questions? Feel free to ask me at benwmann@gmail.com</p>
Bria Woodyard - ASU
n/a
Brian Hy - CSULA
Carl Trigilio - PCC
n/a
Daniel Noriega - CSULA
n/a
Daniel Tomicic - Rio
David Hale - ELAC
n/a
Dr. Kashif Powell - ELAC
n/a
Emily Crosby - Concordia
Grant Tovmasian - Rio
<p>The most important criteria for me is impartiality. I will avoid interceding on any one's behalf up to a point. Please remember that although I approach the round as impartial as I can, that does not negate the truth, I still am aware which country I live in and who is the president and killing puppies is wrong (also kicking them, and just violence in general, I frown upon) I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any student. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attack and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments. I prefer good on case argumentation over near useless procedural that are simply run in order to avoid on case thorough analysis. As such I am a believer that presentation and sound argumentation is critical towards establishing one's position. DA vs Advantages. CP vs Plan are all sound strategies and I hope students will use them. I firmly believe that speed kills, as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round. Critics, i.e. K are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important than whatever else is happening and is directly connected to either the actions of the other team or resolution in it of itself. As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything. For example, if you truly believe that the other team is promoting cultural genocide, seriously do not speak to me about agricultural benefits or disadvantages of the plan first, because then I think you cheapen both the critique and your whole line of argumentation. If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. If you are running a CP please make sure to explain its status, especially if you are to claim dispositional (EXPLAIN) Please call Points of Order and 95% of the time I will respond with (point well taken, point not well taken) That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete. Example: I will not do your work for you, no link no argument, no impact no argument, no warrant NO ARGUMENT PERIOD. I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates. Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)</p>
Heather Kelley - Cerritos College
Jay Arntson - PCC
n/a
Jeff Valdivieso - PCC
n/a
Johnny Kelly - PCC
n/a
Lane Schwager - CSULA
n/a
Michael Middleton - Utah
<p>Michael Middleton</p> <p>Judging Philosophy</p> <p><strong>A Quotation:</strong></p> <p>“The present situation is highly discouraging” –Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari</p> <p><strong>A Haiku:</strong></p> <p>Debate is Awesome</p> <p>Judging Makes Me Cry Softly</p> <p>Do I weep in vain?</p> <p><strong>Some things to consider (when debating in front of me):</strong></p> <p>10. I DO NOT support speed as a tool of exclusion</p> <p>9. I DO NOT like deciding for myself what is the most important thing in the round or how to evaluate the competing arguments; You should do this for me. You will like it less if you don’t. On the other hand, I will like it more.</p> <p>8. I DO like well-structured debates. I also like interesting structures.</p> <p>7. I DO like creative interpretations; I DO NOT like when you don’t explain/provide a rationale for why I your interpretation makes for a productive/rewarding/interesting/good debate.</p> <p>6. I DO NOT like nor understand potential abuse arguments; I DO like and reward teams that demonstrate compellingly that the quality of the debate has been compromised by an interpretive choice made by the other team.</p> <p>5. I DO NOT vote for any given argument or against any given type of argument. Run whatever strategy you like; Be clear about your strategy.</p> <p>4. I am a participant in the round also. While I make my best effort to vote on who is winning and losing the debate based on the arguments, I use speaker points to evaluate and highlight both excellent and poor behaviors, i.e. if you create a hostile environment, you get massively low speaker points.</p> <p>3. Jargon does not equal argument. Nor does it equal a good time.</p> <p>2. Cross-application does not equal new argument. It doesn’t really equal anything.</p> <p>1. Debate is not life. Losing a ballot will not steal your humanity. I tend to prefer rounds that demonstrate everyone in the room knows this.</p> <p>0. Have Fun</p>
Nicklas Bernardo - Rio
Noelle Anderson - SDSU
n/a
Paxton Attridge - ASU
n/a
Sarah Kwon - PCC
n/a
Victor Cornejo - PCC
n/a