2015 Western States Tournament
Gonzaga University - Feb 20-22 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Aaron Donaldson - CBC
n/a
Abigail Kruse - Gonzaga
n/a
Ali Cook - OSU
n/a
Beth Hewes - CSI
n/a
Brooke Adamson - NNU
n/a
Caitlyn Burford - NAU
<p>Burford, Caitlyn (Northern Arizona University)</p> <p>Background: This is my eigth year judging and coaching debate, and I spent four years competing in college. Please feel free to ask me specific questions before the round.</p> <p>Specific Inquiries 1. General Overview</p> <p>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!).</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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 if I must. 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. I don’t really care about how many questions you answer if any, but if you don’t then you are probably making yourself more vulnerable to arguments about shifts or the specificities of “normal means”. It’s your round! Do what you want!</p>
Carlos Tarin - Utah
<p>Broadly, I consider myself to be fairly straightforward in my approach to debate. I think the best debates happen when teams actually engage the issues invoked by the resolution, rather than getting bogged down in pointless meta-theoretical exercises. I am open to a variety of perspectives, but will generally default to a policy-making paradigm that evaluates net benefits unless I am given a reason to do otherwise. If you want to run more creative positions (critical or otherwise) I’m okay with that as long as I am given a rationale that substantively articulates the importance or worth of those arguments. Basically, don’t play games with the round for the sake of playing games; warrant your positions and give me a clear way of evaluating the claims you are making. </p> <p>I am okay with some speed, but generally don’t appreciate spreading (and, in all fairness, I probably won’t catch everything if you’re going crazy fast). I try to stick to the flow as much as possible, but if you arguments aren’t clearly labeled or are rushed, I’ll eventually give up trying to follow along. Tell me where to go on the flow and where I should be (cross)applying arguments if necessary. </p> <p>Things I generally don’t like: counterplans, topicality (unless there is demonstrable abuse happening in round), convoluted theory arguments (of the debate variety; I dig philosophical arguments), time sucks, rudeness.</p> <p>Your chances of winning my ballot will be greatly improved if you: clearly give me reasons why I should vote for you in rebuttals, weigh impacts, provide actual clash, win frameworks. </p> <p>Miscellaneous: I’m usually pretty nice with speaker points (just don’t be a jerk). Points of order are fine, but don’t go overboard.</p>
Carol Ann Harrington - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Cody Morgan - NNU
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>
Gail Brock - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Jacob Witt - NU
n/a
Jason Jordan - Utah
<p>*I have fairly significant hearing loss. This is almost never a problem when judging debates. This also doesn't mean you should yell at me during your speech, that won't help. If I can't understand the words you're saying, I will give a clear verbal prompt to let you know what you need to change for me to understand you (ex: 'clear,' 'louder,' 'slow down,' or 'hey aff stop talking so loud so that I can hear the MO please'). If I don't prompt you to the contrary, I can understand the words you're saying just fine. <br /> <br /> *make arguments, tell me how to evaluate these arguments, and compare these arguments to the other teams arguments and methods of evaluating arguments. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to place me within. I have very few, if any, normative beliefs about what debate should look like and/or ‘be.’ </p> <p> </p> <p>*Unless I am told to do otherwise, on all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments.</p>
Jenn Ingram - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Kevin P. Eubanks - UGF
n/a
Kori Thornburg - CBC
n/a
Leah Moore - Lower Columbia
Letha Quinn - NNU
n/a
Loretta Rowley - Utah
<p>I am primarily an individual events coach. I did not compete in, nor do I coach debate. I have taught and continue to teach argumentation courses and thus, I prefer slower delivery and well-developed arguments. Essentially, I am not well-versed in debate jargon so don't assume that I will have the exact understanding of your version of debate theory. That said, I can follow and assess any debate as long as the competitors explain themselves fully and weigh their arguments. </p>
Mark Porrovecchio - OSU
n/a
Maurianna Shelbourn - Utah
<p>I do not have any competitive debate experience but I do come from a speech and communication background. I enjoy critical theory and performance and am very open to their use in rounds. Primarily I am looking for teams’ strength and quality of argumentation. I want to see you take the time to warrant your claims.</p> <p> </p> <p>It is unlikely for me to vote on procedurals unless there is very clearly demonstrated abuse. I tend to get frustrated when time is spent here unnecessarily.</p> <p> </p> <p>In rebuttals I am looking for you to address the impact calculus and provide arguments that explain why one impact should outweigh another.</p> <p> </p> <p>I believe debate should be accessible. This means I am not a fan of excessive speed and like to hear clear, articulate delivery. While I am learning the structure and terminology of debate I also appreciate minimal use of jargon. I will take notes but I do not consider myself to be a flow critic.</p>
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>
Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Pam Barker - Carroll
n/a
Peter Casimir - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Rob Layne - Utah
<p> </p> <p>As an overview, I have been competing in and judging debate rounds since 1993. I competed in policy debate, was in deep outrounds at NPDA, and was competitive in NFA-LD. I have been a primary prep coach for all of the teams that I have directed or assisted with including Willamette University (before they cut their NPDA program), Texas Tech University, and the University of Utah. With over 20 years of experience in debate, I have watched debate formats change, transition, replicate, and reform. I’d like to think that I am a critic of argument, where the rules of the game matter. That doesn’t mean that appeals to authority are sufficient, but feel free to assess these conceptions of debate as part of your audience analysis.</p> <p> </p> <p>Some general notes:</p> <p>(As a competitor, I always hated reading a book for a judge philosophy so here are the bulletpoints).</p> <p> </p> <ol> <li>Compare warrants between contrasting arguments.</li> <li>Compare impacts using words like “irreversibility,” “magnitude,” “timeframe,” “severity,” and “probability.”</li> <li>Use warrants in all of your arguments. This means grounding arguments in specific examples. </li> <li>Make sure your permutations contain a text and an explanation as to what I do with the permutation. My default with permutations is that they are simply tests of competition. I don’t typically believe that permutations get you out of a disad (shielding the links) or that you capture a counterplan win you when the perm. If you have a different conception, make an argument to convince me how your permutation should work.</li> <li>Use internal and external structure like Subpoint A 1. a. i. instead of saying “next” or stringing arguments together without breaks. I try to keep a careful flow, help me do that.</li> <li>Be cordial to one another. There’s no need to be mean or spikey. I get that it’s an event that pits a team against another and debate can feel personal…but there’s no need to spout hate.</li> <li>I take a careful flow…if you’re unclear or not giving me enough pen time don’t be upset when I ask you to clear up or slow down a touch. Let me have time to flip the page.</li> <li>Allow me to choose a winner at the end of the round. I don’t award double wins or double losses.</li> <li>Have voters and standards attached to procedural arguments if you want me to take them seriously. “We meets” and counter-interpretation extensions are your friends.</li> <li>I will protect you from new arguments in the rebuttals. There’s little need to call superfluous Points of Order. If you call them, I’ll take it under consideration.</li> <li>Have an alternative attached to your criticism or at least explain why you don’t need one.</li> <li>Be on time to the round. Already have used to the restroom, gotten your water, found your room, etc. I will follow the tournament instructions on lateness, regardless of prelim or outround. Please don't come to the round and then go to the bathroom, please relieve yourself before prep begins or during prep. </li> <li> Compare standards if there are competing interpretations present.</li> <li>Connect the dots between different arguments to illustrate how those arguments interact.</li> <li>Kick arguments in the opp block to go deeper on selected arguments. Going for everything tends to mean that you’re going for nothing.</li> <li>Know the difference between offensive and defensive arguments. I still think arguments can be terminally defensive as long as it’s explained.</li> <li>Avoid extending answers through ink. Answer opposing arguments before making key extensions.</li> <li>Extend arguments/case via the member speeches to have access to them in the rebuttals.</li> <li>Not everything can be a turn. Please avoid making everything a turn.</li> <li>I do think that you can cross-apply arguments from other sheets of paper in the rebuttal. It’s not like paper is sacrosanct. If the argument was made in a prior speech, then it’s fair game.</li> <li>Enjoy the debate round. I’m not going to force fun on you, but not everything has to be so serious.</li> </ol> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>Speaker points:</p> <p>I typically give speaker points from 25-30. My average is a 27. 30’s from me are rare, but they are occasionally given. You likely won’t see more than one 30 from me at an invitational tournament. At NPTE, I’ve typically given out 3-4 30’s. I expect that most debaters at the NPTE will likely be in the 27-29 range.</p> <p> </p> <p>Critical Arguments:</p> <p> </p> <p>I tend to enjoy critical arguments as long as they’re well explained. Framework your argument (Role of the ballot/judge and/or interpretation about what you get access to) and provide an alternative (tell me what the world post-alt looks like and have solvency grounded in examples). Affirmatives can run critical arguments. If you’re running arguments that are incongruent with other arguments, you should likely have an explained justification for doing so.</p> <p> </p> <p>Performance based arguments:</p> <p>Please don’t ask me to sit in a circle…have a discussion…rip up my ballot…get naked…or do anything that most folks would find mildly inappropriate. I think that debate is a performance. Some performances are better than others. Some performances are justified better than others. If you prefer a framework of a certain type of performance, make sure your framework is well articulated and warranted.</p> <p> </p> <p>Procedurals:</p> <p> </p> <p>I require an interpretation, a violation, and a voter. You should probably have standards for why your interpretation is better than other interpretations. I don’t require competing interpretations, but it can be a useful tool. I don’t require in-round abuse, though it will help to prove why your interpretation is preferable. I have a low threshold on procedurals. Folks do wanky stuff…explain why your version of debate is preferable and why that means I should vote for you. I am skeptical of MG theory arguments and will hold them to a higher standard than I would LOC theory.</p> <p> </p> <p>Counterplans</p> <p>I think folks should tell me why they get access to their counterplan in the LOC. I might have a very different conception of a PIC than you do (for example, PIC’s are plan inclusive counterplans, which mean they include the entirety of the text of the plan). I think opp’s should identify a CP’s status to avoid procedural args like conditionality. Permutations should be explained. I want to know how you think they function in the round. My default status for a won permutation is that I just stop looking at the CP. If you have a different interpretation as to what I should do with a permutation, you should articulate my options.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>