Judge Philosophies
Aine Foran - Seattle Debate
n/a
Alissa Neuman - Seattle Debate
n/a
Angie Tinker - PacificLutheran
n/a
Antony Penders - Bellevue
<p>Very short as I am on a phone. I debated in the 80s, preference is policy, though I can hang with the critical stuff. I try to have no preconceived notions, and my flowing is getting better. (I was out of debate for many years before coaching IPDA last year). Not sure what you can do with that; I don't have an objection to projects, or policy. I debated for GU and worked for Bill Shanahan. So, do whatever you want, I will be okay with it.</p> <p>I object not to conditional arguments or to argumentation regarding conditionality. I have no objection to topical CPs nor to untopical affs. OTOH, I am one of the few that will say, I like topicality, I like actual definitions though and comparisons of definitions.</p> <p>I vote on straight politics disads and firing the friendship cannon. Have fun. </p> <p>Seriously.</p> <p>Look, this not always a particularly friendly place to play, though it is a great community. If you have it in you to even get to a round, you are amazing. </p> <p>So, try not to worry about me that much, I will try not to intervene, I'll tell you the arguments I like and didn't like. I hope I make sense.</p> <p>Thanks for reading.</p> <p> </p>
Ben Simila - NU
n/a
David Airne - U of M
<p>4 years HS Policy; NDT 3 years and 1 year LD in college</p> <p>Coached HS Policy, HS LD, HS PF NDT/CEDA, LD, IPDA and Parli for +10 years. </p> <p>Upadated: January 2018 and also on Tabroom.com</p> <p>The quick overview to my judging is really simple. I judge things on what happens in the context of the round and it is up to those in the round to write that ballot for me. If you do not write it for me then you leave it up to me and I do not really want to intervene in the round, so write the ballot for me. So use the rebuttals to write my ballot. Asking me what arguments I like is silly, run what you want and if you are winning it then I vote on it. If you run things I happen to not like that just means you might have a higher threshold needed to win it, but if you are winning it then I vote for it. I typically default into a policy maker, but I am happy to vote wherever the round takes me. Finally, I will openly admit I do not give the highest of speaker points when compared to others (26-28 is pretty typical) but good debate warrants higher speaks when it occurs. Any specific issues you want to know about continue reading or just ask me since I am happy to tell you.</p> <p><strong>However,</strong> note I teach, research, and publish in political communication (campaigning) and gender (masculinties, in particular). Those issues are difficult, at times, for me to step away from and while you are not debating against me as the juege, it can make it more difficult for me to evaluate the argument because it those issues are ingrained in my head and I see them in different ways that you may be arguing those issues (especially in Parli since we do not have access to evidence, but in evidence based forms that is different). That does not mean that you cannot run those certain positions, but they get a differnet listen than other arguments due to my work in the area.</p> <p>Framework: If you have a framework be sure you explain how it functions for me in the round. Remember, I tend to default to policy maker so without a clear explanation of it I will use that lens in the framework. So you have to tell me how the AFF/NEG views compete with each other.</p> <p>Critical Stuff: Never have had any problem with it other than I do not like them run poorly and I am not a fan of running them in the 1NC with other contradictory positions so that you can pick which arguments are your winners. It does need to be well developed and explained, especially in forms of debate where there is no evidence that I get to read after the round. Otherwise, feel free to run whatever critical arguments you want but be sure you explain how it compares to the AFF or NEG so I see how it operates in the world. Doing those things make critical arguments always great to hear.</p> <p>Traditional Policy Arguments: All are fair game. Be sure that you give me some way to evaluate the impact and show me how it relates to the AFF/NEG. However things like "RVI", or "T is a voter for fairness and education" do need some form of explanation. Your unsubstantiated claims are not going to work so well against one that is supported and explained.</p> <p>Parli specific notes--Points of order: You are welcome to call them, but just know that they are all under consideration and that is how I will answer to all of them. I tend to feel that me ruling on them has to potential to provide some unfair advantage for the team and it feels like a form of intervention since now you know how I "feel" about an argument so I just default to the under consideration answer to avoid that perception/advantage one side might get from the argument.</p> <p>Any specific questions you have please feel free to ask and I am more than happy to answer.</p>
Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell
<p> </p> <p>General information:</p> <p>I did LD in High School, CEDA in College and now coach NPDA. I have been coaching for 8 years and have been involved in the activity for many more. I don't keep track of the specific number of rounds I have judged this year. More than 40. I am open to a variety of forms of debate. Each round should take on its own form. Any form or strategy is fine as long as everyone is the room can communicate. I attempt to bring as little to the debate as possible although no judge can be totally tabla rosa.<br /> Arguments matter to me more than style. </p> <p>I judge in a clear order. Kritik (if they are in the round) then procedurals (again, if they are present in the round) then case (government must prove that it is worth attempting plan) then weighing advantages against disadvantages. <br /> Specific information:<br /> <br /> Topicality: I appreciate strategic interpretations of resolutions and will give a fair amount of room for the government to interpret the resolution. They key is that everyone has some ground and some ability to debate. I will also give a fair amount of room for novices to work on format and learn the rules. </p> <p>Counterplans: CPs are great. Condo is ok if well argued. Disclose condo or no condo in the first speech. My strong feeling is that it should not be about tricking the other team but going after a higher level of argumentation. I am not a huge fan of PICs. I would be open to argumentation on the issue.</p> <p>Points of Order are fine.</p> <p>The kritik: Kritiks are great--aff or neg. Make a good, well-reasoned argument and have a reason for the K. Then make sure to engage. </p> <p>Theory: Great. Go nuts.<br /> <br /> Disads: Cool. Link them.</p>
Gillespie Gary - NU
n/a
Jennifer Kuehn - U of M
Sabrina Singh - U of M
Seth Buikema - NU
n/a