Judge Philosophies
Andrew Hart - Crowder
Cera Taylor - ICC
n/a
Chris Outzen - Truman
<p>Judging Philosophy: NFA-LD I take the position that any form of public communication, including debate, is an audience-centric endeavor. The role of each debater is not to convince each other of their rightness in an isolated box at the front of the room; it is to convince the judge that they are the more right debater in that round. To that end, adaptation of strategy and delivery of argument necessitates consideration of both your opponent AND the experience of the judge. To that end, the following are some of my expectations and constraints as a judge. Judge’s General Debate Experience: I am the primary IE coach at my program and this is my 2nd year judging LD regularly. I have 1-semester college policy experience from and undergraduate class, so you can expect that I will understand most debate terminology but that my flowing and listening speed will not be up to par with those who have been in the debate community consistently for years. Speaker Speed: I believe that LD inhabits a unique position where both argumentation and strong speaking skills can be valued. However, I have noticed with the advent of digital files and including judges in sharing chains that these are treated as permission to spread, even in front of judges without years of spreading/flowing experince. At this point, we reduce debate to a comparison of evidence, not a speaking and oral argument exercise. Therefore, I am fine with a faster than conversational rate of speaking but I have no tolerance for true spreading you might see in NDT/CEDA or some parli formats. If you are looking for a brightline, consider the climax of a Poetry Interpretation. A little faster than that would be fine, but not much more. If agreed to by both debaters, I’m willing to alert you in-round if you are going too fast for my comprehension. Argument Explanation: You are welcome to run any arguments you wish in front of me in varying levels of complexity. However, remember the audience-centric principle. Your audience/judge may not be familiar with every aspect of this topic. Thus, your debate is not just debating; it is a teachable moment where you can give information about the topic in order to justify your win. This means you should be practicing breaking down complex concepts and providing strong links between the different pieces of your argument. Ethical Speaking: Engaging in unethical or obfuscating behavior, including misleading card cutting, deliberate spreading against judge preference, ignoring the audience as consumers of your message, or styling your arguments deliberately to be overly complex/dense, are not acceptable as a speaker. You are also expected to grant your opponent the same ground/courtesy as you expect. Example: If you cut off their answers in CX to move on to your next question, do not talk over/ignore them when they do the same thing in their CX. Topicality-I’m open to T arguments. Proven abuse is the best course to win a T argument, but I’m willing to consider potential abuse if the possible abuse is of a significant magnitude. Kritiks-I’m open to K debate. However, I expect K-affs to pass the test of Topicality; make sure you can explain how it links to the resolution. Additionally, do keep in mind that K debate is still a growing area of argumentation in the LD community, so please consider the principles laid out above with regard to Argument Explanation if you run a K on either side of the debate. To summarize, I'm open to all forms of argumentation on the premise that a) They are understandable and follow basic ethical guidelines; and b) They are justified by you as fitting in the round and resolution.</p>
Craig Hennigan - Truman
<p>Most of this is copy/pasted from my CEDA paradigm. A speaker point scale will be forthcoming when my adjustments to NFA-LD speaker point ranges get normalized.<br /> <br /> I debated high school policy in the early 90’s and then college policy in 1994. I debated NFA-LD from 1995-2000. I then coached at Utica High School and West Bloomfield High school in Michigan for their policy programs for an additional 8 years. I coached NDT/CEDA at Wayne State University for 5 years. This is my 1st year coaching at Truman State.<br /> <br /> I think of myself as adhering to my flow. Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat, and bonus if it’s a messy round and you are able to clean up my flow for me. Saying this, it’s a good idea for debaters to have clear tags on their cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence. If it blends together, I do not do well. <br /> <br /> With regard to specific arguments – I will vote seldom on theory arguments that do not show significant in-round abuse. Potential abuse is a non-starter for me, and time skew to me is a legit strategy unless it’s really really bad. My threshold for theory then is pretty high if you cannot show a decent abuse story. If it is dropped though, I will most likely drop the argument before the team. Reminders in round about my disposition toward theory is persuasive such as "You don't want to pull the trigger on condo bad," or "I know you don't care for theory, here is why this is a uniquely bad situation where I don't get X link and why that is critical to this debate."<br /> <br /> I don’t like round bullys. Especially ones that run a very obscure K philosophy and expect everyone in the room to know who/what it is saying. It is the duty of those that want to run the K to be a ‘good’ person who wants to enhance the education of all present, rather than roll eyes because the opponents may not be versed in every 19th century philosopher from the highlands of Luxumbourg. I have voted for a lot of K's though this season so it's not like I'm opposed to them. K alternatives should be able to be explained well in the cross-x. Repeating jargon of the card is a poor strategy, if you can explain what the world looks like post alternative, that's awesome.<br /> <br /> I will vote on T. I typically don't vote on T arguments about capital letters or periods. Again, there should be an in-round abuse story to garner a ballot for T. This naturally would reinforce the previous statement under theory that says potential abuse is a non-starter for me.<br /> <br /> Anything that you intend to win on, it's best to spend more than 15 seconds on it. I won't vote for a blip that isn't properly impacted. Rebuttals should consist of focusing on the arguments that will win you the round. It should reflect some heavy lifting and doing some real work on the part of the debater. It should not be a laundry list of answers without a comparative analysis of why one argument is clearly superior and a round winner.<br /> <br /> Performance: Give me a reason to vote. And make sure to adequately respond to your opponents arguments with the performance. I do not see that many of those rounds in the first place. If you win a framework debate, you're more than halfway there to a win. I think there are ways that framework can be run that isn't inherently exclusive to debate styles. However I think there are framework arguments that are exclusive too, which isn't very cool. The main issues that I voted on in those rounds were dropped arguments. If a team running an alternative style aff/K is able to show that the other team is dropping arguments then that is just as valid as the traditional style making claims that arguments are dropped and should be weighed accordingly. </p>
David Bailey - SBU
n/a
Derek Pritchett - UCMO
Jack Rogers - UCMO
Jeff May - UCMO
n/a
Jim Disrude - UW-Whitewater
n/a
John Markley - UCMO
Jordan Compton - SBU
n/a
Kiefer Storrer - UCMO
<p>I default Policy Maker. I enjoy realistic impacts but if y’all want to get into competing terminal impact scenarios I wouldn’t be opposed to that. If you’re going to run theory or kritical positions (with the latter not being just a linear DA) impact out how I’m affected in the round as well as the debate community as a whole. On topicality abuse wise I’ll accept a healthy medium between proven and hypothetical abuse, so if you don’t want to waste two minutes of your speech running a non-unique DA to prove abuse you can just give me the flow of the argument. On the other hand, reasonability is a totally valid counter standard most of the time for me, so while T is definitely a debate to be had, again, there is a reason I default policy maker.</p> <p> </p> <p>Speed is a non-issue, I can flow it fine, but I will say specifically for Parli (because there isn’t carded evidence) I’m not the biggest fan of levels that require double clutching and such…at that point I’m going to feel like you just canned out every word of your position and you’re reciting it instead of arguing it. Rapid delivery is cool, spreading is a legitimate strategy but I’d much rather have you go in depth on two DAs instead of running four or five that just aren’t as well articulated.</p> <p> </p> <p>Experience wise, I competed in Kansas high school policy for four years, did four years of Parli in college, took a year off to judge parli/ld/forensics, and am now assistant coaching at UCM. I believe that debate is a pedagogical activity and that the most important parts of it will be the parts that bleed out into the real world. We are future politicians, lawyers, scholars, rhetoricians, and professors; so ideally all of us involved with this activity will take realistic, impactful ideas and bring them to fruition in the real world. And for those of us that are current or future coaches, I believe we should be striving to instill those real world changes in the future.</p> <p> </p> <p>Have fun, be polite. </p>
Konye Ori - ICC
n/a
Kristen Stout - Crowder
<p>Head Coach Crowder College</p> <p>4 years debating and 3 years judging in NDT/CEDA</p> <p>I generally think debate is a communication activity. However, I think communication happens a lot of ways, potentially at different speeds. As long as you are coherent I can probably follow along. That being said, persuasion is still important and it is worth your time to emphasize important arguments/frame the debate in ways that make it easy for me to evaluate the debate.</p> <p>Topicality: You should defend some interpretation of the topic and prove why the resolution is a good idea. I also think topicality is a viable strategy against affirmatives if you can win that your interpretation is best. A debater need not prove “in round” abuse. They just have to win their interpretation is better for debate and creates a better, more fair topic. If all things are equal I probably default to reasonability because I was a 2a but things have to be really equal, which they rarely are. Reverse voting issues are not a thing. It shouldn’t be that hard to prove your aff is T. </p> <p>Kritiks and CP’s: I am fine with these arguments but the must be competitive and relevant. I have noticed in these debates that people like to throw around a lot of jargon. This is very frustrating to me. Please don’t assume that because you say a few debate words you have made substantive answers to the argument. This doesn’t mean you should avoid theory arguments if relevant. Just only say the things you need. I would be weary of assuming that I think those words mean the same thing as you. </p> <p>Less is more. Please don’t make arguments that are not related to your overall strategy just to make them. This is especially true of SPEC ARGUMENTS. Unless they are relevant to your overall strategy (competition for a CP) or the team has done something egregious I mostly find them a waste of time. I don’t understand trying to go for so many arguments in your last speeches that you are basically just asserting things. Less, well warranted and debated arguments, do much more for me than more arguments that are barely discussed.</p> <p>Don’t steal prep. If you are writing, looking at your papers, organizing, or really anything that is not speaking that’s prep. I SEE YOU PREP STEALERS. QUIT.</p> <p>It is your responsibility to provide a viewing computer or printed copy of the evidence to the other team. No exceptions. If they have a computer you need a flash drive. I have very little tolerance for not making debate accessible for people. I also think flashing your speech before you start is best practice but I understand there is some contention about this part of NFA LD.</p> <p>Disclosure is good. You should do it. </p>
Nick Pasternak - Cameron
n/a
Nikki Freeman - UCMO
Sarah Collins - Cameron
n/a