Judge Philosophies
Adam Blood - UNL
n/a
Alex Amos - UCMO
n/a
Amorette Hinderaker - TCU
n/a
Andrew Hart - Crowder
Brent Mitchell - UCMO
n/a
Chase McCool - Simpson College
<p>See http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/McCool%2C+Chase</p>
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>
Chris Harper - TCU
n/a
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
Deano Pape - Simpson College
Eric Morris - Missouri State
<p>I primarily judge in NDTCEDA (which I enjoy), but operate under different assumptions when judging in NFA-LD (if you want to read my NDT CEDA philosophy to understand how I think, it can be found here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_account_id=6383).</p> <p>I like NFA-LD because it is more novice-friendly, and most of the community prefers DA-case debate. I don't dislike CP's (or K's that refute the plan) outside of the novice division, but direct refutation is refreshing to me.</p> <p>I tend to prioritize probability (strength of link and internal link) when two impacts have a large magnitude. Uniqueness is rarely 100% either direction (although it can be). </p> <p>Explicitly non-topical affs or K's which refuse the topic entirely have a huge presumption to overcome. </p> <p>I have a presumption for NFA-LD rules, but you need to apply the specific rule. There is often room for counter-interpretations (including mine). Use them to help you refute arguments instead of making a bunch of independent voters. Thus, stock issues may be a place for debate more than "voting" issues - since negative often minimizes them instead of completely refuting them. </p> <p>I like that NFA-LD is not as fast as NDT (for access reasons), but the line of "how much is too much" is hard for me to judge. I want debaters to negotiate this before the round - the round should be no faster than the preferences of either participant (including others judges on a panel). </p> <p>Although I lean negative on many T questions relative to the NDT community, I'm not a hardliner on effects T. I think the literature base is relevant to how much is "too much" on extra T. I think T arguments should be grounded in clear definitions/interpretations, and I lean aff when there is uncertainty about the violation. I think spec arguments are best handled as CX questions, and generally have a strong presumption against theory voting issues - reject the argument not the <debater> is my leaning. </p> <p>If you share evidence via email chain (the best method), my gmail is ermocito. Given quick decision times, I prefer to get a copy of all speeches in real time (even if by flash drive) so I can double check things during prep time and CX. </p> <p>I will flow closely but often my RFD for the opponent could be reversed with better application of your argument to theirs, or better readings of their evidence to support your argument. Those things are excellent debating. </p>
Harold Hynick - MOVAL
n/a
Heather Walters - Missouri State
<p>In my ideal debate world, the affirmative would read a topical plan and defend the implementation of that plan. The negative would read disadvantages, counterplans, and case turns/defense. Topical research is probably my most favorite part of debate, so I would assume that I would have a tendency to reward teams that I see as participating in the same way I view the game.</p> <p>I get that my ideal debate world isn't everyone's ideal debate world. I also vote for teams that prefer to run Topicality, Kritiks, or other arguments as their "go to" strategies. Good critical debaters explain specific links to the affirmative case and spend some time discussing how their argument relates to the impacts that are being claimed by the affirmative team. I also think it helps a lot to have specific analogies or empirical examples to prove how your argument is true/has been true throughout history.</p> <p>I expect that paperless teams will be professional and efficient about flashing evidence to the other team. It annoys me when teams flash large amounts of evidence they don't intend to read or couldn't possibly read in a speech to the other team and expect them to wade through it. It should go without saying that I expect that you won't "steal" prep time in the process of flashing, or any other time really. It also annoys me when teams don't flow just because they are "viewing" the evidence in real time. </p> <p>I expect that teams will post their cites to the wiki as soon as the debate is over, and ideally before I give my decision and otherwise participate in information sharing efforts. </p> <p>I like to have a copy of speeches flashed to me as well so I can follow along with what everyone else sees in the debate and because I think it makes the decision making process go faster.</p> <p>The best way to get high speaker points from me is to be clear, be polite, participate fully in your cross-examinations and use them to your advantage to point out flaws in your opponents’ arguments, try hard, and use appropriate humor. </p> <p>Ask me questions if this doesnt cover what you need to know or you can't find the answer from someone else that I have judged/coached. Obviously there will be tons of other things I think about debates that I haven't posted here. Have fun.</p>
Heather Walters - Missouri State
<p>In my ideal debate world, the affirmative would read a topical plan and defend the implementation of that plan. The negative would read disadvantages, counterplans, and case turns/defense. Topical research is probably my most favorite part of debate, so I would assume that I would have a tendency to reward teams that I see as participating in the same way I view the game.</p> <p>I get that my ideal debate world isn't everyone's ideal debate world. I also vote for teams that prefer to run Topicality, Kritiks, or other arguments as their "go to" strategies. Good critical debaters explain specific links to the affirmative case and spend some time discussing how their argument relates to the impacts that are being claimed by the affirmative team. I also think it helps a lot to have specific analogies or empirical examples to prove how your argument is true/has been true throughout history.</p> <p>I expect that paperless teams will be professional and efficient about flashing evidence to the other team. It annoys me when teams flash large amounts of evidence they don't intend to read or couldn't possibly read in a speech to the other team and expect them to wade through it. It should go without saying that I expect that you won't "steal" prep time in the process of flashing, or any other time really. It also annoys me when teams don't flow just because they are "viewing" the evidence in real time. </p> <p>I expect that teams will post their cites to the wiki as soon as the debate is over, and ideally before I give my decision and otherwise participate in information sharing efforts. </p> <p>I like to have a copy of speeches flashed to me as well so I can follow along with what everyone else sees in the debate and because I think it makes the decision making process go faster.</p> <p>The best way to get high speaker points from me is to be clear, be polite, participate fully in your cross-examinations and use them to your advantage to point out flaws in your opponents’ arguments, try hard, and use appropriate humor. </p> <p>Ask me questions if this doesnt cover what you need to know or you can't find the answer from someone else that I have judged/coached. Obviously there will be tons of other things I think about debates that I haven't posted here. Have fun.</p>
JD Smith - CTC
n/a
Jack Rogers - UCMO
Jared Shipley - Evangel
n/a
Jason Stahl - Belmont
n/a
Joe Blasdel - McKendree
<p>Joe Blasdel</p> <p>McKendree University</p> <p>Section 1: General Information</p> <p>1. I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After a three year hiatus studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so since 2003.</p> <p>2. In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am very unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.</p> <p>3. On 'trichotomy,' I tend to think the government has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that they are topical. While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debate, I am open to people choosing to do so. I’m also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.</p> <p>4. If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If you’re calling multiple POOs, I will probably not be pleased.</p> <p>5. I do not think the rules permit splitting the block. Any responses in the LOR to MG arguments that were dropped by the MO will be considered new. Additionally, it is rare that I will vote on MO arguments that are not extended in the LOR.</p> <p>6. I’m not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ‘new’ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ‘new’ PMR arguments.</p> <p>Section 2: Specific Inquiries</p> <p>1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).</p> <p>Typically, my range of speaker points is 26-30, with an average of 28.</p> <p>2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?</p> <p>I’m open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for competition and alt solvency than most judges. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, I have a very low threshold for voting on topicality/framework. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.</p> <p>3. Performance based arguments…</p> <p>Same as above. I’d be hesitant to run them with me as your critic if they are not topical/competitive.</p> <p>4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?</p> <p>Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position that’s run – it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework – I’m not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an ‘average’ threshold. I don’t vote on RVIs.</p> <p>On spec, I have a ‘high’ threshold. Unless there is in-round ground abuse, I’m probably not going to vote on spec. I would only run spec arguments in front of me if you’re using it as link insurance for another position and the affirmative refuses to answer your questions.</p> <p>5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?</p> <p>All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay), but am growing more frustrated with tiny PICs and other arguably abusive CPs – so this trend may change. I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.</p> <p>6. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?</p> <p>All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.</p> <p>7. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?</p> <p>I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.</p>
Jordan Compton - SBU
n/a
Justin Stanley - JCCC
n/a
Kaila Todd - UCMO
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>
Kynzie Pierce - Cameron
n/a
Lauren McCool - Simpson College
Mark Kelton - Evangel
n/a
Nicole Bright - Belmont
n/a
Nikki Freeman - UCMO
Ryan Rigda - Texas A&M
<p>I am currently a doctoral student studying rhetoric. My background is primarily in Individual Events, but I have coached/judged both LD and Parliamentary debate for the past 6 years. I also teach public speaking and argumentation/debate classes. </p> <p>I am okay with any type of argumentation you want to run. I am not for or against any debate strategy. I vote with what is given to me on the flow. If it is there, I will consider it in the round. </p> <p>With regards to topicality, there must be clear in abuse for me to vote here. </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Sarah Collins - Cameron
n/a
Shawna Merrill - Missouri State
<p>I am a second-year Master’s student in Communication and my debate background is primarily in Parli. For me, debate is about good communication and effective argumentation. I am familiar with and okay with debate jargon, but do not think that throwing out as many debate terms as possible will win the round. Stick to your strengths, what you know, and explain it clearly. DO NOT SPREAD. If I cannot keep up, I cannot evaluate your arguments and you will lose the round. I prefer the affirmative to present a topical, workable plan and defend it. Explain the impacts of said plan and offer real-world examples and analogies when possible. For the negative, disadvantages and/or counterplans should be presented that relate directly to the aff’s plan, and again, explain impacts and take us through your line of reasoning. I don’t love them, but I am fine with topicality and kritiks, but they must be done well. That means they are clearly presented, understandable, and serve a useful function in the debate. </p> <p>Mind the flow; attend to stock issues; and engage in solid clash.</p>
Spencer Waugh - Simpson College
Tabi Secor - JCCC
n/a
Timothy Betts - TCU
n/a