Judge Philosophies
- UTEP
Ami Payne - LSC NH
n/a
Dayle Hardy-Short - NAU
<p><strong>Dayle Hardy-Short - Northern Arizona University </strong></p> <p><br /> <strong>Saved Philosophy:</strong></p> <p><br /> Background:</p> <p>I have not judged NPDA parliamentary debate this year--I have judged BP and Lincoln-Douglas. So my flowing is a little rusty.</p> <p><br /> On speaker points, I look to such things as analysis, reasoning, evidence, organization, refutation, and delivery (delivery being only 1 of 6 considerations I made for speaker points). Thus, I virtually never give low-point wins because if a team "wins", then it has done something better than the other team (i.e., like had clearer organization or better arguments).</p> <p><br /> Generally:</p> <p>Generally, I am open to most positions and arguments. I expect the debaters to tell me what they think I should vote on, and why. I appreciate clash. I will not do the work for the team. I believe that the affirmative/government has the responsibility to affirm the resolution and the negative/opposition has the responsibility to oppose the resolution or the affirmative. Such affirmation and opposition can appear in different forms. I feel pretty comfortable in my understanding of whether or not something is a new argument in rebuttals, and I will not vote in favor of new arguments--just because someone extends an argument does not mean it's new, and just because someone uses a new term does not mean the argument is new (they may be reframing a previously-articulated argument based on additional responses from the other team).</p> <p><br /> I prefer debates in which debaters clearly explain why I should do what they think I should do. This includes explaining use of particular jargon and/or assumptions underlying it (for instance, if you say "condo bad", I may not necessarily understand in the heat of the debate that you're talking about conditionality versus something you live in; similarly I do not understand what “fism” is—you need to tell me). Do not assume that simply using a particular word means I will understand your argument (argument includes claim, explanation, and evidence of some kind). Please consider not only labeling the argument, but telling me what you mean by it.</p> <p><br /> I will listen as carefully as possible to what's going on in your debate (I will try to adapt to what YOU say and argue). Do your debate, make your arguments, and I will do my best to weigh them according to what happened in the debate. I am not arrogant enough to think that I get everything on the flow, nor am I arrogant enough to claim that I understand everything you say. But if you explain important arguments, most of the time I can understand them. At least I will try.</p> <p><br /> Topicality is a voting issue for me, and I listen to how teams set up the arguments; I consider it to be an a priori argument. I have an extremely wide latitude in terms of what affirmative can claim as topical within the scope of any given resolution. I don’t like T arguments that are ONLY about so-called abuse (indeed, I do not find them persuasive). I prefer that you focus on why the affirmative isn’t topical. Thus, I prefer in the round you explain why something is not topical (standards, alternative definitions, etc.), but you do not need to articulate abuse (which I define as "they're taking ground from us; they’ve ruined debate; or similar arguments”). I guess it does seem to me that if a case is truly non-topical, then it almost always follows that the position is unfair to the negative--as long as the negative came truly prepared to debate the topic. Thus, the negative does not need to belabor the point--say it and move on.</p> <p><br /> I will assume your counterplan is unconditional, and if you think it should be otherwise, please explain and justify that position. With an articulated counterplan, then my job becomes to weigh the best advocacy with regard to the resolution. Please provide me (and the other team) with an actual CP plan text, so I can consider arguments about it as they are made (I really do prefer a written plan text, or please repeat it 2-3 times so I get it written down correctly).</p> <p><br /> I certainly am not opposed to permutations, but please have a text that you can show me and your opponents.</p> <p><br /> I am not opposed to critiques nor performance debate, but please be very very clear about why they should win and what criteria I should use to evaluate them and/or weigh them in the debate as a whole.</p> <p><br /> Abstract impacts should be clearly demonstrated and explained, and concrete impacts need to have similar weight.</p> <p><br /> A final note on speed and civility. I don't have particular problems with speed, but clarity is essential--clear speakers can speak very quickly and I will get the flow. I believe that debate is an important activity, both as an intellectual exercise and as a co-curricular activity in which we get to test classroom learning in a more pragmatic way (application and reductio ad absurdum), including communication skills and the extent to which arguments can go. The way we behave in rounds often becomes habit-forming. So show some respect for the activity, some respect for your opposition, and some respect for the judge. I'll try to keep up with you if you'll treat me like a human being. I will think through your arguments if you will give me arguments worth thinking through.</p> <p> </p>
Holly Manning - LSC NH
n/a
Kaitlin Bundock - Utah
<p><strong>Question 1 : Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, # of rounds judged, etc)</strong></p> <p> I competed for four years in college parli debate for Northern Arizona University; I have judged 20+ rounds this year.</p> <p><br /> <strong>Question 2 : Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)</strong></p> <p> I vote on the flow, keeping in mind that dropped arguments that are not impacted out or made to have an important role in the round will likely not be a factor in my decision making. In other words, I will not just see which team had less dropped arguments on a position and vote there. I will evaluate the quality of the arguments being made.</p> <p> I will usually only vote on procedural arguments if there is in round proven abuse that excludes one of the teams from being able to access offensive arguments. You have a better chance of me voting on a procedural if you are able to make it kritical in some way. When evaluating rounds I will look first at the procedural debate to determine if there was significant abuse, then to the K debate (if there is one) then to the impacts, then to theory (unless theory arguments are being made as to why I should reject a position or a team). The rebuttals should tell me how to prioritize the arguments of the round, where to look first, why to look there first, and why the argument matters. I will flow the rebuttals and would prefer teams to call points of order, but not when the new argument is trivial.<br /> I prefer policy debates and dislike procedural debates. I do not like fact or value debates because I think that they often are not argued well, and tend to go in circles. If you are in a fact or value debate in front of me, you should make well warranted arguments that have impacts, and provide me with a clear way to evaluate the round.<br /> You need to have well warranted link stories on case advantages and disadvantages. If you have a weak link and/or internal link story on a disad that leads to massive impacts, I will likely not be persuaded by your disad and will be more apt to vote on turns to your internal link/link story by the gov. I do not have any particular preferences about the CP debate, but prefer the CP to be mutually exclusive and net-beneficial. To beat a CP in front of me you must put offence on it.<br /> I will generally vote for any argument as long as it is argued well and justified. I default to the net-benefits paradigm unless you specify another criterion.<br /> </p> <p><strong>Question 3 : Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making</strong></p> <p> I am ok with speed as long as it is not used to purposefully exclude a team from the round. If speed is used to exclude you from a round you need to make an argument about it and demonstrate proven abuse and why it is significant to you and the round. I can keep up with speed fairly well, but the faster teams can out-flow me. I will let you know if you are going too fast.</p> <p><br /> <strong>Question 4 : Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making</strong></p> <p> I prefer there to be a good amount of on case argumentation, but am fine with the debate occurring more on another position. If the debate is occurring mostly on off-case positions, the gov needs to make good, well warranted, and offensive arguments on those positions in order to win the round. Additionally, the opp needs to demonstrate that the reason they are not addressing case more is because their impacts outweigh the case impacts.</p> <p><br /> <strong>Question 5 : Other information:</strong></p> <p> Overall, I enjoy seeing competitors having fun with this activity and talking about issues that are important to them.<br /> </p>
Kristy McManus - WWCC
<p>I have been coaching since 2010. I competed for two years at the college level. I took a long break from forensics but returned when working on my second Master’s Degree in Communication. I am currently the DOF at Western Wyoming Community College.</p> <p>I try to remain as tab as possible. It is your responsibility to dictate what the round will look like.</p> <p>I put a lot of weight on the flow. I will not “do the work for you”.</p> <p>CP’s, DA’s, K’s – sure! Strategy is key for me but all must be done well and show understanding through warranted argumentation.</p> <p>Tell me what to do. This is your debate. Where should I look and how should I vote. Impact calk is a must.</p> <p>T’s are there for a reason – if you need to use them – you MUST. Otherwise, they are a waste of my time.</p> <p>Be civil – if you are rude, I stop listening.</p>
Mario Dozal - UTEP
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 Moran - Colorado Mesa
n/a
Roxan Arntson - Glendale CC
Sarah Hinkle - CC
Tyler Rising - NAU
n/a