Judge Philosophies
Adam Mason - ISU
Ashley Coker - Ball State
n/a
Berkley Conner - Ball State
n/a
Brent Brossmann - JCU
Note: For those who’ve known me as a judge previously, things have changed. I have been in debate continuously since 1976. I am a policy maker. I believe in the value of policy debate. The organization specifies that it embraces policy debate. I will make my decisions on policy. Thus, there are two ways you can win my ballot: 1. Have the best policy. 2. Prove that your opponent’s practice is so egregious that I need to vote against them regardless of the policy. That could be for offensive discourse or a theory violation. If you want to make that “three reasons,†go ahead. Topicality is a voting issue. It is not a reverse voting issue. The negative doesn’t actually win topicality without demonstrating in-round abuse. In-round abuse can be proven by demonstrating that arguments to which you should have access were denied to you by the affirmative’s plan. You don’t actually have to run and lose the arguments, but you do need to win that these were arguments you should have had access to, that they were important and that the plan denied you access. Counterplans need to be competitive. The counterplan must be better than the combination of the plan and counterplan (net benefits) or better than the plan alone IF the policies are mutually exclusive. As a policy maker, risk is important. Please use impact comparisons to weigh rounds for me. Probability, magnitude, risk and time frame are arguments that both debaters should use in rebuttals to weigh the round for me. Prioritize those that help you win and explain why they are more important. Some kritiks are legitimate arguments in policy debate. Others are not. If the kritik impacts the round at a policy level, it is clearly legitimate. Some of the philosophical or discourse assumptions behind a policy or its presentation need to be challenged with respect to the policy itself. Some kritiks may identify particularly nasty things your opponent has done in a round. These kritiks are legitimate. The rest should not be run in front of me. I’ll be happy to explain if you ask. The bottom line is that debaters need to respond to each other’s arguments in meaningful ways. However, there is a strong presumption against any argument which does not directly relate to the policy being discussed in the round, unless it is a compelling argument as to why your opponent is abusive either in theory (not playing fairly) or in discourse (is actually offensive). I will continue to defend the value of policy debate. To help the tournament run on time, I’ll submit a ballot before I comment. After that, I’ll be happy to disclose. The best education in debate happens in the post-round discussion and the more quickly that follows the end of the round, the more relevant the information is. I don’t care about speed, per se. I do care about clarity. I know that some debaters care about speed. My policy is that the person who wants it to be slower “wins†that issue. So, if someone is too fast, simply say “slower please.†If someone says that to you, slow down. Have fun. Be kind. Learn a lot. Don’t forget to smile or laugh. Remember, your opponents are here because they share your love of the event. We all dedicate huge amounts of time and passion. Respect that and them. (And, the last name is pronounced with a long O, like a bro.)
Buffy D'Amico - Otterbein
n/a
Charlie Rinehart - Oakland
n/a
Chris Hachet - Capital
n/a
Courtney Stockman - Oakland
n/a
Danny Province - CMU
<p>My “paradigm” is that I am interpreting the quality of argumentation on both sides through a stock issues and net benefits framework (side without presumption must win both). I consider both the AFF and NEG to be giving me an advocacy, and therefore must be consistent (no performative contradictions) in their position. I assume both sides must prove any position they articulate (procedurals, case, disads, critiques) for me to vote on them at the end of the round. I evaluate impact calculus as [probability x (magnitude - timeframe) = impact]. This means that magnitude is limited by how likely the scenario seems and how soon. A low probability, high body-count scenario will not count for very much compared to a high probability impact with a smaller body count. Additionally, I assume the further away in time the impact is, the less likely the scenario will hold true, so timeframe can further mitigate magnitude. AKA: I prefer high probability and sooner impacts over unlikely high magnitude impacts. I will entertain any analytics so long as good warrants are given. I am flowing, but am not 100% obligated to vote on the flow as it is not specified in the rules of LD to do so.</p> <p>If both competitors prefer speed debate, then I will tolerate it. My only concern from speed is preventing spread debate. The rules say I am not to “encourage” spread which I interpret to mean I will not award it the ballot. AKA, if you run 6 procedurals only to try to spread your opponent and just focus on drops, I will intervene and ignore the dropped positions and only pay attention to where there was clash. I interpret an exclusionary use of speed the same way; I will intervene by only listening to clash. I am not the judge to go for spread debate in front of.</p> <p> Please no Obama is a time traveler white supremacist or equivalent weird arguments. If your evidence is from a spiritualist/unqualified source making a ridiculous claim, I may not even flow it.</p> <p> I view judge intervention as a necessary tool of an educator. I am comfortable intervening, but will do so sparingly and only when I believe someone has gone outside the bounds of good argumentation.</p>
David Trumble - St. Anselm
n/a
Jessica Kurr - Penn State
n/a
John Grimm - ASU
n/a
Joseph Packer - CMU
<p> </p> <p>I competed and coached in policy debate for 11 years and coached LD for 3.</p> <p>Things to know</p> <p>1. Reject the argument not the team is my default on theory issues. This means that absent a clearly articulated reason as to why a team should lose the debate I will not vote on theory. (Note: Yes this means even if the other team drops a random voting issue I will not vote against them if you do not provide clear warrants as to why they should lose the debate).</p> <p>2. Winning topicality or any other theory issue requires more work than winning on a substantive issue. This is to say, if both teams go for substance I have to pick a winner, but if one team goes for theory I can assess that they have not surpassed the burden required to reject the other team. This does not mean that T and theory are unwinnable arguments in front of me. I think I am much more inclined to vote on T than the average LD judge I have encountered. In order to win you should clearly explain your interpretation, explain how the other team has violated it, explain why your interpretation makes for good debates, explain what the opponent does or justifies, and explain why that is bad for debate.</p> <p>3. Negatives need to make choices in their second speech. I frequently find myself voting against negatives that should be ahead in the debate because they extend too much. This holds especially true when negatives go for a combination of theory and substance. To a lesser extend this is true for affirmatives as well.</p> <p>4. Presumption goes to the status quo, which means that ties go to the negative (in the world of a counterproposal I lean aff on presumption, but the question is up for debate).</p> <p>5. Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards by making smart, warranted, analytical arguments.</p> <p>6. I lean affirmative on most counterproposal theory questions (conditionality, PICs, topical counterplans). The chances of me voting on a consultation counterplan are extremely low. Any counterplan or kritik that can result in the affirmative’s plan is highly suspect.</p> <p>7. I don’t find many of the kritiks run in LD to be persuasive, but I think this is a function of not adapting to the time constraints and speech times of the activity. If you do read a kritik you should apply it to the affirmative’s case starting in the first speech. If you are only talking about your kritik and not how it interacts with the specifics of the affirmative case, you are unlikely to get my ballot. The more specific the kritik is to the topic or plan the better.</p> <p>8. Be respectful to the other team.</p>
Josh Riesen - OSU
n/a
Kelley McDonough - Otterbein
n/a
Kristina Kearns - Capital
n/a
Mike Storr - Ball State
n/a
Noel Massarelli - JCU
<p>My debate history is policy debate for four years in high school and three years in college. I did college LD debate for one semester.</p> <p>Ultimately I think the debaters are in charge of their own destiny and I’ll vote wherever/however you tell me I should. I like offense. I am willing to vote on defense, but unhappy about it.</p> <p>Good line by line argumentation is always awesome. Good analysis will beat just reading a card (a good card PLUS good analysis is even better). I prefer not to read cards after a round unless there is contention on what that cards actually says.</p> <p>I tend to have an expressive face, not much I can do to stop that. Use this flaw to your advantage! For example if I look baffled, then your argument makes no sense to me. </p> <p>My policy experience makes me very comfortable with speed. That being said, PLEASE only speak quickly if your words are clear. Speak as fast as you are capable of, not as fast as you potentially could. Slow down during analytical argumentation, I find debaters speed through them and the details become muddled.</p> <p>My policy experience makes me very comfortable with speed. That being said, PLEASE only speak quickly if your words are clear. Speak as fast as you are capable of, not as fast as you potentially could. Slow down during analytical argumentation, I find debaters speed through them and the details become muddled.</p> <p>There are not many arguments that I do not like hearing. I like to think I would vote for anything. That being said, I’m a T hack. But don’t think that means I vote on T left and right. Don’t be afraid to run it if they aren’t topical, but poorly thought out T arguments won’t get you anywhere and might hurt your speaks. </p> <p>The Kritik is a special animal, in my opinion. If you run the K like the NDT/CEDA people do I think you’re doing it wrong. Keep your implications tied to policy and try to avoid flowery and long tags on evidence. </p> <p>Be kind to each other. Ultimately this whole thing is a game and we’re here to have fun. Feel free to ask me any questions you like both before and after the round. </p>
Ryan Cashman - ISU
Sarah Spring - Houston
n/a
Scott Crabill - Oakland
n/a