2015 Marist "Spartan Speaks"
Marist High School - Jan 24 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Alex Gielish - Willamette
n/a
Caron Newman - Loggers
<p>I am first and foremost a communications judge. That means that eye contact, respect for your opponent while he/she is speaking - not talking to your partner (to me, that is rude), inflection, and rate of speech are important. Regardless of the type of debate, you must be clear and concise. I do not like spreading; what’s the point if no one can understand you? Remember, Aff must convince me there needs to be a change in CX. I don’t appreciate the neg wasting time on T if it’s not really an issue. The worst round I’ve ever judged spent 20 minutes arguing the definition of “its.” If you are not arguing the resolution, it’s very difficult for me to vote for you. For LD, I enjoy the philosophical portion as that was my minor in college. Try to stay away from policy jargon in LD; it doesn’t fit. For parli, I expect you to answer questions instead of avoiding them and filling time that could be better spent responding to your opponent. Finally, in all events, the cross weighs heavily in my decision-making. I appreciate insightful questioning and clear answers.</p> <p> </p>
Cary Doyle - Crescent Valley
David Saenger - South
Ingrid Skoog - Oak Hill
Justin Crow - West Albany
<p>I am a tabula rasa judge.</p> <p><span style="line-height:1.6em"><strong>TOPICALITY: </strong>I don't like when AFF teams are abusive with definitions, and I don't like when NEG teams claim abuse or run T when it is not called for. Reserve T for those times when it is appropriate; don't run it every round. </span><span style="line-height:1.6em">Here's a good example of abusive definitions in parli: For the topic </span><strong style="line-height:1.6em">R, THS significantly increase space exploration</strong><span style="line-height:1.6em">, the AFF defines the term "space exploration" as "offshore drilling in the Pacific Ocean." They justify this definition by saying "there's a lot of open space out there in the ocean, and it should be explored for energy and financial gain." If the AFF defines it this way, I assume the AFF either does not understand the resolution statement or is purposefully defining it in such a way that (1) caters to their own strength -- previous knowledge about the Pacific Ocean or (2) is unpredictable by the NEG, thus giving the AFF team an advantage. The key to avoiding T and the key to living up to your responsibility as the AFF team is to pass the predictability and fairness tests with your definition of terms. Like a tennis player who fairly calls lines, was the intention behind the definition in good spirits? If you take a poll of 100 debaters at the tournament and ask them to define the term in question, will any of them be in the ballpark of your definition? Also, be careful of definitions or plan texts that are too narrow or too broad (topicality and extra-topicality). </span></p> <p>I am fine with CP, Disads, and K (though I don't really like K). Unless I give you a hand signal to slow down, I am fine with speed.</p> <p>As a courtesy to your opponents and me, please clearly label your contentions with <strong>brief</strong> taglines. (For example, "<strong>Contention 1: COST.</strong> The cost of implementing such a plan..."</p> <p>DON'T REPEAT YOUR FLOW TO FILL TIME. Weigh, clash, give examples / metaphors, but don't repeat your case. If I have it on my flow, and you are repeating what I already have on my flow, what is the point of your speaking? Use htose precious minutes more constructively!</p> <p>If a team says "They did not ___ therefore we win the round" that is not necessarily so. It may be an a priori argument, it may not. Teams that argue something is a priori when it isn't annoy me because (similar to T) I don't know if they just don't know the rules or if they are trying to manipulate me into giving them a ballot. I once heard in a parli round, "Our opponents did not run a criterion to support their value; therefore, we win the round." That is just not true. </p> <p>For voters, clearly weigh for me WHY you win. This often comes down to clearly stating and weighing impacts or otherwise stating why the better debating was performed by your team. If policy, many arguments for me will come down to evidence weighing. You both have data to back up your side of a particular point, but one team uses a solid Harvard study while the opposing team uses a study from crazyjoemanifesto.com or, worse yet, "my uncle says that..." In this case, all other things being equal, the team citing the Harvard study would likely win on that point. </p>
Kara Shore - Willamette
n/a
Lance Haberly - Siuslaw High
n/a
Liz Bohls - South
Lynn Marx - South
Molly Schulze - Willamette
n/a