FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alex Aebly - NIU

n/a

Amanda Pettigrew - Moraine Valley

n/a

Andrew Harvey - GCC

n/a

Audrey Cunningham - UIndy

n/a

BRIAN CAFARELLI - Parkland

n/a

Cade Hamilton - LRU

My debate background is in policy. I debated in Dallas/Fort Worth for three years in high school and debated for the University of North Texas for two years. Since competing, I have been coaching for a number of years now - one year at the University of Central Oklahoma, two years at Wichita State University, one year at Johnson County Community College, three years at Kansas State University, and now this is my second year with Lenoir-Rhyne doing parliamentary debate - primarily NPDA and IPDA.  Evaluating debate is much more about the participants establishing the preferred parameters than my own predispositions. I would like to consider myself "tabula rasa," or at least as much as I can consciously make myself. My inherent predispositions are towards technical argumentation and clash. Most debaters would be well received by doing impact analysis that utilizes the internal components of the debate and contextualizing those arguments through the "agreed upon," or rather debated, means for how I as the critic should evaluate this specific debate. I think cross-examination and points of information should be used more for strategic purposes than clarification. I think credibility matters, but believe the debaters should tell me how and what credibility means in a given context. I think civil, level headedness is valuable, but I would gladly listen to arguments to the contrary. Humor is always a good thing for me, but be good at it. Display confidence and find your voice. Beyond that, please feel comfortable to ask me more specific questions.

Caitlyn Burford - NAU

Burford, Caitlyn (Northern Arizona University) Background: This is my eigth year judging and coaching debate, and I spent four years competing in college. Please feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. Specific Inquiries 1. General Overview I think debate is a unique competitive forum to discuss issues within our rhetoric about the state, power, race, gender, etc. in a space that allows us to rethink and critically assess topics. This can come through a net benefit analysis of a proposed government plan, through a micro political action or statement, through a critique, or through some other newfangled performance you come up with. In that sense, I think debate is a rhetorical act that can be used creatively and effectively. Running a policy case about passing a piece of legislation has just as many implications about state power and authority as a critique of the state. The differences between the two types just have to do with what the debaters choose to discuss in each particular round. There are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. Thus, framework is imperative. I’ll get there shortly. You can run whatever you want as long as a) you have a theoretical justification for running the position, and b) you realize that it is still a competitive debate round so I need a reason to vote for something at some point. (a.k.a Give me a framework with your poetry!). 2. Framework This often ends up as the most important part of a lot of debates. If both teams are running with net benefits, great, but I still think there is area to weigh those arguments differently based on timeframe, magnitude, structural weight, etc. This kind of framework can make your rebuttal a breeze. In a debate that goes beyond a net benefits paradigm, your framework is key to how I interpret different impacts in the round. Choose your frameworks strategically and use them to your advantage. If the whole point of your framework is to ignore the case debate, then ignore the case debate. If the whole point of your framework is to leverage your case against the critique, then tell me what the rhetorical implications (different than impacts) are to your case. 3. Theory It’s important to note that theory positions are impact debates, too. Procedural positions, topicalities, etc. are only important to the debate if you have impacts built into them. If a topicality is just about “fairness” or “abuse” without any articulation as to what that does, most of these debates become a “wash”. So, view your theory as a mini-debate, with a framework, argument, and impacts built into it. 4. Counterplan Debate This is your game. I don’t think I have a concrete position as to how I feel about PICS, or intrinsicness, or textual/functional competition. That is for you to set up and decide in the debate. I have voted on PICS good, PICS bad, so on and so forth. That means that it all has to do with the context of the specific debate. Just make your arguments and warrant them well. Unless I am told otherwise, I will assume the CP is unconditional and my role as a judge it to vote for the best advocacy. 5. Round Evaluation Again, framework is important. Procedurals, case debate, and critique debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality/procedurals, then the case. Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team. (Again, this is only absent any sort of weighing mechanism for any of the arguments.) If there is a topicality/procedural run without any voters, I won’t put them in for you and it will be weighed against the case. I will not weigh the case against the critique unless I am told how and why it can be weighed equally. A concrete argument is always going to have a bit more weight than an abstract argument. A clear story with a calculated impact will probably outweigh an uncalculated potential impact. (i.e. “15,000 without food” vs. a “decrease in the quality of life”). But, if you calculate them out and do the work for me, awesome. If I have to weigh two vague abstract arguments against each other, i.e. loss of identity vs. loss of freedom, then I will probably revert to the more warranted link story if I must. 6. Speed, Answering Questions, and Other General Performance Things I’m fine with speed. Don’t use it as a tool to exclude your other competitors if they ask you to slow down, please do. I don’t really care about how many questions you answer if any, but if you don’t then you are probably making yourself more vulnerable to arguments about shifts or the specificities of “normal means”. It’s your round! Do what you want!

Charles McBurney - LRU

This is my second year judging parli. I tend to be the type of judge that could be classified as tabula rasa, but I do tend to err towards creating a debate space that is built around respect and inclusion. I am receptive to procedural arguments, critiques, and counter plans. I would ask that you clarify technical jargon and make the debate about your vision.

Chase Budziak - Kishwaukee

n/a

Chip Hall - CNU

n/a

Chris Outzen - Truman

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.

Chris Hachet - Capital

n/a

Christine Goss - Jefferson State

n/a

David Martin - Ball State

n/a

David Nadolski - OCC

n/a

Dwight Podgurski - Butler

n/a

Ed Schwarz - PSC

n/a

Elighie Wilson - PSC

n/a

Eric Smaw - Rollins

n/a

Hope Gutierrez - Crowder

n/a

Hope Willoughby - Berry

n/a

Jana Hall - CNU

n/a

Janice Ralya - Jefferson State

n/a

Jason Edwards - GCC

n/a

Jason Stahl - Belmont

n/a

Jason Edgar - Crowder

Jedi Curva - EMU IE

n/a

Jeff Rieck - Moraine Valley

n/a

John Nash - Moraine Valley

n/a

Kacy Abeln - Kishwaukee

n/a

Lisa Roth - NIU

n/a

Marcy Halpin - LCSC

n/a

Michael Dvorak - NAU

<ol> <li>Please describe your background and experience with debate.</li> </ol> I am fairly new to collegiate debate. I competed in both LD and Policy in high school but for the past four years I was primarily involved in individual events with a few parli rounds of competition during my career. I am currently a Graduate Coaching Assistant for NAU. During my (thus far) limited judging experience, I tend to vote with the more logical argument(s) that was presented. I will vote based on what is said in round unless competitors miss a crucial piece of evidence that trumps their argument that competitors should know about. I don’t want to hear arguments that are outlandish (I won’t vote because you say nuclear war happens if we raise taxes on cigarettes), but I will think outside the box so long as you provide me with sound reasoning to think that way. While I don’t mind speed, make sure I can understand you through watching my feedback. I am looking for high quality, well thought out arguments to judge on. I don’t want to hear arguments that you don’t think or want to win simply because they are a “time-suck” on your opponents. If you have any other questions about my paradigm I will attempt to answer before round if you ask.

Mike Storr - Ball State

n/a

NATHAN STEWART - Parkland

n/a

Natalie Wickenkamp - Berry

n/a

Nicole Bright - Belmont

n/a

Nina Brennan - EMU IE

n/a

Patrick Seick - EMU IE

n/a

Patrick Mullins - Butler

n/a

Randy Richardson - Berry

n/a

Rebekah Watson Gaidis - UIndy

n/a

Rusty Handlon - Marian Univ

n/a

Ryan Greenawalt - Belmont

n/a

Scott Placke - Lafayette

n/a

T. J. Lakin - FIU

I have been a coach and participant for more than 11 years.  Specifics: Speed:  No problem so long as I can understand you. Counterplans: Fine Speaker points:  25 - 26 Average; 27-28 Above Average; 29-30 Excellent. Critical:  Fine Performance: Fine Topicality: I will vote on topicality. If you have any questions, ask me.

Tim Sheehan - Ivy Tech

n/a

Trisha McDermand - Moraine Valley

n/a

2015 Novice Nationals