Judge Philosophies
Adam Hall - Regis U
n/a
Arianna Diazwightman - DU
n/a
Austin Thoma - Wyoming
n/a
Austin Lohmeyer - Wyoming
n/a
Bill Hermann - Regis U
n/a
Brian Schrader - UM-Flint
n/a
Cody Walizer - DU
n/a
Colin Phipps - DU
n/a
Dante Omoomy - Regis U
n/a
Denis Sapranov - Regis U
n/a
Dominic Liu - CU Boulder
Dominique Oliver - Regis U
n/a
Dylan Ortiz - Regis U
n/a
Emily Funk - DU
n/a
Gavin Gill - Vanderbilt
n/a
Hunter Frenze - DU
n/a
Jacob Witt - NorthwestU
n/a
James Taylor - KState
Taylor, W. James “JT” Kansas State University, ADOD
# of years coaching/judging: 20+
Most succinctly, I begin the round as a critic of argument. Depending on how the debaters posit my decision calculus, I go from there...But I think the topic should be debated directly--HOW that happens is up to you.
Biggest tips:
-Don't forget about T vs. Policy Affs.
-DEPTH OVER BREADTH.
-ONLINE DEBATE: Please slow down just a bit--not much but some. Technology issues are YOUR issues, not mine.
-SPEED: Speed is fine but should not be used merely for exclusion. You also need to still be persuasive at speed.
-ENGAGE THE 1AC: I think teams should always engage the 1AC. Even if you are a one-off K team or you mostly take a more performative approach, there is no reason you can’t address the issues, logic, and general claims of the 1AC (denying their logic is not "playing their game"). Even if you don’t have evidence, you should still make smart arguments. Some of this could be approaches like contextualizing your one-off K to the specific claims made. Be smart and make logical arguments against the Aff. I think being educated on the issues of the topic is the true "education" we get out of "topic education". In the end, there should probably be a detailed engagement in the link debate.
-SPEECH DOCS: Ignoring the speeches and just flowing from the speech docs is disrespectful. I love teams who realize this is going on and throw in arguments when that team is not paying attention.
-DEBATE THE EVIDENCE: What are the base assumptions? Studies? Qualifications? These questions are often not engaged by debaters and badly hi-lited 12 page cards just get accepted.
-STOP BEING PETTY: You might think your arguments are the center of the universe, but c'mon. Too many debaters overstate the importance of their claims, fake being deeply offended for purposes of hyping up a link argument, think their type of education is the only acceptable form, deny/ignore the validity of debates about scholarship, or assume that debate is separate from the "real world".
-FRAMEWORK: Although I think most framework arguments are a little silly—I vote on them often due to execution problems by the other team. I think the Aff. Should get to “weigh” the case as offense, unless it begs the question(s) of epistemology/methodology. In that case, the epistemology/methodology should be directly applied to the case debate. Also, don't use framework as an excuse not to engage the Aff. I think there can be real value in policy debate, but not necessarily through its imposition. What rarely gets discussed are the "portable skills" that are fostered through non-policy debates...In the ideal analysis, we would consider all facets of analysis into the discussion or decision-making process (policy, narratives, history, philosophical assumptions, etc.).
-Role of the Ballot – The vast majority of these claims are self-referential and add nothing to debate: “Whoever best does what we said.” Just like policy framework claims, these function with the same intent to exclude. However, some truly act not as a veiled framework but as truly instructional in terms of judging and the meaning of the ballot and the function of my decision. I do not think the ballot inherently means anything beyond a recording of data. Humans infuse meaning to things like the ballot.
-Perm Sloppiness - I think a lot of block debates get sloppy/lazy on the perm. I think the Aff. should have to explain how the perm resolves the links. I also think the Neg. should have to explain why the perm does not resolve those links (don't just say so).
-Method Debates: You need to actually do your method, not just prove it WOULD/COULD be a good idea. Historical Materialism comes to mind...Very few teams actually advance that alternate version of history. Instead, teams usually just read links to how the Aff doesn't fit in their paradigm or somehow masks or trades-off with HM. The same dynamic happens in many other debates.
-Multiple conditional plan or CP planks: I think it is an unrealistic burden for Affs to generate offense against each plank without liability. Aff should get to generate offense and solvency deficits against parts of the CP (or in extremely rare circumstances all parts), but smart Negatives can utilize one plank to compensate for solvency deficits of others or outweigh the internal link to the offense against others.
Jordan Werner - Regis U
n/a
Josh House - Cypress College
Kelly Denzler - Regis U
n/a
Kricia Ruano Espinoza - Vanderbilt
n/a
Marcus Parokse - UM-Flint
n/a
Marirose Bernal - Regis U
n/a
Marlene Pierce - KState
n/a
Nick Iwanicki - Regis U
n/a
Paul Narey - Wyoming
n/a
Rob Margesson - Regis U
n/a
Rob Ruiz - ULV
n/a
Robert Trapp - Willamette
n/a
Ruby Nunez - Wyoming
n/a
Samantha Simmons - Cypress College
Tori McHugh - Regis U
n/a
Wayne Brookshire - Regis U
n/a
Zachary Fine - Regis U
n/a