Judge Philosophies
Aaron Donaldson - CPH
Aaron Donaldson - CPH
Aaron Donaldson - CPH
Abdul Rehman Khan - UBC
n/a
Adrian Lask - UBC
n/a
Aidan Wilson - UBC
n/a
Aine Foran - Seattle U
n/a
Alissa Neuman - Seattle U
n/a
Andrew Gardner - Alaska
n/a
Andrew Myers - Gonzaga
n/a
Angie Tinker - PLU
n/a
Barbara Millward - PLU
n/a
Blake Harris - Boulder
n/a
Brandon Stickels - Seattle U
n/a
Bryna Frohock - PLU
n/a
Corey Patton - Seattle U
n/a
Dana Ovsak - Alaska
n/a
Derek Buescher - CHS
n/a
Derek Buescher - Puget Sound
n/a
Derek Buescher - Puget Sound
n/a
Devon Wang - UBC
n/a
Dominic Liu - Boulder
n/a
Emily Luther - Gonzaga
n/a
Holden Smith - PLU
n/a
Jacob Witt - NorthwestU
n/a
Jake Williams - Regis U
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.
Jessica Bernard - Seattle U
n/a
John Schultz - Alaska
n/a
Johnathan Swayne - NorthwestU
n/a
Jon Denzler - Regis U
n/a
Jonathan Taylor - Alaska
n/a
Josh Tafel - UBC
n/a
Katie Na - Claremont
n/a
Kieran Lowe - PLU
n/a
Kyle Cheesewright - CofI
This is my most recent judging philosopy. If you want to see a collection of them, with information that is more or less relevant, Net Benefits has an interesting archive.
“All that you touch
You Change.
All that you Change
Changes you.
The only lasting truth
Is Change.
God Is Change.”
–Octavia Butler, “Parable of the Sower.”
Debate is a game. Debate is a strange, beautiful game that we play. Debate is a strange beautiful game that we play with each other.
I love debate. It’s the only game that exists where the rules are up for contestation by each side. There are some rules that aren’t up for discussion, as far as I can tell, these are them:
1/ Each debate will have a team that wins, and a team that looses. Say whatever you want, I am structurally constrained at the end of debate to award one team a win, and the other team will receive a loss. That’s what I got.
2/ Time limits. I think that a discussion should have equal time allotment for each side, and those times should probably alternate. I have yet to see a fair way for this question to be resolved in a debate, other than through arbitrary enforcement. The only exception is that if both teams decide on something else, you have about 45 minutes from the start of the round, to when I have to render a decision.
Pretty much everything else is open to contestation. At this point, I don’t really have any serious, uncontestable beliefs about debate. This means that the discussion is open to you. I do tend to find that I find debates to be more engaging when they are about substantive clash over a narrow set of established issues. This means, I tend to prefer debates that are specific and deep. Good examples, and comparative discussion of those examples is the easiest way to win my ballot. Generally speaking, I look for comparative impact work. I find that I tend to align more quickly with highly probable and proximate impacts, though magnitude is just so easy.
I tend to prefer LOC strategies that are deep, well explained explorations of a coherent world. The strategy of firing off a bunch of underdeveloped arguments, and trying to develop the strategy that is mishandled by the MG is often successful in front of me, but I almost always think that the round would have been better with a more coherent LOC strategy—for both sides of the debate.
At the end of the debate, when it is time for me to resolve the discussion, I start by identifying what I believe the weighing mechanism should be, based on the arguments made in the debate. Once I have determined the weighing mechanism, I start to wade through the arguments that prove the world will be better or worse, based on the decision mechanism. I always attempt to default to explicit arguments that debaters make about these issues.
Examples are the evidence of Parliamentary debate. Control the examples, and you will control the debate.
On specific issues: I don’t particularly care what you discuss, or how you discuss it. I prefer that you discuss it in a way that gives me access to the discussion. I try not to backfill lots of arguments based on buzzwords. For example, if you say “Topicality is a matter of competing interpretations,” I think I know what that means. But I am not going to default to evaluating every argument on Topicality through an offense/defense paradigm unless you explain to me that I should, and probably try to explicate what kinds of answers would be offensive, and what kinds of answers would be defensive. Similarly, if you say “Topicality should be evaluated through the lens of reasonability,” I think I know what that means. But if you want me to stop evaluating Topicality if you are winning that there is a legitimate counter-interpretation that is supported by a standard, then you should probably say that.
I try to flow debates as specifically as possible. I feel like I have a pretty good written record of most debates.
Rebuttals are times to focus a debate, and go comprehensively for a limited set of arguments. You should have a clear argument for why you are winning the debate as a whole, based on a series of specific extensions from the Member speech. The more time you dedicate to an issue in a debate, the more time I will dedicate to that issue when I am resolving the debate. Unless it just doesn’t matter. Watch out for arguments that don’t matter, they’re tricksy and almost everyone spends too much time on them.
Before I make my decision, I try to force myself to explain what the strongest argument for each side would be if they were winning the debate. I then ask myself how the other team is dealing with those arguments. I try to make sure that each team gets equal time in my final evaluation of a debate.
This is a radical departure from my traditional judging philosophy. I’ll see how it works out for me. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. For the record, I have strong opinions on just about everything that occurs in a debate round—but those strong opinions are for down time and odd rants during practice rounds. I work to keep them out of the debate, and at this point, I think I can say that I do a pretty good job on that account.
I just thought of a third rule. Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I thought speeches are. If you tell me what speaker points I should give you, I will listen, and promptly discard what you say. Probably.
For the sake of transparency: My personal gig is critical-cultural theory. It’s where my heart is. This does not mean that you should use critical theory that you don’t understand or feel comfortable with it. Make the choices in debate that are the best, most strategic, or most ethical for you. If your interested in my personal opinons about your choices, I’m more than happy to share. But I’ll do that after the debate is over, the ballot submitted, and we’re just two humans chatting. The debate will be decided based on the arguments made in the debate.
“[Y]ou can’t escape language: language is everything and everywhere; it’s what lets us have anything to do with one another; it’s what separates us from animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so on.”
-David Foster Wallace, “Authority and American Usage.”
Logan Albert - PLU
n/a
Marlene Pierce - KState
n/a
Matt Aust - PLU
n/a
Michael Warren - UBC
n/a
Parker Dahl - Alaska
n/a
Pastor Arroyo - Claremont
n/a
Philip Sharp - Nevada
Phil Sharp- University of Nevada-Reno
Ren Wilcox - Seattle U
n/a
Rob Margesson - Regis U
n/a
Sam Erickson - Alaska
n/a
Seyoung Jeon - Amherst
n/a
Shannon Scott - GFU
n/a
Skyler Younger - GFU
n/a
Steven Johnson - Alaska
n/a
Steven Johnson - Alaska
n/a
Una Kimokeo-Goes - Linfield
n/a
Vincent Ruggio - Willamette
n/a
Wesley Kamikawa - Seattle U
n/a
Wiley Cason - Alaska
n/a