FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Wilson - ATU

n/a

Amber Benning - KWU

n/a

Andie Ingram - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Andy Jones - Butler CC

n/a

Ant Woodall - NSU

n/a

Baker Weilert - stAte

Experience: 4 years policy debate in Kansas, 4 years parliamentary debate at Louisiana Tech University, and Arkansas State University. Currently Assistant Debate Coach at Arkansas State University. I was predominantly a one off K debater, if that tells you anything about my preferences. Paradigm: Tab, but I will default flow (in the most literal since of the word, which means you probably won’t like my RFD) so, PLEASE give me the lens you want to be applied so that can be avoided. Speed: You can fly like the wind, with the caveat that I truly believe the best debate occurs at a moderate rate of speed. That being said use whatever strategy you deem necessary, speak as fast as you’d like. Positions: I will listen to anything, as long as it has clear structure, and you articulate why/how I should evaluate the position. Abuse: Must show articulated abuse, for example: throw out a crappy DA and point to the No Link as reason why abuse has occurred, or any other creative way you can show me abuse. In Round Behavior: DO NOT BE MEAN, I will tank speaks. Totally fine to be witty, and slightly confrontational, but avoid personal attacks, I would much rather hear you actually debate. Generics: I don’t mind generic canned positions, but please take the prep time to make the link level specific. Overall: I believe debate is a creative space, so feel free to run literally anything you want. Enjoy and respect the debate space, and we should be all good. Don’t hesitate to ask for clarification on any of the above.

Ben Voth - SMU

n/a

Beth Thompson - WTAMU

n/a

Brent Bowers - TCC

n/a

Brianna Davis - ATU

n/a

Candy Gregor - JBU

n/a

Chris Cassity - DU

n/a

Colten Meisner - TCU

n/a

Connie McKee - WTAMU

n/a

Deven Cooper - Long Beach

n/a

Diamond Andrews - ATU

n/a

Donna Graves - ECOK

n/a

Donnie Featherston - Butler CC

n/a

Dylan Hargis - UAM

n/a

Emily Collier - DU

n/a

Erin Benedict - DU

n/a

Fendrich Clark - Southeastern

n/a

Hannah Tabrizi - VSU

’m a graduate student at Valdosta State University. I debated parli & IPDA debate as an undergrad. I have coach debate for a year and a half. I believe that competitive affs must: (a) prove significance, (b) provide harms, (c) cross inherency, (d) be topical, and (d) show solvency through plan action. I will listen to specs, topicality, and other procedural arguments (i.e., I do not have any artificial thresholds). DA impacts should have probability and magnitude and as a result, should probably rarely ever be "flashpoints" (e.g., nuke war, extinction). I will probably always vote on impacts that are narrative driven versus those that are not eloquently substantiated. Language is the vehicle of communication and as a result, I believe that language is astronomically important (i.e., do not use racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive language). Kritiks are a great tool to use when language: (a) perpetuates systems of oppression or (b) is offensive. I do not find verbose and needlessly convoluted philosophy persuasive, Kritiks must have clear links/triggers, and kritiks should not be used as an exclusionary tool. Remember that as a tabula rasa judge the argument you make is what goes on the flow. I do not make assumptions for you; however, if I catch you in a blatant lie you will probably get a nasty ballot back. I would prefer that counterplans are: (a) non-topical and (b) mutually exclusive. As of now I believe that conditionality is bad (try to take advantage of this disclosure) or help persuade me otherwise. I’ve never evaluated critical performance, so I do not have much of an opinion on it (not certain whether this is good or bad).

Harrison Farnam - TCC

n/a

Ian Sevier - ORU

n/a

JD Smith - CTC

n/a

Jared Deppe - ORU

n/a

JayLynn Ingram - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Jerica Wilson - TCC

n/a

Jordan Lakin - UAM

n/a

Justin Morse - KWU

Katie Stringer - WTAMU

n/a

Ken Troyer - Sterling

Kiefer Storrer - Glendale CC

4 years Policy (HS) 4 years Parli (College) In my fourth year of coaching, familiar with LD, Public Forum, Worlds, etc, and high flow Parli. I love, love, love, pragmatic, policy discussion, but I also don't want to disenfranchise voices, so K's, Projects, other experimental positions are fine by me. I appreciate in round, articulated abuse for procedural arguments. For Ks/Projects, I'd like debate community implications but also recognize policy ontological impacts because of our epistemological views. Overall, SUPER open to answering questions pre-round, and discussing rounds in depth post round, via social media, etc.

Micah Allred - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Michael Gray - stAte

This pertains mostly to Parli. Debated for A-State from 2007-2011; mostly Parli, but some IPDA and Worlds. Assistant coach for A-State from 2011-2013 and Director of Debate for A-State from 2016-present.  I'll listen to anything, but I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants and/or logical impact scenarios. So, if you blip out a turn that doesn't make any sense and they don't respond to it, I don't care. I don't need them to respond because you didn't make an argument. Debate jargon is useful, but it is not some magic trick that replaces argumentation. Don't take short-cuts and expect me to fill in the blanks for you. That's called intervention. Speaker Points: These exist to reward good speakers. What is a good speaker? For me, a good speaker has nothing to do with who won the round. I have been known to give out more than a few low-point wins. Speed doesn't make you good. Knowing lots of stuff doesn't make you good. Winning an argument doesn't make you good. It's that other thing - a certain qualia or affect - that makes you good. Do that, whatever it is, and you'll get the speaker points. Make sense? Case: The Aff has the burden of proof & the burden of rejoinder. It is your job to fairly limit the round and present a clear case that upholds the resolution. If you can convince me otherwise, do it. I'll vote on an Aff K if it makes sense and wins.  T: I love a well-run topicality. It's especially nice if your opponent is actually not topical. Potential abuse is sometimes enough, if potential harms are articulated and impacted out. Look at it this way: President Blank bans certain travelers because he BELIEVES there is a potential harm in allowing them into the country. THAT is why un-articulated potential abuse is often not enough; you should clearly articulate the abuse, potential or actual. T is not a debate trick. T is a debate nuclear bomb and, if you use it correctly and at the appropriate time, you'll probably win (pay attention, Aff).  Other Procedurals: run them correctly, tell me how to evaluate them and where they belong in order of evaluation, and you're good to go.  K: Yes, please. However, let's avoid any blatant misreadings or wildly alternative applications of theory and philosophy... unless there's a realy good reason. If there is a really good reason, please include that very clearly in your overview or framework.  DA/CP/Condi: structure, structure, structure. My default stance is that all Neg arguments are conditional. If, however, the debate turns to theory, Aff can win CondiBad. I'll listen. I need CLEAR ARTICULATION of theory arguments, not just blippy responses that require me to intervene to fill in the blanks. It's your job to do the work, not mine. I can't grade work that isn't there and I can't judge arguments that aren't actually made. Performance & Breaking the Rules: I will (usually) NOT break the (important) rules of debate. I will not "call it a draw" and write "debate is terrible" on my ballot. I love debate. I feed my family with debate. I will not participate in any "overthrow of the establishment." Don't even bother asking your opponent to concede the round and embrace some anti-debate standpoint - that has no functional place here. If you must advocate for something like that, do it in IEs. I'm not an IE performer - never did them - but I love IEs and I believe they should make fun of debate as often as possible.  That does not mean I'm opposed to participants finding creative ways to engage the debate space. Have fun. Do cool stuff. Entertain me. Keep it classy and excellent.  Speed and Speed K: I prefer upbeat debate and a good pace. If you've clocked yourself, I am comfortable with a clear rate of speech around 275-325wmp. I can flow faster, but I'd rather not. To be honest, I've rarely seen a real need for anyone to actually argue that fast and the pseudo-analyses I've done seem to indicate that a strong vocabulary and controlled clear-rate-of-speech lead to more success than jarbled bursts of extreme speed followed by lengthy pauses or incoherent utterances. In all honesty, parli is at its best when highly-trained, charismatic debaters engage in argumentation at about 200-250wpm. Anything faster and you're probably repeating yourself too much or missing good arguments for the sake saying more words. If I or your opponent calls clear or speed and you do not respond appropriately, you will receive the lowest speaker points you've ever gotten. I promise. If you say anything that even gets close to "get better" to your opponent, you will receive the lowest speaker points you've ever gotten. I promise. You may well win the round, but you will have done so unethically and I cannot award high speaks to unethical debaters who intentionally ignore a legit request like "clear." I will vote on a speed K... IF it is run correctly, makes sense, and defended appropriately. I will not vote on "they talk fast and it's not fair." Rebuttals: By the time we get to the rebuttals, I've heard enough line-by-line. Some may be needed, but if your rebuttal sounds exactly like your previous speech (pay attention, Neg), I'm already bored. Come on, this is your chance to really secure those speaker points. Show me that you can tend to the line-by-line and cover the flow and still give me a clear summarization of advocacy, impact analysis, and something to reward at the bottom.  Timer Beeps: I prefer you time one another. If you are unable, I'll start my timer when you start debating. When my timer beeps, I stop flowing. I've had more sentence fragments at the bottom of a flow than I can count. A fragment is not a complete...  Just time your arguments. It's not difficult to just be done talking 1 second before the timer goes... it's impressive and judges notice it. Be impressive.

Mike Eaves - VSU

I am a tabula rasa judge. I debated CEDA for 4 years82-87. Was asst coach for CEDA at FSU for 4 years 89-93, national runnerups in CEDA nats, 1991 Coached CEDA for 7 years 93-2000 at vsu and NPDA since 2000 at vsu. I reward creative interp and good arguments. If you have questions, just ask. I flow specs, procedurals, and other traditional off case args. Aff case must provide equal ground so T checks back abuse. Counterplans are fine...inc PICS and other lesser know CPS incl delay, study, etc. I love political, econ DA..know your story and analysis.    I debated policy in high school and in college. While I coach parli now, I still judge h.s. policy rounds.   Specifics <ol> <li>Speaker points <ol> <li>25-29 usually.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Critical Arguments <ol> <li>I am open to procedurals, and critiques in the round. </li> <li>Framework and criteria will be key.</li> <li>I am open to performance and counter-performance. Debate is a game. Play it well. </li> </ol> </li> <li>Topicality. <ol> <li>I tend to be equal on T. Since there is no resolutions in advance, negative must have T as a check against abusive aff positions. I will vote on RVIs unlike some judges. I have no artificial thresholds on T or procedures.</li> </ol> </li> <li>I am a tabula rasa judge but can default to a policy maker if I am put in that position. <ol> <li> The last two rebuttals are key in parli debate. Please go only for the arguments you are winning, especially when on the negative.</li> </ol> </li> <li> <ol> <li>Speed is great if clear. I will tell you if you need to slow or get clearer. If you ignore me, then I wont get your argument.</li> </ol> </li> </ol> I love to think outside the box. Feel free to run postmodernism, CLS, or any philosophical position. I do not have artificial thresholds on procedurals or critiques.

Niki Alderson - TCC

n/a

Nolan Goodwin - Sterling

n/a

Richard Douse - ORU

n/a

Samuel Perez - ATU

n/a

Shanta Johnson - VSU

Taylor Paulk - ATU

n/a

Tim Doty - Wayland

n/a

Travis Edwards - VSU

Tricia Diaville - NSU

n/a

2017 Sooner Showdown