|
2003 - 2004
Policy Judge Philosophies
Home Page
Judge_Name:
Myke McGroarty
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 30+
Philosophy:
Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
3
Counterplans:
3
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
2
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
I expect really good round overviews from the 2N and the 2A.
General_Comments:
I really like unique arguments. I'll have more fun voting on a unique case or
negative strategy I haven't heard before.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Ernie Querido
Coach:
Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 14
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 20+
Philosophy:
Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
3
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 4
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 3
Kritik_Arguments:
3
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
intelligent arguments and rhetorical schmooze
General_Comments:
These number scales are pretty arbitrary.
To win a debate is to resolve comparisons in one's favor better than the
opponent resolves them in theirs. Too many debaters don't bother
comparing, e.g. interpretations vs. counter-interpretations, links vs. link turns, case
cards vs. case answer, fiat framework vs. non-fiat framework. When they
don't
bother, I do.
Debaters who talk the talk should be able to walk the walk... I've run into a
couple of debaters who talk too much. Those debaters have heard me scream
at
them. They give our activity a bad name.
Be nice to each other...
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Roger Reinke
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 4
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 18
Philosophy:
Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery:
4
Topicality:
3
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are
acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
2
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Reasoning
Argument supported by evidence
Strategy
Delivery
General_Comments:
Generally a stock issues judge. Will listen to all positions and do my
best to
make an unbiased decision. Debaters using advanced debate theory arguments
must make their position clear.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Howard Burkholz
Coach:
Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 35
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 30
Philosophy:
Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
2
Counterplans:
2
Generic_Disadvantages: 2
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
4
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
INtelligence in analysis and extension of cards
General_Comments:
Hate the K but will voteon it. There must be a realistic textual alternative.
Deconstuction will be tossed with a straight analyt. Do not ask to use personal
politics.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Matt Gaetz
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 4
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 30+
Philosophy:
Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
3
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are
acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Not taking any more time than necessary to make all of the different arguments
you can think of.
General_Comments:
Statistically, you as a debater have a very low probability of getting me as a
judge as I have been "excused" from the pool 2 of the last 3 years since winning
the tournament.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Amanda Simpson
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 16-20
Philosophy:
Games Player
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
3
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are
acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Nice balance of clarity and speed. Time efficient.
General_Comments:
I'm a very liberal judge...I love hearing innovative ways of approaching the
resolution (within reason- key is upholding the education of the round). My
favorite positions are critical, but only when understood by the advocate and
not generic!
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Briscoe, Shawn
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
Number_of_Years_Judging: 5
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 12
Philosophy:
Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
2
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are
acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
3
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clarity, logic, and analysis.
General_Comments:
1) My default -- and preference -- paradigm is policymaker; however, I am more
than willing to let the debaters place me in an alternate framework. 2) I
feel kritiks are ineffectively used by most teams. This is not to say that
I will
not vote on them. I just feel as though most teams run nonunique
disadvantages and label them as kritiks so they don't have to complete their
research. As a result, they generally do not offer a viable policy
alternative. 3) One final
thought. I believe it is the burden of the 2NR/2AR to tell a convincing
story at the end of their speech. That is, you don't want me deciding how
to decide the outcome of the round. The final rebuttalist should,
essentially, write the
critic's Reason For Decision.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Nick Teman
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 5
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 60+
Philosophy:
Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery:
4
Topicality:
2
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are
acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 3
Kritik_Arguments:
4
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Good analysis, fast AND clear delivery, intelligent arguments, and being
nice/respectful in rounds.
General_Comments:
The number scales are pretty deceiving. My rankings are meant to indicate
which arguments I prefer to hear, but only if run well. Short of
ethnic/gendered/etc slurs and spark, there are very few arguments I find
"unacceptable," so don't assume that just because I ranked Kritiks a 4, that
means you shouldnt run them or that I don't want to hear them. Although, I
don't.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Kelly Wood
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 4
Philosphy:
Speaking skills are most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Value_Premise:
4
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 4
Approach_to_Resolution:4
Use_of_Example:
3
Use_of_Evidence: 4
Focus_on_Debate: 5--Big
Picture
Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Overall Presentation. You are clear--no mumbling. No yelling
--maintain composure--Do not attempt to manipulate my emotions--especially when
based on a preconceived ideal as to what my emotions will be.
General_Comments:
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
George Wood
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 12
Philosphy:
Speaking skills are most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Value_Premise:
5--Very important
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 5--Very Important
Approach_to_Resolution: 3
Use_of_Example:
4
Use_of_Evidence:
4
Focus_on_Debate:
3
Persuasive_Communication: 4
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Smooth delivery, very controlled voice during cx, eye contact.
General_Comments:
Pragmatic approach --easy and simple
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Kathleen Mannion
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
Number_of_Years_Judging: 22 years on
and off
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 18-20
Philosophy:
Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery:
4
Topicality:
2
Counterplans:
4
Generic_Disadvantages: 3
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 3
Kritik_Arguments:
4
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
*Delivery
*Use of Evidence
*Interpretation of evidence
*Analysis
*Clash
General_Comments:
If the debater can support their style and position, I am open to a spectrum of
styles. I am not opposed to rapid fire delivery but if I, the judge, misses a
point, the speaker has only their self to blame.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Ryan Houck
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: apx. 30
Philosophy:
Games Player
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are
acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
quality of argumentation
General_Comments:
I have no predispositions against anything and try to remain as tabula rasa as
possible.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
John Robertson
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 3
Philosophy:
Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery:
4
Topicality:
3
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Persuasion - If I think your arguments are strong, speaker points will reflect
that. Also, speaking style. Being clear is important. And if you make me laugh
you get more speaker points.
General_Comments:
Link and impact arguments and I'll listen to them, whatever they are. If you
win an argument about how we have to affirm to prevent the lizard people from
destroying the earth, I will vote on that. But it has to have a link and an
impact.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Xavier Yrausquin Jr.
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 5
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 50
Philosophy:
Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
how deliberate someone was while speaking. you can go fast but you better be
saying something.
General_Comments:
i will vote on anything at any time. i think slow debaters can beat fast
debaters, the round will always come down to who has the best arguements
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
David Beckman
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 3
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 1
Philosophy:
Games Player
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
2
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
I think that clarity really is the first criteria when awarding speaker points.
While quality and creativity of argumentation certainly factor in, those both
factor more into the decision than the speaker points. I feel that the top
speaker at a tournament should really be the best speaker not necessarily the
same as the best debator.
General_Comments:
First off, I like general narratives. Second, I am the warrior.
Third, I enjoy debate. I would prefer a slower debate but certainly
understand the strategy of being as swift as possible and will do my darnedest
to keep up and should be able to as long as you are even moderately clear.
In terms of positions, I love procedurals, like T ASPEC even the good old
inherency arguments, yet you must explain these well as I am also open to RVIs
on these issues. If you are going to run a kritical position there had
better be an alternative and one that really exists, not just one that you try
to make up. Otherwise, be funny, have fun, and ask me any questions, as I
will perhaps be able to answer them.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Morgan Weinstein
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 3
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 7
Philosophy:
Games Player
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
clarity! clarity! clarity! and parsimony. be funny, clear, fast, smart,
and
efficient, and i will reward you.
General_Comments:
i won this tournament. it was fun. winning is fun. in order to
win in front
of me, you need to give me warranted analysis and impact your arguments.
also, you must dodge bullets- neo style. for instance, when an unamed
coach storms out of a room furious that his kids did not reach finals (and they
probably should have), you should just wait and let the tournament find
another (probably inferior) judge.
i don't know a lot of the acronyms from this topic very well.
malthus is a sweet argument, and ageing society is a sweet answer. have
fun,
and run what you want.
oh yeah, I AM THE WARRIOR!
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Brian Van Valkenburg
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 20+
Philosophy:
Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery:
4
Topicality:
5--I never vote on topicality
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clarity, resolving issues in the round, etc.
General_Comments:
I hold a belief that this is your round and you should have whatever type of
debate you want. I enjoy everything from Politics and counter plans, to
Critiques and Performance. If you do not tell me where to vote and why
(which
you should) I default to a policy-maker paradigm; I need an offensive reason to
vote for you. It is very difficult to get me to vote for topicality
because I want to preserve the space of debate for all types of discourse.
Please feel free to ask any questions before the round.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Patrick Shea
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: my first
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: will be 3-4 at FFLs
Philosophy:
Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality: 3
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
2
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Way in which one delivers speech and speed associated along with understanding
General_Comments:
I generally like open cross-x, other than that I'm ok with all rules
___________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Holmes
Coach:
Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 20
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 80
Philosophy:
Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery:
4
Topicality:
3
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
3
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
General_Comments:
___________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Derek Denman
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: About 20
Philosophy:
Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
3
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
A combination of clarity and speed of delivery, well developed and warranted
arguments, and creating a clear delineation between the meaning of an
affirmative versus a negative ballot.
General_Comments:
Although I checked the "tab" box I default to being a policy maker unless one
team wins that I should view the debate otherwise.
I tend to think that theoretical issues (including topicality) are resolved
through competing interpretations. T and theory debates are often
underdeveloped; I would prefer fewer well developed theory arguments than a
mass of one line blips; a definite assessment of offense and defense (although
this holds true for any argument); and a comparison of the significance of the
two, analagous to disad impact comparison.
I am completely open to kritiks but prefer that the philosophical theory be
applied to the specific claims and evidence made by the affirmative. This is not
to say that 'resolution' based links will be discounted, just that they are
not as compelling. Give a framework for how to evaluate the implications.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Jackie Hartjen
Coach:
Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 12
Philosophy:
Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery:
3
Topicality:
3
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 4
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 4
Kritik_Arguments:
5--Unacceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
clarity
passion for AFF/NEG in voice
forceful rebuttals
analysis
General_Comments:
This is my first year as a coach; my team probably knows more than I do.
You
need to guide me. Give me something to compare. 2NR/2AR: Convince me why
to
vote for you. No speed w/o clarity. Signpost. Tag.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Jackson Mumey
Coach:
Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 6+
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 25+
Philosophy:
Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery:
3
Topicality:
4
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 2
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clarity of argument; judge adaptation; quality of cross-x
General_Comments:
my philosophy is detailed on the ndca judging site
__________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Sharon Sinclair
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 20
Philosophy:
Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery:
1--Slow and deliberate
Topicality:
3
Counterplans:
3
Generic_Disadvantages: 3
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 3
Kritik_Arguments:
5--Unacceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Logical basis to arguments; clarity of presentation.
General_Comments:
No "end of the world" scenarios; facts, not kritiks, are applicable.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Sarah Ashleigh Stevens
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 4
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 40+
Philosophy:
Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Here are a few ways to improve your speaker points in front of me:
1. BE NICE TO EACH OTHER.
2. Do not assume you are winning every argument you go for. Make some "even if I
lose x argument, we win because of y" comparisons. I mean, I'm glad to write
down the words "magnitude" or "timeframe,? but they mean very little if the
other side is repeating those same words when referring to the advantage.
Compare them for me.
3. Don?t waste time. Please do not repeat the same argument 12 times to make a
2.5 minute 2NC into an 8 minute one. On the same note, if someone drops the
disad don't read me five new links in the 2NC. I will be much nicer speaker
points wise if you get me out in time to watch my kids give the 2NR - bonus
points if I get to see the 1AR :)
4. DO NOT STEAL PREP. I did it and I know when you are doing it. If you are not
building a podium or giving me an order, you are prepping.
General_Comments:
I know the number scale is a little strange, but I will try to translate. You
can go as fast as you like, but don't go faster than you can. Slow debates are
fine, too - I can flow them better :)
Conditional arguments are fine, but I am pretty convinced by the argument that
dispositionality solves all the offensive reasons why conditionality is
good, but gives the aff some control over their own destiny. The point is that I
am
willing to vote on conditionality bad, too.
You can run kritiks, but I should warn you that I am stupid and don't know many
big words. I am old and slow (kids on the team call me Me-maw). Make the round
easy on me.
Really, what you want to make the debate about is up to you. Congratulations on
making it to the state tournament! Have fun and good luck! Buy a t-shirt!
__________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
William Xanttopoulos
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 1
recently/several during the stone age
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 8
Philosophy:
Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery:
3
Topicality:
3
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 4
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 4
Kritik_Arguments:
4
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Good argument-being able to articulate why your position is better/right. Speed
is generally Ok to some degree, but people who are incomprehensible will not
get top points. I would appreciate some degree of civility. Talking over other
people in cross-X, or being rude is a turn off. I try to ignore it, but its
impossible for it to have no effect on the award of points.
General_Comments:
Topicality- I listen to topicality arguments carefully. If the aff. has a
reasonable interpretation I will usually accept it. However, if they fail to
argue it correctly I can vote negative. I have a hard time voting neg on
basis
that the aff is "abusive" if I know that the aff case has been around for much
of the year.
Impact-Links. I'm impressed by good arguments as to why the impact is linked or
not linked, or why the effect of one disadvantage outweighs affirmative
advantage etc. I'm impressed by the ability to specifically and logically argue
against specific evidence/authority i.e. does not apply in this situation,
authority is biased, outdated etc.
I do not like sloppy or generalized causation arguments. For example, I find
many politics arguments to not have a realistic logical basis. i.e. Bush
will
attack China to off set the specific affirmative plan because the aff plan is a
"liberal" plan and there are conservatives who would like to be tough on
china.
Speed is OK but you may not get credit for something that is read so fast that
I can't understand it. Because I have judged a limited number of rounds you
cannot presume that I will know your evidence if it is incomprehsible during
the round.
I may or may not ask to read evidence after the round. I am more likely to read
a key piece of evidence that is pointed out or emphasized during the
round.
Don't expect me to go back and read everything.
I am simply more familiar with traditional policy debate. I will keep an open
mind to theory arguments etc. but due to my personal experience I simply am
more familiar with the policy maker type analysis.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Tim Case
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 3
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: too many
Philosophy:
Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
I would say clarity and flow (i.e. lack of space between arguments and
continuous movement from one argument to the next) are the biggest determining
factors for awarding speaker points for me. Dont be jerks to each other
either..I really hate that...and stealing prep time doesnt help either.
General_Comments:
Anyone know what a games player approach to policy debate is?
Anyway...
I dont like the idea of a scale representing my predisposition to vote on
arguments or not so I guess a description of my preference for different sorts
of arguments is neccessary.
Topicality/Theory - I LIKE topicality. I think words and the ways in which
they are interpreted have an enormous impact on the size/predictability of
affirmative case lists. If you go for it...you should take it for 5
minutes in
the 2NR to ensure a well developed story. On a side note, I am not a fan of
potential for abuse, I like to hear in round abuse articulated only because I
think there is too much judge discretion and intervention in potentiality.
This goes for theory debates as well. I am not a fan of straight up theory
debates generally because I find that teams tend to pull out their PICS bad and
PICS good blocks and read them non-responsively against each other. Thoery
should be both offensive and defensive. Spending 15-30 seconds is not
enough
to win a theory debate...if you go for it in the 2NR or 2AR, it should be
extensively developed well before these speeches.
Counterplans/Disads - I am more disposed towards kritiks and topicality than
counterplans and disads though it does not mean that I dont understand them or
wont vote on them...I know this sounds crazy but you better answer case
outweighs arguments on disads...because i generally find that a conceeded
advantage has a greater impact than a conceeded disadvantage...of course this
is often round specific.
kritiks - I like em'...but you better explain what it is and extend
specific links, implications, and alternatives in the 2NR...if you dont you
will loose.
kritik affirmatives - i like them also though I also agree with certain
arguments why these might infringe upon negative ground.
Ultimately the debate round is up to you...I try to do the least work possible
in making my decisions...I prefer not reading cards because i find most of the
time cards dont say what you say they say...I want to hear warrants in your
speeches not read them in your cards.
PLAY NICE!!!!
__________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Marna Weston
Coach:
Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 20
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 15
Philosophy:
Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery:
3
Topicality:
4
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Debaters are expected to ask and answer their own questions. Develop
consistent, non contradictory arguments. Introduce criteria for evaluation and
weighing arguments. Refute standards labeled as "voting issues."
General_Comments:
I keep a good flow but need a slower to moderate start to get used to the sound
of an individual's voice. The acoustic signature of the particular room also
must be evaluated to determine pitch and speed appropriateness. Debaters
that
spread faster than they can articulate and who grant the 1AC case are usually
not successful in front of me. 1AR is a job, not a speech. Let the 2AR explain,
just get it out clearly. Kritiks are fine but explain why the scenario is
unique to the affirmative. They should not lose just because say for example,
racism and sexism exist. How does the affirmative or negative team's
stance in
this particular round of debate ignite the warrants in the Kritik? Counterplans
should be non-topical, have net benefits and be mutually exclusive. I know
there is current debate on PICs/PECs/negation theory. If you want to argue why
your CPLAN can be topical, really be ready to defend that, because I'm old
school and don't buy that on-face. I wont debate you ,but I come with some
preconceptions in the other direction. So if it is left up to me due to unclear
end round analysis, I'll pull the trigger in favor of my beliefs. Be careful of
running lots of Inherency with Disads. I like inherency, resolutional
justification, significance and harms mitigation on the case debate. I also
like real world clash on plan workability. Not really big on the SPECS (Agent
spec, O-Spec, etc) but I will flow it. Dont double turn disads. New disads in
2NC are fine with me, just make sure all procedurals are primafacia. Politics
is so old you can call it Clinton in front of me. Please have unique scenarios
though. Zizek and Foucault work sometimes in front of me, just make sure you
understand the implications of bio-power, etc. Just reading a tag-line is
probably not good. Understand the implications of the argument before you run
it. Cross Examination is binding. Presumption favors the NEG in a non
counterplan round. If the NEG runs a counterplan, persumption goes to the AFF
because the CPlan is granting the 1AC pr
Weston
__________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Dan Lewis
Coach:
Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 10
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 25
Philosophy:
Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
4
Counterplans:
2
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
2
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
The high point man in the debate has to be the MVP in the round.
General_Comments:
I like understandable speeches but I can live without them if I have to. I
am
posting in case I am needed in the judging pool.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
George Mencia
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: +3
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: +15
Philosophy:
Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
2
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Fast is fine, as long as it is clear. Make it obvious when you are moving
on
to a new argument.
General_Comments:
Open to anything as long as there is evidence AND analysis...
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Dee Asencio
Coach:
Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 6
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: +20
Philosophy:
Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
2
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
I think speed is a necessary evil for policy debaters. Knock yourself out
- I
can flow any speed - HOWEVER you must be clear (I want to be able to
distinguish when you move on to a new argument), and make sure your cites are
clear (I like to hear where this fantabulous evidence is coming from).
General_Comments:
I love debate, and I loved being a debater. I am open to ALL arguments.
Go
for the arguments you are winning. Don't go for too too much in the 2NR.
Impact analysis = good. Telling a story = even better. (PS - if
you're going
for T, go for it for real. Be thorough as to why you win - it shouldn't be
a
backburner argument in case I don't buy your DA). Tell me where to vote,
don't
leave me to my own devices (it usually won't go your way - my mind works
maverick).
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Judge_Name:
Jeffrey Miller
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 6
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 38
Philosophy:
Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
humour.
General_Comments:
|