LD Judge Philosophies

2004-2005

Home Page

___________________________________________________________________________________

Key to Numbers Below

Rate of Delivery:             1 = Slow and deliberate; 5 = very rapid
Value Premise:                1= Unimportant; 5 = Very important
Use of Value Criteria:      1= Unnecessary; 5 = Very important
Approach to Resolution:  1= Philosophical; 5 = Pragmatic
Use of Example:              1=Unnecessary; 5 = Very Important
Use of Evidence:             1=Not Necessary; 5 = Very Important
Focus on Debate:            1= Line by Line; 5 = Big Picture
Persuasive Communication:   1=Not that Important; 5 = Very Important

_________________________________________________________________________________

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Marc Dauphinais
Date:                       9/30/04
Coach:                      Yes
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:    
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 
Philosphy:                  Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:           Select one of the following:
Value_Premise:              Select one of the following:
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following
Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:
Use_of_Example:             Select one of the following:
Use_of_Evidence:            Select one of the following:
Focus_on_Debate:            Select one of the following:
Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Harry Morehead
Date:                       10/1/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:    
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 
Philosphy:                  Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:           Select one of the following:
Value_Premise:              Select one of the following:
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following
Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:
Use_of_Example:             Select one of the following:
Use_of_Evidence:            Select one of the following:
Focus_on_Debate:            Select one of the following:
Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Nancy Rossman
Date:                       9/30/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:    
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 
Philosphy:                  Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:           Select one of the following:
Value_Premise:              Select one of the following:
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following
Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:
Use_of_Example:             Select one of the following:
Use_of_Evidence:            Select one of the following:
Focus_on_Debate:            Select one of the following:
Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Theresa Eastwood
Date:                       9/30/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:    
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 
Philosphy:                  Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:           Select one of the following:
Value_Premise:              Select one of the following:
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following
Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:
Use_of_Example:             Select one of the following:
Use_of_Evidence:            Select one of the following:
Focus_on_Debate:            Select one of the following:
Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:

 
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Sean Luechtefeld
Date:                       09/30/04
Coach:                      Yes
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   Yes
College_Debater:            Yes
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosphy:                  Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           3
Value_Premise:              5--Very important
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      5--Very Important
Approach_to_Resolution:     2
Use_of_Example:             4
Use_of_Evidence:            3
Focus_on_Debate:            2
Persuasive_Communication:   5--Very important
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

Because LD is a communication event, it is vital that competitors speak clearly 
and persuasively.  While I can flow speed, I believe that debate is not a 
matter of who can spread the most cards in a limited amount of time, therefore, 
use your time to clearly convey the message.

General_Comments:

I debated for four years in high school and now am a policy debater on the 
college circuit, as well as a coach.  I don't harp on certain styles because I 
believe that being an effective debater means you can use a wide variety of 
approaches.  Therefore, present to me logical arguments and show me why I ought 
to care about them, and then tell me why you win them.  To put it simply, 
CONVINCE ME!

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Donna Doyle
Date:                       10/02/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     Yes
No_Experience:              No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:    
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 
Philosphy:                  Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:           Select one of the following:
Value_Premise:              Select one of the following:
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following
Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:
Use_of_Example:             Select one of the following:
Use_of_Evidence:            Select one of the following:
Focus_on_Debate:            Select one of the following:
Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Pradeep Mathur
Date:                       October 3, 2004
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            Yes
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     Yes
No_Experience:              No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:    
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 
Philosphy:                  Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:           Select one of the following:
Value_Premise:              Select one of the following:
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following
Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:
Use_of_Example:             Select one of the following:
Use_of_Evidence:            Select one of the following:
Focus_on_Debate:            Select one of the following:
Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:
 
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Norris "Keith" Goodrum
Date:                       10/3/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    3
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosphy:                  Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           3
Value_Premise:              5--Very important
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      5--Very Important
Approach_to_Resolution:     4
Use_of_Example:             4
Use_of_Evidence:            3
Focus_on_Debate:            5--Big Picture
Persuasive_Communication:   5--Very important
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

I think is important for the debater to be articulate, knowledgeable of the 
topic, defend their position from their opponent, and express confidence in 
their ability to debate.

General_Comments:

I think the debater needs to persuade me they believe their own argument.  They 
need to show preparation. The best way to do that, isn't to cover as many 
different angle on their position in the allotted time. To me, they need to 
present the most convincing 3 or 4 points. The completely develop those points 
and be prepared to counter their opponent's attacks.




*******************************************************************************

Judge_Name:                 
Dave Larsen

Date:                       
October 04, 2004

Coach:                     


Assistant_Coach:           


LD_in_HS:                  


College_Debater:           


Parent:                     
Yes

Volunteer_or_Community:     Yes

No_Experience:             


Number_of_Years_Judging:    2

Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0

Philosphy:                  
Values and philosophy 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:            
3

Persuasive_Communication:   4

B1:                         
Submit



Speaker_Points:



Clarity of content and delivery, politeness, consistency



General_Comments:

 



 




*******************************************************************************

Judge_Name:                 
Ned Bielski

Date:                       
October 3, 2004

Coach:                     


Assistant_Coach:           


LD_in_HS:                  


College_Debater:           


Parent:                     
Yes

Volunteer_or_Community:     

No_Experience:             


Number_of_Years_Judging:    3

Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0

Philosphy:                  
Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important

Rate_of_Delivery:           3

Value_Premise:              
4

Use_of_Value_Criteria:      4

Approach_to_Resolution:     3

Use_of_Example:             
4

Use_of_Evidence:            
5--Very important

Focus_on_Debate:            
3

Persuasive_Communication:   3

B1:                         
Submit



Speaker_Points:



Is the debater poised, demonstrate eye-contact, did not stutter, use correct 

grammer, use hand gestures, respect his/her opponent, deliver a clear message,


use logic in presenting argument, deliver in a persuasive manner, counter 

opponent's points.



General_Comments:



Does the dabater present a strong and understandable case?  Does the 
debater 

address his/her opponent's points?  




*******************************************************************************

Judge_Name:                 
Michele McGinn

Date:                       
October 4, 2004

Coach:                     


Assistant_Coach:           


LD_in_HS:                  


College_Debater:           


Parent:                     
Yes

Volunteer_or_Community:     

No_Experience:              
No_Experience

Number_of_Years_Judging:    

Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 

Philosphy:                  
Select one of the following

Rate_of_Delivery:           
Select one of the following:

Value_Premise:              
Select one of the following:

Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following

Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:

Use_of_Example:             
Select one of the following:

Use_of_Evidence:            
Select one of the following:

Focus_on_Debate:            
Select one of the following:

Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:

B1:                         
Submit



Speaker_Points:





General_Comments:



*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Frank L. Pohl
Date:                       Oct. 5, 2004
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:    
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 
Philosphy:                  Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:           Select one of the following:
Value_Premise:              Select one of the following:
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following
Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:
Use_of_Example:             Select one of the following:
Use_of_Evidence:            Select one of the following:
Focus_on_Debate:            Select one of the following:
Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:





*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Drew Baird
Date:                       10/05/04
Coach:                      Yes
Assistant_Coach:            Yes
LD_in_HS:                   Yes
College_Debater:            Yes
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 5
Philosphy:                  Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           4
Value_Premise:              5--Very important
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      5--Very Important
Approach_to_Resolution:     2
Use_of_Example:             2
Use_of_Evidence:            4
Focus_on_Debate:            3
Persuasive_Communication:   3
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

Clarity is the main focus of speaker points for me.   Speed is no problem from 
me, but DON'T let it detract from the clarity of your speech.  Voice 
modulation, tone, emphasis are all fine and dandy.  But will not be the 
paramount factor in assigning speaker points.  Just sound rhetoricly pleasing 
and clear and the points will come.

General_Comments:

I debated for the Celebration LD squad in high school.  I currently do policy 
at FSU in the college circuit and coach Florida High School in Tallahassee.  So 
I can handle speed and emphasize the flow to a degree.  I'll judge the round as 
objectively as possible which means I am not going to infer impacts for you.  
Line by line is extremely vital but it is merely the segway into your impacts 
and cyrstalization.  That's where the round will generally be won. I can 
generally accept and like cases that may not be a traditional approach to the 
resolution.  But justify how they are actually resolutional.  If you are going 
to do non-traditional LD, be prepared to argue the all important "T".





 




*******************************************************************************

Judge_Name:                 
Mrs. Joy Parker Dever

Date:                       
October 5, 2004

Coach:                     


Assistant_Coach:           


LD_in_HS:                  


College_Debater:           


Parent:                     
Yes

Volunteer_or_Community:     

No_Experience:              
No_Experience

Number_of_Years_Judging:    

Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 

Philosphy:                  
Select one of the following

Rate_of_Delivery:           
Select one of the following:

Value_Premise:              
Select one of the following:

Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following

Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:

Use_of_Example:             
Select one of the following:

Use_of_Evidence:            
Select one of the following:

Focus_on_Debate:            
Select one of the following:

Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:

B1:                         
Submit



Speaker_Points:





General_Comments:

*******************************************************************************

Judge_Name:                 
Joel Rafalski Sr.

Date:                       
10/05/04

Coach:                     


Assistant_Coach:           


LD_in_HS:                  


College_Debater:           


Parent:                     
Yes

Volunteer_or_Community:     Yes

No_Experience:             


Number_of_Years_Judging:    1

Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0

Philosphy:                  
Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important

Rate_of_Delivery:           
5--Very rapid

Value_Premise:              
3

Use_of_Value_Criteria:      3

Approach_to_Resolution:     3

Use_of_Example:             
3

Use_of_Evidence:            
3

Focus_on_Debate:            
3

Persuasive_Communication:   3

B1:                         
Submit



Speaker_Points:



I'm very fair, and will award points case by case. I don't care how one 

dresses, or if they talk slow or fast, I agree or disagree, and so forth. The


one thing I do care about [a lot] is if, the evidence that is being givin is 

correct. I'm pretty good with history, and current events so don't wing it. 



General_Comments:

*******************************************************************************

Judge_Name:                 
Kirsten Flamand

Date:                       
Oct.5, 2004

Coach:                      
Yes

Assistant_Coach:           


LD_in_HS:                  


College_Debater:           


Parent:                    


Volunteer_or_Community:     

No_Experience:             


Number_of_Years_Judging:    14

Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0

Philosphy:                  
Select one of the following

Rate_of_Delivery:           
Select one of the following:

Value_Premise:              
Select one of the following:

Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following

Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:

Use_of_Example:             
Select one of the following:

Use_of_Evidence:            
Select one of the following:

Focus_on_Debate:            
Select one of the following:

Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:

B1:                         
Submit



Speaker_Points:





General_Comments:

*******************************************************************************

Judge_Name:                


Date:                      


Coach:                     


Assistant_Coach:           


LD_in_HS:                  


College_Debater:           


Parent:                    


Volunteer_or_Community:     

No_Experience:             


Number_of_Years_Judging:    

Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 

Philosphy:                  
Values and philosophy are most important

Rate_of_Delivery:           3

Value_Premise:              
3

Use_of_Value_Criteria:      1--Unnecessary

Approach_to_Resolution:     2

Use_of_Example:             
4

Use_of_Evidence:            
4

Focus_on_Debate:            
4

Persuasive_Communication:   3

B1:                         
Submit



Speaker_Points:



I consider the quality of the rebuttal speeches very heavily.  I have seen 
too 

many rounds where constructives (brilliantly written by someone ELSE) could not


be supported or explained in rebuttals.  A good LDer should write and 

understand and defend his own constructive case.







General_Comments:



I prefer the original intent of LD, which is to focus on the big picture of 

philosophy--not to talk fast and trick your opponent into missing some small 

details.






 



*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Terri Sanders
Date:                       10/05/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            Yes
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosphy:                  Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           2
Value_Premise:              4
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      4
Approach_to_Resolution:     3
Use_of_Example:             4
Use_of_Evidence:            3
Focus_on_Debate:            3
Persuasive_Communication:   5--Very important
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

Knowledge of topic; preparation; clarity; persuasiveness; organization; 
confidence; respect for opponent

General_Comments:

Please speak at a reasonable rate.  I am not a fan of the current trend of 
speaking as fast as you can.  If I miss it, I can't consider it.





*******************************************************************************

Judge_Name:                 
Colleen Renfro

Date:                       
10/07/04

Coach:                     


Assistant_Coach:           


LD_in_HS:                  


College_Debater:           


Parent:                     
Yes

Volunteer_or_Community:     

No_Experience:              
No_Experience

Number_of_Years_Judging:    

Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 

Philosphy:                  
Select one of the following

Rate_of_Delivery:           
Select one of the following:

Value_Premise:              
Select one of the following:

Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following

Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:

Use_of_Example:             
Select one of the following:

Use_of_Evidence:            
Select one of the following:

Focus_on_Debate:            
Select one of the following:

Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:

B1:                         
Submit



Speaker_Points:





General_Comments:

 




*******************************************************************************

Judge_Name:                 
Beth Eskin

Date:                       
10/07/04

Coach:                      
Yes

Assistant_Coach:           


LD_in_HS:                  


College_Debater:           


Parent:                    


Volunteer_or_Community:     

No_Experience:             


Number_of_Years_Judging:    6

Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0

Philosphy:                  
Values and philosophy are most important

Rate_of_Delivery:           3

Value_Premise:              
5--Very important

Use_of_Value_Criteria:      5--Very Important

Approach_to_Resolution:     1--Philosophical

Use_of_Example:             
3

Use_of_Evidence:            
5--Very important

Focus_on_Debate:            
4

Persuasive_Communication:   5--Very important

B1:                         
Submit



Speaker_Points:



ability of speaker to engage audinec, fluency and persuasion



General_Comments:



*******************************************************************************

Judge_Name:                 
Sheri Penman

Date:                      


Coach:                     


Assistant_Coach:           


LD_in_HS:                  


College_Debater:           


Parent:                     
Yes

Volunteer_or_Community:     

No_Experience:             


Number_of_Years_Judging:    2

Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0

Philosphy:                  
Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important

Rate_of_Delivery:           3

Value_Premise:              
2

Use_of_Value_Criteria:      4

Approach_to_Resolution:     5--Pragmatic

Use_of_Example:             
4

Use_of_Evidence:            
4

Focus_on_Debate:            
3

Persuasive_Communication:   4

B1:                         
Submit



Speaker_Points:



In novice, I look more at speaking skills, persuasion, use of value criterion


and hope for some clash. I look at which person comes across as knowing what 

they are trying to do. In varsity, I expect good value criteria and very good


clash. I want the students to convince me with their persuasion and speaking 

ability. I look for strong use of evidence and examples- that shows me they did


the research. I want the students to understand the implications of the topic


for society today and why that particular topic was chosen to be debated.



General_Comments:



I like judging a lot. Thanks for the opportunity to contribute to our future 

leaders.




 



*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Kathy Averill
Date:                       10-07-04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:     Yes
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    3
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 15
Philosphy:                  Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           4
Value_Premise:              4
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      4
Approach_to_Resolution:     3
Use_of_Example:             3
Use_of_Evidence:            5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate:            2
Persuasive_Communication:   5--Very important
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

Being very articulate, having poise, not stumbling over your words, being able 
to read your case without losing your place, not getting flustered in c-x

General_Comments:

I prefer to see a spirited c-x, but not a nasty one.  I like it when the 
debaters sum up the voting issues for me in the rebuttals.



 



*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Alan Penman
Date:                       !0/08/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:    
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 
Philosphy:                  Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:           Select one of the following:
Value_Premise:              Select one of the following:
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following
Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:
Use_of_Example:             Select one of the following:
Use_of_Evidence:            Select one of the following:
Focus_on_Debate:            Select one of the following:
Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:




*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 
Date:                       
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            Yes
Parent:                     Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:     Yes
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 30
Philosphy:                  Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           3
Value_Premise:              4
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      4
Approach_to_Resolution:     3
Use_of_Example:             2
Use_of_Evidence:            4
Focus_on_Debate:            3
Persuasive_Communication:   4
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

structure, logic, relevance, prsentation

General_Comments:

logic, lucid, enunciated, 




*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Preston Bennett
Date:                       10/17/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   Yes
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosphy:                  Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           3
Value_Premise:              3
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      5--Very Important
Approach_to_Resolution:     2
Use_of_Example:             4
Use_of_Evidence:            5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate:            3
Persuasive_Communication:   5--Very important
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

- Clear and efficient argumentation
- Professional appearance and behavior
- Overall persuasiveness 

General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 
Date:                       
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            Yes
Parent:                     Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:     Yes
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 30
Philosphy:                  Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           3
Value_Premise:              4
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      4
Approach_to_Resolution:     3
Use_of_Example:             2
Use_of_Evidence:            4
Focus_on_Debate:            3
Persuasive_Communication:   4
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Ryan Boatwright
Date:                       October 19, 2004
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     Yes
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosphy:                  Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           3
Value_Premise:              3
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      4
Approach_to_Resolution:     4
Use_of_Example:             4
Use_of_Evidence:            4
Focus_on_Debate:            3
Persuasive_Communication:   5--Very important
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

Confidence. Relevance. Commitment to topic. 

General_Comments:




*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Myke McGroarty
Date:                       10/18/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            Yes
LD_in_HS:                   Yes
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosphy:                  Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           5--Very rapid
Value_Premise:              5--Very important
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      5--Very Important
Approach_to_Resolution:     3
Use_of_Example:             3
Use_of_Evidence:            2
Focus_on_Debate:            2
Persuasive_Communication:   3
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

Stay organized. Give me a point-by-point analysis. I like debates that get to 
the impacts, philosophy really isn't anything without some solid real world 
thought.

General_Comments:

I'm open to all interpretations of the resolutions. I like fun debate. I think 
it's important to find a balance in philosophy versus real world thought. Any 
questions? Please ask.



*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Lucia Trejos
Date:                       10/20/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:    
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 
Philosphy:                  Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:           Select one of the following:
Value_Premise:              Select one of the following:
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following
Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:
Use_of_Example:             Select one of the following:
Use_of_Evidence:            Select one of the following:
Focus_on_Debate:            Select one of the following:
Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Justin Bangs
Date:                       10-20-04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            Yes
LD_in_HS:                   Yes
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     Yes
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    4
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 20+
Philosphy:                  Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           3
Value_Premise:              4
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      4
Approach_to_Resolution:     2
Use_of_Example:             3
Use_of_Evidence:            2
Focus_on_Debate:            1--Line-by-line
Persuasive_Communication:   4
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Jessica
Date:                       Ducey
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   Yes
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     Yes
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    3
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 30+
Philosphy:                  Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           2
Value_Premise:              5--Very important
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      4
Approach_to_Resolution:     3
Use_of_Example:             Select one of the following:
Use_of_Evidence:            1--Not necessary
Focus_on_Debate:            1--Line-by-line
Persuasive_Communication:   5--Very important
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Erin Ash
Date:                       10/20/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    3
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosphy:                  Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           3
Value_Premise:              5--Very important
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      3
Approach_to_Resolution:     3
Use_of_Example:             4
Use_of_Evidence:            4
Focus_on_Debate:            3
Persuasive_Communication:   2
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

Clarity of presentation and ability to rebut opponent's arguments

General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Frederica Edmiston
Date:                       10/20/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosphy:                  Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           3
Value_Premise:              4
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      3
Approach_to_Resolution:     2
Use_of_Example:             2
Use_of_Evidence:            1--Not necessary
Focus_on_Debate:            4
Persuasive_Communication:   5--Very important
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:




*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Soo Choi
Date:                       10/21/2004
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     Yes
No_Experience:              No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:    
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 
Philosphy:                  Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:           Select one of the following:
Value_Premise:              Select one of the following:
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following
Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:
Use_of_Example:             Select one of the following:
Use_of_Evidence:            Select one of the following:
Focus_on_Debate:            Select one of the following:
Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Victor First
Date:                       10/21/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 1
Philosphy:                  Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           1--Slow and deliberate
Value_Premise:              4
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      4
Approach_to_Resolution:     3
Use_of_Example:             3
Use_of_Evidence:            3
Focus_on_Debate:            3
Persuasive_Communication:   4
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:




*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Cheryl Walther
Date:                       10/22/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     Yes
No_Experience:              No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:    
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 
Philosphy:                  Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:           Select one of the following:
Value_Premise:              Select one of the following:
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following
Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:
Use_of_Example:             Select one of the following:
Use_of_Evidence:            Select one of the following:
Focus_on_Debate:            Select one of the following:
Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Lee Solomon
Date:                       10/31/2004
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            Yes
LD_in_HS:                   Yes
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 20+
Philosphy:                  Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           5--Very rapid
Value_Premise:              1--Unimportant
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      5--Very Important
Approach_to_Resolution:     3
Use_of_Example:             1--Unnecessary
Use_of_Evidence:            5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate:            3
Persuasive_Communication:   1--Not that Important
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

Good technical skills; Clear link stories; Cogency of arguments (aka warrants); 
Strategic extensions, etc.

General_Comments:

The categories above are misleading.  The numbers represent my tolerance for 
each thing, not my preference.  I generally don't walk into a debate round with 
default preferences because I believe the rules of the debate should be argued 
by the debaters. Feel free to run any type of argument as long as you're 
prepared to warrant it.  Don't run any en vogue argument unless you actually 
know what you're doing.  I vote on what the debaters tell me to vote on.  
Decision-making rules, ground, burdens schema are open to debate.  I prefer 
technical skills over rhetorical ones.  I'll flow speed.  Good evidence has 
warrants.  Examples aren't arguments.  My full paradigm is listed on thendca.
com.  I don't know how much judging I'll be doing in Florida this year, but I 
figure I'm bound to judge at least a couple of tournaments while I'm on break.



 



*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Marion Cannon
Date:                       11/8/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     Yes
No_Experience:              No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:    
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 
Philosphy:                  Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:           Select one of the following:
Value_Premise:              Select one of the following:
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following
Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:
Use_of_Example:             Select one of the following:
Use_of_Evidence:            Select one of the following:
Focus_on_Debate:            Select one of the following:
Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:



 



*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Franklin Farago
Date:                       November 10, 2004
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   Yes
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 5
Philosphy:                  Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           3
Value_Premise:              4
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      5--Very Important
Approach_to_Resolution:     2
Use_of_Example:             3
Use_of_Evidence:            2
Focus_on_Debate:            1--Line-by-line
Persuasive_Communication:   5--Very important
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

Presentation and coherence of point of view, the argument must be well 
structured and logically valid, as well as being presented clearly and 
professionally by the speaker.

General_Comments:

I debated Licoln Douglas for a good amount of time, i know the arguments and 
the structure of the debate, I am not a mommy judge.



 



*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Roary Snider
Date:                       11/9/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            Yes
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosphy:                  Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           2
Value_Premise:              5--Very important
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      4
Approach_to_Resolution:     4
Use_of_Example:             3
Use_of_Evidence:            5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate:            5--Big Picture
Persuasive_Communication:   4
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

The speaker should be clear & concise.  The speaker should communicate 
persuasively including appropriate use of non-verbal communication.  The 
speaker should be deliberate in meaning and intent, while avoiding the non-
sensical and superfluous, especially in regards to examples.

General_Comments:

I will judge the winner of the round not only as the one who has most proven 
his/her value, but has done so effectively and in a persuasive manner.  
Debaters must remember that this event is *Lincoln-Douglas* **Debate**, not the 
quick reading of random philosophical points at mindnumbing speed.  In short, 
this is not policy debate.



*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Ryan Hughes
Date:                       11/9/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            Yes
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 1
Philosphy:                  Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           3
Value_Premise:              4
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      4
Approach_to_Resolution:     3
Use_of_Example:             4
Use_of_Evidence:            2
Focus_on_Debate:            4
Persuasive_Communication:   4
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

Good clear understanding of what the person is trying to express in conjunction 
with the topic at hand.

General_Comments:

N/A




*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Felipe Cruz
Date:                       11-09-2004
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   Yes
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     Yes
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    0
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosphy:                  Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           2
Value_Premise:              4
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      2
Approach_to_Resolution:     2
Use_of_Example:             1--Unnecessary
Use_of_Evidence:            2
Focus_on_Debate:            5--Big Picture
Persuasive_Communication:   2
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

Effectiveness in presenting arguments and connecting them well comes first, 
secondly I will look at delivery (projection, body language, etc) for a smaller 
weight

General_Comments:




*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Pat Fallan
Date:                       11-11-04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            Yes
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosphy:                  Speaking skills are most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           2
Value_Premise:              3
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      3
Approach_to_Resolution:     4
Use_of_Example:             4
Use_of_Evidence:            5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate:            5--Big Picture
Persuasive_Communication:   5--Very important
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

Clear points with facts to back up

General_Comments:




*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Tina Jen
Date:                       11/11/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosphy:                  Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:           2
Value_Premise:              Select one of the following:
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following
Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:
Use_of_Example:             Select one of the following:
Use_of_Evidence:            Select one of the following:
Focus_on_Debate:            5--Big Picture
Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

Speak with clarity and at a reasonable speed for me to follow.  Be professional 
duirng CX.  Never be condescending or arrogant toward your opponent.

General_Comments:

Slow down! Slow down!  It is not a speed contest.  Reading your case at an 
absurdly fast speed is abusive to the judge and to your opponent.  For you to 
persuade me, I have to understand it first.  If I can't follow what you are 
saying, all your great points will be wasted.  It is also not fair to your 
opponent when he/she could not write down fast enough all your points.

Doon't spread either as I won't be able to keep track of them all.  I wouldn't 
count it against your opponent if he/she drops some of your arguments.



 



*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Jackson Mumey
Date:                       11/12/2004
Coach:                      Yes
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            Yes
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              
Number_of_Years_Judging:    6
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 40+
Philosphy:                  Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important
Rate_of_Delivery:           5--Very rapid
Value_Premise:              3
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      2
Approach_to_Resolution:     5--Pragmatic
Use_of_Example:             2
Use_of_Evidence:            5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate:            1--Line-by-line
Persuasive_Communication:   1--Not that Important
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:

Good weighing of the impacts and bringing values debate back to those impacts.

General_Comments:

I approach L-D with the perspective of a policy coach. I am generally less 
comfortable with the standards debate, so you must be explicit on this part of 
the flow. 
Dropped arguments are significant when they are impacted throughout the round.



*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Sameer Farooqui
Date:                       
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     Yes
No_Experience:              No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:    
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 
Philosphy:                  Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:           Select one of the following:
Value_Premise:              Select one of the following:
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following
Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:
Use_of_Example:             Select one of the following:
Use_of_Evidence:            Select one of the following:
Focus_on_Debate:            Select one of the following:
Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:




 



*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Leon Arteche
Date:                       11/15/04
Coach:                      
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     Yes
No_Experience:              No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:    
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 
Philosphy:                  Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:           Select one of the following:
Value_Premise:              Select one of the following:
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following
Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:
Use_of_Example:             Select one of the following:
Use_of_Evidence:            Select one of the following:
Focus_on_Debate:            Select one of the following:
Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:



 



*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:                 Stephen Hansen
Date:                       12/9/2004
Coach:                      Yes
Assistant_Coach:            
LD_in_HS:                   
College_Debater:            
Parent:                     
Volunteer_or_Community:     
No_Experience:              No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:    
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 
Philosphy:                  Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:           Select one of the following:
Value_Premise:              Select one of the following:
Use_of_Value_Criteria:      Select one of the following
Approach_to_Resolution:     Select one of the following:
Use_of_Example:             Select one of the following:
Use_of_Evidence:            Select one of the following:
Focus_on_Debate:            Select one of the following:
Persuasive_Communication:   Select one of the following:
B1:                         Submit

Speaker_Points:


General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Paul Ogles
Date: 12/14/05
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach: 
LD_in_HS: 
College_Debater: 
Parent: 
Volunteer_or_Community: 
No_Experience: 
Number_of_Years_Judging: 3
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosphy: Speaking skills are most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Value_Premise: 4
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 4
Approach_to_Resolution: 3
Use_of_Example: 4
Use_of_Evidence: 4
Focus_on_Debate: 4
Persuasive_Communication: 4
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

logic and clarity; G

General_Comments:





  

    
    

      

        
        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Carmen Adkins

        Date: 12/15/04

        Coach: Yes

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: 

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: 

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: 

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 10

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 10

        Philosphy: Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important

        Rate_of_Delivery: 3

        Value_Premise: 3

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: 4

        Approach_to_Resolution: 3

        Use_of_Example: 2

        Use_of_Evidence: 4

        Focus_on_Debate: 1--Line-by-line

        Persuasive_Communication: 2

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        logic and clarity

        

        General_Comments:

        

        I began my career as a policy coach; therefore, I believe that 
        perspective 

        underlies my view of LD. I have been formally schooled regarding the 
        precepts 

        of LD, but I look at all debate as a clash of argumentation. The 
        weighing of 

        impacts is extremely important; I prefer that the debaters do that 
        weighing for 

        me, when they don't, I'm forced to--and that does not always make them 
        happy.
 

        

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Michael Levin

        Date: December 16, 2004

        Coach: 

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: 

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: Yes

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: No_Experience

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 

        Philosphy: Select one of the following

        Rate_of_Delivery: Select one of the following:

        Value_Premise: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: Select one of the following

        Approach_to_Resolution: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Example: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Evidence: Select one of the following:

        Focus_on_Debate: Select one of the following:

        Persuasive_Communication: Select one of the following:

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        

        General_Comments:

        

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Luke Kupscznk

        Date: 12/17/2004

        Coach: 

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: 

        College_Debater: Yes

        Parent: 

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: No_Experience

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 

        Philosphy: Select one of the following

        Rate_of_Delivery: Select one of the following:

        Value_Premise: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: Select one of the following

        Approach_to_Resolution: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Example: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Evidence: Select one of the following:

        Focus_on_Debate: Select one of the following:

        Persuasive_Communication: Select one of the following:

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        

        General_Comments:

        

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Scott Porterfield

        Date: 12/17/04

        Coach: 

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: 

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: 

        Volunteer_or_Community: Yes

        No_Experience: No_Experience

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 

        Philosphy: Select one of the following

        Rate_of_Delivery: Select one of the following:

        Value_Premise: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: Select one of the following

        Approach_to_Resolution: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Example: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Evidence: Select one of the following:

        Focus_on_Debate: Select one of the following:

        Persuasive_Communication: Select one of the following:

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        

        General_Comments:

        

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Thomas A. Cordova

        Date: February 7, 2005

        Coach: 

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: 

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: Yes

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: No_Experience

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 

        Philosphy: Select one of the following

        Rate_of_Delivery: Select one of the following:

        Value_Premise: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: Select one of the following

        Approach_to_Resolution: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Example: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Evidence: Select one of the following:

        Focus_on_Debate: Select one of the following:

        Persuasive_Communication: Select one of the following:

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        

        General_Comments:

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Debbie Joseph

        Date: 2 8 05

        Coach: 

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: 

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: Yes

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: No_Experience

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 

        Philosphy: Select one of the following

        Rate_of_Delivery: Select one of the following:

        Value_Premise: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: Select one of the following

        Approach_to_Resolution: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Example: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Evidence: Select one of the following:

        Focus_on_Debate: Select one of the following:

        Persuasive_Communication: Select one of the following:

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        

        General_Comments:

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Faraaz Merchant

        Date: 2/10/05

        Coach: 

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: Yes

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: 

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: 

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 2

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 8

        Philosphy: Values and philosophy are most important

        Rate_of_Delivery: 3

        Value_Premise: 4

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: 3

        Approach_to_Resolution: 4

        Use_of_Example: 3

        Use_of_Evidence: 3

        Focus_on_Debate: 5--Big Picture

        Persuasive_Communication: 3

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        argument must be sophisticated in construction yet easily understood by
        

        uninformed people; delivery must be clear without too many verbal pauses 
        e.g. 

        Um, Uh etc.; debater must be able to quickly summarize opponents point 
        and 

        subsequently point out faults and give a solution.

        

        General_Comments:

        

        I flow the round and I'm good at writing down the main points and main
        

        supporting arguments. I may not be able to write down all the evidence 
        and 

        examples if you are speaking quickly, keep that in mind.

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Max Wolson

        Date: 2/27/2005

        Coach: Yes

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: Yes

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: 

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: 

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 1

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 40-50

        Philosphy: Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important

        Rate_of_Delivery: 5--Very rapid

        Value_Premise: 5--Very important

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: 5--Very Important

        Approach_to_Resolution: 5--Pragmatic

        Use_of_Example: 4

        Use_of_Evidence: 4

        Focus_on_Debate: 3

        Persuasive_Communication: 4

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        When it comes to speaker points I'm just concerned with overall quality 
        of 

        debater's performance. Intelligent arguments...presentation that, 
        regardless of 

        speed, is smooth...CX that does more than just repeat...all help with 
        speaks.

        

        General_Comments:

        

        I'm generally open to anything when it comes to case positions and 
        styles. 

        Above all else though I care about impacts, if you call a drop, make an
        

        argument, give an example...you have to tell me why it matters...I don't 
        like 

        when judges intervene so leave nothing up to my interpretation (in other 
        words 

        don't assume that an impact is obvious enough that it doesn't require
        

        explanation).

 

         

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Rick Herder

        Date: March 1, 2005

        Coach: Yes

        Assistant_Coach: Yes

        LD_in_HS: 

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: 

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: 

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 11

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 6

        Philosphy: Values and philosophy are most important

        Rate_of_Delivery: 3

        Value_Premise: 4

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: 4

        Approach_to_Resolution: 2

        Use_of_Example: 3

        Use_of_Evidence: 2

        Focus_on_Debate: 3

        Persuasive_Communication: 4

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        clarity, full warranting af arguments, time utilization, 
        passion/rhetorical 

        skill

        

        General_Comments:

        

        As of now, I am not in the pool for LD, but I am submitting this just in 
        case 

        they ask me to judge.

        "One keeps forgetting to go right down to the foundations. One doesn't 
        put the 

        question marks deep enough down." Wittgenstein (CV p. 62)

        

        I love this event, and have coached it for the past ten years. I have 
        not 

        judged a lot of rounds in the past couple of years because I returned to
        

        graduate school and am no longer coaching full time. Nevertheless, I 
        have 

        worked to keep up, and have written several papers on high school debate 
        over 

        the past couple of years including two on LD. Here is a summary of my 
        attitudes 

        relating specifically to LD: 1) I do not believe in tabula rasa. 2) I 
        believe 

        this is a communicative activity, and that you need to find a way to 
        make 

        arguments compelling. 3) I believe in values. 4) Arguments need 
        analytical 

        warrants.

        

        1) This is crucial. TR is impossible. No judge can dismiss all 
        preconceptions. 

        In my opinion, if they tell you this they are either misinformed or are 
        lying. 

        In my experience, the more debaters cling to this philosophy, the less 
        they 

        seem to know about the underlying epistemology. It follows from all of 
        this 

        that debates do not occur sui generis (in a vacuum - as a thing apart). 
        For me, 

        this implies that arguments have impact in the real world. The things we 
        say in 

        a debate round really do shape the world in which we live. Winning a 
        debate 

        round is a nice thing, and I will try my very best to get it right, but 
        there 

        are bigger issues... like justice and war in the real world.

        

        2) I believe it is your job to reach me, not the other way around. This 
        is not 

        old school, it's the logical conclusion of dismissing debate sui generis. 
        I am 

        not looking at the debate in a museum case or under a microscope. There 
        is no 

        wall. The judge is part of the debate. I will try really hard to listen. 
        You 

        must try really hard to make sure your arguments are compelling. Look 
        up. Work 

        on delivery. Be organized. Do not simply spew at me and then complain 
        later 

        that I missed it. We are not machines, and that sort of technological 
        attitude 

        is counterproductive and alienating. I believe the very best debaters 
        can take 

        complex philosophical arguments and make them compelling for a lay 
        audience. 

        This is very difficult to do because it involves negotiating through all 
        sorts 

        of uncertainties. That is the nature of debate. My attitudes regarding 
        tabula 

        rasa and clear communication are shaped by my reading of phenomenology 
        and 

        critical theory. I welcome discussions with students interested in these
        

        topics.

        

        3) I believe in values. By this I mean terminal (abstract) values as 
        opposed to 

        instrumental (concrete) values. I typically look to a clearly 
        articulated value 

        to decide the round. This does not mean that standards are unimportant. 
        I am 

        well aware of the current arguments regarding the relative merits of 
        values. 

        This is not the appropriate forum for a full discussion of the issues. 
        For now 

        it is sufficient to say that I believe the more interesting question is 
        WHY 

        some LD debaters are prepared to jettison values in favor of criteria. I 
        also 

        believe that the prominent rhetorician Chaim Perelman was correct when 
        he wrote 

        "Values enter at one stage or another into every argument... in the 
        fields of 

        law, politics, and philosophy, values intervene as a basis for argument 
        at all 

        stages... it is not possible to escape from a value by simply denying 
        it... a 

        person may disqualify it, subordinate it to others, or interpret it, but 
        my not 

        reject all values as a whole: this would amount to leaving the realm of
        

        discussion to enter that of force" (The New Rhetoric, p. 75).

        

        4) Here I am concerned with a) the nature of empirical proof, b) the 
        deductive 

        nature of LD. 

        a) In my opinion, there is simply not enough time in an LD round to give 
        full 

        consideration to arguments for empirical proof. Reading a piece of 
        evidence 

        removed from its broader context is insufficient. Read Hume, Popper, et 
        al. for 

        a fundamental consideration of some of the relevant issues. Again, the 
        more 

        interesting question for me concerns WHY students would appeal to this
        

        standard. The arguments I have heard in defense of empiricism in LD 
        strike me 

        as being naive concerning the nature of epistemological dualism. Having 
        said 

        all this, I do not reject empirical proof entirely. Reasonability 
        provides the 

        standard here.

        b) It should be clear, then, that I look for logical and deductive 
        warrants. As 

        a corollary to this, dropped points are not always problematic, 
        especially if 

        they are irrelevant to the core issues. Each debater should articulate a
        

        coherent world view. This means that an argument is not warranted in 
        isolation. 

        A debater must be prepared to demonstrate how an argument is congruent 
        within 

        the larger global context... of the case and of the world. Debaters must
        

        develop an awareness of the ideas behind the ideas. Here I am revealing 
        my 

        personal preference for reading critical theory. This does not mean, 
        however, 

        that I will vote for you simply because you mention critical theory. You 
        need 

        to know what you are talking about. You must make the argument. For 
        example, if 

        you do not really know what the heck Foucault is talking about, I may 
        look 

        somewhere else on my flow to make my decision, even if the opposing 
        debater has 

        a weak response. I believe students need to read primary texts in their
        

        entirety and think deeply about the implications outside of the round. 
        This 

        takes time, which is why critical theory arguments are so frequently 

        reductionistic and simplistic. Some of these writers are not easily 

        encapsulated, and astute debaters who face the critique can often 
        identify 

        compelling performative contradictions. 

        

        Finally, you should know that I have coached all events over the years
        

        including policy debate. Please do not assume that because I am a policy 
        coach 

        that I am fond of policy strategies in LD. I am not. It is a different 
        event.

 

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Muller

        Date: 3/1/05

        Coach: Yes

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: 

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: 

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: 

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 6

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 

        Philosphy: Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important

        Rate_of_Delivery: 3

        Value_Premise: 5--Very important

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: 3

        Approach_to_Resolution: 3

        Use_of_Example: 2

        Use_of_Evidence: 2

        Focus_on_Debate: 3

        Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        

        General_Comments:

 

         

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Tucker Curtis

        Date: 3/1/05

        Coach: Yes

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: 

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: 

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: 

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 23

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 12

        Philosphy: Values and philosophy are most important

        Rate_of_Delivery: 1--Slow and deliberate

        Value_Premise: 5--Very important

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: 4

        Approach_to_Resolution: 2

        Use_of_Example: 2

        Use_of_Evidence: 3

        Focus_on_Debate: 5--Big Picture

        Persuasive_Communication: 4

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        Speakers who deliver their material at a conversational rate and display
        

        conviction in their tone and inflections receive the best scores.

        

        General_Comments:

        

        I am a traditional Lincoln-Douglas Debate judge. I want to see debaters
        

        present value standards for judging the round and then provide arguments 
        to 

        prove that they upholds those standards better than their opponents. I 
        want to 

        see clash. And I want a delivery that reflects an understanding that 
        Lincoln-

        Douglas debate is also meant to teach students to be effective PUBLIC
        

        speakers.

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Jim Hansberger

        Date: March 1

        Coach: 

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: 

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: Yes

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: 

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 4

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 10 - 12

        Philosphy: Values and philosophy are most important

        Rate_of_Delivery: 1--Slow and deliberate

        Value_Premise: 5--Very important

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: 5--Very Important

        Approach_to_Resolution: 3

        Use_of_Example: 5--Very important

        Use_of_Evidence: 5--Very important

        Focus_on_Debate: 5--Big Picture

        Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        Speaking style and clarity of argument. Keep organized and state 
        arguments 

        clearly. No new arguments in rebuttals.

        

        General_Comments:

        

        Slow and steady pace; lots of evidence and examples; clarity of argument
        

        throughout the debate

 

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Nancy Dean

        Date: 03/01/2005

        Coach: Yes

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: 

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: 

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: 

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 5

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 100

        Philosphy: Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important

        Rate_of_Delivery: 1--Slow and deliberate

        Value_Premise: 4

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: 3

        Approach_to_Resolution: 2

        Use_of_Example: 4

        Use_of_Evidence: 5--Very important

        Focus_on_Debate: 4

        Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        If I cannot follow an LD'er, because they are spreading, I cannot judge 
        them to 

        win. This is not policy, it is LD. Convince me you are right and your 
        opponent 

        is wrong. Be polite, but not intimidated...

        

        General_Comments:

        

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Diane McCormick

        Date: 03/01/2005

        Coach: Yes

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: Yes

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: 

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: 

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 1

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 23

        Philosphy: Values and philosophy are most important

        Rate_of_Delivery: 4

        Value_Premise: 3

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: 4

        Approach_to_Resolution: 2

        Use_of_Example: 3

        Use_of_Evidence: 3

        Focus_on_Debate: 5--Big Picture

        Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        I like to see someone who's truly considered all of the ramifications of 
        the 

        topic, not just read some briefs and chosen their favorites. I want 
        someone who 

        communicates effectively, regardless of rate, and students who are 
        collected or 

        passionate, never cold or argumentative.

        

        General_Comments:

 

         

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Alexandra Wall

        Date: March 1st, 2005

        Coach: 

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: 

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: 

        Volunteer_or_Community: Yes

        No_Experience: 

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 1

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 6-8

        Philosphy: Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important

        Rate_of_Delivery: 3

        Value_Premise: 5--Very important

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: 4

        Approach_to_Resolution: 4

        Use_of_Example: 4

        Use_of_Evidence: 3

        Focus_on_Debate: 3

        Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        Obvious comprehension of the material and articulation of the main 
        ideas, 

        persuasive style, etc.

        

        General_Comments:

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Melissa Wolfe

        Date: 3/1/05

        Coach: 

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: Yes

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: 

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: 

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 2

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0

        Philosphy: Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important

        Rate_of_Delivery: 3

        Value_Premise: 4

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: 5--Very Important

        Approach_to_Resolution: 3

        Use_of_Example: 3

        Use_of_Evidence: 4

        Focus_on_Debate: 3

        Persuasive_Communication: 4

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        Clear, coherent speech-- can be fast, but not so fast that you confuse 
        both 

        your opponent and yor judge... no jumping all over flow, stay organized,
        

        persuasive speaking

        

        General_Comments:

 

         

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Jean Flegiel

        Date: 3/2/5

        Coach: 

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: 

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: Yes

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: 

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 1

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 3

        Philosphy: Values and philosophy are most important

        Rate_of_Delivery: 2

        Value_Premise: 5--Very important

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: 4

        Approach_to_Resolution: 3

        Use_of_Example: 3

        Use_of_Evidence: 5--Very important

        Focus_on_Debate: 3

        Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        An intelligent debate based on knowledge of the subject. Clear speaking
        

        style. Respect, professionalism, and maturity.

        

        General_Comments:

        

        When I judge, I really look at who may be representing the State at 
        Nationals. 

        Following the rules of the event is important, but an intelligent 
        understanding 

        of the topic, clear presentation, and a high level of maturity will 
        heavily 

        weigh in my decision making.

        

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Pat Brown

        Date: March 2, 2005

        Coach: 

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: Yes

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: 

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: 

        Number_of_Years_Judging: One

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 12

        Philosphy: Speaking skills are most important

        Rate_of_Delivery: 2

        Value_Premise: 5--Very important

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: 5--Very Important

        Approach_to_Resolution: 2

        Use_of_Example: 5--Very important

        Use_of_Evidence: 5--Very important

        Focus_on_Debate: 5--Big Picture

        Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        Clarity and following through on argument. No new arguments in 
        rebuttals. 

        Roadmapping and organization throughout the debate.

        

        General_Comments:

        

        Did mostly Student congress in HS and some LD. Judged at one national 
        and 

        several locals this year. First year out.

 

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Mr. Rywell

        Date: 3/02/2005

        Coach: Yes

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: 

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: 

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: 

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 4

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 20

        Philosphy: Select one of the following

        Rate_of_Delivery: 3

        Value_Premise: 4

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: 5--Very Important

        Approach_to_Resolution: 3

        Use_of_Example: 4

        Use_of_Evidence: 3

        Focus_on_Debate: 2

        Persuasive_Communication: 4

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        

        General_Comments:

        

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Samir

        Date: 3/02/2005

        Coach: 

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: Yes

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: 

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: 

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 1

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 

        Philosphy: Select one of the following

        Rate_of_Delivery: Select one of the following:

        Value_Premise: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: Select one of the following

        Approach_to_Resolution: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Example: Select one of the following:

        Use_of_Evidence: Select one of the following:

        Focus_on_Debate: Select one of the following:

        Persuasive_Communication: Select one of the following:

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        

        General_Comments:

         

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: :Shawn Briscoe

        Date: 2 Mar 05

        Coach: Yes

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: 

        College_Debater: Yes

        Parent: 

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: 

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 3

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 8+

        Philosphy: Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important

        Rate_of_Delivery: 3

        Value_Premise: 4

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: 4

        Approach_to_Resolution: 2

        Use_of_Example: 2

        Use_of_Evidence: 3

        Focus_on_Debate: 1--Line-by-line

        Persuasive_Communication: 3

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        My first level of analysis in awarding speaker points focuses who does 
        the 

        better job of debating. Thus, low point wins are a rarity.

        However, I will take into consideration a speaker's "persuasiveness,"
        

        clarity, and level of experience.

        

        General_Comments:

        

        My background is actually policy debate. Other than telling you that I 
        flow, 

        I don't know what that means. My educational background is in political
        

        science; therefore, I should have a basic understanding of your 
        discussions in 

        the realm of political philosophy.

        Regardless of my background and my beliefs, I vote on the flow. The 
        debate 

        comes down to the debaters' ability to out-debate their opponent. (Go
        

        figure.)

 

         

        *******************************************************************************

        Judge_Name: Paul L. Gaba

        Date: 2 March 2005

        Coach: Yes

        Assistant_Coach: 

        LD_in_HS: 

        College_Debater: 

        Parent: 

        Volunteer_or_Community: 

        No_Experience: 

        Number_of_Years_Judging: 5

        Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 5

        Philosphy: Values and philosophy are most important

        Rate_of_Delivery: 1--Slow and deliberate

        Value_Premise: 5--Very important

        Use_of_Value_Criteria: 5--Very Important

        Approach_to_Resolution: 1--Philosophical

        Use_of_Example: 3

        Use_of_Evidence: 4

        Focus_on_Debate: 3

        Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important

        B1: Submit

        

        Speaker_Points:

        

        Clarity - I don't want any spreading. Comprehension - make me believe 
        you 

        actually know what you're talking about; don't just read to me. LD, like 
        all 

        debate and forensic events, is supposed to be about COMMUNICATION.

        

        General_Comments:

        

        I am OLD SCHOOL. Lincoln Douglas is PHILOSOPHY BASED; stick to theory, 
        not 

        fact. If you want to deal with facts, that's what Policy Debate is for.