LD Judge Philosophies
2007-2008
___________________________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________________________
Last Updated 02/26/2008 05:52:47 PM -0500
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Dean Rhoads
Date: 2-23-08
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 20+
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: 2
Use_of_Example: 4
Use_of_Evidence: 4
Focus_on_Debate: 4
Persuasive_Communication: 4
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Civility, articulation, organization, persuasion
General_Comments:
I do not flow speed and wish for the debate to be centered on the resolutional
issues. I won't listen to kritiks and most technical debate leaves me
indifferent.
*************************************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Maureen MAnnion
Date: 2/25/2008
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: 20+
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: 2
Use_of_Example: 3
Use_of_Evidence: 5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate: 3
Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
organized, logical, smooth,(without speech blips) persuasive
General_Comments:
speak ar a rate of speed in which you are understandable and PERSUASIVE. if I
don't get mit--you don't get it!
I am not a fan of Kririks. I believe in debating the resolution, not showing why
it shouldn't be debated. If you use one, you have a difficult road ahead to
convince me
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Kathi Wells
Date: 2/24/08
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 9
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 4
Philosphy: Speaking skills 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: 2
Use_of_Example: 3
Use_of_Evidence: 2
Focus_on_Debate: 2
Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Overall speaker quality. Don't rush, look at me, be clear ... I don't like this
speed talking thing.
General_Comments:
Treat me like a mommy judge that understands philosophical arguements. I hate
cards though, just explain it to me. I'm VERY old school debate.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: John Wilder
Date: 02/24/2008
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: >30
Philosphy: Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 2
Value_Premise: 5--Very important
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 5--Very Important
Approach_to_Resolution: 3
Use_of_Example: 1--Unnecessary
Use_of_Evidence: 4
Focus_on_Debate: 3
Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clarity and persuasiveness are most important. The highest points go to those
who can convey complex ideas in a way that non-debaters can understand.
General_Comments:
I am looking for a clash of values, with the values set in a broader theoretical
context. If I don't by the value/criterion structure then the evidence won't
matter that much.
- I expect the debate to be grounded in the real world.
- I will follow a kritik but I am not that sympathetic to them - most postmodern
analysis if overblown.
- I don't like spreading - putting up a bunch of unrelated points isn't usually
effective and speaking fast just to get through more material is worse.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Allison Hannon
Date: 2/23/2008
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2
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: 3
Approach_to_Resolution: 4
Use_of_Example: 4
Use_of_Evidence: 4
Focus_on_Debate: 3
Persuasive_Communication: 4
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clear delivery that doesn't effect the communication of claims. Persuasive
arguments and direct refutation of opponents.
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Rowena Wallach
Date: 2/23/2008
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: Speaking skills are most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Value_Premise: 4
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 4
Approach_to_Resolution: 4
Use_of_Example: 3
Use_of_Evidence: 3
Focus_on_Debate: 3
Persuasive_Communication: 4
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clear, persuasive delivery that does not infringe on communication of points.
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Craig Polhemus
Date: 2/18/08
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: 8
Philosphy: Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Value_Premise: 3
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 3
Approach_to_Resolution: 3
Use_of_Example: 4
Use_of_Evidence: 4
Focus_on_Debate: 4
Persuasive_Communication: 4
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clear, logical presentation easily understood and well-argued.
General_Comments:
N/A
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Bryan Trimas
Date: 2/5/08
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: 10
Philosphy: Values and philosophy 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: 4
Use_of_Evidence: 3
Focus_on_Debate: 5--Big Picture
Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
I look for clear, logical arguments. I look for evidence to back up what the
debater is saying. I also look for a clear thesis, something that guides the
whole debate.
General_Comments:
Speak clearly. DOn't speak to fast or to slow; I prefer conversational tone.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Carmen Adkins
Date: 1/10/08
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 15
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosphy: Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Value_Premise: 4
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 5--Very Important
Approach_to_Resolution: 3
Use_of_Example: 2
Use_of_Evidence: 4
Focus_on_Debate: 3
Persuasive_Communication: 2
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
clear thinking and appropriate application
General_Comments:
I was initially trained as a policy debater; therefore, my judging is colored by
that experience
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Alan Gray
Date: 01/03/2008
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: 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: 3
Use_of_Example: 3
Use_of_Evidence: 4
Focus_on_Debate: 2
Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
I award speaker points based on speech quality: rate of delivery, eye contact,
gestures, vocal variation, etc.
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Catherine Torres
Date: 11/8/07
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
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: 3
Value_Premise: 4
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 5--Very Important
Approach_to_Resolution: 3
Use_of_Example: 4
Use_of_Evidence: 4
Focus_on_Debate: 4
Persuasive_Communication: 4
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Paul Gambon
Date: 11/5/07
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 5
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: 3
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:
I look for a speaker who can articulate as if he were making arguments in a
courtroom. Polished style, large vocabulary, and persuasive demeanor are all
pluses.
General_Comments:
Rattling off facts as quickly as possible without finesse or rhetorical skill
will earn speakers the lowest allowable speaker points. Since speaker points
must align with the victor of the round, this means a speaker will lose the
round for this kind of poor speaking skill. The point of LD is to persuade
human beings to accept a value using evidence, not to plug evidence into a
computer that can measure the balance of facts on one side or the other.
*************************************************************************************
Judge_Name: David Dinocola
Date: 11/2/2007
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: Sel ect on e of the following:
Focus_on_Debate: Select one of the following:
Persuasive_Communication: Select one of the following:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Patrick Eklin
Date: 10/11/07
Coach:
Assistant_Coach: Yes
LD_in_HS: Yes
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 3
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year:
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: 2
Use_of_Example: 4
Use_of_Evidence: 4
Focus_on_Debate: 2
Persuasive_Communication: 4
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Speakers speak clea rly an d confidently, debaters do not ramble in speeches,
understand what is being said and dont have to read directly from papers but
keep eye contact with the room.
General_Comments:
Love debates that link the philosophy of the value and criterion to current
issues and the effects that they have on the ideas being talked about in the
resolution.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Maria Marlu
Date: 2/25/2008
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging:
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 10
Philosphy: Speaking skills are most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 1--Slow and deliberate
Value_Premise: 3
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 3
Approach_to_Resolution: 3
Use_of_Example: 3
Use_of_Evidence: 3
Focus_on_Debate: 4
Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clarity of expression, explanation of position
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Ms Kellyn
Date:
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging:
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 10
Philosphy: Speaking skills are most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 1--Slow and deliberate
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: 5--Very important
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clarity of position, slow explanation of points
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Roberto Pedroso
Date: 2/25/2008
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: 10
Philosphy: Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 2
Value_Premise: 3
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 4
Approach_to_Resolution: 3
Use_of_Example: 4
Use_of_Evidence: 3
Focus_on_Debate: 3
Persuasive_Communication: 4
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Debbie Spiegelman
Date: 2/25/2008
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: 6
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:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Robyn Alman
Date: 2/25/2008
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: 5
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:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Kim Gondela
Date: 02/25/2008
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: 12
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: 4
Use_of_Example: 3
Use_of_Evidence: 4
Focus_on_Debate: 5--Big Picture
Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
The debaters must follow through in their oponents contentions and be
convincing.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: George Clemens
Date: 2/25/08
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 13
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 60
Philosphy: Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Value_Premise: 3
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 3
Approach_to_Resolution: 3
Use_of_Example: 2
Use_of_Evidence: 3
Focus_on_Debate: 2
Persuasive_Communication: 4
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
General_Comments:
George Clemens
Lake Highland Prep
LD Judge Philosophy:
I have been judging LD for 13 years and have judged at every major tournament in
the country. My full judge philosophy can be found on
www.victorybriefsdaily.org or www.ndca.org. For those who wish to not access
the full judge philosophy, I am adaptable to whatever you wish for the round,
excepting egregious theory debate and critical cases. This is the first weekend
of the topic and there is ample literature on both sides that would make for
some nifty cases. Generic stuff that could be run on any topic with
treacherously meager link stories doesn't make me a happy panda. Though I will
vote for anything as long as there is a sufficiently well-warranted and
well-impacted reasons to do so, I would prefer a substantive debate where
something is being valued and some standard is being evaluated. I am happy to
provide critiques and RFD's though am certain that I will be discouraged from
doing so. Speaker points tend to fall on the line of 26-29, with WOW earning
30s. WOW
ought be flawless.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Mike Wascher
Date: 2/25/08
Coach:
Assistant_Coach: Yes
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 8
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 50
Philosphy: Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Value_Premise: 3
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 4
Approach_to_Resolution: 3
Use_of_Example: 3
Use_of_Evidence: 4
Focus_on_Debate: 3
Persuasive_Communication: 3
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Jessica Gondela
Date: 02/25/2008
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: 2
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: 5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate: 5--Big Picture
Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clear, concise, and convincing, use of time wisely with evidence, well spoken,
does not have to continually read from their flow sheet. Follow through with
contentiions.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Beth Eskin
Date: 2/25/08
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 7 years
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: none
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: 2
Use_of_Example: 3
Use_of_Evidence: 3
Focus_on_Debate: 3
Persuasive_Communication: 4
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
General_Comments:
I’m a holisitic judge, more of a traditional LD judge. Framework is important.
Argumentation is important. I don’t mind a little but of spreading, but I do
believe that this is a communication activity that includes the judge, not just
the two debaters. Don’t want to hear kritiks or theory arguments. Debate the
issue.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Marc Drucker
Date: 2/25/08
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent: Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 3 1/2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 20-40
Philosphy: Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 2
Value_Premise: 3
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 3
Approach_to_Resolution: 3
Use_of_Example: 3
Use_of_Evidence: 3
Focus_on_Debate: 4
Persuasive_Communication: 3
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
The overall debate and delivery.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Randall Martinez
Date: 2/25/07
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS: Yes
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 6
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: +80
Philosphy: Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Value_Premise: 3
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 5--Very Important
Approach_to_Resolution: 3
Use_of_Example: 2
Use_of_Evidence: 5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate: 3
Persuasive_Communication: 3
B1: Submit
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Mr. Gardezi
Date: 02-25-08
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: 6
Philosphy: Speaking skills are most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 1--Slow and deliberate
Value_Premise: 5--Very important
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 2
Approach_to_Resolution: 5--Pragmatic
Use_of_Example: 5--Very important
Use_of_Evidence: 3
Focus_on_Debate: 5--Big Picture
Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
The ability of the speaker to be fluent. Also, they need to be persuasive.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Bradley T. Hicks
Date: 02-26-08
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 4
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: 4
Use_of_Evidence: 5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate: 3
Persuasive_Communication: 2
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clarity in speaking. If you are fast, you should still be understandable. If
you are slow, you must still speak at a pace and tone which communicates. I
give about one 30 per tournament, and I know it when I see it.
General_Comments:
A couple of the above questions ask which is more important: philosophy vs.
line by line, or big picture vs. Line by line. I don't see why I can't value
both equally. I suppose that technically makes me a big picture debate judge,
but believe me, if you drop a contention that gets extended, you're going to
drop the round. I try to read the flow first. I will yell "clear" if I can't
understand you, and if you want me to vote for something, you've got to make it
clear.
 |
Last Updated
02/26/2008 05:52:47 PM -0500