LD Judge Philosophies

2006-2007

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

_________________________________________________________________________________

Last Updated 02/28/2007 08:24:25 PM -0500

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: John Fields
Date: 5 October 2006
Coach:
Assistant_Coach: Yes
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 4
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year:
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: 5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate: 5--Big Picture
Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

Quality of debate, true Licoln-Douglas debate (philosophical debate), student
generated debate (use of Victory Briefs is tantamount to cheating - you cannot
purchase term papers to turn in, why should you purchase your debate?)

General_Comments:

Quantity does NOT equal quality! Speak slowly and make you points clearly. If
you are speaking so quickly that I cannot follow your debate, then I cannot
accurately judge the quality of your contentions.
 

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Maureen Mannion
Date: 11/07/06
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: 16
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:

understanding of issues and persuasive delivery

General_Comments:

speak at a rate of speed in which you are understandable and persuasive. If I
don't get it--you don't get it!

I am not a fan of Kritiks. I believe in debating the resolution, not showing
why it shouln't be debated. If you use one, you have a difficult road ahead to
convince me
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Richard F Gill
Date: Decembr 8,2006
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: Catherine Torres
Date: 12/7/06
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: less than 1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 7 rounds
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: 5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate: 4
Persuasive_Communication: 3
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

Rate of delivery and enthusiasm for topic

General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Christina Rummel
Date: November 5, 2006
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: Jody Murphy
Date: 11-09-06
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS: Yes
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
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: 3
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 3
Approach_to_Resolution: 4
Use_of_Example: 5--Very important
Use_of_Evidence: 5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate: 1--Line-by-line
Persuasive_Communication: 4
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

Clarity of thought and confident presentation

General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Catherine Torres
Date: September 9, 2006
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: less than 1 year
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 3
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: 3
Use_of_Evidence: 5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate: 5--Big Picture
Persuasive_Communication: 4
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

The use of examples and evidence to support your position. Also speaking at a
rate that anyone would be able to understand and keep up with the argument.

General_Comments:

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Namrata Uberoi
Date: November 9, 2006
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: Luke Kupscznk
Date: 02/13/07
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: Unsure
Philosphy: Direct clash/line-by-line debate is 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: 3
Focus_on_Debate: 3
Persuasive_Communication: 3
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

Fluency and clarity.

General_Comments:

I listed three for most of the sections above because I don't see it as the
judge's roll to establish the paradigm for a round. You establish the context,
I decide who wins within that context.

However, I do place a lot of emphasis on framework and criteria debate. I want
to see direct clash and a good summation of the round at the end (ie: key
voters). Though you can win on a line by line debate, you're more likely to win
based on framework/criteria/value.

Speed is fine. Spreading is fine.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Alexia Ash
Date: 2/13/07
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 3
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: 5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate: 1--Line-by-line
Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

Clarity is paramount.

General_Comments:

I judge based mostly on content, argumentation and logic- however, if you are
unorganized or speak to rapidly for me to flow, I will hold it against you.

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Elizabeth Irby
Date: 2/14/2007
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: 2
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: 1--Philosophical
Use_of_Example: 3
Use_of_Evidence: 5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate: 2
Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

Don't just read the entire time, there is nothing more obnoxious. Don't trip up
over your own words, know what you are saying and be comfortable with it. Have
arguments that are coherent, do more than just read cards the entire time.
Actually have a presence when you speak, command the room.

General_Comments:

I don't mind spreading, but make sure people can actually understand what you
are saying. Cards are useful, but your case should have more to it than just
cards. Be polite during cross-x, you can make a point without being mean to
your opponent. I prefer line-by-line debate, but if you can pull off a solid
case while depending on a big picture I won't count you down for it.

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Charlie Williams
Date: Feb 14, 2007
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2 years
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 20
Philosphy: Speaking skills are most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
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: 4
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

UNderstanding what is being said, and thinking on your feet as the debate
progresses.

General_Comments:
 

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Nancy Dean
Date: 2-14-2007
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: 5
Philosphy: Speaking skills are most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 1--Slow and deliberate
Value_Premise: 5--Very important
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 3
Approach_to_Resolution: 1--Philosophical
Use_of_Example: 3
Use_of_Evidence: 1--Not necessary
Focus_on_Debate: 5--Big Picture
Persuasive_Communication: 4
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

The most important factor is that I can "follow" the debate. If I have to
strain to understand what is being said, because they feel this is policy, they
will loose.

General_Comments:

I do want to see clash. I feel LD is a based on philosophy and want to hear
this. If new evidence is brought up when it should not be, they will lose. I
expect truth, integrity, and politeness.
 

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Mary Taylor
Date: 2/14/2007
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: 5
Philosphy: Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 2
Value_Premise: 4
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 3
Approach_to_Resolution: 3
Use_of_Example: 4
Use_of_Evidence: 3
Focus_on_Debate: 3
Persuasive_Communication: 4
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

Clash, use of reasonably understood arguments, avoiding jargon(this is not
policy)

General_Comments:
 

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Marci Almon
Date: 2/15/07
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 11
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 28 approx.
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: Select one of the following:
Use_of_Example: 2
Use_of_Evidence: 5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate: 3
Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

Smooth delivery. Posting and methodically addressing the opponents' points.
Ability to summarize and show not just individual arguments, but also the big
picture of why together they form a coherent point of view.

General_Comments:

Although quantity of effective arguments is important and some speed in
speaking is necessary, excessive speed runs counter to effective communication.
Word economy is important. Excessive use of policy debate lingo is annoying.
Reading straight from "cards" to rebut is also annoying. If I want to judge a
policy round I will do that. If I am judging an LD round I want to hear LD.
 

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Rachel Lukachyk
Date: 2/15/2007
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2 years
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: 4
Approach_to_Resolution: 2
Use_of_Example: 2
Use_of_Evidence: 3
Focus_on_Debate: 4
Persuasive_Communication: 2
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

The value that upstands the other sides arguments will always win, please keep
in mind that if your pacing is too fast I cannot understand you.

General_Comments:

I do not appreciate sarcasm.

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Shari Colonel
Date: 15 February 2007
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: unknown
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: 5--Pragmatic
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:

Clear and effective speaking, also the speaker is polite and respectful to all
concerned.

General_Comments:

Spreading is fine as long as it is comprehendable and logical. Rebuttals must
be well developed and I enjoy off-the-cuff analysis while speaking and during
cross-x. Quick thinking is a big plus! All arguments must be easily applied
to topic.
 

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Jorge Leon
Date:
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS: Yes
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 5
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosphy: Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Value_Premise: 1--Unimportant
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 5--Very Important
Approach_to_Resolution: 5--Pragmatic
Use_of_Example: 1--Unnecessary
Use_of_Evidence: 5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate: 1--Line-by-line
Persuasive_Communication: 3
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

Good arguments with warrants

General_Comments:
 

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Deb Svec
Date: 02/21/2007
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: 24
Philosphy: Speaking skills are most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 2
Value_Premise: 4
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 2
Approach_to_Resolution: 4
Use_of_Example: 4
Use_of_Evidence: 2
Focus_on_Debate: 3
Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

Don't speak too fast. Evidence is not necessary in a philosophical debate. Save
that for PF or Policy.

General_Comments:
 

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Lisa Cohen
Date: 02/20/2007
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: 15+
Philosphy: Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
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: 5--Very important
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

I like to hear coherent and persuasive arguments. Those combined with good
enunciation make for a great debate.

General_Comments:
 

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Jason Wysong
Date: Feb. 20, 2007
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: 12
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: 3
Use_of_Example: 4
Use_of_Evidence: 4
Focus_on_Debate: 4
Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

I consider each debater's analysis, organization, and delivery. I will deduct
points for offensive remarks.

General_Comments:
 

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Chris Sprouse
Date: 02/19/70
Coach:
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: 50?
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: 5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate: 2
Persuasive_Communication: 3
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

An ability to communicate one's awareness of what's happening in the round.

General_Comments:
 

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Bradley T. Hicks
Date: 2/21/07
Coach:
Assistant_Coach: Yes
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 3
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 40+
Philosphy: Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
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: 2
Persuasive_Communication: 3
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

Understandability, interesting language and delivery. Are you looking down
reading cards or are you presenting a case to an opponent (who is a person, not
an omnipotent tape recorder)and a judge (who is most definitely just a
person)?

General_Comments:

I try very hard (perhaps to my detriment) to be all things to all people. I
can hear fast and slow arguments. I prefer somewhere in the middle. I don't
mind hearing K's, but they must allow for opposing argumentation, and must be
able to fully win the debate on it's own.(I think a good K would inherently
directly clash with Resolution, not dissallow it. A lazy k added onto a
mediocre case won't be the tipping point in a round. Good warrants,
extensions, etc. are key. You saying "Oh no, it's not," doesn't get mentioned
in my flow. In the past, I have been accused, and apparently struck, for going
with a gut instinct in a close round. My opinion is that my guts are a fine
judge of LD debate. It's your job to persuade me, not mine. Oh, and try to look
like you're having a good time. You're young, for crying out loud!
 

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: steven tye
Date: 2/24/07
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater: Yes
Parent: Yes
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 25
Philosphy: Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Value_Premise: 4
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 3
Approach_to_Resolution: 3
Use_of_Example: 4
Use_of_Evidence: 3
Focus_on_Debate: 4
Persuasive_Communication: 4
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

Logical argumentation.
Quality of arguments trumps quantity of arguments.
Voting point summaries are useful but it's my job to determine
decisive issues in the debate.

General_Comments:

I'm a good listener. Debaters can speak as fast as they want to and I'll
listen and take notes as fast as I can. If i miss a point because of speed,
it's difficult to be persuaded by it.

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Oren Shahar
Date: February 24, 2007
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS: Yes
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
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: 4
Approach_to_Resolution: 2
Use_of_Example: 3
Use_of_Evidence: 2
Focus_on_Debate: 4
Persuasive_Communication: 4
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

I know you're forced to debate both sides of the topic and you may vehemently
oppose what you're arguing for/against, but sound like you believe in what
you're saying.
Being rude will negatively affect your speaker points, so will being
excessively nice to your opponent, find a good middle ground.

General_Comments:

Don't treat this like a Policy round, it's not one of them!!!
Look like you believe in what you're saying (body language).
I may be more interested in the big picture than in the line-by-line, but I
still need you to signpost for me and your opponent.
I do not flow what you say in CX. If it's important enough to persuade me,
bring it up in your next speech.

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Lori Stall
Date: 2/23/07
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: 4
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: 3
Use_of_Evidence: 5--Very important
Focus_on_Debate: 4
Persuasive_Communication: 4
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

Speaker points relate to flow, overall eye contact, demeanor, tone and
fluidity. Cross x?s are important for tone, behavior and content.

General_Comments:
 

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Rebecca Kuhn
Date: 02/25/07
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: 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: 3
Use_of_Example: 4
Use_of_Evidence: 3
Focus_on_Debate: 3
Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

I look for speakers who speak slowly, clearly, and make sound arguments. I
want to flow and follow the debate rather than be overwhelmed with
information. Especially in values-based debate, I'm not impressed by the
debator who crams the most evidence into the round. I am most concerned with
students who make eye contact with the judge, speak loudly and clearly and
treat their opponent with respect. As well, I award the highest speaker points
to those who have well-structured speeches.

General_Comments:

Overall, I am most concerned with what is said as opposed to HOW it is said.
If speaking is poor, this will of course effect the outcome of the debate.
However, I listen most carefully to arguments and how arguments are countered.
I am most concerned with the values that are defined and defended more than
picky points such as pointing out "wrong definitions" and "bogus evidence".
 

*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Carol Shannon
Date: 2/25/2007
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: 4
Philosphy: Values and philosophy are 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: 3
Persuasive_Communication: 3
B1: Submit

Speaker_Points:

Stance, articulation

General_Comments:

 

******************************************************************************* Judge_Name: Alexandra B. Sencer Date: February 25, 2007 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: Direct clash/line-by-line debate is 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: 5--Very important Use_of_Evidence: 1--Not necessary Focus_on_Debate: 3 Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important B1: Submit Speaker_Points: The best speaker is not always the best debater. A good orator, is articulate, polite, assertive and fluent. The hardest part about Lincoln-Douglas debate is making complex topics simple enough to be understood and debated. A great speaker is like a great professor, your entertaining, engaging and easy to understand. General_Comments: I really hate to flow cards by authors, especially when a debater is using that person for more than one point. I prefer the over all idea. Also, I stop listening the moment someone says the other person needs to provide a plan. I REALLY don't like the use of the word plan in Lincoln-Douglas debate. Furthermore, philosophical ideas must have some sort of practical application to prove their value. While examples are good, please don't debate them. Also, don't provide me with statistics and evidence, yada yada yada...I really don't care. Statistics can easily be manipulated.   ******************************************************************************* Judge_Name: Stefanie Hicks Date: February 25th, 2007 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: 12 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: 5--Very important B1: Submit Speaker_Points: Clear and precise regardless of speed. General_Comments: I debated both LD and Policy and I'm pretty much up for anything. ******************************************************************************* Judge_Name: Ann Hicks Date: 02/26/07 Coach: Yes Assistant_Coach: LD_in_HS: College_Debater: Parent: Volunteer_or_Community: Yes No_Experience: Number_of_Years_Judging: 10 Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 1 Philosphy: Values and philosophy are 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: 3 Persuasive_Communication: 4 B1: Submit Speaker_Points: General_Comments: ******************************************************************************* Judge_Name: Jill Yelverton Date: February 26, 2007 Coach: Assistant_Coach: LD_in_HS: College_Debater: Parent: Volunteer_or_Community: Yes No_Experience: Number_of_Years_Judging: 3 Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 6 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: 3 Use_of_Example: 3 Use_of_Evidence: 3 Focus_on_Debate: 3 Persuasive_Communication: 4 B1: Submit Speaker_Points: Clarity of speech, ability of debater to be persuasive. Composure and capacity to make points in crossfire rounds. General_Comments: ******************************************************************************* Judge_Name: Luv Bikker Date: February 26, 2007 Coach: Assistant_Coach: LD_in_HS: College_Debater: Parent: Yes Volunteer_or_Community: No_Experience: Number_of_Years_Judging: 2 years Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 4 Philosphy: Values and philosophy are most important Rate_of_Delivery: 3 Value_Premise: 4 Use_of_Value_Criteria: 3 Approach_to_Resolution: 3 Use_of_Example: 2 Use_of_Evidence: 3 Focus_on_Debate: 3 Persuasive_Communication: 3 B1: Submit Speaker_Points: Clarity and logic. General_Comments: ******************************************************************************* Judge_Name: Mike Wascher Date: 2/26/2007 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: 10 Philosphy: Direct clash/line-by-line debate is most important Rate_of_Delivery: 3 Value_Premise: 2 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: Quality of arguments and clash are more important than delivery, although, I must be able to understand your arguments. General_Comments: A lot of my decision making process depends on the specific topic. I would be more open to "policy" type arguments with a policy like topic than with a true values topic. If you have any specific questions, please ASK.   ******************************************************************************* Judge_Name: Caryn Zirpoli Date: February 26, 2007 Coach: Assistant_Coach: LD_in_HS: College_Debater: Yes Parent: Volunteer_or_Community: Yes No_Experience: Number_of_Years_Judging: 2 years Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 4 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: 5--Very important Use_of_Evidence: 4 Focus_on_Debate: 4 Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important B1: Submit Speaker_Points: Clarity, confidence, mapping the speeches General_Comments: I am always ready to discuss any specific concerns before debate has begun.   ******************************************************************************* Judge_Name: Curtis Cunningham Date: February 26, 2007 Coach: Assistant_Coach: LD_in_HS: College_Debater: Parent: Volunteer_or_Community: Yes No_Experience: Number_of_Years_Judging: 2 years 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: 3 Use_of_Evidence: 3 Focus_on_Debate: 3 Persuasive_Communication: 3 B1: Submit Speaker_Points: General_Comments:   ******************************************************************************* Judge_Name: Gary Mitchell Date: February 26, 2007 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: 8 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: 4 Focus_on_Debate: 4 Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important B1: Submit Speaker_Points: Speaking where I can clearly understand the contentions and rebuttals. General_Comments:   ******************************************************************************* Judge_Name: Whitney Sheppard Date: February 26, 2007 Coach: Assistant_Coach: LD_in_HS: Yes College_Debater: Yes Parent: 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: 4 Value_Premise: 4 Use_of_Value_Criteria: 4 Approach_to_Resolution: 3 Use_of_Example: 3 Use_of_Evidence: 4 Focus_on_Debate: 2 Persuasive_Communication: 4 B1: Submit Speaker_Points: Following the spirit of Lincoln-Douglas, clash, line-by-line. Not a big fan of kritiques. General_Comments:     ******************************************************************************* Judge_Name: Matthew Rosenblum Date: 2/28/07 Coach: Assistant_Coach: Yes LD_in_HS: College_Debater: Yes Parent: Volunteer_or_Community: No_Experience: Number_of_Years_Judging: 1 Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 50 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: 3 Use_of_Evidence: 5--Very important Focus_on_Debate: 1--Line-by-line Persuasive_Communication: 5--Very important B1: Submit Speaker_Points: Debate is fun. Watching two angry teenagers snipe at eachother is not fun. You can tell jokes and you can have fun because I like to laugh, but dont be rude. I think fast debate is fun, and if I had to choose, I'd pick a good fast debate over a good slow debate; however if youre a seasoned circuit debater and you think because I'm in the back of the room that its ok to spread a little novice out, stop thinking that. Speed is a tactic that you should use when you actually need it. Destroying novice competitors with a spread isnt cool, and just serves to turn them off to the activity. Some judges give low speaker points if they dont like your tie. From my perspective, I dont care if your tie is wrapped around your head. I dont care if you wear a tie. I'm not here to kritik your wears, I'm here to judge your args. With that said, I also dont care too much for eye contact. I'm a pretty technical judge, and will flow just about everything you say, so I probably wont even look at you too much. If you see me looking up a lot, there's most likely something wrong. Debate facing the wall, or debate while doing push-ups, I DONT CARE. I will listen and take notes during CX, this is a great time to plea your case and explain stuff clearer, PLEASE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS. The bottom line isthat if you want good speaker points from me you have to give it your best shot, make smart args, and dont be rude General_Comments: Matt's Laundry List 1) Speed-is fun. I'm a policy debater, so I'm willing to bet that none of you can speak faster then I can flow. If spreading is your game, make sure it?s clear. 2) Args- (please hold the pirate jokes) I like critical positions, and am familiar with most of the literature. I love Jean Baudrillard. I dig on non- critical cases too. I am willing to listen to whatever it is you have to say. Kritik the resolution, roll with CP's, perform, rap, or read poetry. Some judges think it is their RIGHT to tell debaters what arguments they will listen to, I do not believe that is good for the activity. Make your arguments, and I'll listen. I PROMISE. 3) Topicality- I hate it. I am by no means a T debater, but if you really like T go for it but please slow down a little bit. If you plan on going for T in the NR, ONLY GO FOR T. Just a piece of friendly advice. For the Aff, I am open to K's of T 4) Theory-I'm cool with it, but slow down while reading it. Its really hard to flow fast theory blips. Try hard not to read theory blocks. Oh and by the way "fairness and education" are at best links and not impacts. I don?t believe that they have any a priori value. 5) I've probably misspelled a bunch of stuff in this, I?m sorry if that bothers you. I think korrekt spelling is ridikulous. 6) I don?t care if you have a value, please give me a way to weigh the round. For a far more witty version of my philosophy please see the NDCA website, or ask me.

Last Updated   02/28/2007 08:24:25 PM -0500