|
Policy Judge Philosophies
2004-2005
Home Page
Key to codes below
A. Rate of delivery
1 = Slow and deliberate; 5 = very rapid
B. Topicality
1= I vote on Topicality often; 5 = I never vote on Topicality
C. Counterplans
1= Counterplans are acceptable; 5 = Counterplans are not acceptable
D. Generic Disadvantages
1= Disadvantages are acceptable; 5 Disadvantages are not acceptable
E. Conditional Negative Positions:
1= acceptable; 5 = Unacceptable
F. Debate Theory Arguments:
1= acceptable; 5 = Unacceptable
G. Kritik Arguments:
1= acceptable; 5 = Unacceptable
__________________________________________________________________________________________
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:
Brian Bolton
Date_of_Submission:
Coach:
Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosophy:
Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery:
3
Topicality:
2
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
5--Unacceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Flexibility and presentation. The ability to submit arguments rapidly when
necessary and slowly, persuasively for impact when appropriate.
General_Comments:
I look at debate in terms of stock issues and extension when deciding the
round
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:
Carla Ferrara
Date_of_Submission:
9/20/04
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging: 0
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosophy:
Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:
Select one of the following:
Topicality:
Select one of the following:
Counterplans:
Select one of the following
Generic_Disadvantages:
Select one of the following:
Conditional_Negative_Positions: Select one of the following:
Debate_Theory_Arguments: Select one
of the following:
Kritik_Arguments:
Select one of the following:
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:
Pam Jafri
Date_of_Submission:
October 1, 2004
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
No_Experience:
No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year:
Philosophy:
Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:
Select one of the following:
Topicality:
Select one of the following:
Counterplans:
Select one of the following
Generic_Disadvantages:
Select one of the following:
Conditional_Negative_Positions: Select one of the following:
Debate_Theory_Arguments: Select one
of the following:
Kritik_Arguments:
Select one of the following:
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:
Norris "Keith" Goodrum
Date_of_Submission:
10/3/04
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 3
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosophy:
Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery:
3
Topicality:
3
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 3
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 3
Kritik_Arguments:
3
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
The knowledge of the topic, of debate tactics, being relaxed, expressing
confidence, speaking clearly so I can understand what you are saying.
General_Comments:
Please don't barrage your opponents or me with 10+ reasons for your position.
Do
your research, develop your case and present the most convincing 3 or 4 points
supporting your position. This exercise is to prepare you for the world
of
business or possibly a career in the legal field. In the business world, no
supervisor, customer, coworker, vender/supplier has time to hear 10+ reasons
for your position. In the court room, you can only keep the judge's or jury's
attention for a short time, don't lull the judge to sleep.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Chris Sprouse
Date_of_Submission: 10/04/04
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2 but not within 10 years
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Topicality: 2
Counterplans: 4
Generic_Disadvantages: 3
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 4
Kritik_Arguments: 4
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Insight into the key issues of the round, clear delivery.
General_Comments:
I loved policy in college, and I'm the kind of judge who worries that policy
will soon geek itself out of existence. I debated in the American Debate
Association from 1991-1993. The ADA was considered "old school" way back then
(except nobody said "old school" back then), so I guess I'm ancient school
now.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Tim Case
Date_of_Submission: 10/5/2004
Coach:
Assistant_Coach: Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 5
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 11
Philosophy: Games Player
Rate_of_Delivery: 5--Very rapid
Topicality: 1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 3
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
debate skills combined with in round performance....speaking in policy debate
is directly proportional to your ability to debate properly...anyone can give a
pretty speech for 8 or 5 minutes, I want to see that you know how to debate...
you make arguments - thats a good start
General_Comments:
i am confused about the question above about what type of judge i am...what
philosophy i subscribe to...playing games sounded fun.
I have a few comments to add to this number system listed above (which I also
dont understand very much because they ask whether I accept them not whether I
like them) soo...i get to provide a "general narrative" regarding my feelings
about debate now...wonderful
I like responsive debates. This means that argumens have to be made against
every position being run in the round...it is not enough to talk about the aff
for 26 minutes...you must also answer ALL of the negative positions in the
round...regardless of how stupid you may think the d/a is, I suggest you answer
it in front of me...if you dont...dont be suprised when you see the big L on
the ballot.
I also like non-repetitive debates. This means that once you are finished
saying all that it is you need to say..sit down. DO NOT REPEAT YOURSELF A
BILLION TIMES. I have gotten it down once...I will not strain my hand to write
it down a billion other times. If you see me sitting and not flowing, its
either because youre saying something youve allready said..or..youre not sayig
anything at all. Do not be worried about not filling up all of your speech
time...if you have said everything that you need to than that is all you need
to say...dont worry about loosing speaker points for sitting down early..if
youre done and you choose to sit down i favor that over repitition which
definitely doesnt help speaker point wise.
Reading defensive arguments and only defensive arguments in a round is not
enough to prove that the aff should loose...you need offensive arguments that
talk about why the plan is bad...not why the status quo is bad.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Scott Gordon
Date_of_Submission: October 4 , 2004
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent: Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience: No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year:
Philosophy: Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery: Select one of the following:
Topicality: Select one of the following:
Counterplans: Select one of the following
Generic_Disadvantages: Select one of the following:
Conditional_Negative_Positions: Select one of the following:
Debate_Theory_Arguments: Select one of the following:
Kritik_Arguments: Select one of the following:
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Articulate speaking expressing confidence and demanding attention. Well-
phrased with proper word emphasis, intonations along with facial expressions
and body language to present an image of a person who is in control and well
prepared.
General_Comments:
Speaking slower and making the more important points to your position will be
better than rapid fire points.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:
Xavier Yrausquin Jr.
Date_of_Submission:
10/5/2004
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 6
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 5
Philosophy:
Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clarity of arguementation
General_Comments:
i am 100% tabular rasa (if thats what you want to call it) Just debate -
everything is acceptable or everything is unacceptable. Let it all get hashed
out by the debaters during the debate.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:
Mrs. Joy Parker Dever
Date_of_Submission:
October 5, 2004
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year:
Philosophy:
Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:
Select one of the following:
Topicality:
Select one of the following:
Counterplans:
Select one of the following
Generic_Disadvantages:
Select one of the following:
Conditional_Negative_Positions: Select one of the following:
Debate_Theory_Arguments: Select one
of the following:
Kritik_Arguments:
Select one of the following:
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Ike Saunders
Date_of_Submission: 10/5/04
Coach:
Assistant_Coach: Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Topicality: 2
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 3
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 3
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Excellent summation, clear line-by-line, distinct transitions, persuasive
intonation, confidence, and respect.
General_Comments:
Always pretend as though I haven't heard anything regarding your case;
presuming I know anything about it ahead of time is not effective in helping
you win. Be VERY clear when switching arguments or moving from a card to a tag
line, and make sure your speed with the tag lines versus the cards is
different. The more case argumentation I hear, the better. Make sure your
counterplans and disads are at least good if they're going to be generic. The
2's are supposed to extend with cards as well as their own words. Innovative
arguments are worthwhile as long as you explain to me why I need to vote for
them. Capitalize on only a few winning points in the last speech if you are
negative, and don't beat a dead horse--once you've made your point, move on.
Follow when I put my head down in terms of flowing, and I can usually be read
via head noddings or looks of confusion. Be kind to one another, and, most of
all, have fun.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:
Terri Sanders
Date_of_Submission:
10/05/04
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year:
Philosophy:
Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:
2
Topicality:
Select one of the following:
Counterplans:
Select one of the following
Generic_Disadvantages:
Select one of the following:
Conditional_Negative_Positions: Select one of the following:
Debate_Theory_Arguments: Select one
of the following:
Kritik_Arguments:
Select one of the following:
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Knowledge of topic; preparation; clarity; persuasiveness; organization of
speech; confidence; presentation; respect for others (partner, opponents,
judge)
General_Comments:
Please speak at a reasonable rate.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:
Jim Schultz
Date_of_Submission:
10/6/04
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 8
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 12
Philosophy:
Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
4
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Quality of argument, clarity of argument, depth of argument, ingenuity of
argument, clarity of delivery, consistancy or argument/delivery, lack of
annoying habbits (don't tap things), be nice!
General_Comments:
If you don't know me, you bettah ask somebody!
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:
Mike Wascher
Date_of_Submission:
10-06-04
Coach:
Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 10
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 12
Philosophy:
Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery:
5--Very rapid
Topicality:
3
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages:
1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
Debater must present an understandable argument, that is warranted.
Overviews
and summaries are wonderful tools often neglected by debaters.
General_Comments:
I'll vote on whatever arguments the debaters present, however, I will not fill
in the blanks for the debaters. Additionally, if one team wants me to
use a
framework other than the traditional policy framework (fiat and THE resolution
stated in the tourney invitation) that team has to justify that change and be
willing to carry any baggage that goes with such a change. (For example,
if a
team wants me to use the ballot to make a statement as to my personal feelings
about a subject then that debater would have to defend any request to change
the order and time limits of the speeches. If we are going to throw out
part
of the rules by which we gather than we must be willing to change them all).
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:
Mike Speer
Date_of_Submission:
10/6/04
Coach:
Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 25
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 5
Philosophy:
Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery:
3
Topicality:
2
Counterplans:
1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 2
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments:
1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments:
2
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
I tend to award speaker points based on the clarity of expression and
sharpness
of analysis. First, I have to understand the argument you are making.
Sometimes
rate of delivery is a barrier to understanding, but more often the problem is
a
lack of explanation. Second, you must position your argument into the broader
context of the debate. You need to explain why the argument matters to the
outcome of the debate. Debaters who do these two things tend to get good
points
from me.
General_Comments:
I sincerely attempt to listen to whatever arguments are in the debate and
assess them based on the arguments and evidence introduced in round.
Debate is fun and I enjoy judging. I hope you look and act like you are
enjoying yourself. Listen to what the other said is saying and thoughtfully
engage the arguments.
At the end of the debate tell me why your team has won. Paint a nice clear
coherent picture. Avoid leaving a jumble of unconnected arguments for me to
sort out.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name:
Valerie Woska
Date_of_Submission:
10-07-04
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year:
Philosophy:
Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery:
Select one of the following:
Topicality:
Select one of the following:
Counterplans:
Select one of the following
Generic_Disadvantages:
Select one of the following:
Conditional_Negative_Positions: Select one of the following:
Debate_Theory_Arguments: Select one
of the following:
Kritik_Arguments:
Select one of the following:
B1:
Submit
Speaker_Points:
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Lucia Trejos
Date_of_Submission: 10/20/04
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
No_Experience: No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year:
Philosophy: Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery: Select one of the following:
Topicality: Select one of the following:
Counterplans: Select one of the following
Generic_Disadvantages: Select one of the following:
Conditional_Negative_Positions: Select one of the following:
Debate_Theory_Arguments: Select one of the following:
Kritik_Arguments: Select one of the following:
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Soo Choi
Date_of_Submission: 10/21/2004
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
No_Experience: No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year:
Philosophy: Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery: Select one of the following:
Topicality: Select one of the following:
Counterplans: Select one of the following
Generic_Disadvantages: Select one of the following:
Conditional_Negative_Positions: Select one of the following:
Debate_Theory_Arguments: Select one of the following:
Kritik_Arguments: Select one of the following:
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Enaye Englenton
Date_of_Submission: Oct. 22, 2004
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience: No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year:
Philosophy: Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Topicality: Select one of the following:
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: Select one of the following:
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 2
Kritik_Arguments: 4
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: CD McLean
Date_of_Submission: 10-22-04
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 6
Philosophy: Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Topicality: 1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans: 3
Generic_Disadvantages: 3
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clarity, interaction (does the speaker look at the judge or at his notes),
passion
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Amy
Date_of_Submission: 10/27/04
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 4
Philosophy: Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Topicality: 4
Counterplans: 3
Generic_Disadvantages: 3
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 3
Kritik_Arguments: 2
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
How clearly each team spoke. How the enunciated, pronounced, and so on.
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Leon Arteche
Date_of_Submission: 11/15/04
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent: Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience: No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year:
Philosophy: Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery: Select one of the following:
Topicality: Select one of the following:
Counterplans: Select one of the following
Generic_Disadvantages: Select one of the following:
Conditional_Negative_Positions: Select one of the following:
Debate_Theory_Arguments: Select one of the following:
Kritik_Arguments: Select one of the following:
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
General_Comments:
******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Michael Mantor
Date_of_Submission: 11/12/04
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent: Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience: No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year:
Philosophy: Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery: Select one of the following:
Topicality: Select one of the following:
Counterplans: Select one of the following
Generic_Disadvantages: Select one of the following:
Conditional_Negative_Positions: Select one of the following:
Debate_Theory_Arguments: Select one of the following:
Kritik_Arguments: Select one of the following:
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
General_Comments:
******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Shawn Briscoe
Date_of_Submission: 24 Nov 2004
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 3
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 15+
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 5--Very rapid
Topicality: 2
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 4
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
1st: Quality of argumentation
2nd: Clarity (this does not mean slow... however, many debaters try to go
faster than they are cabable of going, which decreases their clarity)
3rd: Fulfilling specific speaker duties. In other words, the 2NR/2AR should
summarize the round/synthesize the issues/write the RFD. 1ARs should pick the
critical responses. Etc.
General_Comments:
I prefer hearing debate in a policymaker framework; thus, that is my default
paradigm. I have no preconceptions regarding the acceptability of positions
that are considered "out there." As far as I'm concerned, anything goes in
that arena.
Although I consider myself a policymaker, it is possible to mold me.
However, it is the responsibility of debaters to explain why my "view" is being
shifted.
When it comes to kritiks, I generally do not like them. I think most kritiks
are simply nonunique disads, and debaters turn them into kritiks to try and
avoid the uniqueness debate. (As such, policy responses seem compelling to
me.) In other words, I would much rather hear your critical argument in the
form of a movements DA or a CP that captures the advantage of the position.
That being said, I have been convinced to vote for critical Affs and kritiks.
Generally, the teams that get my vote are the ones who make it very clear how I
am supposed to evaluate the argument, how my decision affects the world, etc.
In other words, don't just tell me the "alternative" is the opposite viewpoint
and I should reject the Aff (or Neg) in every instance because they represent
the "evil" in the system.
Theory debate: OK.
Speed: Fine.
CX: Is a time for debaters to seek clarification from one another. As long
as you don't get rude, I don't care what you do in CX.
Good 2NRs/2ARs will slow down and spell out the judge's RFD... this minimizes
the chances of a "loose cannon." This does not mean you should neglect the
line-by-line. Rather, give me a quick overview; hit the line-by-line hard;
then, finish up with a compelling story that writes the RFD for me.
Most importantly... HAVE FUN! That's what this is all about. Hopefully, we
will all learn something in the process. Good luck!
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Paul Ogles
Date_of_Submission: 12/14/05
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience: No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year:
Philosophy: Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery: Select one of the following:
Topicality: Select one of the following:
Counterplans: Select one of the following
Generic_Disadvantages: Select one of the following:
Conditional_Negative_Positions: Select one of the following:
Debate_Theory_Arguments: Select one of the following:
Kritik_Arguments: Select one of the following:
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Laura St. Clair
Date_of_Submission: 12/14/04
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent: Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience: No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year:
Philosophy: Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery: Select one of the following:
Topicality: Select one of the following:
Counterplans: Select one of the following
Generic_Disadvantages: Select one of the following:
Conditional_Negative_Positions: Select one of the following:
Debate_Theory_Arguments: Select one of the following:
Kritik_Arguments: Select one of the following:
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: George D'Angelo
Date_of_Submission: 12/14/04
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent: Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience: No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year:
Philosophy: Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery: Select one of the following:
Topicality: Select one of the following:
Counterplans: Select one of the following
Generic_Disadvantages: Select one of the following:
Conditional_Negative_Positions: Select one of the following:
Debate_Theory_Arguments: Select one of the following:
Kritik_Arguments: Select one of the following:
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Robin Kaplan
Date_of_Submission: December 14,2004
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent: Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience: No_Experience
Number_of_Years_Judging:
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year:
Philosophy: Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery: Select one of the following:
Topicality: Select one of the following:
Counterplans: Select one of the following
Generic_Disadvantages: Select one of the following:
Conditional_Negative_Positions: Select one of the following:
Debate_Theory_Arguments: Select one of the following:
Kritik_Arguments: Select one of the following:
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Marjorie Shatzkin
Date_of_Submission: 2/17/05
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent: Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 6
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: @14
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Topicality: 3
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 5--Not acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 5--Unacceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Organization of arguments and clarity.
General_Comments:
I prefer case debate, counter plans backed up with theory and no kritiks.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Marna R.
Weston
Date_of_Submission: 02/17/05
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 22
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 15
Philosophy: Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery: 1--Slow and deliberate
Topicality: 4
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points
The debaters ability to
demonstrate the relevance of round winning arguments, and to present those
arguments articulately, convincingly, and succinctly. Preferably at a moderate
rate of speed, but in all instances, delivered with respect for one's opponent,
and appropriate recognition of the debate's "audiences."
General_Comments
Rude debaters can expect
low speaks and probable loss independent of any "issues." I am open to any
argument that can be explained and defended as a warrant for the ballot.
"Non-traditional" arguments of course have a higher threshold of proof, so give
good reasons to prefer your arguments over those of your opponent. I look
strongly at the burden of rejoinder. Teams must respond to, and defeat arguments
established as "winning issues" to be successful. At the same time, teams that
introduce more arguments than a reasonably debate savvy person would see dealt
with in a round run the risk of "winning the wrong arguments" and thereby
perhaps overextending themselves in the debate. A good way of knowing if an
argument is worth going for is either: 1) you see "your audience" acknowledge
through body language or eye contact that "YES, THIS IS A POTENTIALLY WINNING
ARGUMENT, or 2)having your opponent agree that a particular argument is indeed a
winning argument, or 3)demonstrating through the use of deconstruction,
refutation, or counterarguments that your opponent has made contraditory
arguments or failed to make essential arguments that are now reasons to endorse
your positions as winning arguments. In general, I come into the round making
the following assumptions. If you are advocating positions vastly contrary to
these, it is your burden to overcome the presumption against. You should explain
why I should look at the argument differently, and justify that stance in the
round. Otherwise, I will follow my own preconceptions. Definitions of important
terms is not required but sometimes helps to clarify ccritical issues...usually
to the winner's favor. Topically is ok, but I can't remember the last time a
debate centered on an original, non- timesucky T position. If you are original
and can sell it, go for T. A brief you didn't write and cannot articulately read
though might cost you ethos. Specifically, too much T can be very boring. A
bored judge is not a happy judge. Inherency is a big time relevant argument. If
you've got good cards read them. Good analysis, lay it out. For Aff it is a
threshold issue. For Neg, I'll pull the trigger if you can win it and not
contradict or turn yourself while making it. I.E. be careful with disads if you
also run a lot on Inherency. Be smart. If you don't understand what I mean,
speak with your coach and/or with their assistance, consult an appropriate
debate reference. Solvency is always a good case argument and time press. I have
heard too many times though "I'll have three off and solvency." If solvency
cards are specific they will usually be enough to carry the day for the side
that holds them. Significance/Justification is one of my most favorite arguments
to evaluate. It can come in many forms: quantitative, qualitative, needs-based,
comparative advantage, audience-societal need, discourse, etc. Harms are always
good to have. Kritiks need reciprocal ground and some type of uniqueness. Disads
should be unique. Counterplans should be non topical, demonstrate net benefits,
competition, and mutual exclusivity. "I know you are but what am I?" is not a
sound strategy in front of me. In conclusion, I recognize many of these ideas
are very, very traditional, and that debate tends to go through occasional
corrective changes. For example I recall that many experienced judges when I
first started competing expected that the plan might include a board of specific
persons to oversee the mandates of the plan, a specific indication of what
agency would enforce the plan mandates, how much would the plan cost and
speifically how would it be funded had to be explained, or 2AC would introduce
the plan, or 2NC would introduce disads and plan attacks, while 1NC would argue
the case. Then the alternative justification case with multiple independent
advantages, anyone of which was a warrant for the resolution was also prominent.
My point is that debate changes, but good debaters are coached to adapt to
whatever their audience is. I cannot expect everyone to agree with what I see as
important in a debate round, but I am a highly predicatble judge and with
practice teams can learn what and how to present in front of me, because I let
you know what's important if you ask me, and I let you know BEFORE the round, so
you have infinite prep time. The judge that does not disclose their paradigm is
by definition a greater unknown than the judge who freely admits which arguments
they generally find more persuasive and why.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Sarah Stevens
Date_of_Submission: February 2005
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach: Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 5 years
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 30+
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 5--Very rapid
Topicality: 1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Here are a few ways to improve your speaker points in front of me:
1. BE NICE TO EACH OTHER.
2. Do not assume you are winning every argument you go for. Make some "even if
I lose x argument, we win because of y" comparisons. I mean, I'm glad to write
down the words "magnitude" or "timeframe," but they mean very little if the
other side is repeating those same words when referring to the advantage.
Compare them for me.
3. Don't waste time. Please do not repeat the same argument 12 times to make a
2.5 minute 2NC into an 8 minute one. On the same note, if someone drops the
disad don't read me five new links in the 2NC. I will be much nicer speaker
points wise if you get me out in time to watch my kids give the 2NR - bonus
points if I get to see the 1AR :)
4. DO NOT STEAL PREP. I did it and I know when you are doing it. If you are not
building a podium or giving me an order, you are prepping. I use a running
clock. When the speech is over, CX begins. When CX is over, prep begins.
General_Comments:
I know the number scale is a little strange, but I will try to translate. You
can go as fast as you like, but don't go faster than you can. Slow debates are
fine, too - I can flow them better :)
Conditional arguments are fine, but I am pretty convinced by the argument that
dispositionality solves all the offensive reasons why conditionality is good,
but gives the aff some control over their own destiny. The point is that I am
willing to vote on conditionality bad, too.
You can run kritiks, but I should warn you that I am stupid and don't know many
big words. I am old and slow (kids on the team call me Me-maw). Make the round
easy on me.
Really, what you want to make the debate about is up to you. Congratulations on
making it to the state tournament!
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Jason Woolford
Date_of_Submission: February 26, 2005
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 10+
Philosophy: Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Topicality: 2
Counterplans: 3
Generic_Disadvantages: 3
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 4
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 3
Kritik_Arguments: 2
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clarity, Poise, Organization, Speed, Cross Examination questions and answers,
Support/Development of arguments
General_Comments:
I competed in the Northwest United States, which is somewhat different from the
Southeast. I focus on arguments and support of arguments. The burden of proof
is with the affirmative but supporting evidence goes a long way for either
side. I also feel strongly that the purpose of debate is to show why your side
is right, not to read cards and speak too fast. A team must work together to
analyze the flow of the debate and attack or defend its arguments.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Sarah Wright
Date_of_Submission: 2/25/05
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 3
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 30
Philosophy: Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Topicality: 2
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
smart arguments and being nice
General_Comments:
I enjoy good debates like everyone else really. I think that a lot of rounds
are lost by teams because they don't engage the other teams' evidence and don't
read it. I think debaters should read eachothers evidence and I prefer not to
read evidence after the debate round. I tend to only read evidence after the
debate round when there is some disagreement about what it says.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Adam Weinstein
Date_of_Submission: February 25, 2005
Coach:
Assistant_Coach: Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 4
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 15
Philosophy: Hypothesis Tester
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Topicality: 2
Counterplans: 2
Generic_Disadvantages: 4
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
organization on a flow (roadmapping, signposting, line-by-line); ability to
give evidence for arguments and weigh all the arguments in the round for me;
analytical prowess; and graciousness to debating counterparts
General_Comments:
Be organized, impact your arguments, warrant your claims, promote clash,
analyze whenever possible, and above all be civil!
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Amanda Simpson
Date_of_Submission: 2-25-05
Coach:
Assistant_Coach: Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 3
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 8
Philosophy: Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery: 5--Very rapid
Topicality: 2
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
A clear, concise presentation of arguments. Speed is not a hinderance as long
as you are coherent. Just say what you need to say and be done with it, no need
to be superfluous.
General_Comments:
Haven't been on the high school circuit much this year as I was debating on the
college circuit for the first half of the year...the result is that I have
become even more liberal. Anything goes...I'll judge on anything as long as YOU
make the argument, I won't do it for you (even though I might know what you are
trying to say). Most of you know, that although I am very objective, I have a
special place in my heart for critical arguments :)
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: James K. Stanescu
Date_of_Submission: 02-25-05
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 5
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 50+
Philosophy: Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Topicality: 3
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
The ability to handle the technical side of the debate while still clearly
articulating how all the arguments in the round worm together for the team.
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Vince Binder
Date_of_Submission: 2/25/05
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 7
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 30+
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 5--Very rapid
Topicality: 4
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Combination of speed and clarity
Depth of knowledge (including intimate topic specific arguments)
Strategic use of Time (prep time and speech time)
General_Comments:
I will vote on ANY argument, even ones that I may not "prefer", but noone can
remove bias completely from any situation, like all critics i will try to be
impartial, but in reality we can only minimize our predispositions, so that
being said...
Kritiks are great, they're in all my neg rounds, BUT my own philosophical
predisposition lends me to be more sympathetic to the less popular arguments
from the philosophical "right" (statism, coercion, free market, cap good, obj,
pat good, realism, etc...) than more popular "liberal" kritiks (feminism,
baudrillard, nayar, threat con, development, rhetoric args, etc...)
If you have any questions about me as a critic please ask me, but ask Specific
questions, we'll talk, it will be fun
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Rick Herder
Date_of_Submission: March 1, 2005
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach: Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 13
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 9
Philosophy: Games Player
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Topicality: 3
Counterplans: 3
Generic_Disadvantages: 3
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 4
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 3
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clarity, full warranting of arguments (especially in rebuttals), time
allocation, passion, creativity, rhetorical skills.
General_Comments:
"One keeps forgetting to go right down to the foundations. One doesn't put the
question marks deep enough down." Wittgenstein (CV p. 62)
My attitudes have evolved significantly over the years, so please do not make
assumptions. I had some limited experience as a debater and coach many years
ago in the days of "stock issues." When I came back to this activity a decade
ago, it had changed significantly, and I had to learn this event all over
again. It took a few years because we were not traveling to many national
circuit tournaments, and I was also coaching a big team that competed in all
events. In the early years I was begging students to go slow, so that I could
get all the arguments. I made stupid mistakes on fundamental strategies. But I
was determined to learn this. When my students went off to camp, I studied
their matierials. When we got a new topic, I read primary materials. Our
school had a small budget, so for a few years there I judged a lot of rounds. I
monitored my own judging record, and asked other coaches and judges to explain
things to me. Over the years I have judged high rounds at quite a few major
tournaments and I am not prone to being the squirrel... when I do, I think I
have coherent reasons. When I make mistakes I try to admit them. More recently,
I returned to graduate school and in the past couple years have written several
papers on high school debate. My specific interest is in the sociology of
debate, so I enjoy talking to students and coaches. The point of all this is to
help you understand the things that have shaped my preferences and to let you
know that if I judged you, say, in the mid-nineties (coaches), my attitudes
have evolved significantly. In fact, If I judged you last year, my attitudes
may have changed.
Here are the fundamentals: 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)Arguments need 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.
I will be happy to discuss the theory on this, but you must be prepared to
discusss epistemology in detail. Also, 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. Prefiat implications are important. 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. I will try
really hard to listen. You must try really hard to make sure your arguments get
across. Look up. Ask me questions before the round. Be organized. Tell me if
you think I will need a separate piece of paper to flow an overview, etc. 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.
3)arguments need warrants, but there is very little I will dismiss apriori.
Here is a summary:
T- I vote frequently for T, but not because I am fond of the way the argument
tends to be run. In fast rounds I sometimes find that I have dropped a point on
the flow and that I have to go back and fill in based on what I hear in
rebuttals. So, be warned, and be clear. I dislike bogus violations that just
clutter up the debate. I want more than just competing interpretations. I want
clearly articulated offensive arguments from each side. High school debaters
are not typically very creative when it comes to T. Why, for example, should I
just accept a "fair division of ground argument" apriori? What are the
assumptions that guide this? Having said that, this is T, and we must be able
to set reasonable boundaries.
Critiques - You should know from what I have already said that I like critical
theory. I believe students need to read primary texts and really thinking about
the implications outside of the round. I do the same as time allows. This does
not mean that I will vote for a critique automatically. 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 team has a weak response. I believe it is difficult to perm a
critique, and that teams are usually better off to go for rejections straight
up. Having said that, I have voted on several occasions for well developed
perms of critiques.
Counterplans - They must be competitive. I hate dispositionality. I am not
fond of PICs, but will listen to them if they are fully developed and
competitive. I tend to dislike unarticulated assumptions. Theory args are
acceptable, but you must make your strategic decision and fully warrant
whatever you are going for.
DA's: I have voted for politics frequently over the years, but I am not fond of
the argument. I question some of the fundamental assumptions. Therefore, if
you expect me to vote for it, be prepared to warrant everything, especially the
link story. I also dilike simplistic utilitarian calculus. Why, why, why, I am
I voting for you on the DA? What are the ethical implications? What are the
chances of this happening and what are your warrants? If an aff screws up and
drops a crucial arg on a DA, that's a very fortunate thing for a neg, but you
must follow through and put the ball into the net.
Did I say that I want clear, fully articulated arguments?
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Myke McGroarty
Date_of_Submission: 3/1
Coach:
Assistant_Coach: Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 30
Philosophy: Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery: 5--Very rapid
Topicality: 4
Counterplans: 2
Generic_Disadvantages: 2
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 2
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
I award the most speaker points to the best speaker. I like organized debaters,
numbers are awesome. I also reward good impact calculus.
General_Comments:
Tell me where to go on the flow and why, I'll vote in whatever paradigm you put
me in.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: William Xanttopoulos
Date_of_Submission: March 1, 2005
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent: Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2 recently and two or three years but long ago
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 2
Philosophy: Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Topicality: 3
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 4
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Good argument-being able to articulate why your position is better/right. Speed
is generally Ok to some degree, but people who are incomprehensible will not
get top points. I would appreciate some degree of civility. Talking over other
people in cross-X, or being rude is a turn off. I try to ignore it, but its
impossible for it to have no effect on the award of points.
General_Comments:
Topicality- I listen to topicality arguments carefully. If the aff. has a
reasonable interpretation I will usually accept it. However, if they fail to
argue it correctly I can vote negative. I have a hard time voting neg on basis
that the aff is "abusive" if I know that the aff case has been around for much
of the year.
Impact-Links. I'm impressed by good arguments as to why the impact is linked or
not linked, or why the effect of one disadvantage outweighs affirmative
advantage etc. I'm impressed by the ability to specifically and logically argue
against specific evidence/authority i.e. does not apply in this situation,
authority is biased, outdated etc. I do not like sloppy or generalized
causation arguments.
Speed is OK but you may not get credit for something that is read so fast that
I can't understand it. Because I have judged a limited number of rounds you
cannot presume that I will know your evidence if it is incomprehsible.Bottom
line is that I have no objection to speed. However, because I have judged so
few rounds this year, if you believe you have winning arguments it would be to
your benefit to slow down a little to make sure your points are being
communicated to me.
I may or may not ask to read evidence after the round. I am more likely to read
a key piece of evidence that is pointed out or emphasized during the round.
Don't expect me to go back and read everything.
I am simply more familiar with traditional policy debate. I will keep an open
mind to theory arguments etc. but due to my personal experience I simply am
more familiar with the policy maker type analysis. However, I am making more
of an effort to be open minded and will listen to theory and kritik arguments.
If you can persuade me that such an argument is worthy of a ballot you will get
my vote.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Jean Flegiel
Date_of_Submission: 3/2/05
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent: Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 3
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 1--Slow and deliberate
Topicality: 2
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 3
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 4
Kritik_Arguments: 4
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Understanding of the resolution. Following policy guidelines (including time
and cross-ex order. Clear speaking. Professionalism and maturity.
General_Comments:
I really don't see the excercise of Policy Debate as simply cramming as much
information into the time alloted and then screaming at the judge to find based
on the rules of Policy. I really look for intelligent debate, advancement of
the argument, and professionalism. Pretty much what I would expect out of an
adult policymaker.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Shawn Briscoe
Date_of_Submission: 2 Mar 05
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 5
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 30+
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 5--Very rapid
Topicality: 3
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 4
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
1st: Quality of argumentation
2nd: Clarity (this does not mean slow... however, many debaters try to go
faster than they are cabable of going, which decreases their clarity)
3rd: Fulfilling specific speaker duties. In other words, the 2NR/2AR should
summarize the round/synthesize the issues/write the RFD. 1ARs should pick the
critical responses. Etc.
General_Comments:
I prefer hearing debate in a policymaker framework; thus, that is my default
paradigm. In addition, I have no preconceptions regarding the acceptability of
substantive positions that are considered "out there." As far as I'm
concerned, anything goes in that arena.
Although I consider myself a policymaker, it is possible to mold me.
However, it is the responsibility of debaters to explain why my "view" is being
shifted.
When it comes to kritiks, I generally do not like them. I think most kritiks
are simply nonunique disads, and debaters turn them into kritiks to try and
avoid the uniqueness debate. (As such, policy responses seem compelling to
me.) In other words, I would much rather hear your critical argument in the
form of a movements DA or a CP that captures the advantage of the position.
(Some examples include: environmental movements, feminist movements, anarchy
CPs, democratic-socialism CPs, etc.) Nevertheless, I have been convinced to
vote for critical Affs and kritiks. Generally, the "critical" teams that get
my vote are the ones who make it very clear how I am supposed to evaluate the
argument, how my decision affects the world, etc. In other words, don't just
tell me the "alternative" is the opposite viewpoint and I should reject the Aff
(or Neg) in every instance because they represent the "evil" in the system.
Position Overviews: I think they contribute to poor debate. The time spent
reading a pre-written overview could be much better utilized responding to
specific attacks. Most of the time, the information given in the overview
doesn't even apply to the responses in that round. Furthermore, most teams
don't even apply the overview to specific responses. My suggestion... respond
to the line-by-line.
Signposting: Please. I miss the days when debaters actually numbered (or
lettered) their responses/arguments. It keeps things simple, especially in a
fast round. However, I dislike it when teams refer to the "Smith in '04"
card. Which Smith in '04 card? Personally, I flow your tags and the analysis
within the evidence. Unless it's Mead or Khalilzad, I rarely jot down the
source because I want to make sure I'm getting the analysis within the cards?
as a result, I generally don't need to call for evidence after the round.
Theory debate: Whatever.
Speed: Sure.
CX: Is a time for debaters to seek clarification from one another. As long
as you don't get rude, I don't care what you do in CX.
Good 2NRs/2ARs will slow down and spell out the judge's RFD... this minimizes
the chances of a "loose cannon." This does not mean you should neglect the
line-by-line. Rather, give me a quick overview; hit the line-by-line hard;
then, finish up with a compelling story that writes the RFD for me.
Final thoughts: I vote on the flow. It doesn't matter what I think debate
is supposed to be, how I think the world works, whether I personally believe
the argument, what I think about debate theory, etc. Similarly, I won't fill
in gaps for you. Just because I've heard a disad a dozen times or read five
Murray Bookchin books, I won't fill in extra analysis for you. In other words,
I view the debate as a contest between two competing teams. It's your
responsibility to "out-debate" each other? you shouldn't have to contend with
"out-debating" me, too.
Most importantly... HAVE FUN! That's what this is all about. Hopefully, we
will all learn something in the process. Good luck!
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Jacob Richter
Date_of_Submission: March 2
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: less than 1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: none
Philosophy: Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery: 1--Slow and deliberate
Topicality: 5--I never vote on topicality
Counterplans: 5--Counterplans are not acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 5--Not acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 5--Unacceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clear, concise, well explained arguments. I want the debaters to be persuasive
and thematic in their arguments. Pick a limited number of issues and win those.
Tell me how to compare impacts and why you should win. I reward historical
examples, metaphors, and personal anecdotes to prove your arguments.
General_Comments:
I want to be emotionally persuaded to vote for you. I believe in the value of
story-telling. Connect the evidence you read to the global story you are
telling.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Nicole Richter
Date_of_Submission: March 2
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach: Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 7
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 30+
Philosophy: Games Player
Rate_of_Delivery: 5--Very rapid
Topicality: 4
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 3
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 2
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Make complete arguments. I value quality of argument over quantity of argument.
You do not need 10 reasons the other team is bad, only a couple solid idicts of
the opponent. I like persuasive speaking that is not monotone but varies in
tone. Be smart and clever. I reward jokes, anecdotes, and metaphors. This is an
intense activity so be passionate about your arguments.
General_Comments:
I prefer critical debate over exclusively policy debate. I will be a
policymaker if you defend this framework. I often vote on policy arguments but
I will be more interested in the representations both teams are making and the
moral claims behind each team. I am open to new and interesting arguments. I
prefer these over the same old same old arguments round after round. I do not
call for a lot of evidence so make sure you are indicting your opponents
evidence and explaining why yours is better. Impact calculus is the key to my
ballot make sure you compare your impacts to theirs. Tag team cross-ex is
fine.
|