Policy Judge Philosophies
2007-2008
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
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Last Updated 02/26/2008 05:47:06 PM -0500
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Dean Rhoads
Date: 2-23-08
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
LD_in_HS:
College_Debater:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 20+
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 5
Philosphy: Values and philosophy are most important
Rate_of_Delivery: 1--Slow and deliberate
Value_Premise: 5--Very important
Use_of_Value_Criteria: 5--Very Important
Approach_to_Resolution: 2
Use_of_Example: 4
Use_of_Evidence: 4
Focus_on_Debate: 4
Persuasive_Communication: 4
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Civility, articulation, organization, persuasion
General_Comments:
I do not flow speed and wish for the debate to be centered on the resolutional
issues. I won't listen to kritiks and most technical debate leaves me
indifferent.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Ernie Querido
Date_of_Submission: 2/8/08
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: 17
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 20+
Philosophy: Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery: 1--Slow and deliberate
Topicality: 1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans: 5--Counterplans are not acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 5--Disadvantages are not acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 5--Not acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 2
Kritik_Arguments: 4
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Smart questions, smart answers, and smart comparisons get rewarded with high
speaker points. Rudeness, bad/non-comparative statements, and overall lack of
caring is rewarded appropriately also.
General_Comments:
Those numbers above mean NOTHING. Don't read anything into them. Instead, read
this. Whoever made this judging philosophy template doesn't know much, if
anything, about the activity. Do what you wish in the round, whether it be to
run policymaking arguments, critical arguments, play music, create a game, read
poetry or narratives, etc. Whatever you do, if you defend your side of the
comparison as being preferable to that of your opponents, you'll win. If you
don't bother, I'll do it for you. You may not like the result. I could care
less.
Speed is a weapon, but if you don't have it, don't even try. Efficiency is
better skill to develop. Comparing and Contrasting is even more important, but
doing so efficiently makes for a damn good debater!
One last thing... I won't vote for/against a team for a theory argument.
Personally, I tend to think that substantive justifications trump purely
theoretical whines of fairness and education.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Alan Gray
Date_of_Submission: 01/03/2008
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: Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Topicality: 3
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 2
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 2
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
I award speaker points based on speaking quality: rate of delivery, eye contact,
vocal variation, gestures, etc.
General_Comments:
I will vote for the Aff only if they have proved each of the stock issues. If
the Neg disproves one or more of those, then I will vote for them.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Patrick Eklin
Date_of_Submission: 10/11/07
Coach:
Assistant_Coach: Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 3
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year:
Philosophy: Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Topicality: 3
Counterplans: 2
Generic_Disadvantages: 3
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 3
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clear, Obvious transition between ta g line s and cards, not rambling to
cover
time
General_Comments:
Love the use of case specific arguements and stock issues debates, not a big
fan
of generic negative plans that are run against everything, if running a
kritik
make sure you understand what you are discussing,
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Rita Oglesby
Date_of_Submission: 2/25/08
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent: Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 1.5
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 12
Philosophy: Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery: 2
Topicality: 1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 5--Disadvantages are not acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 5--Unacceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 5--Unacceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Rate of speech, clarity of presentation, evidence and argument.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Michael McGroarty
Date_of_Submission: 2/26/2008
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: 15
Philosophy: Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
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:
Being the fastest speaker in the room is not the easiest way ot get a 30 from
me. I give high speaks to debaters who give good analysis in a well-organized
fashion. Spreading won't hurt you, but being clear through your tags and
explaining the warrants to your evidence will go a long way.
General_Comments:
I have a pretty simple system for judging debates. In your 2NR/2AR, you should
give me a round overview that spells out my reason for decision. It should tell
me two things: Why you're winning the arguments you're going for and why those
are the most important arguments in the round. Then I'm going to evaluate the
credibility of those overviews based on your opponents' answers and your
defense, so you also need to do a good job on the line by line. Like I said,
it's pretty simple.
As long as you follow those guidelines, I really don't care what you do in
round. That being said, I will be happy to tell you what my personal
philosophies on arguments are, but don't let those be your guide in determining
which arguments you should run. I'm voting on your arguments and your
opponents', not my own. I've voted on Kritiks many times before, but I've also
voted on theoretical objections why Kritiks are bad for debate.
If after reading all that you still want to know what kind of arguments I will
most enjoy hearing, I will tell you that I tend to enjoy really unique
affirmatives or disadvantages that I haven't heard before and good old-fashioned
case debate or CP/DA strategies. If there's anything else you want to know (my
threshhold on T, my feelings on PICs, my interpretation of fiat, etc.), feel
free to ask me, but don't expect them to matter once the 1AC starts speaking.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Mike Speer
Date_of_Submission: February 24, 2008
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 30
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 40
Philosophy: Policymaker
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: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Good analysis, clear delivery, specific clash, easy to understand, high quality
evidence, strategic use of C-X
General_Comments:
Judge Philosophy
Mike Speer
Berkeley Preparatory School
Tampa, FL
I enjoy judging debates. I believe that the activity should focus on the
debaters. I will make an honest effort to follow you where you want to go, if
you will make an honest effort to help me get there. I am not intimately
familiar with the literature that forms the foundation for most critical
arguments. Don’t immediately put away your K files. If you really understand a
critical argument and can explain it to me and demonstrate its relevance and
impact in the debate, I’m your guy. I need to know what the alternative is. And,
I need to know what my ballot does. I will NEVER vote for an argument that I
don’t understand.
The dumber you assume I am the better off you will be. Open the door to
disappointment if you assume that I am as smart as you are or that I know
everything that you know. You are the experts on the arguments and the debate
theory. It is your job to educate and enlighten me. You will never lose points
because you make an argument too clear.
I try to be a flow-oriented judge. I like clear, line-by-line debating. I do not
worship at the altar of the quotation. Since debaters no longer read the
qualifications of their sources, there is not much reason to prefer “Smith, ’07,
says….” to the well-reasoned ruminations of the bright, young scholar standing
before me. If you have an argument to make, make it. Do not be deterred by the
lack of a quotation. Frankly, some of the “evidenced” arguments debaters make
strain credulity to the cusp of the breaking point. That said, I am open to any
argument that you choose to make. And, I am willing to suspend disbelief for the
purposes of allowing you to play the debate game.
Do not be afraid to play thoughtful defense. A well-played “no link” argument is
a thing of beauty. I like arguments that show a sophisticated understanding of
issue at hand. My preference is for fewer deeper arguments than for numerous
superficial arguments. Let me say again, I will never vote for an argument that
I do not understand.
Skillful CXing is important. Answers in CX are binding. Don’t be cagey in CX.
Topicality/Theory – I tend to view topicality as competing interpretations
regarding the impact on the activity. What will the affirmative’s interpretation
mean for the future of the activity versus the negative’s interpretation. Of
course, the affirmative is presumptively topical. The negative will have to win
that the aff’s approach to the topic is bad for the activity. I fibbed about
listening to any argument. Don’t bother arguing that T is a reverse voter. At
the end of the round, if I am convinced that the aff is not topical, the aff
will lose the debate.
Disads/Case debates – a time honored tradition. As James Carville says, “don’t
complicate the simple.” If you can beat them on their own ground, go for it.
Watching negative who knows more about the Aff case than the Aff team is a
wondrous thing.
Counterplans – the first test of a counterplan is competition. If the
counterplan gives me a magic wand (international, multiactor fiat, for example)
I expect the negative to be prepared to win the ensuing theory debate.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Dario Camara
Date_of_Submission: February 25, 2008
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 10
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 20
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: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Speaking.
General_Comments:
DARIO CAMARA (Royal Palm Beach High School)
JUDGE PARADIGM
Dario Camara is the director of debate at Royal Palm Beach High School in
Florida. He also coached debate at Ridge High School for seven years in New
Jersey. Dario has coached students to national finals rounds, out rounds of
important tournaments such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Glenbrooks, St. Marks,
Emory, the Tournament of Champions and more. Dario coached the 2003 Yale Debate
Champion, 2003, 2005 & 2007 Princeton Debate Champion, 2003 NCFL National Debate
Champion and 2006 Finalist Runner Up at Nationals. A number of his students have
placed in the top ten at NFL Nationals in debate. Among other notes Dario has
also coached the 2006 Congress NFL National Champion and the 2004 NFL Congress
National Champion.
Debate Paradigm
Although it's important for a debater to adapt to a judge, I don't think that
the debater must change his\her entire style to adapt to such. I judge base on
the flow no matter what your particular style of debate is. I very much against
the intervention of judges in debate rounds and defining a particular style can
blur that line.
Values: Values are important to define the position and usually they are better
when they have something that is common to the resolution. Un-equal values
forces the judge into deciding, which is better Justice or some other common
good standard, since the debater cannot do it in the time, allotted. It's just
silly to argue over this. However, the value criterion(a) essentially defines
and weighs the debate for me. Essentially all your arguments and case positions
need to link back to the standard you set in the VC. If the arguments do not
link and impact back, then at times they become unimportant in the round. Please
make sure you WEIGH and IMPACT. Simply asserting they link means nothing to me.
To me losing site of the standard equates losing site of the round.
Evidence/Analysis: Evidence is key to warranting a specific argument, however
your case positions should not be a list of names and quotes. That makes me
concentrate more on writing a person's name down on the flow instead of
listening to the card at all. I think it's important to keep certain issues in
mind when it comes to evidence and analysis. 1.) A card to me is meaningless
without analysis from the debater, if you can not place it in context of the
debate then it means nothing. Remember that studies, evidence and statistics are
not always defined to the LD topic; you need to make it so with several impacts.
2.) If the card does not apply to achieving the standard then it is probably
just a waste of your time and finally 3.) Please make sure the card says
everything you want it to say, do not assume things. I flow well and flow
everything I know exactly what the card says and does not say, if I don't I will
ask you for such card at the end of the debate [you don't want m
e to do this]
Rebuttals: IMPACT & WEIGH. Crystallization must be clear. In close debates, it
can make or break my decision; you don't want to mess this up. If you have
established a standard for the debate and warranted your impacts to such
standard, crystallization should be a breeze. DO NOT extend new arguments,
evidence, etc. and do not assume I know already what you are talking about. It's
always important to "close out the round." In the 1AR, I understand the
necessity of speed. It's vital to use prep time to decide on the issues, which
make up your 1AR. Dropping and taking out certain arguments that add nothing to
the standard is fine with me. I understand not covering the entire flow, some
arguments just do not matter [especially when there is "spreading" by the
negative] Crystallizing down the flow is fine but please weigh the arguments
along with telling me they are important to the round. Negative there is never
any real need for spreading. You might win but your speaker points w
ill not be the highest you will see at the tournament. Speaker points are
important to me and everything you do or do not do in the round counts towards
good or bad speaks.
Again, I judge based on what is said and what is on the flow in the round. IF
YOU DO NOT follow these guidelines it does not matter to me so much in
determining the winner [Although its nice when you do]. These are just
suggestions. You do what is necessary to win the round. Please approach me with
any questions and concerns. I am very approachable and a flexible judge. Good
Luck.
|
 |
|
|
|
||
|
|