Policy Judge Philosophies
2006-2007
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 03/06/2007 03:35:19 PM -0500
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Georgina Long
Date_of_Submission: 09/26/06
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: Kris Olsen
Date_of_Submission: 09/26/06
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: Catherine Torres
Date_of_Submission: 10/04/06
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: Vaerris
Date_of_Submission: January 19
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
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: LArry cooper
Date_of_Submission: 11/09/1982
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 1982
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 1982
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:
Speaker_Points:
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Mike Speer
Date_of_Submission: 2/13/07
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: 50
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
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:
Clear, coherent delivery and insightful line-by-line clash
General_Comments:
What you see below represents the assumptions that I bring into the round.
These largely define my "comfort zone." I am not dictatorial. If one or both
of
the teams wants to take a different approach then they should be prepared to
educate me. I am educable, but learning requires explanation and
thoughtfulness. If you want to lead me to a new world of debate, please be
prepared to slowdown and give me time to think things over.
Topicality: The negative should planning on winning that the affirmative's
interpretation is in some way non-debatable or drastically un-limiting and
that
the negative interpretation provides fair ground and is predictable.
Predictability and fair ground are, to my mind, the critical touchstones of
topicality. The affirmative should be prepared to win that its interpretation
provides fair ground and predictability. I will vote on topicality, but I tend
to grant affirmative team the benefit of any doubt.
Counterplans: I do not completely understand the ramifications of the
distinction between conditionality and dispositionality (I am pretty sure
there
is no such word). I am not a big fan of theory debates and tend to be
singularly unimpressed by the specter of "potential abuse." In general, I am
comfortable allowing the negative to run conditional arguments. Whether it is
a
good strategy is a different question. I tend to view counterplan competition
as an opportunity cost issue. To be successful the negative team must
demonstrate that the counterplan, alone, is superior to the affirmative plan
OR
the affirmative plan and some or all aspects of the counterplan.
Critiques: I am not particularly familiar with the literature from which most
critiques are drawn. What I have read has tended to be extremely obtuse. This
literature is frequently written with the express intention of being unclear.
I
cannot use it to make a decision when it is presented to me at 280 to 300 WPM.
I believe that some of the issues explored in critical literature are very
interesting and relevant to debate. However, if you want me to vote on your
critical argument, you must slowdown and help me UNDERSTAND. It is especially
important that you explain the implications of the critique and how I am to
weigh it in the debate. A good rule of thumb for critique debates is that the
stupider you think I am, the better off you will be.
Other Issues: I know that you work very hard. I want to render a decision that
is as fair and well reasoned as I can make it. I rarely read evidence after a
round. Use your speech time to make the evidence, and the implications that
flow from it, crystal clear. Try to avoid leaving me with a puzzle to solve. I
will make every effort to decide the round based on arguments presented during
the debate. I will make every effort to resist putting the debate together for
one team or the other. I confess to missing the old days when every impact was
not worldwide global catastrophe. I am not sure that the rise of minimax
analysis with its frequently convoluted "almost phantasmagorical" internal
link stories has made debate better. I freely admit to being old and
crotchety,
but I think debaters are too quick to dismiss the ?this is nonsense, because??
answer. Just because a factlet is published does not automatically make it
credible. I have known many high school debaters who were smarter and better
informed than some (most?) of the sources they were quoting. Debaters should
focus on the reasons that support their claims not just whether or not there
is
a quotation to be read. In my opinion, a well reasoned "analytic" usually
beats
a poorly warranted quotation.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Alex Acosta
Date_of_Submission: 2/14/07
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 7
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 20
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:
General_Comments:
So let me welcome to you to my judging profile:
My general parameter is more in lines with this, there are no rules to debate,
only a framework, the rules for how to win in that framework are up to the
debaters interpretations. Obviously the most compelling story will be the one
that I vote for.
As for specific arguments here are my defaults on them if I am not offered a
framework for in which to vote.
Disadvantages: I LOVE POLITICS AND SPENDING DEBATES. Really I was just always
way to lazy to cut them. I think disads generally provide great ways of
spinning clear impacts, and this makes it the most fun and easy to watch. I
think its great to counterplan out of link turns in the 2nc, great to
counterplan uniqueness, and do all sorts of sketchy stuff. I don't mind seeing
the speed on this debate I just hope that there is good comparative analysis
on
the uniqueness evidence.
Topicality: It is a jurisdictional issue I tend to default back to this before
I look at issues of limits or abuse. I do think topicality is an issue of
competing interpretations and would like to see definition comparison and a
deep debate on the standards. I really do enjoy topicality debates. If you
spend time developing the arguments the same you do a disad you will go a long
way in convincing me of your commitment to this argument as more than a time
suck. If you are going for T in your last speech it behooves you to make that
the only part of your strategy unless it interacts with something else that
will allow you to generate offensive reasons to win the round. I will vote on
RVI's or Independent voters if they are offered by the affirmative for good
reasons or if they are dropped. I will vote on arguments on this flow before
anything else. Oh ya I do vote on potential abuse.
Performance: If you are doing a performance whether it is rap,dance, or music
just dont be terrible at it. Furthermore, this still needs to be framed in a
way that tells me how to frame the ballot. Tell me why you must impel me to
act or vote in your way.
Counterplans: It is good if they compete. It is good if they have a net
benifit. I am fine with consult or any other agent counterplans, I am however
though very convinced that theoretical objections to them can be very real and
valid. I have no problem with conditionality and generally default neg on
conditionality. Theoritical objections to counterplan can be reason to reject
the team.
Critiques: I have acknowledged that floating pics are inveitable, and thus
will accept people pressing the alternative and objecting to it theoretically
where it is justified. I want to see specific link analysis from the case. A
clear explanation of why it is a critique and not a non-unique linear
disadvantage. Contradictions are bad, and although i am ok with conditonal and
multiple cp, I am not comfortable with a traditional performative
contradiction, and tend to think at the very least that I should reject the
argument and the team if the AFf can spin the story. I think the alternative
debate really needs to be explained especially if its a floating pic.
Providing real life redeployment arguments provide great real world scenarios
of how your arguments work.
Theory: Good debates are great, block debates are bad. Nothing irritiates me
more than people reading blocks instead of actually engaging in clash. After
you have read your blocks impac them the way you would a disad or kritik or
topicality. Compel me to make a decision. I consider theory issues a prima
facia issue and will vote on them first. I will vote on any argument on this
flow first.
Aff Conditionality: Any of it in the block through severence, intrinsicness,
or timeframe, is usually reason enough for me to reject a team. Of course if
it isnt impacted I wont vote for it. Again neg teams should debate here and do
the work on why this is bad.
Offensive Language: Its bad, and will result in your docking of points. As to
whether I will punish a team for it, is questionable. In an outround
potentially I could drop a team but not in a prelim. It would take a blatant
mishandling of it, but usually an apology should suffice. This should not
deter you from running this argument, but rather i want you to draw a direct
impact correlation to the debate round. Proof of impact.
Speaker Points: I will reward humor and refrences to pop culture, Big Lebowski,
EuroTrip,Florida State football, and anyone I debated with or coach. Tasteful
Nicole Richter and non tasteful Johnny Prieur jokes are welcome and expected.
This is really where someone who excels in cross examination can really win an
extra point, and that can mean the difference betweening clearing at
Tournament
when you are 5-3 or 4-4.
My speaker point range is usually:
average 24-26
Good- 26.5-28
Excellent 28.5-29.5
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Mary Taylor
Date_of_Submission: 2/14/2007
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: 23
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosophy: Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Topicality: 3
Counterplans: 5--Counterplans are not acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 4
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 5--Not acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 5--Unacceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Addressing the stock issues; following a clear organizational pattern; and
being understood, regardless of speed.
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Howard Burkholz
Date_of_Submission: 02/21/2007
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: 40
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 20
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: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 3
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Give me theory and evidence and speed.
General_Comments:
See previous entries on this site and NDCA
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Chris Sprouse
Date_of_Submission: 02/19/07
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: 5
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosophy: Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Topicality: 2
Counterplans: 3
Generic_Disadvantages: 3
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 2
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 3
Kritik_Arguments: 3
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
An ability to express one's awareness of what's happening in the round.
General_Comments:
I haven't judged debate in the last ten years or so, and my NDT experience in
college was in the stock issue-oriented American Debate Association, which had
common sense limits on arguments. But I would like to think I'm open-minded
about debate.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Marjorie Shatzkin
Date_of_Submission: 02/15/2007
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent: Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 10
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 40
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Topicality: 3
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 2
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 4
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
How cross x is executed, rebuttal speeches in terms of analysis and
organization
General_Comments:
I'll vote on any reasonable argument in a round. It's up to you to tell the
story. I don't want to do work for either team. Give me the links, the
analysis, and a reason to vote.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Kimmy Stewart
Date_of_Submission: February 21, 2007
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosophy: Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Topicality: 4
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 2
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 1--Acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clear and to the point overviews, line by line debating, asking good CX
questions, giving good answers
General_Comments:
I like fun and adventurous debates! I am there to judge what is said in the
debate, so I won't connect any dots for you. I like straight up policy stuff
and kritiky goodness...I've pretty much only run Kritiks on the neg my entire
debating career. I think flawed methodology is a reason to reject the plan.
Good luck :)
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Kristie Taylor
Date_of_Submission: 2/24/07
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 26 years
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 14
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Topicality: 1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 3
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
The debater's ability to explain why a card proves a point. I prefer that
debaters use some logic with their ev. Argumentation is important to me, and I
like case specific arguments over generic.
General_Comments:
I'm an experienced judge who likes stock issues, voting issues, and good, old-
fashioned clash. I accept kritiks, but I prefer head to head argumentation.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Ernie Querido
Date_of_Submission: 2/24/07
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: too many
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 70+
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 5--Very rapid
Topicality: 3
Counterplans: 3
Generic_Disadvantages: 3
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 3
Kritik_Arguments: 3
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
smart comparisons and smart cx participation, not saying the word a-spec
General_Comments:
just resolve comparisons in your favor better than the other team does.
(doesn't matter what those comparisons are about... could be interp vs.
counterinterp, link vs. link out/link turn, impact calculi, impact vs. impact
takeout/turn, etc.) if neither of you do, i will.
i'm lazy. won't call for cards unless there's a counterclaim on it.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Dan Lewis
Date_of_Submission: 2/24/07
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach: Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 10+
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 25+
Philosophy: Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery: 5--Very rapid
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 winning side in almost every case will get the high points. I look for the
most proficient debater in each round and then the next most proficient. The
big issue in each round is whether the losing side will get a second speaker
in
the round.
General_Comments:
All arguments are on the table and open for consideration. I look for the
debaters to establish the reasons why an argument should or should not be
accepted. The reason I ranked conditional negatives a 3 is that the Aff must
show how the argument is abusive if they want me to bar it from consideration.
The rest are per se acceptable in any debate. Of course, if abuse is proven or
theory denies the use of the strategy in the round, I will not consider it. I
hope this helps.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Rita Oglesby
Date_of_Submission: 2/25/2007
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent: Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: first year
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 12
Philosophy: Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery: 1--Slow and deliberate
Topicality: 1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 5--Not acceptable
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 5--Unacceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 5--Unacceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
I prefer the speakers to a) give me a clear road map of their issues, b) speak
clearly, c) behave courteously and with decorum.
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Mike Wascher
Date_of_Submission: 2/26/2007
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: 40
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Topicality: 3
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 2
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Speaks are arbirtary and I ussually give 27, 28 or 29 to asll speakers unless
someone is rude which gets a minimum. I reserve 30s for spectacular
performances which have been rare.
General_Comments:
I'll let the debaters dictate the decision paradigm, however, I am reluctant
to
vote on abuse when the team that argues it spends time on abuse arguments when
they could have spent time on substantive arguments.
|
 |
|
|
|
||
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Ruby Pham
Date_of_Submission: 02/27/2007
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach: Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 9 years
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 20
Philosophy: Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Topicality: 2
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 2
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 3
Kritik_Arguments: 2
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
clarity when spreading, organization and internal transitions, ability to
direct me to specific arguments on my flow, logical responses
General_Comments:
I am inbetween a tabula rasa and a gamesplayer type of judge. I am willing to
hear any argument in a round as long as there is logical reasoning. I will
hear generic disadvantages, and I would prefer a specific link with politics
disadvantages. The same idea goes with Kritiks. I believe that Debate Theory
is wasted when it is produced to me in a dump in the first constructive and
never expanded in the second consructive argument. There is an ability to
provide depth in theory arguments, and it should not be presumed that I would
vote on it just because it was stated in one of the speeches without any
supplemental information.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Laura Montalvo
Date_of_Submission: March 6, 2007
Coach:
Assistant_Coach: Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 25
Philosophy: Stock Issues
Rate_of_Delivery: 5--Very rapid
Topicality: 2
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:
Manner of delivery, as well as quality of arguments made.
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Matt Gaetz
Date_of_Submission: 3/1/07
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 8
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 15-20
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 5--Very rapid
Topicality: 3
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 2
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 2
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
How well arguments interact with one another.
General_Comments:
Please see my philosophy on the NDCA webpage.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Matthew Rosenblum
Date_of_Submission: 2/28/07
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 2
Philosophy: Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery: 5--Very rapid
Topicality: 4
Counterplans: 2
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 3
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Laundry list
1) Dont be rude
2) Make a good joke
3) Make smart arguements
4) Stay away from generic positions. Pointing you finger at the Aff team and
going "hahaha you use the state and thats bad" is kinda lame.
5)Try and keep the round clean, and by that I mean give road maps and make it
so I know where to flow what youre saying.
6) If all else fails and the round is going badly, make a joke about Alex
Acosta in the 2AR/2NR and I promise that it will help your speaker points.
General_Comments:
I'm a policy debater for FSU and debated for 2 years at Jupiter High School.
I dont think its my job as a judge to tell you which arguements I will and
will
not listen to. I think most arguements are cool when done well. Perform it,
rap
it, kritik it, or roll with a bunch of DA's, I DONT CARE. It's your debate not
mine. However from my point of view, I'd much rather hear a kritik debate then
a CP/DA debate, and I'd much rather have blood drawn then listen to T, BUT
that
doesnt mean that I wont vote off of things I hate to listen to. Once again,
debate is for the debaters.
CP's-Try to articulate a net benefit before the 2NR.
T-is genocide. Well...probably not but I still hate it. If youre a T debater
dont be afraid to go for it in front of me, just be warned I hate you for it.
K's of T are interesting, but are probably not the greatest arguements. IF you
want to go for T in the 2NR, just go for T.
DA's-Interesting DA's are exactly that interesting, and I like to listen to
them; however a lot of people roll with very contrived stories that i find to
be trite and boring. A good politix scenario is really awesome. I would say
that aside from a good K, I love to listen to politix the most.
K's- are the best thing ever. I cant remember a neg round where i havent run
one. I'm a philosophy major and am fairly familiar with the works of Agamben,
Foucault, Nietzsche, and Zizek. With that said, Zizek and I dont date anymore
and he wont return my phone calls so please do more then say "We encircle the
real better then the affirmative," because I dont know what thats supposed to
mean to me. I LOVE JEAN BAUDRILLARD. Personally I think capitalism is evil,
and
cap debates are fun. People might complain about how they're boring and
generic, but I think they're really fun to watch and judge.
Theory-Try not to read a theory block, and try hard to explain the abuse
story.
Also, slow down on theory.
If you have questions ask.
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|