Policy Judge Philosophies
2005-2006
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 02/27/2007 08:51:56 PM -0500
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Nicholas Murado
Date_of_Submission: August 9, 2005
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 0
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosophy: Games Player
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Topicality: 1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 4
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 3
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
-Speakers must debate in a clear and comprehendible manner. If I'm spending
time trying to figure out what someone is saying, then I'm spending less
timeanalyzing their case; that is a very bad thing.
-Speakers should know how to speak properly and fluently. It's a simple idea,
but also one which often goes over some people's heads.
-Speakers should be persuasive. However, try to convince me why I should take
your side, not that I'd be wrong if I took some other side.
General_Comments:
I'm a man of logic. The use of logic in arguments is very very important to
me. Using fallacious arguments will often prompt me to disregard all further
points extrapolated from the original fallacy.
Don't assume quoting 300 famous people (former presidents, congresspeople, et
cetera) will persuade me. Show me the facts and rationale behind the argument,
not that 300 other people agree with it.
Ultimately, I believe tournament debate should be a "chess game" played in the
minds of the participants. While remaining the scope of the rules and policies
for proving cases, debaters should be able to see how the opponent is going to
respond to some argument and have a plan in place to counterspell that attack.
The opponent should also try to see this and work to counterspell that
maneuver
as well. It's very in-depth to me; the ability to think "X moves ahead" gives
a player a definite advantage over any others. Granted, a player who thinks 6
moves ahead and makes 6 bad moves still won't win...
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Kirsten Flamand
Date_of_Submission: 6-12-05
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 17
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 1
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Topicality: 4
Counterplans: 4
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 4
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 4
Kritik_Arguments: 5--Unacceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
the ability to explain and link your evidence to the arguments in the round
General_Comments:
I prefer hearing real world arguments about the actual topic--I like to think
that debaters will grow up to make real world policy decisions, and I want
your
debate experience to reflect that hope.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Max Wolson
Date_of_Submission: 10/20/2005
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 0
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0 thus far
Philosophy: Select one of the following
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
Topicality: 3
Counterplans: 3
Generic_Disadvantages: 2
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 3
Kritik_Arguments: 4
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
As in any form of debate speaks from me are based on just the whole package.
Giving a clear speech (regardless of the pace its read at), good responses to
evidence and effective CX all help.
General_Comments:
I'm newer to the policy debate world (did some LD in high school, did a lot of
extemp, coached LD first year out of high school so not saying never heard of
debate). I started doing policy this year for UF and as I write this have been
to a couple tournaments so I'm def not w/o experience. So w/e that little
bit of information would mean to you in terms of how you approach the round...
do it...other than that just be clear...it drives me crazy when people stutter
and stumble b.c they tried to read faster than they are personally able to.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Jason Miller
Date_of_Submission: 10/29/05
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 1
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 3
Philosophy: Policymaker
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: 3
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Competency of topic, lucidity of debate and speech.
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Enaye Englenton
Date_of_Submission: 11/03/05
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 5
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Topicality: 4
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 3
Kritik_Arguments: 2
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Since debate is a speech event, it is important for debaters to present
themselves in a professional manner. Clash is good, but rudeness is not. Be
clear and remember that you are there to get the judges vote.
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Steve Mezer
Date_of_Submission: 11/03/05
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: Bill Russell
Date_of_Submission: 11/3/05
Coach:
Assistant_Coach: Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 10
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 0
Philosophy: Select one of the following
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:
General_Comments:
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: John Prieur
Date_of_Submission: November 9, 2005
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: 6
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: 2
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 3
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
How effective you are at making good arguments while you are speaking.
General_Comments:
My experience:
Two time Kentucky Round Robin participant
Finals of CEDA Nationals, and various other late elim appearances at major
college tournaments
#6 NDT First Round bid 2003-2004
Top 10 Speaker, numerous college tournaments
This is my philosophy copied from thendca.org website:
I generally try to be open to most forms of
argumentation. I think most things are up for debate, and although I may
approach
things a certain way (topicality for instance) that doesn't mean I am
not willing to vote another way, provided that your argument is
developed and impacted properly. With that having said, I certainly
acknowledge that judging is all about perspective and I cannot deny that my
own
leanings probably has somewhat of an impact on those arguments which I
consider credible. As for how I generally opt:
Topicality:
I tend to view most topicality debates as questions of different
interpretations of the topic as opposed to questions of abuse. I do think
discussion of "abuse" is important, I just tend to believe that in round
abuse is more or less the same thing as potential abuse. That being
said, this is not a license to run any infinite amount of topicality
violations and interpretations and be slightly better. For example, you
are hard pressed to win a "Should means past tense of shall" type
violation in front of me. You do have to demonstrate good coherent reasons to
prefer your interpretation.
Counterplan theory: I generally lean fairly left in regard to what I
think negative's can do. I think a compelling case can be made that
things like conditionality etc. are bad, but if you do not make such a
case then I won't insert it for you. If you win your theory argument I am
willing to vote on it. I think of theory, as well as topicality, like
a disadvantage. It's all about offense and defense. Thus, it should
be debated as such.
Disadvantages:
I'm game. Politics, Federalism, you name it. I'm great for a straight
up debate but you should read the impact calculus section below. You
should also when debating a link turn strategy draw the connections
between the uniqueness and the internal link debate. I generally think
that if you win uniqueness then the link debate is certain to follow, but
if you're getting clocked on the link debate I probably won't vote for
you just because you control the uniqueness. But, explaining how your
uniqueness distinctions are more closely connected to your
link/internal link turns will go a long way in persuading me about your link
or
turn strategy.
Critiques:
I am fine with most critical arguments. I think that discussion of the
alternative is very important. Too often vague alternatives are
allowed to suck up all the case and that is just devastating to the AFF in
most debates. This is not to say that I am against such arguments, I
just think that AFFs should be on top of that stuff from the beginning.
I tend to think, though, that most of this alternative debate is
rather silly. I tend to think that the critique is a reason why the AFF is
bad, and the alternative is not to do the bad AFF.
Impact Calculus:
This is incredibly important and will oftentimes make the difference in
the debate. Explain how your impacts relate to those of the
affirmative. Use solvency arguments in conjunction with your critique to show
how it proves the AFF is messed up. Explain how your disad turns the
case, or why the case impacts aren't very relevant in the world of the
disad. Particularly in the 2NR/2AR, it is very important for me that you
make statements like "Even if we lose (insert where you're probably
losing) we still win because ".. If done properly, those can be crucial
as oftentimes I am not sure how to resolve competing camps of offense
and thus have to resolve it myself, which is certainly not in the
debaters interests
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Sean Luechtefeld
Date_of_Submission: November 27, 2005
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 12
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 4
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:
Be clear...I can flow speed but speaking withoyut clarity is the fastest way
to
watch a potential 29 turn into a 26.
General_Comments:
I debate for Florida State and have been coaching for two years. I typically
debate more critically, but do not have a preference either way. I think that
just as much as debaters should adapt to their critic, critics should adapt to
their debaters. That means have fun and make good arguments. Overall, I like
most all arguments (except for silly and trivial T debates)...just don't make
me do the work for you.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Marna R. Weston
Date_of_Submission: 12/16/05
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: 23
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 20
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 1--Slow and deliberate
Topicality: 4
Counterplans: 3
Generic_Disadvantages: 1--Disadvantages are acceptable
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: Select one of the following:
Kritik_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clarity and reasoning. The superior performance will approximate delivery
before an audience of reasonable community members who may or may not have
policy debate experience, yet who have been given the task of deciding on a
winner in a rhetorical competition, based on evidence, analysis and
persuasion.
General_Comments:
Generally, rude debaters will lose independent of "issues." Topicallity is
just not one I usually buy unless the affirmative is blatantly unreasonable
and
the negative is constructing "non-camp created" reasons to reject the plan. I
may be one of a small group that will still pull the trigger on inherency,
just
be careful and make logical choices. Be especially wary of making lots of
inherency arguments and lots of high impact disadvantages. Ask your coach why
you should not do this. I like Kritiks to have reciprocal risk and some
uniqueness. Debaters should not automatically lose because there gender,
ethnicity, and class status "link them" to the value objection. There should
be
some reason based on a choice made that could have "thoughtfully been avoided"
to provide the strongest type of link to these objections. Resolutional
justification/induction/"hasty generalization" arguments are fine. Just make
sure you understand them and are recently evidenced. Don't just read something
because someone handed it to you. Thats a good way to cost yourself my ballot.
Think! Demonstrate that you are thinking. Explain your methodology. Make
comparisons. Be polite. Have Fun. Remember, the founder of the National
Forensic League, Bruno E. Jabobs once remarked that "Debate is King!" Debaters
have an obligation to compete at the highest possible ethical, evidentary, and
rhetorical levels. Make a difference in helping to restore policy debate to
the
appreciation of a broader audience. If you are a good "ambassador" of debate,
you will like debating in front of me and I will enjoy your discourse and
rationales. Regardless of the individual ballot result, something meaningful
will be created. Disrespect debate with me as the critic and neither of us
will
be happy. With Warmest regards.
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Jean Flegiel
Date_of_Submission: 1/29/2006
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent: Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 10
Philosophy: Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery: 2
Topicality: 1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 4
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 4
Kritik_Arguments: 4
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
I am a lay judge, so I really have no patience for the game playing version of
Policy Debate.
I place a high value on courtesy and integrity during the round. I have
witnessed too many rounds of policy devolve into a brawl similar to those
witnessed in preschool.
General_Comments:
Some of the things that will have an adverse effect on your speaker points:
If your volume is so loud that adjoining rooms cannot concentrate on
their round;
If your "winning strategy" is to glare at the judge for perceived rule
violations;
I am NOT a fan of spreading ? in the real world, spreaders will have a
great future as auctioneers or readers for disclaimers on automobile ads ?
speak clearly and articulately;
If you disrupt your opponent's presentation by jumping up and "snatching"
evidence
- this can be done in a polite manner without disruption
In a sense, I could be considered a Tabula Rasa judge, as I am open to varied
styles of policy debate, but in the final analysis, I will make my decision on
stock issues.
Topicality is big in my book- your plan needs to be clearly stated and must
have a clear and logical link to the resolution, and you need to persuade me
that the plan does or does not relate to the resolution.
I have not read every card available for purchase in cyberspace. You need to
clearly articulate the content of your evidence in a manner suited to a
novice.
I do not give oral critiques after the round. As mentioned in the beginning, I
am a lay judge, and I need quiet time after the round to process the
information so that I may render a fair decision and submit the ballot in a
timely fashion.
In closing, I hope that you use these rounds to further your skills in
communication - and that you have fun while you are doing it!
Good luck!
Last Updated 02/27/2007
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Jean Flegel
Date_of_Submission: 2/20/2006
Coach:
Assistant_Coach:
Policy_Debater_in_High_School:
NDT_or_CEDA:
Parent: Yes
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge:
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 2
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 14
Philosophy: Tabula Rasa
Rate_of_Delivery: 3
Topicality: 1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans: 3
Generic_Disadvantages: 4
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 3
Kritik_Arguments: 3
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
I am a lay judge, so I really have no patience for the game playing version of
Policy Debate.
I place a high value on courtesy and integrity during the round. I have
witnessed too many rounds of policy devolve into a brawl similar to those
witnessed in preschool.
Topicality is big in my book - your plan needs to be clearly stated and must
have a clear and logical link to the resolution, and you need to persuade me
that the plan does or does not relate to the resolution.
I have not read every card available for purchase in cyberspace. You need to
clearly articulate the content of your evidence in a manner suited to someone
hearing the material for the first time.
I am NOT a fan of spreading - in the real world, spreaders have a great future
as auctioneers or readers for disclaimers on automobile ads - speak clearly
and
articulately.
Some of the things that will have an adverse effect on your speaker points: If
your volume is so loud that adjoining rooms cannot concentrate on their round;
if your "winning strategy" is to rely heavily on perceived rule violations; if
you disrupt your opponent's presentation by jumping up and "snatching"
evidence
- this can be done in a polite manner without disruption.
General_Comments:
I could be considered a Tabula Rasa judge, as I am open to varied styles of
policy debate, but in the final analysis, I will make my decision on stock
issues.
I prefer not to give oral critiques after the round. I prefer quiet time after
the round to process the information so that I may render a fair decision and
submit the ballot in a timely fashion.
In closing, I hope that you use these rounds to further your skills in
communication - and that you have fun while you are doing it!
Good luck!
*******************************************************************************
Judge_Name: Howard Burkholz
Date_of_Submission: 02/24/06
Coach: Yes
Assistant_Coach: Yes
Policy_Debater_in_High_School: Yes
NDT_or_CEDA: Yes
Parent:
Volunteer_or_Community_Judge: Yes
No_Experience:
Number_of_Years_Judging: 36
Number_of_Rounds_This_Year: 18
Philosophy: Policymaker
Rate_of_Delivery: 5--Very rapid
Topicality: 1--I vote on topicality often
Counterplans: 1--Counterplans are acceptable
Generic_Disadvantages: 2
Conditional_Negative_Positions: 3
Debate_Theory_Arguments: 1--Acceptable
Kritik_Arguments: 4
B1: Submit
Speaker_Points:
Clarity in rebuttals, refutation and extension as well as full structured
arguments. I want impact calculus from the start.
General_Comments:
Tips:
If you run a K have a genuine alternative beyond rethink or deconstruct. Be
specific. You also better tell me why the K can't be permed.
On the framework debate, I have beome very activist. If you tell me policy
debate is worthless and reifies an elistist mindset you have a very large
burden to overcome. If you are in the round you are implying a performative
contradiction and it is unlikely you will get my ballot.
Don't be afraid to go for theory or T. I will vote on it!
I will listen to source indicts closely as today's evidence is often mistagged,
hyperbolic and overly partisan-I will through evidence out if source indicts
are dropped.
Speed is fine as are all other arguments. I will usually wieigh impact on time
frame, probability and magnitud ein that order.
|
 |
|
|
|
||
|
|