Judge Philosophies
Alex Silerio - UTEP
n/a
Andy Orr - CoSI
As a communication instructor, I believe the purpose of this activity is to prepare students to critically think and engage others in a meaningful way. Ergo, students should deliver arguments clearly with emphasis on effective communication. I am convinced that a few well-developed arguments can prove to be more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.
For constructive speeches, try to address arguments individually. However, grouping is absolutely fine too. With the final rebuttal speech, avoid line-by-line and instead provide a summary of voting area that address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches.
On Policy & Fact Debate:
For organization, sign post your tag lines, and give your citation clearly. Let us know when you have finished quoting material before your own analysis.
Avoid oral prompting or interrupting your partner as much as possible. I consider it to be rude and disrespectful toward your partner. Additionally, part of this activity is learning to work as a team and depending on another person for your success. This is an essential skill in life and you would never use verbal prompting in a business meeting, sales pitch, or political speech. Therefore, it really has no place in an activity designed to create in students those skills.
On Value Debate:
Value debate is by definition, a meta analysis of a topic. The first level of that debate is the overarching value. Students should present and defend a value that has been carefully chosen to have a non-absurd and debatable counter value e.g. capitalism vs. socialism and not freedom vs slavery (forces the opponent to be morally repugnant).
Wonderful debates can occur on by debating value level, but they rarely will win the debate because people (smarter than us) have discussed philosophers, implications, etc. and we still have no concrete answers.
Criteria are the next level of the meta debate. Again we could have a wonderful discussion on the merits of act utilitarianism vs. the categorical imperative, but it would not settle the issue, nor would it persuade the judge on either side of the resolution (although you can win a round by default if your opponent is not able to effectively articulate their value or criterion). Criterions are most useful if treated separately as a test of your contentions rather than a policy-type mechanism for achieving a value.
Your contentions are the real heart of the debate and should be the main focus. Claim, warrant, and conclusion are essential to every argument and can be contested on each or every one of those tenants. The key in value debate is to provide context after giving your argument as to how it affects the criterion and proves your case & value.
On Debate Theory
I have no preference in terms of philosophical, theoretical, or empirical arguments as long as they contain the three parts to make them an argument. Be sure that each part is present: claim, grounds, and warrant. Use this strategy: a. I say.....(claim) b. because......(grounds & warrant) c. and this means.....(impact)
I would find it difficult to vote for a kritik in general, and it would be extremely unlikely in a value round. First, there is already so much to cover in a limited amount of time; I dont think one can do the kritik justice (in other words, I am not often convinced of their educational/rhetorical value because we simply do not have enough time to reach that goal). That being said, if there is an in-round instance prompting a performative kritik, I think there can be a direct link made to education and the ballot being used as a tool.
Second, these arguments by their nature avoid the proposed topic. Thus, they skew preparation time when run by the affirmative and are seemingly a method of last resort when put forward by the negative. Moreover, in a value debate, a kritik provides no ground (or morally reprehensible ground) on which to make a counter case. Thus, the only way to rebuttal is to argue against the philosophical grounding (which leads to a muddled debate at best) or the alternatives which makes it a de-facto policy debate (and is contrary to the purpose of value debate).
The only stock issue that is a default voter is inherency. If the status quo is already addressing the problem, then there is no reason to prefer the plan. Harms and significance are at best mitigations. If you win those arguments, there still is no reason not to do the plan. Solvency and advantages must be turned to become voters. You'll need to prove the plan causes the opposite effect. However if you mitigate either of these, you'll need to pair it with a disadvantage or counter plan to give me a reason not to try the plan.
Each off case position must have a good structure and be complete in its construction (I wont fill in the blanks for you). Additionally any off case argument needs a clear under-view when it is presented (not just in the rebuttals) indicating how it fits into the round, and how I should consider it in my vote.
I prefer debate theory responses to be the first counter/refutation against an argument. In essence, they are a reverse voting issue, and do not easily fit into a line-by-line. Take a few moments and tell me the theory story, then (just in case I don't buy it) get into actually refuting the opponent's arguments.
Anne Canavan - SLCC
n/a
Baker Weilert - Whitman
I re-wrote this paradigm because I realized that my previous one was rather generic, and people likely assume I dont know anything because I debated in Arkansas. Take what you will from the comments below, and dont hesitate to ask for clarification.
Pronouns:
He/Him/His
Positions:
Procedurals/Theory: I am a big fan T/Specs/Theory type arguments, but rarely see teams collapsing to these positions (which I think is a necessary strategic decision to win these types of arguments in front of me). As for types of specs Im less/more sympathetic to: I dont find over-spec or under-spec particularly compelling arguments, although I am willing to listen/vote on them. I do really like topicality (as long as you arent running 5 of them and simply just cross-applying the standards and voters without new articulation of how those standards/voters function in conjunction with your different interpretations). I also think that conditionality is a great/true argument, but only in particular scenarios. I am far more sympathetic to conditionality arguments if there are multiple advocacies that cause the affirmative to double-turn themselves (meaning dont run condo just to run condo, run it because you think there is actually a strategic advantage being leveraged by the other team). I prefer articulated abuse, although I will vote on potential abuse, and I default competing interpretations unless otherwise told.
Kritik: I am fine with critical debate on either side of the resolution, although I prefer the K Aff to be rooted in the substance of the resolutions, that being said, I will listen to any justification as to why you should have access to non-topical versions of the affirmative. The framework should be informed by your methodology (meaning your framework should not just function as a way of excluding other positions, but actually inform how to evaluate your advocacy), your links contextualized to your indictments (some generics are fine, but it should include a breakdown of how the other teams position/mindset perpetuates the system), and an alternative that can actually resolve the harms of the K (meaning there needs to be very clear solvency that articulates how the alternative solves/functions in the real world). I dont think rejection alts get us anywhere in the debate space, unless it is rejection on word choice/language (in which case I think those grievances are better articulated in the form of a procedural) or you clearly explain what that rejection looks like (in which case you should probably just use that explanation as your alternative in the first place). Permutation of the K alternative is perfectly fine, but I think on critical debates I need substantially more work on how the perm functions (especially in a world where the links havent been resolved). I am rather familiar with most of the K literature bases, but still think it is important for debaters to do the work of explaining the method/functionality of the K, and not rely on my previous knowledge of the literature base.
Disadvantages: I like a good DA/CP strategy, with a couple of caveats. The first is that the disadvantage needs to have specific links to the affirmative (generics just dont do it for me), I am far more likely to vote on a unique disadvantage with smaller impacts, than a generic disadvantage with high magnitude impacts (although I will obviously weigh high magnitude impacts if you are winning probability). I have a rather high threshold for politics disadvantages, but if you can tell me which senator/representative will vote for which policy and why, I am far more likely to buy into the scenario (specifics are your friend on ptix).
Counter-Plans: I am fine with almost all types of counterplans (+1, pics, timeframe, etc.) but think they often need to be accompanied by theory arguments justifying their strategic legitimacy. I also think that mutual exclusivity competitiveness should always be preferred over simply having a net benefit/disadvantage that makes the position functionally competitive. I am fine with all types of permutations with justification (again often needs to be accompanied by theory). My threshold on perms are sometimes low, but I think that is because they are often under-covered, so knowing that you should be spending a great deal of time answering/going for the permutation if you want to win/not lose there.
General Notes:
1. Status of arguments: It is your responsibility to ask, and for the other team to answer (dont give them the run-around, and if you arent sure just say dispo).
2. ALL Text/ROB/Thesis should be read twice, and made available for the other team.
3. The order you give at the beginning of your speech is actually important. I flow exclusively on paper, so switching between sheets/having them in the correct order helps me follow along. I completely understand that you have to switch up the flow mid speech sometimes, but you need to clearly signpost where you are (especially if you deviate from the order given).
4. Speed: You can go as fast as you want in front of me, that being said, Im not sure if going fast for the sake of going fast is always the best strategic choice, as your word count probably isnt much higher even if you think you sound faster.
5. I will listen to literally any argument (heady, aliens, personal narrative of a farmer from Wisconsin), doesnt really matter to me, but please dont put me in a situation in which I have to evaluate/endorse advocacies of mass death of people (like genocide good). Also, as far as identity politics go (this maybe should have gone in the K section) I think that debate is a great platform to talk about your own person experiences, but I think its important to note that oppression is often intersectional and is articulated/experienced in different ways. I think forced disclosure of experience/identity in order to interact with your position can be potentially harmful to others, and trigger warnings only work if you give people time to exit the room.
6. DO NOT BE MEAN, I will tank speaks. Totally fine to being witty, and slightly confrontational, but avoid personal attacks, I would much rather listen to you actually debate. Overall I believe debate is a creative space, so feel free to run literally anything you want.
Experience:
4 years policy debate in Kansas, 4 years parliamentary debate at Louisiana Tech University, and Arkansas State University. 2 years Assistant Debate Coach at Arkansas State University. Currently Assistant Director of Debate at Whitman College.
Chris Blankenship - SLCC
n/a
Collette Blumer - CSUF
n/a
Gabe Graville - Whitman
n/a
Jessica Jatkowski - NWC
I have been judging debate since 2015. However, this is only my first year coaching.
The most important element for me as a judge is to be respectful.
We are all coming to debate with our own preferences for issues, but I genuinely put my feelings and thoughts aside and will look at both sides to see who is giving the best argument. It is in the general framework of debate for you to tell me as a judge what I am weighing the debate on and bring evidence to the round. If you are unable to do so, then my general stance of how I judge is on the quality of evidence that both sides are bringing to the round.
In terms of actual speeches, it is important for everyone to understand what the issues and topics are, so speed may not be a benefit if I have to tell you to slow down.
Kiefer Storrer - Whitman
n/a
Kyle Bligen - Whitman
2018 NPDA National Champion
I can judge pretty much anything. Just be clear and have fun.
For additional speaker points, consult the below recipe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***Before you strike me, ask your DoF how many times I beat the teams they coached. Now, rethink your strike and pref me higher.***
IngredientsNutrition
- 1?2 cupbutter
- 2 tablespoonscream cheese
- 1 pintheavy cream
- 1 teaspoongarlic powder
- salt
- black pepper
- 2?3 cup gratedparmesan cheese(preferably fresh)
- 1 lbfettuccine, prepared as directed
Directions
- In a medium saucepan, melt butter.
- When butter is melted, add cream cheese.
- When the cream cheese is softened, add heavy cream.
- Season with garlic powder, salt, and pepper.
- Simmer for 15-20 minutes over low heat, stirring constantly.
- Remove from heat and stir in parmesan.
- Serve over hot fettucine noodles.
Levi Orr - CoSI
n/a
Maria Ceballos Paz - NWC
n/a
Shane Jonson - CoSI
My judging philosophy focuses on the importance of clear and organized communication. The arguments that persuade me are those that are easy to follow and comprehend in a logicalway. Although I don't have a background in forensics, I do have experience teaching Fundamentals of Human Communication courses with multiple speeches to assess each semester. In those courses, I emphasize the benefit of communicating in a manner that minimizes misunderstanding and allows for people of different backgrounds and experiences to understand the speaker's main points and takeaway messages.
Stephanie Jo Marquez - CSUF
n/a
Tanner Latham - Westminster
I've been a High School coach for 7+ years and have have taught several classes in public speaking and debate.
In Speech, I look at the performance of your speech/interp. I focus on the delivery, body language, and ability to connect your speech to your audience. Similarly with Interps, how well do you perform your piece, and how well do you captivate your audience through your chosen work, tone, and originality.
In Debate, I'm more of a traditional judge, looking to the use of arguments, evidence, ethics, and philosophies to support your chosen position. While I can keep up with speakers generally, if you are 'spewing', I will ask you to slow down. I don't value the quantity, but the quality of evidence and your ability to use that evidence to persuade.