Judge Philosophy Booklet — Uil Cx Debate State Tournament 2016
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2016 — 1A, 2A, 3A EXPLANATORY NOTES Numerical ranking questions — judges were asked to rank the following on a scale of 1-5: • Qty. Arg. (Quantity of Arguments) — 1 = Limited, 5 = Unlimited DO NOT LOSE THIS BOOKLET! • T (Topicality) — 1 = Rarely Vote On, 5 = Vote On Often • CP (Counterplans) — 1 = Unacceptable, 5 = Acceptable Bring it with you to each day of • DA (Disadvantages) — 1 = Not Essential, 5 = Essential competition. • Cond. Arg. (Conditional Arguments) — 1 = Unacceptable, 5 = Acceptable • Kritiks — 1 = Unacceptable, 5 = Acceptable Experience — A = policy debater in high school, B = coach policy debate in high school, C = coach policy debate in college, D = college NDT debate, E = college CEDA debate, J = college LD debate, K = college parliamentary debate IMPORTANT NOTE: Some judges’ philosophy statements may be too long to fit completely in the box, and there may be some new judges who do not appear in this booklet. New judges and expanded printouts for those with longer philosophy statements will be posted in the assembly room. Debaters may ask any judge for a brief explanation of his or her judging philosophy prior to the round. COMM. SKILLS VS. QTY. VS. QUALITY RES. OF ISSUES OF EVIDENCE JUDGE PARADIGM NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE ABRAHA, WEGAHTA Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ADE Res. Issues Quality 5 4 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal tabula rasa is probably the best way to describe it, i default to an offense/defense paradigm unless a different framing is presented in It's UIL, that being said, I dont' mind speed as the debate. counterplans and kritiks are great when executed properly, disads are amazing and should always have an IMPACT to long as it's clear. if it's not, i'll yell 'clear' once, weigh against the affirmative. the affirmative should also have an impact, i care VERY little about stock issues EXCEPT for solvency, after which, if you're still unclear speaker so always attack solvency on the neg and have an offensive reason to vote negative points will be deducted, and i won't be able to hear your arguments Style & Delivery Preferences ADAME, HECTOR Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AD Res. Issues Quality 3 5 1 4 4 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a Stocks judge, but don't let that fool you into thinking I'm a basic run of the mill judge. I believe that stocks and the debate Speed is not appropriate for an activity structure of the round gives the debater the framework to showcase their analytical acumen and their ability to coherently present their designed to train young minds on how to arguments. While I think stocks are key I also take into consideration the policy that I'm asking to vote for or against. Does the plan analyze and present. You speed. I don't have an agent? Does the plan have actionable items? How much will it cost? What's the net benefit when compared to any flow. drawbacks. Debaters that can do this will do well with me. Things that don't work well with me are Counterplans (b/c most don't know how run a mutually exclusive plan) and Kritiks. K's belong in L/D. I'm not an L/D judge. In the absence of structure in the round I will go based on the team with the most ground gain. Style & Delivery Preferences ADAMS, WALKER Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 5 1 4 4 4 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I'm going to come into the round with a totally clean slate. Feel free to run anything you want to, however it is going to be a necessity Spreading is fine, as long as delivery is clear that you provide warrants to all your arguments. K's for both sides are fine, but provide specific links that aren't vague in nature. If the to the point where all sides in the round can K doesn't have a specific link, I won't vote on it. The same goes for links for DA's. I'll rarely vote on topicality, don't allow it to become a understand the speaker. timesuck. As most T arguments will only drag down the quality of the debate. I view debate as a constructive learning exercise for both sides. Communicate your points well, and if you do spread do it clearly, in order that everyone in the round can understand the speaker. Lastly, debate is supposed to be a formal exercise, so don't be vulgar in language and stay composed throughout the round. Style & Delivery Preferences page 1 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2016 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE ALDERSON, LINDA Other Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks Critic of Argument Res. Issues Quality 4 4 1 5 1 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal First and foremost, I expect the debaters to debate domestic surveiallance since that is what was chosen as the topic for this year. I Communicative and persuasive; no rapid fire like case arguments in the 1n with da’s in the 2. I do not like an Emory switch. I like a good negative division of labor with a lack of duplication of arguments in the constructive and 1nr. Aff. Must be prima facie in 1ac. Aff. should carry case throughout round whether neg argues or not. CX is binding. As an educator, I will evaluate the round based on the best job of argumentation. Delivery should be of a communicative nature rather than information processing. Do the work for me in signposting and applying arguments. If I have to do the work, then you holler “interventionist” when you failed to do your job and made the judge make the decisions. DO NOT CALL ME, ‘JUDGE.’ Style & Delivery Preferences ALIM, MOHAMMAD Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Default policy Res. Issues Quality 3 2 4 5 5 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Tabula Rasa, will default to policy. Don't necessarily like Kritiks but will listen if presented well and explained well. T isn't a voter unless Speed is fine, but MAKE SURE I CAN there is an actual violation of the topic. UNDERSTAND YOUR TAGS. That is a pet peeve of mine when tags aren't clearly stated. Style & Delivery Preferences ANDERSON, JOHN Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 5 5 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal There are no issues that do not have the potential to be a voter, and no arguments that are necessary (regardless of the disadvantage Speed is fine, just keep in mind that this ranking that indicates otherwise.) I feel that it is the job of the debaters to tell me why they have met their burdens -- proving the tournament does have conventions and be resolution true or false -- and demonstrate how they've done so. I evaluate K but expect framework debate. I enjoy topicality very mindful of these. Argumentation is always much but if you can't debate standards and voters do not invest time on that issue. I default as a policy-maker when no other framing more important than delivery to me. Offensive is given so if you are going for policy options I highly recommend an impact calculus. Clash is the only necessity: please respond to remarks (sexist, racist, homophobic) don't your opponent's arguments. However, if there is a drop, it is NOT an automatic win; it is your job to explain why it is a concession and make me happy and while they won't lose you how it impacts the round. I don't plan on doing any work for you, so tell me why it matters. the round, I will dock speaker points heavily if you are being blatantly obtuse. Style & Delivery Preferences ANDERSON, TIMILEE Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 4 4 4 2 3 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Almost any kind of case goes as long as you prove that you are right and your opponent is wrong. Convince me that your case is the CX Debate is formal argumentation. It should right one. You will do this by hitting voters and any attacks your opponent has made, and by proving your opponent is wrong in every be conducted as such. A good debater does part of his/her presentation. not need to be either rude or obnoxious to prove his/her case. Speed is fine as long as I can understand what you're saying. If I don't understand what you're saying, I can't judge it. Style & Delivery Preferences page 2 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2016 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE ARCHER, JACE Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 3 2 5 2 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a policy judge who also appreciates stock issues for structure. I will vote on the team that provides me the best world after the DON'T SPEED/SPREAD! I can listen and flow resolution is, or is not passed.