Policy Judge Philosophies
Note—not all judges listed here are champ judges.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
College
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 4
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? Some parli experience, some LD experience
How I decide
Policy debates: I will generally vote on whatever debaters argue, as
long as it is explained and impacted. I'm a fan of topicality, adv vs. disadv
debates, counterplan vs plan, etc. I have a relatively high threshold for
kritiks. I'll also occasionally vote for theory arguments if they are well
impacted, abuse scenario, etc. The easiest
way to get my ballot is to do a good job explaining what your impacts are and
how they inter
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: No particularly unique views. I probably won't vote on
inherency, although if you do a really good job explaining why I should, I
might. Like I said previously, I like
Advantage vs DA/CP debates. My threshold for voting on Ks is going to be higher
than other arguments. If you want to do performance, make me understand the
point/goal and impact.
Presentational
Preferences: Speed is mostly fine, but try to maintain some
clarity. I like to hear the warrants of the evidence before having to call for
them at the end of the round. Also - please make some articulation between the
end of a card, and the tag of the next one (AND, next, voice inflection change,
etc.) Tag teaming is fine, but it
reflects poorly if one partner dominates the other entirely.
Other Info: If you're
reading blocks on theory, analytical arguments, etc. Make sure you are clear so
I can flow them.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Mount
Vernon
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 2
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
No or only once or twice
Involved in
Other Events? WNDI 2009
How I decide
Policy debates: If there is a clear winner, Topicality comes first.
However, the negative must be clearly winning the standards debate and I will
generally default aff on T. Next I look
to framework to weigh impacts. Generally this means all impacts will be counted
(kritiks don't need to be justified with framework unless they are expressly
attacked). Then I weight impacts through the lens of framework.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: I like kritiks, but I require very clear links and
good alt solvency. T and theory are
fine, just slow down a little on the standards. I want good clash, not two
teams reading their blocks at high speed and not flowing each other. I'm not a big fan of PICs and Agent CPs, but
I am willing to vote on them.
Presentational
Preferences: Speed is fine, as long as you are clear, especially on
tags and authors. Tag team is fine. Please be courteous and use common sense.
Other Info: I try to
be as tab as I can, but I lean toward socialism and will more likely prefer
this in a difficult-to-decide debate.
Internal links are fair game, please attack them. I'm just as willing to vote on a good,
warranted analytic as an average carded argument.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 7
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events?
How I decide
Policy debates: Whatever debaters argue
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: None
Presentational
Preferences: Be polite but direct and aggressive.
Other Info: Debate is
a game played with evidence. I reward teams with both good evidence and good
evidence comparison.
Non-conditionality theory arguments are nearly never a voter. I am fairly neg biased on most theory
questions.Competing interps are good for T, but not for theory.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 6
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? Oratory - 2
How I decide
Policy debates: I will evaluate the round based on the framework
established by the debaters. If, and when, they fail to tell me what that is I
default to a policy maker. This means I’ll look at theory questions first and
then weigh advantages v disadvantages to doing the plan. However, in order for
me to evaluate these arguments they need to be impacted. I judge almost
exclusively off the flow, so make sure to flag your best arguments. Also, I
will read pieces of evidence that are important to the debate, so if you want
me to call for your cards, extend them by author in the 2NR/2AR
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: Topicality – I evaluate Topicality based off competing
interpretations, aka why your interpretation makes debate better for things
like ground, limits, predictability and education. Topicality is always a
voting issue, but the aff should make reasonability arguments because as long
as the aff is sensible they probably wont lose on T. The problem most teams
have is impacting T, this should be the biggest part of your speech. Also, T is
never an RVI, nor is it equivalent to genocide. period. Theory – Most theory arguments will not win
my ballot, but well argued and impacted theory will make the argument go away.
“reject the arg not the team” is usually a good enough reason as to why I
shouldn’t vote on theory, but if there is a distinct reason that the team
should lose regardless. I generally think things like PICs and conditionality
are good so you probably wont win that they are a reason the neg should lose
unless the neg takes them too far. I will vote on theory against positions that
are insanely abusive and hurt the activity. Things like consult, delay, cheato
veto, Ks that don’t link to enactment of the plan, etc. DAs – I love a good disad debate. This is
probably your best strat in front of me if paired with a counterplan. I’ll
evaluate them in an offense/defense paradigm. There is almost zero risk that I
will buy “zero risk of the disad” so absent aff offense the neg is probably
winning at least some risk of the impact. However, some good defense can go a
long way when paired with offense. The disad needs to be clearly articulated
and impacted in relation to the aff in the 2NR and vice-versa for the 2AR. Counterplans – I like counterplans too, especially
strategic ones. A good counterplan debate should include some good explanation
of exactly how the counterplan solves the aff, or a quantified solvency deficit
to the counterplan. Ks – dont read them.
the affs specific plan is probably a good idea despite whatever larger idea the
neg is criticizing. Unless you have a mechanism to convert your theory intro
practice (reject the aff, or embrace your stupid psychoanalytic concept is not
a mechanism) you are probably going to lose. If you are going to run a K, there
needs to be 1) a well-articulated link to the plan (no, not reps), 2)
explanation of what my ballot means, 3) how the K solves (or doesn’t). The neg
usually wins some sort of link to the aff, so its usually smart to engage the
impact debate on the k. If they aff wins they can weigh the aff vs. the K, they
will probably win. Performance – this
is what i call a lose-lose. you lose, because i wont vote for it, and i lose,
because i had to listen to it.
Presentational
Preferences: Speed is fine, as is tag team c-x. good speaking will
be rewarded with points. be nice and have fun.
Other Info:
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Bellingham,
Sehome, Squalicum
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 3
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 4
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
No or only once or twice
Involved in
Other Events?
How I decide
Policy debates: tab judge/whatever debaters argue
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: None. I will consider it all, and the debaters
determine the rules (outside of the time limits and tag team)
Presentational
Preferences: No tag team CX. Courteousness should always be
extended to judges, opponents, classroom, etc.
Other Info:
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Highland
High School
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 3
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 6
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events?
How I decide
Policy debates: Whatever you want to do is fine with me.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: I'm pretty open-minded about what kind of arguments
belong in debate, so "wrong forum" arguments don't really do it for
me. Other than that, just do what you have fun doing.
Presentational
Preferences: Speed is fine. So is tag teaming. I prefer quality to
quantity.
Other Info: Be nice.
Not sickly-sweet, fake nice. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that debate
isn't easy. The people you're competing against deserve your respect. They're
PROBABLY the only other people who are ever going to understand why you've
sacrificed so much for such a silly game.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
College
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 5
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? LD: 3-4 Tournaments
How I decide
Policy debates: How every the debaters frame the round, the round is
yours to do with what you will. That being said, its probably a good idea for
you to at least affirm the resolution (its chosen for a reason). I default to offense/defense if there is no
debate over framing.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: I would hazard a guess that most of you are reading
this section thinking "How will this judge like a K debate?" so I
will start there: Kritks: I have never
been a big K debater, so make sure I know what your author is critiquing
otherwise I will probably vote aff because I can't weigh something I don't
understand, give me a way to make these impacts interact with others in the
round. Flag these arguments, say,
"Ontological questions first" or something to that effect to help me
understand impact calc. Jargon does not help me AT ALL, let me give an example,
I will understand: "We problematize gender binarys to incorporate the
feminine into..." I will not understand: "We think you should embrace
border gnosis to..." I will quote
from Lewis Silver's judge philosophy now: "If you have a block title
called: AT: DA's, I am not the judge for you" This nicely sums up how to pref me in regards
to the K. CP Theory: I lean neg on CP
theory questions, with the major exception of consult. T: I probably lean towards resonability
when evaluating T. DA's and CP's are
my game, I will like you if you read them, I will like you more if you debate
them well.
Presentational
Preferences: The round is yours for the most part. If you go too fast, or more specifically if
you are unclear, I won't get your arguments down and then you'll be out of luck
because I use my flow. Extend cards by
argument, not author, if you extend them by author I give a 50/50 that I will
know what you're talking about. You can
be mean if that's your style, some people operate that way in round. That being said, don't make direct personal
attacks. If you speak persuasively it never hurts your argument. Tag teaming is
fine.
Other Info: Keep
things organized, I hate K teams that have a 3 minute overview in which they
wax poetic about their authors arg and don't directly refute things. It makes my life hard, and you should be
debating to make my decisions as easy as possible.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 1ish
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 3ish
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events?
How I decide
Policy debates: I only believe in voting on inherency or ASPEC. JUST
KIDDING! I decide debates, to the best of my ability, based on what is argued
in round. Obviously this is an ideal, not a universally applicable standard.
Run whatever you want, but keep in mind that any of the following may affect
speaker points: Consult CPs (though these may be uniquely justified based on
the topic -- negs that contextualize these arguments as such will be rewarded),
Delay CPs, other cheating CPs, anything with -Spec attached to it, T-anything
before and including "substantially," word PICs, and other assorted
theoretically bankrupt positions.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: I think my argumentative history would be most helpful
here. In high school, I spent one year (the 2007-2008 Africa topic) debating
almost exclusively about the China disad and an agent counterplan. The
following year, 95% of my 2NRs consisted of a variation of the Capitalism K.
The year after, my 2NRs were evenly split between a variety of case-specific
criticisms, with a criticism of nuclear representations being my go-to generic
K when all else failed. I also went for T from time to time. As a frosh at
Whitman, I've switched to the 2A/1N position, and have become something of a
politics hack. The takeaway is that I have some experience with most forms of
debate. With that in mind, I highly suggest you do not opt to read anything in
the round that has a heading labeled "generic" in it. Case debates
are shockingly underutilized. Counterplans are sweet, though agent counterplans
make me sad and advantage counterplans make me happy. Impact defense is also extremely
underutilized; I am not at all afraid to assign zero risk of a disad based on
conceded impact D, and the presence of impact D in general reduces my perceived
risk of an impact. Critiques probably need an alt, if only for strategic
purposes, though please don't tell me that your alternative "opens up
space" for something and get surprised when I roll my eyes. Theory and T
debates are where my slow flowing skills are potentially catastrophic for teams
that read dense blocks quickly -- I have been known to simply write down [condo
bad] and [condo good] next to one another. Want me to vote on it? Explain it
better.
Presentational
Preferences: Tag team is fine. Speed is fine, with the
understanding that I do not flow at a thousand words per second. Do not forget
that your aim is to get me to write down your arguments, and if I cannot
understand what you are saying, I won't write it down. I will try to warn you
if you are consistently unclear. If you don't adjust, I'll eventually stop and
probably get on facebook for the remainder of your speech. Pay attention to my
cues. Humor is an easy way to win speaker points and curry favor with me.
Lighten up! Debate is supposed to be fun. I know you're pressured and tired and
very worked up about your arguments, but remember that we're all friends here.
Good teams who are mean to growing teams will receive suboptimal speaker
points. Similarly, don't take yourself too seriously. This is a silly game we
play, don't act like I have my finger on the "Nuke everybody" button.
On the flip side, I highly discourage you from making racist, sexist,
homophobic, or stupid comments. And I'll repeat myself from above: if you're
really hot stuff and the team you're debating isn't, do not be a jerk. I will
not like you, because, having been on both sides of that debate, there is no
reason to do it. I promise you, you will not be happy receiving the low point
win.
Other Info: WHATEVER
YOU DO, NEVER EVER EVER REFERENCE A RULE BOOK FOR DEBATE. YOU WILL LOSE THE
ROUND. YOU WILL NOT LIKE YOUR SPEAKS.
Please act interested. 1s: I know you are on facebook after your speech,
but at least make an effort. Cross ex
is important. I don't flow it, but I do listen and think it very important in
determining speaker points as well as how I perceive arguments on the
flow. Don't try and get me to drop the
other team for swearing or other nonsense. If I see a meta-round issue going on
that I have a problem with, I will have noted it already, you pointing it out
to me is unlikely to sway me. The exception to this is card "clipping"
"fading" or generally fabricating evidence. If you believe the other
team is doing this (and you had better be 100% certain they are), there is no
need to give a speech, just inform me that you are making this challenge and
give me your evidence to support it. The debate will end and I will adjudicate.
If I determine that there is something bad going down, the offending team will
receive zero speaker points and an automatic loss and will suffer some
out-of-round consequences. If the claim has been erroneously made, the accusing
team will receive the same, unless I really believe the claim was made in good
faith, in which case it will just be a loss with some
not-good-but-greater-than-zero speaker points assigned.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Centennial
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 1
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 5
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? I debated 4 years in high school and 1 year at Idaho
State
How I decide
Policy debates: Im pretty tab. On this topic I like the Plan v. CP
debate. In high school i was the
traditional policy debater. i love to see debates with strong impact calc and
deep explanations of stock issues. but
in the year I debated at Idaho State we read alot of non-traditional shit so, i
also like K debates as long as both teams can do a good job contextualizing
links and relating there arguments to each others. I WILL VOTE ON ANYTHING, as
long as i feel that you win it.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: i love it all.
on the neg, I really love: advantage pics, agent pics, delay cp's,
impact turn debates, and solid topicality debates. in high school i used to
read a consult NATO cp with aspec along with some case dumps. so thats all good
with me. im also pretty good on the K. debating at ISU has made me way more K
literate than i used to be, but i cant garuntee that ill get your argument. I
like Cap K's and Security K's not really sure if i want to see a cap debate on
this topic tho. on the aff, I like:
somewhat straight up affs, although i think performances are sweet too. again,
im really open to whatever ya'll want to pull. I used to have an aff where the
1AC was just a kanye west song. if you stay more conservative on aff, its
easier for me to evaluate but do what you want, ill vote for it.
Presentational
Preferences: im a good flower, speed prolly isnt an issue. ill tell
you to slow down if your unclear. i would prefer you to make a distinction
between tags and cards ie, say NEXT, or make your tags slower. i also hate it
when people make there cards monotone. it is very possible to be fast and also
have some flux in your voice. tag team is fine. i dont care about eye contanct
or courteousness as long as your not being really rude or racist or sexist or
anything.
Other Info: i dont
have a ton of expirience judging, but this is my 6th year in the community. I
had my issues with college debate and inevitably walked away from competing
but, its a great activity. i just want everyone in my rounds to have a good
time and learn.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Sam
Barlow
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 4
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? Just Policy
How I decide
Policy debates: I decide the round by whatever matter the debaters
tell me to decide it on. Place me where you want me to go, lead me down the path
of arguments. Make them effective and intelligent. If you don't lead me then i
will default to some kind of policy making framework with the neg world/status
quo vs. the aff world. But ultimately i will go wherever you decide to take the
debate.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: Make the argument stick, kritiks without alternatives
are just linear disads, topicalities without violations just dont make sense,
explain your position well. Debate the other team dont just focus on
pre-written blocks. Make good arguments and weigh your impacts in a logical
fashion and you will be doing a good job.
Presentational
Preferences: Preferences - anything goes Speed - anything Tag Team - okay Vocal Inflection - whatever Eye contact - don't care Courteousness - walk the fine line of snark
and being nice
Other Info:
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 0
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
No or only once or twice
Involved in
Other Events? Parli
How I decide
Policy debates: Whatever
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: No
Presentational
Preferences: I don't care
Other Info: Win
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
College
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 4
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? Policy Debate in Missouri (3 years)
How I decide
Policy debates: I default to comparative advantage. Meaning whatever world I find is more
advantageous I vote for. This could be
because a risk the affirmative solves extinction outweighs the risk the DA
leads to nuclear war. This could also be
because I have to evaluate value to life claims before risks of death. Those are obviously just examples, but tell
me not just why your impacts are more larger/faster/more probable, but how I
should evaluate impacts (if it applies).
If not I will default to comparative advantage, which usually means
traditional impact calculus.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: I don't have any arguments I won't vote on. The key to topicality is treating it like a
DA. Give me links to fairness/education,
reasons why your interpretation solves those impacts best. I don't have a strong opinion on the fairness
vs. education debate. I'm probably
slightly less likely to vote on topicality than other arguments. Impact calculus, and framing your impacts,
and telling me how I should analyze the impacts after the round is important to
every argument. I'm fine with CPs,
kritks, etc. although I debate for Whitman so I might be less likely to pull
the trigger on a kritik than kritik debaters may like.
Presentational
Preferences: I don't really have any. Obviously it's a competition so I understand
being competitive, but don't be excessively rude. Excessive rudeness results in lower speaks.
Other Info:
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Central
Valley H.S.
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 5, 3 HS, 2 College
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
No or only once or twice
Involved in
Other Events? Extemp/orartory/impromptu three years
How I decide
Policy debates: I judge by the argumentation in the round as presented
with logic, evidence and clarity. Stock issues!
Stock issues!
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: If the kritiks and other things are run, they must be
clearly linked to the case and the resolution to count.
Presentational
Preferences: Speed is fine as long as it is comprehensible
speech. Rudeness is never appreciated.
Other Info: Be
honest, fair and do your job in the round.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
College
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 5
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? Extemp - 3 yrs.
How I decide
Policy debates: I'll vote on anything as long as warrants are
extended. That said, I think spark,
rights malthus, etc. are dumb but I will vote on them if they are well
argued. I also do not like
performance/project affs. Please read a
plan text! I like advantage
counterplans, politics, topic kritiks that actually link and are not generic.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: I have a very high threshold on inherency and
theory. All of these other things
are fine.
Presentational
Preferences: Speed and tag team CX are fine. Debaters have to be clear. If they are not I will not flow and they will
probably lose. If will say clear several
times to let them know. I don't care
about eye contact/inflection, etc.
Debators should be courteous.
They should not tool their partner.
If the other team wants evidence or clarification at any time, they
should get it.
Other Info: I'll
pretty much vote on anything, but not do any work for the debaters by making
assumptions about arguments.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Tahoma
High School
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 1
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 2
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
No or only once or twice
Involved in
Other Events?
How I decide
Policy debates: Debate as an activity is best served by as little
judge intervention as possible. My job
as a judge is not to decide who will win, but to figure out who already
won. Any voting framework that is
articulated clearly and wins a framework debate, I will adhere to. By default, if I'm not given a specific way
to vote, I will resort back to plain and simple impact calculation (I.E. small
regional war is outweighed by extinction).
However, If you can win on framework that death is good, I'll happily
vote in favor of causing extinction.
Whatever parameters the debaters set, I'll go by. Tell me how to vote, win that it's the
right way to vote, and I'll vote like that.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: As stated above, any of my views can be influenced
from within the debate. However, I'll
clarify a few things that are my defaults:
-Topicality is abuse, not competing interpretations -Kritik alternatives need to actually
solve -Discourse is not presumed
a-priori -Severance perms are bogus -Blippy VI and RVI arguments need reasoning
and/or warrant That all said, I have
no emotional attachment to any of those default position. Win that a severance perm is spiffy, and I'll
vote for one.
Presentational
Preferences: Speed is fine, tag-team is fine, and I genuinely don't
care one bit about your presentation.
You can be in a clown suit, and it would not faze me. I care only about the arguments on the flow,
and how they're articulated during the round.
So long as you enunciate enough to be understood, all else is moot.
Other Info: I really,
really don't want to intervene in the round as a judge, but if no overview of
the round is given in the 2XR's, I honestly don't have much of a choice. Please do the impact calculus (or the
application of whatever other weighing mechanism wins out) for me so I don't
have to apply my own judgment to what is supposed to be your debate. That will make me sad.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 2
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? Extemp, 2yrs
How I decide
Policy debates: I vote mainly on stock issues, frame out the voters
for me and I'll abide by your framework.
Tell me where to vote and give me reasons why and that's where I'll
vote.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: Love kritiks as long as they are well explained and
have a clear link with an alt that is not reject the aff. Theory works. T works as long as you spend enough time on
standards and voters to show me why its important. Pretty much anything goes unless you say it
doesn't and flesh out impacts to why.
Presentational
Preferences: I'm okay with speed.
Not great, but okay. I think tag
team c-x shows weakness and will probably lower your speaks, but its certainly
a viable option. Courtesy goes a long
way.
Other Info: Please
have legitimate clash and delineate the ways your arguments interact with each
other. Impact calc in the rebuttals is a
must.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Gonzaga
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 5
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 4
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events?
How I decide
Policy debates: I tend to judge debates according to the paradigms
that debaters foward, and in the absence of an argument about how I judge
debates I tend to default to policymaking.
I think that theory and topicality come before advantages and
disadvantages, but I may be persuaded that someone's case or critique outweighs
these kinds of arguments.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: While I generally vote for the biggest impact or most
clearly articulated offense, I will weigh intuitive and well thought-out
defense like some critics will weigh offense.
That is, I will say that there is a 100% risk of a defensive argument
and vote accordingly. Stock Issues -
I think that if you want to go for inherency, you should come up with
theoretical reasons why I should vote on inherency. Purely defensive arguments against the stock
issues are unlikely to win my ballot unless you can persuade me that the stock
issues paradigm is good for debate.
Theory/Topicality - I think that you evalaute theory and topicality
arguments according to competing interpretations--in other words, I feel that
"actual abuse" is a poor standard for evaluating how theory arguments
work in debate. Please tell me what your
interpretation of debate as a practice is, and tell me why your interpretation
produces a better world of debate. If
the other team fails to meet a good interpretation, then they lose. Counterplans - I probably air negative on a
lot of CP theory arguments, tend toward functional theories of competition, and
evaluate permutations and the like according to their net-benefits. Note the above: if you go for a theory
argument against a CP, please tell me why your interpretation of the
debate-world is good and why the other team doesn't meet said
interpretation. Critiques - As with
any argument, the specificity of the link and impact (in this case, a case
turn) are quite helpful. Some may call
me radical: I will in fact listen to critiques of debate as a whole, and when
you are up against these critiques, you need to defend debate in order to win
the round (in other words, you need to ask yourself: "What is the terminal
impact to debate?"). Critiques
should be able to outweigh the case, and absent that they should be able to
turn the case. Like when I weigh a
disad, if I find that the critique doesn't meet these tests, I am unlikely to
vote for it. Offense/Defense - What
really sets me apart from other critics is probably my willingness to side with
truth or to give defensive arguments more weight than they normally get. I will evaluate defense (even a we-meet on T)
in black or white terms (100% risk of defense) in worlds where your argument is
just true, dropped, or persuasively argued.
Presentational
Preferences: I am okay with speed, tag team, and other contemporary
debate practices. I let myself be
persuaded in the round; my voting record reflects that oftentimes whoever spoke
better won the round. Low point wins are
a big deal for me--I find it difficult to separate speaking from argumentation
in the abstract. I think my biggest
pet peeves regard evidence--I rarely call for evidence, and I am more interested
in seeing evidence "used" rather than "extended." I am working hard to flow the warrants of
your evidence as you read it; flying through evidence as if it is a mere
appendage to your speech doesn't sit well with me. I feel that all speeches outside of the
last two rebuttals construct arguments; the last two rebuttals outline why if
one wins the arguments that one has forwarded, one wins. I flow differently than other critics--ask
me how.
Other Info:
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Gig
Harbor High School
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 1
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 2
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events?
How I decide
Policy debates: I like to decide rounds based on advantages vs
disadvantages, but am open to whatever debaters argue.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: If you don't have inherency why do I care? Disads need
to be more than just a shell you read in 1NC needs to have good analysis to
understand why by voting aff this bad thing is triggered. CPs need to be better
than the aff by either net bens or it solves better for whatever reason for me
to vote on them. Kritiks I have an exceptionally high Kritik threshold I have
only voted on a Kritik four times and that was because the teams took me by the
hand and gave me both reason and in-depth easy to understand reasons for the K
speeding an overview in your 2NC is not giving me all the analysis needed.
Don't run theory unless it is a legit abuse story you could win on because it
muddles the debate and makes me want to stop flowing. Fine with performance so
long as you can tell me why the performance is needed and why that means I
should vote for you. Topicality is a high threshold for me as well if its in
your last speech it better be a good majority of that final speech, aff your
job is to prove your topical so if you can't do that makes my job easy to vote
neg. Have to give me the analysis to turns otherwise I don't just go on
presumption that you say its a turn and I don't want to ask for ev to do the
job you were supposed to do for me in the round.
Presentational
Preferences: I am cool with speed, Tags need to be clear or I won't
flow it. Fine with tag-team. Don't care about your vocal so long as your not
shouting in anger at me. If you don't keep some eye contact towards me I feel
like a hopeless spectator. Always be courteous to your opponent I don't care if
you guys have personal bs with each other I don't care this is to be a
respectful environment to discuss ideas on policy.
Other Info: Yeah
simply put I am in the round to get an education about the topic it is as much
for me as it is for competitors. If I gain nothing from the round like why I
voted, I feel both sides failed. Another thing if I have to ask for ev so that
I don't vote on presumption I will not be happy regardless of which way I
voted, cause the debate is supposed to be where I learn things not after I go
through the analysis in my head for you.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 3
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
No or only once or twice
Involved in
Other Events? Collegiate Parli - 3 yrs
How I decide
Policy debates: Tabula Rassa - Arguments that are said in round go on
the flow - it is your job to weigh and impact arguments, I like to do as little
work as possible. I listen to all arguments equally (unless there's an a priori
voter on them) so any are valid in round.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: I usually don't vote for performance. I am not
preferential to K's, so you may have to do more work to justify me voting there
(just name dropping Agamben or something isn't an auto-win)
Presentational
Preferences: Be clear, I can handle everything else.
Other Info: Ask me in
round for further clarification
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman College
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 0
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? 2 years College Parlie, 2 years College Impromptu
Speaking
How I decide
Policy debates: I want to intervene as little as possible, and am
comfortable with anything you want to talk about. You tell me how to vote.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: I enjoy critical debate, but make sure you understand
what you're talking about. I have a very high threshhold on Kritiques for
people who don't know what they're doing. This seems like the wrong forum for
performance in a lot of ways, but I'll listen to it. However, I won't ascribe
any particular gravitas to a performance, you've got to explain why it is
relevant and how it interacts very clearly.
I also enjoy procedural debate, I view procedurals as very similar to
disadvantages in terms of argumentation and effectiveness.
Presentational
Preferences: Presentation is effective only in so far as it enables
the debater to articulate arguments. No upfront presentational preferences,
except for volume (high). Speed is good if it is used effectively. If the speed
is hurting articulation of arguments or the debater is speaking faster than
they are thinking about the arguments, then speed becomes detrimental. Please
do something(s) funny, high school debate becomes a long day.
Other Info: Rather
than just restating your arguments, talk about how they interact. I think that
one well articulated argument can often swing an entire round, if you take the
time to explain the significance of that argument in relation to the arguments
forwarded by your opponents.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Gonzaga
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 4
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events?
How I decide
Policy debates: Debate is for the debaters. There’s nothing I won’t
listen to. If you win an argument and are persuasive on why you should win the
round with it, just do your thing. Just because I hate your argument doesn’t
mean I won’t vote on it. I like it when people are funny. I dislike when people
are jerks. Topicality: Eh. I’ll weigh
it like a disad and the aff typically needs a good counter interp. Be aware
that I’ve judged zero rounds on this topic, so my threshold on T will be a
little higher. CPs/DAs: If the CP
solves all of the case and has a net benefit, then the aff is in trouble. As a
2A I may be slightly more sympathetic to good solvency deficits, but they need
to be GOOD to win a risk of outweighing the disad. Link turns need
uniqueness. Theory: I’ll evaluate it
like T, you NEED an interpretation. I don’t like the trend towards 26
conditional worlds and I’ll probably despise your conditions or consult CPs,
but that doesn’t mean you can’t win them. Basically, anything is acceptable
until someone has persuasive reasons as to why it’s not. K’s: I like critiques a lot when they’re
run well. I’ve read a decent array of critical literature, but do not assume
that I know what you’re talking about. Overviews are sweet. I think the aff
should get to weigh their impacts, regardless of whether or not fiat is
“Illusory.” I think framework helps the aff out a lot, but I don't think it's a
VI. Highly unlikely that I will vote on framework unless they're REALLY
cheating.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: Nothing. The terms of the debate are up to the
debaters.
Presentational
Preferences: For the most part, I don't care. Speed is fine. Tag
team is fine. Don't scream at me. Address ME, not the other team. I'm really
annoyed by things like "You're evidence is dumb!" You're not trying
to convince the other team that they should lose, you're trying to convince me
that they should lose.
Other Info: n/a
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
College
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 1
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 7
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events?
How I decide
Policy debates: The affirmative should win if the topical plan is the
best policy option presented. The neg should win if the plan is worse than the
status quo or an alternative competitive with the plan. You should not pref me if: -you strongly disagree with the above
framework -you have a block titled
"answers to disads" -90% of
the cards you read are the same every round
-you think it's theoretically legitimate not to read a plan -you think a "framing issue" card
means you don't have to flow your opponents
Other Notes: -textual
competition is good -conditionality is
good -offense/defense is law -SQ is always a logical option
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: First: see above framework Second: justify your aff - if the
counterplan obviously solves your contrived internal link story, the 2NC can
assert that without a card and move to whatever net benefit he or she has
forwarded Third: your generic
"alt solves" card does NOT buy uniqueness. In front of me your K
functions like a disad, and the alt functions like a uniqueness counterplan.
You can still win that it solves/turns/outweighs the case, but defensive
answers like "alt can't solve X" or "plan is a drop in the
bucket" are sufficient to defeat the alt, and your generic "alt
solves" card probably doesn't get you out of any fundamental uniqueness problems
if the aff points this out. Don't whine, your "rejection opens up a
space" card isn't that good, I promise.
Presentational
Preferences: Do what you want, but be clear, and don't be a
jerk. Creative flowing sucks. Separate
arguments on different pages, let your critic and your opponents know how
you're doing this, and ALWAYS give an order. If you don't give me an order or
tell me "I'm just going straight down... it'll make sense!" I'll
assess that you don't care enough to organize your arguments so I shouldn't
either. Line-by-line is law, and I'll be way more fascist about this rule if
you make my flow messy.
Other Info: Argument
"creativity" doesn't impress me.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Pocatello
High School
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 3
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 8
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events?
How I decide
Policy debates: I am often inclined to vote in an offense/defense
evaluation on most arguments. Whatever
is argued in the round, however, I will weigh based on how I am told.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: I think that I have a much higher threshold for
criticisms on the framework question.
That being said, I will still vote on framework, and enjoy a counterplan
disad debate as much as I do a good k.
Theory needs a lot of explanation.
Presentational
Preferences: Do what you need to do. Obviously, I prefer a good, clear
presentation rather than not.
Other Info: Do what
you do best.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
College
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 0
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
No or only once or twice
Involved in
Other Events? Oregon Public-2 years. College Parli-1 year
How I decide
Policy debates: I am a flow judge. Whoever wins the flow,wins my
ballot. I want you to weigh impacts and tell me how they interact. I don't want
to do that. I like T and can pick up what you put down. That being said, I am
not used to policy. When you refer to evidence later in the round I would rater
you identify them with a brief (like 2-3 word) summary rather than the author
name. Weigh your stuff and tell me how it works in the round.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: I want link turns to act in conjunction with
non-uniques. CPs better have net benefits and I don't get philosophical
competition. I am rather sympathetic to conditionality. I like and understand
procedurals. I am rather uncertain when it comes to kritikal debates. TELL ME
HOW STUFF INTERACTS. I think its really cool if things can be cross applied to
several pieces of paper.
Presentational
Preferences: I am fine with speed. That being said, I don't know
you. Start off slower than full speed so I can get used to your voice. It it
gets out of hand I will tell you to be clearer. You can Tag team CX other than
that perform how you want. Speaks go to whoever can quote of a specified artist
in their speeches. Jokes are good too.
Other Info:
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Capital
(Boise)
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 4
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
No or only once or twice
Involved in
Other Events? debated 4 years in high school. Been judging debate
for about 5 years.
How I decide
Policy debates: I decide debates based on the best argumentation. I
don't have a preference regarding kritiks, stock issues, theory, etc.. I will
vote for the team with the most convincing arguments, period.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: I will vote for performance, kritiks, theory, etc., if
the team running these arguments can provide a warranted reason to do so. That
simple. I understand that certain aspects of debate
theory are frequently evolving. If a debater decides to argue advanced theory,
that's fine, but I expect the debater to help me understand it. I believe if I
can't understand a debaters theory (or critical) argument, that is the
debater's fault, not mine. That being
said, I'm experienced and can probably follow you fairly easily.
Presentational
Preferences: I don't mind speed if the speaker is clear. If you are
saying real words, and saying them clearly, it doesn't matter how fast you are
saying them. I don't mind tag
teaming. Policy debate is a team activity.
As far as vocal inflection goes, if you are trying to convince me of
something, speak convincingly. That is, speak with conviction, be
emphatic. Eye contact is not an issue.
I will be spending more time looking at my flow than I will the debater
speaking.
Other Info: I've got
a pretty simple: debate well. I don't care what the argument is, just debate it
well.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Ashland
High School
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 7
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 4
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? Stanford 2 years - Nationals Many years, TOC competitor
How I decide
Policy debates: I vote based off direct clash on the flow. I try to come in as a Tab judge (as much as
that is possible) so I look for weighing means to be presented to me. Without a
clear argument on how I should evaluate the round I would end up as a policy
maker.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: I have no bias or predisposition to any type of
argument. I do like to hear strong link
stories so very generic Kritiks and DAs are not that exciting.
Presentational
Preferences: I can no longer handle the very fastest of spreading.
Maybe a 7-8 on speed level. If speakers are making contact with me they should
be able to tell if I am able to flow still.
Speaker points will be based off the other items, the win in the round
will come directly from the flow.
Other Info: I would
like to see an interesting educational round.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Timberline
High School
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 5
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? I debate for ISU currently.
How I decide
Policy debates: I want you to debate however you feel most comfortable
debating, and I'll try to evaluate neutrally.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: Da+CP: pretty neutral. I do tend to vote on good
evidence rather than sheer number of evidence in these debates. kritik-framing the role of the ballot is
key. Talk about what the k means in terms of the aff,how the two interact. Out
of all these arguments, I am probably most experienced with critical debate.
Win your framework, and you're in the clear.
Performance- I'm well read in performance theory, so if you've been
waiting for just the right judge to do something crazy in front of...i'm your
lady. theory-if you want to win
solely on this, then the work on the flow should be meticulous. I don't like it
when teams use theory as a cheap shot.
Topicality- be meticulous. reasonability is fairly persuasive. SPEC args
aren't.
Presentational
Preferences: Speed & tag teaming are fine with me. Aggression is fine, but please don't be too
rude/yell at each other. Don't extend
tags or authors without an explanation of the warrant.
Other Info:
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Boise
High School
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 3.5
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
No or only once or twice
Involved in
Other Events? College Parli: 1.5 years
How I decide
Policy debates: I default to an offense/defense paradigm for evaluation.
If you want me to interpret the round in a different fashion, say so and
explain why. I won't claim to be 100% tab, but I do have a low threshold for
accepting non-standard frameworks. More
particularly, if I'm not told how to compare impacts, specifically theory
impacts versus kritik/case/other stuff? I will probably default to evaluating
theory first.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: Run whatever. If you have a performance, making it
interesting, or at least somewhat warranted would be nice.
Presentational
Preferences: As long as you don't mumble to the point that I can't
hear you, I don't care what you do.
Other Info:
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
College
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 5
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events?
How I decide
Policy debates: Tabula Rasa
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: Offense/Defense
Presentational
Preferences: Do whatever you want, as fast as you want, but be
clear.
Other Info: I really
dislike the following: - T debates (If
their abusively not topical I'll vote the aff down, but generally I'm a
'reasonable' guy) - Consult CP's - I
don't think they are competitive. -
Project aff's. I prefer: Disad CP debates. Responsiveness to the case.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Sehome
High School
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 4
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? LD for one year
How I decide
Policy debates: I vote on arguments you win on. Give me a framework
for how you want me to evaluate your arguments and I'll use that, but if you
don't do this (or make that debate too convoluted), I'll default to a
policy-making framework that evaluates arguments through an offense defense
paradigm. Alternatively, if you read a k versus a policy aff, make sure you
give me a reason why your impacts come first, otherwise I'm left evaluating
whether ontology (ethics, etc) comes before nuclear war. Same goes for policy
teams- make me do as little impact comparison as possible - that's your job.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: Inherency: simple - did the plan pass or not? if it
did, you might be in some trouble. i'll vote on it but for the love of God
please make this an interesting debate. Disads: good, but affs should be
critical of the neg evidence - i'd like to avoid calling for evidence at the end
of the round (unless it has been called into question), so again, do this work
for me. Neg, make sure to make reasons why this outweighs and/or turns the aff.
Counterplans: make sure they're competitive (though i won't necessarily drop
you if it's not, it'll just reflect poorly on your speaker points). Make sure
it solves the aff. Make sure the cp doesn't link to the n/b. If you use your
head, i'm happy. Kritiks: Like 'em, just MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT. Nothing makes me more unhappy than a k debater that doesn't know their
business. Also, again, make sure you give me a way to evaluate your impacts v.
policy impacts. T: Usually a voter, pre-requisite to other arguments (Except
theory - that's debatable). If it's a bad t, again, it will probably reflect on
your speaks. Turns: I love me a good turn. Do. not. double. turn. yourself.
Presentational
Preferences: Speed's fine as long as you're clear (i'll yell at
you), tag team is fine, i don't care how you dress, vocal inflection is nice
(this is a speech event after all, show some emotion), ditto with eyecontact.
Be assertive, get passionate, but don't be a jerk. Be funny, be a lil sassy,
make it fun for me to watch but also make it fun for your opponents. Mean
people suck.
Other Info: Basically
it's your debate. It would behoove you to put time, effort and thought into
your arguments beforehand, because we can all tell when you haven't. And have
fun, it's why we're all here.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
College
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 0
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
No or only once or twice
Involved in
Other Events? parli
How I decide
Policy debates: Advantages vs. Disadvantages. Weigh impacts.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: counterplans are for the most part fair game with the
exceptions of abusive variants to which legitimate procedurals can be
applied. kritiks are stupid unless
they offer an alt with some possible hope of solvency/grain of truth to it.
Presentational
Preferences: tag team is ok if not excessive. speed isn't bad, I just can't really handle
it, so I may not get all of your arguments.
eye contact with me is nice.
don't be a dick.
Other Info: play
nice.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
College
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 1
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 2
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? Parliamentary Debate-4 years, Impromptu (ugh)-4 years
How I decide
Policy debates: How do you make yourself a body without organs? Likely
by detaching thyself from the flow. The modern Prometheus cannot fulfill
obligations.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: I tend to closely examine link stories on DAs/Ks Showing me comparative risks of these
arguments is helpful (remember timeframe, magnitude, and probability?) I love CP/DA debates, CPs are wonderful
little ditties. Based on subjective experience, I will vote on theory here, be
it PICs/Conditionality or Perm theory, but you gotta get past some solid
defensive arguments from the other team (like conditionality exists on both
sides or an EU PIC is predictable) and be clear about voters. Performance is an interesting idea, know
your framework and you won't have too much trouble convincing me. That's right,
I WILL vote for performance. If you're an idiot that uses exclusive ways of
winning the debate, don't expect to pick up my ballot, please KNOW WHAT YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT On T and theory, I
default to competing interpretations.
Presentational
Preferences: I will almost always call for the evidence. In order
for me to evaluate the merits of any given argument, I need to closely examine
some of these cards. Tag-team C-X is fine
Other Info: Being
funny is a plus, but don't push it into the limits of douchebaggery.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
College
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 0
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
No or only once or twice
Involved in
Other Events? Impromptu, second year of parli, public and public
forum debate in high school
How I decide
Policy debates: I focus on whatever you tell me to focus on. If you
want me to weigh something heavily, tell me to. On top of that, I'm most
convinced by the big picture what has the biggest impact on the most people.
Don't leave things unanswered because I'll be tempted to vote on them even if I
don't think they're as big of a deal as other things in the round. Basically,
make it really clear where you want me to vote and I will try to look there.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: Inherency: whatever, use this if you're talking about
some specific thing that no one is going to know about Counterplans: I am easily convinced by
counterplans, as long as you show me how they're competitive and that they do
solve. Kritiks: K's are fine as long as
you remember that everyone in the round should at least sort of understand what
you're talking about. People often just rattle off jargon and expect it to make
perfect sense because they understand it perfectly. If I look confused, I
am. Theory: Helpful and interesting.
Again, explain yourself well.
Performance: Sure, I won't really know what to do with it so have patience
with me and explain (or show?)it to me well.
Topicality: A legitimate and interesting debate. I understand that
people will just throw 3 T's at me and hope one sticks but I really like this
debate if its justified and well-nuanced.
Turns: really convincing. However, a lot of times people just rattle off
10 and they're all kind of the same thing so I think they work best if you
focus on a couple and really go hard for them.
Presentational
Preferences: Debate shouldn't be entirely based on presentation,
nor should it be incredibly fast and incoherent- find a happy medium. Speed is
fine as long as you make sense. Again, if I look confused, I am. Tag team C-X
is fine but both partners should be doing a relatively equal amount of the work
throughout the debate. You don't need to stand or make eye contact with me for
me to think you're a good speaker but you should probably look up every once in
a while to make sure I'm with you. Be courteous.
Other Info: The best
way to know whether you're making sense to me is to feel it out in the round.
Don't ignore signs you get from me but feel free to do your thing.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: South
Eugene
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 9
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 7
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events?
How I decide
Policy debates: My default disposition is that plan is the focus of the
round - I'll vote for which world is superior -- aff's or neg's -- which I
suppose means being a policy-maker. I'll
use a different framework if argued and won.
I tend to think the entire round is decided solely by the risk analysis
and impact comparison in the last two rebuttals - the rest of the debate is
just to get around the "no new arguments" rule.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: Anybody who calls him or herself tab is lying, but I
do my best to be as non-interventionist as possible. There are of course arguments of which I'm not
a huge fan, but I wouldn t say it affects my judgment. Or more accurately: I like all human beings, have a handful of tiny
biases, but to list them would a) take forever, and b) cause you to
overcompensate, so let's just pretend I don't.
Presentational
Preferences: I have none - it's your round. If at any time I can't understand you I'll
yell "clear". It just means I
didn't catch the last couple of words you said - it's your choice what to do with
that. In the highly unlikely event that
you're perfectly clear but too fast for me,
I guess I'll say so.
Other Info: I'm
something of a hawk on new 2AR arguments (I was a 2N my entire career). If the 2AR makes a new argument without
justifying it, or if I don't care for that justification, I'm liable to simply
scratch it off my flow. I feel similarly
about new 1NR arguments (I was a 1A, too)
but I give some more leeway since there s a couple of speeches
afterwards.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: St.
George's
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 3
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 7
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events?
How I decide
Policy debates: As for individual issues I'm open to interpreting the
debate however you suit fit you just need to win a framework argument that
means I should evaluate the debate differently also. These are just some of the
guiding principles when it comes to my thought process it does not mean that if
you make these arguments you will automatically win. Topicality
I evaluate topicality debates through the lens of competing
interpretations, in order to win the debate I believe the affirmative has to
either win a we meet or provide a counter-interpretation that is preferable to
the negative's desired interpretation of the resolution. If you, as the
affirmative, stand up and read topicality isn't a voting issue and literature
checks abuse and thats it and move on it will be very hard for me to vote for
you. It is possible to win a
reasonability argument in front of me, you just have to have an impact to what
evaluating topicality through a reasonable lens means in order for it to alter
my decision. Theory I tend to err negative on theory, but that is
only because the affirmative very rarely has a coherent story or impact in the
final rebuttals explaining your argument. If you go for theory in front of me
you need A. An interpretation that
solves your offense, and: B. Terminal
Impacts to your arguments.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: Counterplans/Disadvantages Love them. Affirmative's should try their
best to have either a solvency deficit, offense on the net benefit, or a
nuanced competition argument or it will be an uphill battle. Kritiks
Read them, but don't expect me to have a perfect understanding of you're
literature base. You need to extrapolate a coherent link, impact, and
alternative (maybe even a framework or at least a reason why you operate within
the afifrmative's framework) if you go for the critique in front of me. You
should avoid spewing off buzzwords without attaching explanations to them like
"Ontology Comes First, next..."
Presentational
Preferences: Don't be a jerk.
Other Info: Some
background information about me, I debated for four years in high school and
was relatively competitive on the national circuit and currently debate for the
University of Gonzaga. I think the round is for the debaters and will try my
best not to impose my personal beliefs into my evaluation of the round. This is the best i can characterize my thought
process when I come to making decisions
Overarching Themes in the way I Evaluate Debate Rounds 1) I evaluate everything in terms of offense
and defense--I believe that the team that accesses the largest/fastest/most
probable impact relative to their opponents largest/fastest/most probable
impact will win. However, I am not in the school of thought that refuses to
assign zero risk to an argument. If there is a defensive argument that is
objectively true enough I will reduce an arguments risk to functionally
zero. It would serve you well to
invest some time in giving good, comparative impact calculus. 2) I'm a minimalist, I try to impose as
little as possible in determining the winner of the round. THIS IS VERY
IMPORTANT IF YOU EXPECT ME TO READ YOUR CARDS. I want to read as little of your
evidence as possible. If you are not explaining or impacting your evidence do
not expect me to read your cards and do work for you based on what you're cards
say if this is not explained in the round.
This is not to say that I won't read cards, just that I think at some
level this is a speaking activity and you need to articulate a warrant and do
more than re-read your tags to get me to do that. 3) Warrants, warrants, warrants- You can
make as many blippy analytical arguments as you want, if there isn't a warrant
or impact attached to it it won't get you very far. 99% of the time I end up
voting for the team that gives the best warranted and comparative explanation
of their position. If you spend the time to develop your arguments coherently
you're speaker points will reflect it.
4) I am more willing than most to vote on "cheap shots." I
believe that dropped arguments, in most instances, are objectively true.
HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT LISCENSE TO PROLIFERATE BAD ARGUMENTS IN FRONT OF ME, it
will be negatively reflected in your speaker points if you try to do that.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Reno High
School
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 10
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 5
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
No or only once or twice
Involved in
Other Events?
How I decide
Policy debates: I would consider myself to have a policy maker
paradigm; so I look at the stock issues, the advantages and disadvantages
primarily. However, I will be persuaded by Kritiks and theory. My main idea of
an excellent debate is to have students develop arguments and use evidence
rather than simply use analystics.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: I don't think I have anything particularly unique in
terms of these issues.
Presentational
Preferences: I don't mind speed, but on a scale of 1-10, I'm
probably a 6. I do think communication is important in a debate round. I can't
stand Tag Team c-x as it could demonstrate how weak one partner is and is thus
used as a crutch. Eye contact is important but when reading evidence
unnecessary; courteousness should exist.
Other Info: If my pen
is down, pay attention and adapt.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Renaissance
High School
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 4
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 7
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events?
How I decide
Policy debates: I judge debates on the basis of clear, impacted,
logical argumentation and I will evaluate any ethical argument made in the
debate.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: I find most substantive issues in CX debate to be
compelling. I feel that far too many
theory arguments fail to sway my decisions--not because I don't like them, but
because because they are argued poorly.
(i.e. The impacts are imaginary, the interpretations arbitrary, etc.)
Presentational
Preferences: On your mark...get set...go. Speed is fine, tag team is OK, just be nice
to one another.
Other Info: I really
like smart arguments. I will reward
debaters and teams who offer me reasons to vote FOR something rather than
against. I also enjoy debates when both
teams offer each other fair and even ground to debate in an honest way.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Sam
Barlow High School
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 4
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 0
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? Parli Debate 10+ years, LD/PF 6+
How I decide
Policy debates: I will vote on anything if you convince me to! :-)
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: I do not like Ks that are treated as DAs. For example
if you have a cap K and also a CP that cap based your K fails for me. In my
mind a K should be overarching and if you link into your own K I will not vote
on the K.
Presentational
Preferences: I don't care for tag-team unless is just that. One
person can answer a question if their partner forgets or needs help, but when
there is only one person on the team doing all of the CXs, then it's not
tag-TEAM at all. Speed is fine as long as taglines are SLOW... Regular speed
SLOW. You can spew your cards, but if I can't flow the tagline I cannot vote on
it. Organization is also key. If I can't flow it because I don't know where on
the flow you want it, I can't vote on it.
Other Info: I like
voting issues. These are all very long days and I don't want to think, you
should think for me. Make it VERY clear how and WHY you win the debate.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Idaho
State University/Puyallup High School
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 1
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 5
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? Extempt, Interp Read
How I decide
Policy debates: You should set the framing for the debate. I decide
the debate based off of what is on my flow. I dont plan on doing work for you.
I am less likely to call for evidence then most judges. This is because I
expect you to tell me what the evidence says. I will only call for the evidence
if I want the cite, really want to read it, or there is a big issue in the
round about what the evidence says. I expect you to impact your arguments and
have comparative analysis. I want you to tell me what is important, whether it
be ontology, consquences, ect... I try to come into the debate without any
reasons to reject you for a specific argument. I think if you think something
is theoretically illegitimant ect then you should have to prove and impact to
me why that is true.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: Debate is an open forum for you to do as you please. I
have experience in critical, performance, and straight up debate which means
all you really need to do in front of me is frame my ballot and explain your
argument. That being said you should
generate competition and allow for clash to exist. I probably don't think
things like Inherency takeouts are something to vote for. Offense is a must but
terminal deffense can at least prove minimal risk of a DA ect. I like
reasonability over competing interperations but also understand the value
theory and topically or framework debates. Specific abuse scenarios are always
better then generic arguments (condo bad).
I think the best way for you to understand my views about debate you can
check out my wiki. http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Copenhaver%2C+Roger
Presentational
Preferences: Like I said above do what you want. You probably
shouldn't dominate your own partner. Clarity is a must but go as fast or as
slow as you want. You also should be nice. There is a difference between
agreesive and rude. You should find that happy medium in front of me or I
probably won't enjoy the debate.
Other Info: I enjoy
impcat turn debates, specific link scenarios, politics debates, and case
specific PICs. I am also a political science major and enjoy debates about
relations. I am familiar with certain
K lit but you should still explain your arguments. My strongest knowledge is in Gender
Agamben/Foucault Statism I love debate and what it has done for me.
Make the debate fun and engage yourself academically.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
College
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 4
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? 2 years of Extemp and Impromptu
How I decide
Policy debates: I am a fairly tabular rasa judge. I will vote on any
type of argument that is well explained, defended, and contextualized in the
round. Debaters should not assume that I'll do work for them. I like technical
line-by-line debating that that is organized and full of clash but still
captures the explanation of the greater story of the round in the rebuttals.
In-depth impact analysis and evidence comparison are a big deal and are a
significant factor in deciding very close rounds.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: Case debate - make your case arguments matter, impact
them, or leverage them as defense to supplement another flow. Disads - specific links are key here - how
does the case trigger your impacts? Impact calc is key to winning a DA. CP - I love well-thought out counterplans.
Case specific CPs are best, then generic CPs are ok as long as you have
specific solvency related to the aff case. Sketch CPs such as consult etc. are
subject to a higher theory threshold to overcome, but of course I'll still vote
on them. Ks - Explain your authors
view of the world to me in an understandable way (and preferably before the
2NR). I may not know all the literature your referencing, so specificity and
clarity is key. Explain the world of the alternative, what it looks like, and
how it functions. Repeating and extending tag-lines that include 12 syllable
words is not sufficient analysis.
Topicality - Love voting for it, but I seem to rarely do so. I err aff
as long as their case isn't egregiously not topical. If your going for T make
sure you explain why it matters and its impact on the round the debate
community at large. T probably isn't genocide. Theory - Unless dropped, I High threshold
to overcome to vote on theory. But same as above, if you want to go for theory,
it should probably be the only focus of your last speech and heavily
impacted. Performance - I'm probably
not your number 1 judge. I'll listen and try to understand you view of debate
and the world, but make it clear and explain why traditional notions and
arguments aren't relevant or responsive.
Presentational
Preferences: Presentational skills are not as important to me as
the content of the debate. Fine with speed, ill let you know if your not clear
enough. Tag team CX is fine, just don't overpower your partner constantly. Be
intense and aggressive, but still polite and respectful to the other team.
Other Info: Have fun
and make the kind arguments that you enjoy and are most prepared
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Capital
High School
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 3
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
No or only once or twice
Involved in
Other Events? Judging every year since high school (4 years out)
How I decide
Policy debates: I'm tab rasa, so whatever you run I'll listen to. If
you don't give me a framework, I default to policy maker.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: Everything is cool with me. Really silly Ks might get
you frowned at, but I'll still vote on them if you can run them properly.
Presentational
Preferences: Speed is fine, tag team CX is fine (just try not to
run down the person who's supposed to be being CX'd). Be nice to each other,
obviously.
Other Info: You're
going to hear this a lot, but I'm going to say it anyway: IMPACT ANALYSIS. If I
have to sift through your evidence trying to figure out what the bigger impact
in the round is, things are not looking good for you.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 3
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 8
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? Worked minimum wage job -3 years, drove car with
automatic transmission - 2 years, consorted with villains and scoundrels - all
my life
How I decide
Policy debates: In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such
Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City,
and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those
Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a
Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point
for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study
of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast Map was Useless,
and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the
Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there
are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the
Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography. Suarez Miranda, Viajes de varones
prudentes, Libro IV, Cap. XLV, Lerida, 1658
-Jorge Luis Borges
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: I think debate should be fun and educational. As a debater, my only argument is to read
Foucault and Derrida to criticize the notion of a rational subject. If you have "reasons why" for
your arguments, then I'm a happy camper.
Presentational
Preferences: I debate in college for Whitman. i will be super pissed if ur mean. Also, please be hilarious, because we're
all friends, and laughing is probably good.
Other Info: say it
like you care Why start a fire if you
haven't got the sparxxxxxxxxx
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 6
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
Yes
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events?
How I decide
Policy debates: I really just decide the round based on who wins. I
will most likely vote on anything (Though with certain kritiks and theory args
you may face an uphill battle). I like clash, and I like a clear explanation of
why you are winning the round
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: DAs: Good, you need to win a clear link and an impact CP: A really good idea K: This is a tough spot for me. I realize
k's have a strategic component to them but for you to win a kritik it will be
an uphill battle. You need a clear link, not the generic crap that can be used
time after time, and you need to have an alternative that actually does
something. If the alternative is something about re-imaganing, or
disengagement, I am likely to agree a perm solves 100%. And there needs to be
an impact, like an explained impact. Don't assume I understand the implications
of your k because half the time I won't so you should tell me about it. Theory: unless the team is clearly abusive
it probably won't vote for you on it, just prove abuse, and prove it in the
round. Topicality: I don't know much
about this years topic so if you run topicality make a good case of it, and
also I think competing interpretations are important just fyi other than that do whatever, if you win you
win
Presentational
Preferences: you can go fast, tag team is fine, I will keep up with
you. Try not to be to mean.
Other Info: debate
well.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 3
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
No or only once or twice
Involved in
Other Events? IEs (HI 2, OI1, OO 1) CX 3
How I decide
Policy debates: I'm cool with most arguments. I vote on which team
doesn't lead to extinction or/and solves for the most harms in the status
quo.RVIs? no. I will not vote on a rvi. ever.If you are going for a k be sure
to articulate a specific link.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: Will not vote on rvis. I'm not a big fan of
performance.I wouldn't advise running severe left in front of me.
Presentational
Preferences: Golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated.
Otherwise speaks will be docked.
Other Info: Be sure
to give the big picture in the 2ar/2nr.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
College
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 5
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
No or only once or twice
Involved in
Other Events? Original Oratory
How I decide
Policy debates: Stock Issues - Not a voter without offense. DAs - Prefer Theory - Prefer not Kritiks - Prefer not CPs - Prefer Performance - Prefer not
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: Offense > defense.
Presentational
Preferences: Whatever.
Other Info: I vote
entirely on what occurred in the round. If the aff double turns themselves and
wins both turns, I still vote aff if the neg fails to point this out.
Whitman Tournament Policy Judging Philosophies
Judging for: Whitman
Years Coached
Policy Debate: 0
Years Competed
in Policy Debate: 0
Coach or
compete in the Northwest?
No or only once or twice.
Coach or
compete on the National Circuit?
Yes
Involved in
Other Events? Oregon Public - 4 years College Parliamentary - 1 year
How I decide
Policy debates: I will decide a debate based upon whatever the
debaters argue. It's your job to tell me what to vote on.
Unique views
on Policy Arguments: Debaters have to tell me why an argument is important,
but I will evaluate all arguments equally unless told otherwise.
Presentational
Preferences: I will yell clear if I can't understand you. I
appreciate eye contact when it is used to tell how the judge is reacting to arguments.
Other Info: I like
being told how to vote, it reduces judge intervention. You'll get higher
speaking points if you are being professional but also appear to be having fun.
Debate is a game, have fun.