Judge: Rev. B.A. Gregg
School: RMA
Area: I Can Judge Anything!
Background: Debate Coach at School
Years: 6-10 years
Rounds: 1-10 rounds this year
LockOuts: RMA
PF_Approach: Real-World Examples and Evidence
LD_Approach: Direct Clash/ Line-by-Line MOST important
LD_Delivery: Good conversational style
LD_VP: Throughout the entire debate
LD_VC: Most essential ingredient in the debate
LD_Resolution: Very pragmatic approach
LD_Evidence: Loads of warrants and evidence for everything
LD_Focus: Line-by-line analysis... the flow is KING
LD_Persuasion: Persuasive speech based on the flow
CX_Approach: No idea, I don't do CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Oratorical and Classic
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Get that Counterplan outta here!
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Huh? Missed the memo.
CX_Debate_Theory: Hate Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Despise Kritiks... a waste of time
Date: 26 Nov 2006
Time: 13:41:48
PF is real debate for real people. I am part of PF Tab at Nationals and have run several PF tournaments on the national circuit. I know the rules and will drop you if you slip past them.
I follow the niceties of LD Debate. Make sure you play by the rules. Dropped arguments are arguments that are truly dropped. Don't lie. Impact everything back to the V/C. Don't speed and spew.
If you see me in CX, we're really desparate.
If you see me in your round, something just hit the fan back in the Tab room and we are pulling in every available body. As a result, my nerves will be frazzled and I'll show up late. I expect that you've already preflowed by the time I get to the round and know that I will be very, very cranky. Give me a good and solid debate to make my mood better. Otherwise, I will surely drop you or your speaking points. Go ahead, please, make my day with showing me a good debate round.
Judge: Mark Forgash
School: JEB Stuart HS
Area: Public Forum Debate (PF)
Background: Free-Lance Judge for Hire
Years: Select Number of Years Judging
Rounds: Rounds Judged this year
LockOuts: JEB Stuart HS
PF_Approach: I have never judged PF before
LD_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VP: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VC: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Resolution: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Evidence: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Focus: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Persuasion: Select how important this is to your decision
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 12 Dec 2006
Time: 04:48:46
A real-world approach must be used. measured, hearable speech that is not overly fast or technical with a strong clash of ideas, NOT competitors.
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Al Bender
School: Ridge High school, George Mason University
Area: I Can Judge Anything!
Background: Free-Lance Judge for Hire
Years: 4-5 years
Rounds: 1-10 rounds this year
LockOuts: none
PF_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VP: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VC: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Resolution: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Evidence: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Focus: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Persuasion: Select how important this is to your decision
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 12 Dec 2006
Time: 21:34:10
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Al \
School: R E Q U I R E D
Area: Select an Area of Judging
Background: Background
Years: Select Number of Years Judging
Rounds: Rounds Judged this year
LockOuts: In this area, list all schools with which you would have a conflict of interest in judging
PF_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VP: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VC: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Resolution: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Evidence: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Focus: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Persuasion: Select how important this is to your decision
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 12 Dec 2006
Time: 21:34:25
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Al Bender
School: Ridge High school, George Mason University
Area: I Can Judge Anything!
Background: Free-Lance Judge for Hire
Years: 4-5 years
Rounds: 1-10 rounds this year
LockOuts: none
PF_Approach: Reasoning and Organization
LD_Approach: Direct Clash/ Line-by-Line MOST important
LD_Delivery: Good conversational style
LD_VP: Throughout the entire debate
LD_VC: Most essential ingredient in the debate
LD_Resolution: Very philosophical approach
LD_Evidence: Reasoning and hypothetical constructs
LD_Focus: Each line needs to add up to the big picture
LD_Persuasion: I want people to speak to me directly in the eyes
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 12 Dec 2006
Time: 21:42:45
In my mind the primary goal of public forum is to bridge the gap between LD and CX The most important thing for me as a judge is a teams ability to formulate arguments, advance thier points and accurately respond to thier opponents case without forgeting thier own.
I think LD is the most symantical of all the debates, I give the most credit to those who pick a course of action and stick to it without neglecting the others case. Line by line deconstruction is very important also.
I'm sorry my computer is glitchy and accidentally sent two of these before this one. I can judge LD and PF although im more comfortable with PF then LD. I would prefer not to judge policy if possible, since ive never competed in it. However, I can judge whatever you need.
Judge: Sean Hardwick
School: George Mason
Area: Speech
Background: Speech Coach at School
Years: 1-3 years
Rounds: 11-20 rounds this year
LockOuts: In this area, list all schools with which you would have a conflict of interest in judging
PF_Approach: Reasoning and Organization
LD_Approach: Direct Clash/ Line-by-Line MOST important
LD_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VP: Throughout the entire debate
LD_VC: Good idea to have, not a deal-breaker
LD_Resolution: Very philosophical approach
LD_Evidence: Reasoning and hypothetical constructs
LD_Focus: Each line needs to add up to the big picture
LD_Persuasion: I want people to speak to me directly in the eyes
CX_Approach: No idea, I don't do CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 12 Dec 2006
Time: 22:55:53
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Bill Wonneberger
School: Turner Ashby High School
Area: Lincoln Douglas Debate (LD)
Background: Debate Coach at School
Years: 11-20 years
Rounds: 11-20 rounds this year
LockOuts: In this area, list all schools with which you would have a conflict of interest in judging
PF_Approach: Reasoning and Organization
LD_Approach: Values and Philosophy are MOST important
LD_Delivery: Good conversational style
LD_VP: Throughout the entire debate
LD_VC: Good idea to have, not a deal-breaker
LD_Resolution: Very philosophical approach
LD_Evidence: Reasoning and hypothetical constructs
LD_Focus: Each line needs to add up to the big picture
LD_Persuasion: Persuasive speech based on the flow
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 04 Jan 2007
Time: 06:17:43
Logic, reasoning, clarity, dignity, intellectual integrity are among the key voting points I value.
The encraochment of policy style into Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a sad development, one which I resist.
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Bill Wonneberger
School: Turner Ashby High School
Area: Public Forum Debate (PF)
Background: Debate Coach at School
Years: 11-20 years
Rounds: 1-10 rounds this year
LockOuts: In this area, list all schools with which you would have a conflict of interest in judging
PF_Approach: Reasoning and Organization
LD_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VP: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VC: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Resolution: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Evidence: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Focus: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Persuasion: Select how important this is to your decision
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 04 Jan 2007
Time: 06:20:10
Exciting new format. Logic, reasoning, clarity, persuasion, organization, passion. Go for it!
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Bill Wonneberger
School: Turner Ashby High School
Area: Policy Debate (CX)
Background: Debate Coach at School
Years: 11-20 years
Rounds: 1-10 rounds this year
LockOuts: In this area, list all schools with which you would have a conflict of interest in judging
PF_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VP: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VC: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Resolution: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Evidence: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Focus: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Persuasion: Select how important this is to your decision
CX_Approach: Tabula Rasa
CX_Delivery: Flow at a Contemporary Clip
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 04 Jan 2007
Time: 06:25:20
If you want to impress me, use sound reasoning and clarify the real clash. Scoring a round full of drops and spreads is boring. Spew is just that, spew.
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Shruti Chaganti
School: Chantilly HS, James Madison University
Area: I Can Judge All Debate Areas
Background: CX Debater in College
Years: 1-3 years
Rounds: 21-30 rounds this year
LockOuts: none
PF_Approach: Reasoning and Organization
LD_Approach: Direct Clash/ Line-by-Line MOST important
LD_Delivery: Good conversational style
LD_VP: Throughout the entire debate
LD_VC: Good idea to have, not a deal-breaker
LD_Resolution: Very philosophical approach
LD_Evidence: Reasoning and hypothetical constructs
LD_Focus: Line-by-line analysis... the flow is KING
LD_Persuasion: Persuasive speech based on the flow
CX_Approach: Tabula Rasa
CX_Delivery: Flow at a Contemporary Clip
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Love those Kritiks! Can't get enough
Date: 06 Feb 2007
Time: 08:49:42
I like to see good speaking style but since I am a policy debator, I will vote for the person who clearly articulates their warrants and who answers all the arguments made by the opponents.
Speaking style is important but it is most important to articulate your points clearly as they relate to the flow. Big picture is important but if you drop an important point on the line by line, then the big picture is not as persuasive.
I will vote for pretty much anything but if you want me to vote for Topicality or Theory, you better spend a lot of time on it and explain the impact it has on debate clearly.
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Jeremy Lawson
School: James Madison University
Area: I Can Judge Anything!
Background: CX Debater in College
Years: 1-3 years
Rounds: 1-10 rounds this year
LockOuts: none
PF_Approach: Reasoning and Organization
LD_Approach: Speaking Skills Are MOST Important
LD_Delivery: Good conversational style
LD_VP: Throughout the entire debate
LD_VC: Good idea to have, not a deal-breaker
LD_Resolution: Kant, but with real-world evidence
LD_Evidence: Reasoning and hypothetical constructs
LD_Focus: Each line needs to add up to the big picture
LD_Persuasion: Persuasive speech based on the flow
CX_Approach: Policymaker
CX_Delivery: Mr. Scott, Give Me Warp Factor 9!
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 06 Feb 2007
Time: 09:20:51
Although emotive appeals and flashy language do a good bit for the positive perception of the debater, it is more important to have sound reasoning and critical analysis of the issue at hand.
LD by definition is deliberate and persuasive. Any idea you throw out there that has support and reason behind it is okay by me.
Do whats intuitive. All the technical stuff comes with experience. Hit your flows and clash as much as possible. Take advantage of weaknesses early on. The rebuttals are no time to get in that sucker punch you missed in the 1ar.
give me as many as possible. Love it.
Judge: Tiffany Pryce
School: JMU
Area: Policy Debate (CX)
Background: CX Debater in College
Years: 1-3 years
Rounds: 11-20 rounds this year
LockOuts: In this area, list all schools with which you would have a conflict of interest in judging
PF_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VP: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VC: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Resolution: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Evidence: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Focus: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Persuasion: Select how important this is to your decision
CX_Approach: Tabula Rasa
CX_Delivery: Mr. Scott, Give Me Warp Factor 9!
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Love those Kritiks! Can't get enough
Date: 06 Feb 2007
Time: 10:53:34
Offense, offense, offense- If the neg has none, I vote aff. There needs to be clash in debate, if not it makes it much harder to judge. In the rebuttals tell me how and where I should vote and do some impact calculus. I'm a really laid back judge. All you have to do to win is make sense, apply your args to the particular debate round, and persuade me you are doing better job of debating than the other team. :)
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Sean Lowry
School: James Madison Univeristy
Area: LD, CX
Background: CX Debater in College
Years: 1-3 years
Rounds: 1-10 rounds this year
LockOuts: In this area, list all schools with which you would have a conflict of interest in judging
PF_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Approach: Direct Clash/ Line-by-Line MOST important
LD_Delivery: Speed to pack more ideas in
LD_VP: Throughout the entire debate
LD_VC: Good idea to have, not a deal-breaker
LD_Resolution: Very pragmatic approach
LD_Evidence: Loads of warrants and evidence for everything
LD_Focus: Each line needs to add up to the big picture
LD_Persuasion: Persuasive speech based on the flow
CX_Approach: Policymaker
CX_Delivery: Flow at a Contemporary Clip
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 06 Feb 2007
Time: 11:03:51
Make compelling args with evidence and reasoning are important, but please address your opponents best points.
Please do the work for me. Tell me why your policy option (which can include kritiks) is better than your opponents. Better yet, tell me why you are winning on each flow.
Judge: Tory Federwisch
School: James Madison University
Area: LD, CX
Background: CX Debater in College
Years: 1-3 years
Rounds: 1-10 rounds this year
LockOuts: In this area, list all schools with which you would have a conflict of interest in judging
PF_Approach: I have never judged PF before
LD_Approach: Values and Philosophy are MOST important
LD_Delivery: Good conversational style
LD_VP: Throughout the entire debate
LD_VC: Good idea to have, not a deal-breaker
LD_Resolution: Kant, but with real-world evidence
LD_Evidence: Reasoning and hypothetical constructs
LD_Focus: Each line needs to add up to the big picture
LD_Persuasion: Persuasive speech based on the flow
CX_Approach: Policymaker
CX_Delivery: Flow at a Contemporary Clip
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are Really Cool, I Love 'Em!
CX_Disads: Give me those Good Ole Disads
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 06 Feb 2007
Time: 13:25:59
I want debaters to engage me but focus on the argumentation with their opponent. Don't speak fast if you have to sacrifice clarity and delivery. I look for a compelling argumentation of not only the perspective but why it is the better perspective. I like Kant and I'd like to see how those approaches can be relevant to the world and the topic at hand.
I want to have a choice at the end of the debate. I would prefer a negative alternative and if there is no alternative, I want to see a substantial reason to vote against the affirmative. I'll listen to kritiks and theory but I'm not partial to them. I like "even if" arguments at the end of the debate and seeing the bigger picture of what happens in the affirmative and negative worlds and which is most net benefitial to me as a policymaker.
I'm available for any LD/Policy rounds.
Judge: Sohrab Najafabadi
School: James Madison University
Area: Policy Debate (CX)
Background: CX Debater in College
Years: 1-3 years
Rounds: 1-10 rounds this year
LockOuts: I went to Douglas Freeman High School
PF_Approach: Reasoning and Organization
LD_Approach: Sorry, I don't do LD Debate
LD_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VP: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VC: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Resolution: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Evidence: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Focus: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Persuasion: Select how important this is to your decision
CX_Approach: Tabula Rasa
CX_Delivery: Flow at a Contemporary Clip
CX_Topicality: Always vote on Topicality
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are Really Cool, I Love 'Em!
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Hate Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Love those Kritiks! Can't get enough
Date: 06 Feb 2007
Time: 15:26:24
Logical and clear arguments are key.
speak clearly, every argument is ok by me, as long as it makes logical sense.
Judge: Kaitlyn Haynal
School: Went to Broad Run, currently debate at JMU
Area: Policy Debate (CX)
Background: CX Debater in High School
Years: 1-3 years
Rounds: 11-20 rounds this year
LockOuts: broad run
PF_Approach: I have never judged PF before
LD_Approach: Sorry, I don't do LD Debate
LD_Delivery: Good conversational style
LD_VP: Throughout the entire debate
LD_VC: Good idea to have, not a deal-breaker
LD_Resolution: Kant, but with real-world evidence
LD_Evidence: Reasoning and hypothetical constructs
LD_Focus: Each line needs to add up to the big picture
LD_Persuasion: Persuasive speech based on the flow
CX_Approach: Policymaker
CX_Delivery: Flow at a Contemporary Clip
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Give me those Good Ole Disads
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 06 Feb 2007
Time: 15:27:45
Im in the middle of my 5th year of policy debate, from what i've heard, public forum is the lazy persons policy debate, so assuming this is the case, i should hve no problem judging it.
i have only seen one LD debate ever, my freshman year of HS.
I believe the negative is a test of the affirmatives plan. after the round i am either persuaded that the affimative plan is worth the risk, or it isnt. I love case arguements and round overviews that explain why you win, and why your impact is what i should vote on in the round.
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Evan Levy
School: James Madison University
Area: Policy Debate (CX)
Background: CX Debater in College
Years: 4-5 years
Rounds: 1-10 rounds this year
LockOuts: Godwin high school
PF_Approach: I have never judged PF before
LD_Approach: Direct Clash/ Line-by-Line MOST important
LD_Delivery: Good conversational style
LD_VP: Throughout the entire debate
LD_VC: Good idea to have, not a deal-breaker
LD_Resolution: Kant, but with real-world evidence
LD_Evidence: Reasoning and hypothetical constructs
LD_Focus: Each line needs to add up to the big picture
LD_Persuasion: I want people to speak to me directly in the eyes
CX_Approach: Policymaker
CX_Delivery: Mr. Scott, Give Me Warp Factor 9!
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Despise Kritiks... a waste of time
Date: 06 Feb 2007
Time: 16:01:50
Speek well, have a coherent story, line-by-line not crucial but helps.
I've been debating since for several years, I can listen to anything but I don't like K's. If you're going to run one then you need to explain the h**l out of it. T needs to have specific abuse story, if it's a weak story then im not voting on it. If you have specific abuse and it's a clear story you're good as gold.
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: McQ, Megan
School: ada
Area: Policy Debate (CX)
Background: CX Debater in College
Years: 1-3 years
Rounds: 1-10 rounds this year
LockOuts: In this area, list all schools with which you would have a conflict of interest in judging
PF_Approach: I have never judged PF before
LD_Approach: Sorry, I don't do LD Debate
LD_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VP: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VC: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Resolution: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Evidence: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Focus: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Persuasion: Select how important this is to your decision
CX_Approach: Hypothesis Tester
CX_Delivery: Flow at a Contemporary Clip
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are Really Cool, I Love 'Em!
CX_Disads: Give me those Good Ole Disads
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Love Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Love those Kritiks! Can't get enough
Date: 06 Feb 2007
Time: 19:11:51
1.) I would perfer to judge novice only, as I am a novice in college debate 2.) I can only judge from 6:15 on. 3.) you have to go for topicality for 6 minutes (4 min) if you want me to vote on it. 4.) I look for a good impact analysis and also putting your cards INTO CONTEXT. 5.) if you're going to kick a cp in the last speech you also have to win the theory debate also.
1.) I would perfer to judge novice only, as I am a novice in college debate 2.) I can only judge from 6:15pm-9:00pm this Thursday, Feb. 8, 2007.
Judge: Chris Gray
School: JMU
Area: LD, CX
Background: CX Debater in High School
Years: 1-3 years
Rounds: 21-30 rounds this year
LockOuts: Kempsville High School (Va Beach) Oscar Smith (Chesapeake)
PF_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Approach: Values and Philosophy are MOST important
LD_Delivery: Good conversational style
LD_VP: Throughout the entire debate
LD_VC: Good idea to have, not a deal-breaker
LD_Resolution: Very philosophical approach
LD_Evidence: Reasoning and hypothetical constructs
LD_Focus: Each line needs to add up to the big picture
LD_Persuasion: Persuasive speech based on the flow
CX_Approach: Tabula Rasa
CX_Delivery: Flow at a Contemporary Clip
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are Really Cool, I Love 'Em!
CX_Disads: Give me those Good Ole Disads
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Love those Kritiks! Can't get enough
Date: 07 Feb 2007
Time: 09:04:44
Since I've left LD I've heard some interesting things about what's going on there, I'm open to kritiks and such but I have never heard one in an LD round, so any debater that runs one is taking a chance with me in the back. Other than that, LD isn't hard to explain, the best debater wins.
I lean more to the kritikal but I have no problem keeping up in a policy round, the two things you should know about my philosophy: 1) I hate aspec and 2) although i will vote on framework if you win it, you would be better suited to answer any K strait up.
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Thomas Webb
School: JMU Debate Team - NDT
Area: LD, CX
Background: CX Debater in College
Years: 1-3 years
Rounds: Rounds Judged this year
LockOuts: None
PF_Approach: I have never judged PF before
LD_Approach: Values and Philosophy are MOST important
LD_Delivery: Good conversational style
LD_VP: Throughout the entire debate
LD_VC: Good idea to have, not a deal-breaker
LD_Resolution: Very pragmatic approach
LD_Evidence: Reasoning and hypothetical constructs
LD_Focus: Each line needs to add up to the big picture
LD_Persuasion: Persuasive speech based on the flow
CX_Approach: Policymaker
CX_Delivery: Mr. Scott, Give Me Warp Factor 9!
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are Really Cool, I Love 'Em!
CX_Disads: Give me those Good Ole Disads
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: I hate Cond. Neg. Pos.
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 07 Feb 2007
Time: 14:35:36
Speak good, clash with the opposition as much as possible by debunking their specific arguments as much as possible. Be persuasive with why your values and philosophy are more important, and better for me to vote on.
Kritiks must be VERY well constructed and well argued in order to win. Debators will be best successful with me if there are able to utilize real world or historical examples in order to back up their arguments and put them in a modern context. Other than that, I will look at any and every argument equally, and take everything put before me into account.
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Thomas Webb
School: JMU Debate Team - NDT
Area: LD, CX
Background: CX Debater in College
Years: 1-3 years
Rounds: 1-10 rounds this year
LockOuts: None
PF_Approach: I have never judged PF before
LD_Approach: Values and Philosophy are MOST important
LD_Delivery: Good conversational style
LD_VP: Throughout the entire debate
LD_VC: Good idea to have, not a deal-breaker
LD_Resolution: Very pragmatic approach
LD_Evidence: Reasoning and hypothetical constructs
LD_Focus: Each line needs to add up to the big picture
LD_Persuasion: Persuasive speech based on the flow
CX_Approach: Policymaker
CX_Delivery: Mr. Scott, Give Me Warp Factor 9!
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are Really Cool, I Love 'Em!
CX_Disads: Give me those Good Ole Disads
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: I hate Cond. Neg. Pos.
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 07 Feb 2007
Time: 14:36:01
Speak good, clash with the opposition as much as possible by debunking their specific arguments as much as possible. Be persuasive with why your values and philosophy are more important, and better for me to vote on.
Kritiks must be VERY well constructed and well argued in order to win. Debators will be best successful with me if there are able to utilize real world or historical examples in order to back up their arguments and put them in a modern context. Other than that, I will look at any and every argument equally, and take everything put before me into account.
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Thomas Webb
School: JMU Debate Team - NDT
Area: LD, CX
Background: CX Debater in College
Years: 1-3 years
Rounds: 1-10 rounds this year
LockOuts: None
PF_Approach: I have never judged PF before
LD_Approach: Values and Philosophy are MOST important
LD_Delivery: Good conversational style
LD_VP: Throughout the entire debate
LD_VC: Good idea to have, not a deal-breaker
LD_Resolution: Very pragmatic approach
LD_Evidence: Reasoning and hypothetical constructs
LD_Focus: Each line needs to add up to the big picture
LD_Persuasion: Persuasive speech based on the flow
CX_Approach: Policymaker
CX_Delivery: Mr. Scott, Give Me Warp Factor 9!
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are Really Cool, I Love 'Em!
CX_Disads: Give me those Good Ole Disads
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: I hate Cond. Neg. Pos.
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 07 Feb 2007
Time: 14:38:25
I view LD as a member of an audience in a campaign style setting. The major clash of the debate will by my primary focus, but the weight of how persuasive the speakers are factos in a great deal also.
Kritiks must be VERY well constructed and well argued in order to win. Debators will be best successful with me if there are able to utilize real world or historical examples in order to back up their arguments and put them in a modern context. Other than that, I will look at any and every argument equally, and take everything put before me into account.
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Nathan Brazell
School: Pine Tree High School
Area: LD, CX
Background: CX Debater in High School
Years: 1-3 years
Rounds: 1-10 rounds this year
LockOuts: Pine Tree High School
PF_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Approach: Values and Philosophy are MOST important
LD_Delivery: Good conversational style
LD_VP: Throughout the entire debate
LD_VC: Good idea to have, not a deal-breaker
LD_Resolution: Very pragmatic approach
LD_Evidence: Reasoning and hypothetical constructs
LD_Focus: Big picture and don't care about lines
LD_Persuasion: Persuasive speech based on the flow
CX_Approach: Policymaker
CX_Delivery: Flow at a Contemporary Clip
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Give me those Good Ole Disads
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 11 Apr 2007
Time: 12:12:35
I love philosophers. Make your arguments matter. Don't run an outlandish argument just to make an argument.
DA's are great for neg. I enjoy analyticals and real-world applications. Do not spread or be rude. Slight sarcasm is acceptable. Splitting the block is fine.
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: John Cowan
School: Kempsville High School
Area: LD, CX
Background: Debate Coach at School
Years: 6-10 years
Rounds: So many rounds I've lost track
LockOuts: Kempsville High School
PF_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VP: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VC: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Resolution: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Evidence: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Focus: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Persuasion: Select how important this is to your decision
CX_Approach: Tabula Rasa
CX_Delivery: Mr. Scott, Give Me Warp Factor 9!
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Love Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Love those Kritiks! Can't get enough
Date: 19 Apr 2007
Time: 04:48:57
I love kritikal positions, but expect a deeper level of argumentation... they aren't linear DAs with a philosophical impact. Topicality bores me to tears... I'll vote on it, sure, but I'll be crying while I do so. I'll vote on anything, no matter how "crazy", if I'm given a reason to, but probably won't vote for something just beacause it's on the flow... tell me why it's important.
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Laura Conner
School: James Wood High School
Area: I Can Judge Anything!
Background: CX Debater in High School
Years: More years than you can measure
Rounds: 1-10 rounds this year
LockOuts: In this area, list all schools with which you would have a conflict of interest in judging
PF_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Delivery: Good conversational style
LD_VP: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VC: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Resolution: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Evidence: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Focus: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Persuasion: Select how important this is to your decision
CX_Approach: Stock Issues
CX_Delivery: Oratorical and Classic
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Despise Kritiks... a waste of time
Date: 23 Apr 2007
Time: 08:57:46
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Ashley Smith
School: Staunton River High School, Bridgewater College
Area: Speech
Background: Free-Lance Judge for Hire
Years: 1-3 years
Rounds: 1-10 rounds this year
LockOuts: In this area, list all schools with which you would have a conflict of interest in judging
PF_Approach: I have never judged PF before
LD_Approach: Sorry, I don't do LD Debate
LD_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VP: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VC: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Resolution: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Evidence: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Focus: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Persuasion: Select how important this is to your decision
CX_Approach: No idea, I don't do CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 15 Oct 2007
Time: 13:47:41
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Aimee Collins-Mandeville
School: Suncoast High School/University of Florida
Area: I Can Judge All Debate Areas
Background: Background
Years: 4-5 years
Rounds: So many rounds I've lost track
LockOuts: None
PF_Approach: Reasoning and Organization
LD_Approach: Direct Clash/ Line-by-Line MOST important
LD_Delivery: Good conversational style
LD_VP: Throughout the entire debate
LD_VC: Most essential ingredient in the debate
LD_Resolution: Very philosophical approach
LD_Evidence: Loads of warrants and evidence for everything
LD_Focus: Each line needs to add up to the big picture
LD_Persuasion: I want people to speak to me directly in the eyes
CX_Approach: No idea, I don't do CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 23 Oct 2007
Time: 12:46:07
PF is about presentation and making sense. Please do both well.
I can handle what you throw, but it better be good.
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: R E Q U I R E D
School: R E Q U I R E D
Area: Select an Area of Judging
Background: Background
Years: Select Number of Years Judging
Rounds: Rounds Judged this year
LockOuts: In this area, list all schools with which you would have a conflict of interest in judging
PF_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
LD_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VP: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_VC: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Resolution: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Evidence: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Focus: Select how important this is to you in your decision
LD_Persuasion: Select how important this is to your decision
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 20 Nov 2007
Time: 16:42:04
This area is used for special notes and round availability.
Judge: Christopher Gallagher
Coach:
LDArea: No LD Judging Experience
LDYears: No Experience
LDRounds: 0-20 rds.
LDRate: Select the rate of delivery in LD Debate you prefer
LDDeliveryWeight: Yes
LDDeliveryViolation: Yes
LDCriterion: Select the weight you place on the Criterion in LD Debate
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: Select one
LDVoting_Issues: Select one, Select one
LDJargon: Select one
LDWinner: Select the best answer on who is the winner of the debate
LDEvidence: How necessary is evidence (analytical and empirical) in the round?
LDNotes: Select the answer that best describes how you flow the round
CXArea: No CX Judging Experience
CXYears: No Experience
CXRounds: 0-20 rds.
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach to Judging CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 28 Nov 2007
Time: 16:28:44
Judge: Elaine Atkins
Coach:
LDArea: Former LD competitor
LDYears: 6-10 years
LDRounds: 60+ rounds
LDRate: Typical Conversational Style
LDDeliveryWeight: Yes
LDDeliveryViolation: No
LDCriterion: It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: both
LDVoting_Issues: either is acceptable, absolutely necessary
LDJargon: acceptable
LDWinner: the winner of the key arguments in the round.
LDEvidence: Evidence is somewhat neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I keep a rigorous flow.
CXArea: Former CX competitor
CXYears: 6-10 years
CXRounds: 60+ rounds
CX_Approach: Tabula Rasa
CX_Delivery: Flow at a Contemporary Clip
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 21 Dec 2007
Time: 12:32:28
Judge: David Warlick
Coach: TJHSS&T
LDArea: No LD Judging Experience
LDYears: No Experience
LDRounds: 0-20 rds.
LDRate: Select the rate of delivery in LD Debate you prefer
LDDeliveryWeight: Yes
LDDeliveryViolation: Yes
LDCriterion: Select the weight you place on the Criterion in LD Debate
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: Select one
LDVoting_Issues: Select one, Select one
LDJargon: Select one
LDWinner: Select the best answer on who is the winner of the debate
LDEvidence: How necessary is evidence (analytical and empirical) in the round?
LDNotes: Select the answer that best describes how you flow the round
CXArea: Experienced CX Judge
CXYears: 1-3 years
CXRounds: 20-40 rds.
CX_Approach: Stock Issues
CX_Delivery: Flow at a Contemporary Clip
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: I hate Cond. Neg. Pos.
CX_Debate_Theory: Hate Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Despise Kritiks... a waste of time
Date: 30 Dec 2007
Time: 08:13:40
I'm a 60+ year old father of a former CX AAA State Champion. Consequently, I've attended and judged numerous debates. But I have no debating experience or technical knowledge myself. I dislike speed that exceeds my listening and comprehension abilities. I dislike arguments predicated on catastrophic events or nuclear wars. I love civility and courtesy between teams.
Judge: Bobby Vance
Coach: N/A
LDArea: Summer LD Instructor
LDYears: 6-10 years
LDRounds: 60+ rounds
LDRate: Typical Conversational Style
LDDeliveryWeight: No
LDDeliveryViolation: No
LDCriterion: It is a major factor in my evaluation.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: both
LDVoting_Issues: either is acceptable, absolutely necessary
LDJargon: acceptable
LDWinner: the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.
LDEvidence: Evidence is always neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I keep a rigorous flow.
CXArea: Select your experience with CX Debate
CXYears: Experience
CXRounds: Rounds
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach to Judging CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 07 Jan 2008
Time: 17:18:37
A few qualifiers to the previous questions: A - Although I can flow quick debate, you should be both fast and clear. If I can't understand you then I will stop listening. C - Jargon is acceptable, but it must be explained. SImply saying turn the argument without explaning the significance of the turn or how you did it will not be sufficient in convincing me of the importance. D - To win the round you should win key arguments, but the arguments should also be incorporated in the value debate.
Judge: Kimberly Cope
Coach: Courtland HS
LDArea: Former LD Coach
LDYears: 6-10 years
LDRounds: 60+ rounds
LDRate: Typical Conversational Style
LDDeliveryWeight: Yes
LDDeliveryViolation: Yes
LDCriterion: It is a major factor in my evaluation.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: both
LDVoting_Issues: moving down the flow, absolutely necessary
LDJargon: acceptable
LDWinner: the winner of the key arguments in the round.
LDEvidence: Evidence is not neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I keep a rigorous flow.
CXArea: Former CX Coach
CXYears: 6-10 years
CXRounds: 60+ rounds
CX_Approach: Tabula Rasa
CX_Delivery: Flow at a Contemporary Clip
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Hate Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 10 Jan 2008
Time: 19:37:04
Must have clash!! Looking for direct clash with plan, contentions, voting issues. Can spread, but must be ale to understand! Kritiks are risky, better be able to pull it off.
Judge: mangus
Coach:
LDArea: Select your experience with LD Debate
LDYears: Experience
LDRounds: Rounds
LDRate: Select the rate of delivery in LD Debate you prefer
LDDeliveryWeight: Yes
LDDeliveryViolation: Yes
LDCriterion: Select the weight you place on the Criterion in LD Debate
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: Select one
LDVoting_Issues: Select one, Select one
LDJargon: Select one
LDWinner: Select the best answer on who is the winner of the debate
LDEvidence: How necessary is evidence (analytical and empirical) in the round?
LDNotes: Select the answer that best describes how you flow the round
CXArea: Select your experience with CX Debate
CXYears: Experience
CXRounds: Rounds
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach to Judging CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 13 Jan 2008
Time: 19:05:02
Judge: Mr Legit
Coach:
LDArea: Former LD competitor
LDYears: 1-3 years
LDRounds: 60+ rounds
LDRate: Rapid Conversational Speed
LDDeliveryWeight: Yes
LDDeliveryViolation: No
LDCriterion: It is a major factor in my evaluation.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: both
LDVoting_Issues: moving down the flow, absolutely necessary
LDJargon: acceptable
LDWinner: the winner of the key arguments in the round.
LDEvidence: Evidence is always neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I keep a rigorous flow.
CXArea: Former LD Debater
CXYears: 1-3 years
CXRounds: 0-20 rds.
CX_Approach: Tabula Rasa
CX_Delivery: Mr. Scott, Give Me Warp Factor 9!
CX_Topicality: Always vote on Topicality
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Love Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Love those Kritiks! Can't get enough
Date: 13 Jan 2008
Time: 19:12:41
Any argument is fine, any speed is fine. If the argument is a priori, tell me why. The standards debate is often not dealt with enough, so tell me why it's important and win it. I appreciate multiple-point analysis on your line-by-line. Impact everything you say.
If you win that your opponents violated T, I'll vote right there. It will be the only thing I look at. If there's no T or you didn't win T, we will see how the evaluation of the flow goes.
Judge: Tom Rollins
Coach:
LDArea: Current LD Coach
LDYears: 1-3 years
LDRounds: 20-40 rds.
LDRate: Rapid Conversational Speed
LDDeliveryWeight: No
LDDeliveryViolation: Yes
LDCriterion: It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: both
LDVoting_Issues: either is acceptable, not necessary
LDJargon: acceptable
LDWinner: the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.
LDEvidence: Evidence is somewhat neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I keep a rigorous flow.
CXArea: Select your experience with CX Debate
CXYears: Experience
CXRounds: Rounds
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach to Judging CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 18 Jan 2008
Time: 06:00:01
I have 8 years of policy debate experience; speed neither bothers nor impresses me. Empirical propositions unsupported by authority are very easily dismissed by opponents. Like it or not, most LD propositions depend heavily on empirical assertions. Values and criteria are useful only to the extent that they support the contentions. There is no separate "values debate;" only a debate about the resolution.
Judge: Sheryl Gusman
Coach: Dominion HS
LDArea: Current LD Coach
LDYears: 1-3 years
LDRounds: 20-40 rds.
LDRate: Typical Conversational Style
LDDeliveryWeight: No
LDDeliveryViolation: No
LDCriterion: It is a major factor in my evaluation.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: voting issues
LDVoting_Issues: either is acceptable, absolutely necessary
LDJargon: should be kept to a minimum
LDWinner: the winner of the key arguments in the round.
LDEvidence: Evidence is somewhat neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I write down the key arguments throughout the round.
CXArea: Current CX Coach
CXYears: 4-5 years
CXRounds: 40-60 rds.
CX_Approach: Policymaker
CX_Delivery: Oratorical and Classic
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 18 Jan 2008
Time: 13:48:17
While I do not vote against or down vote based an excessive speed, I do feel LD is an event that should avoid becoming like contempoary CX. All other elements being equal, I would vote for a more conversational style debater who also wan the major issues in the debate.
Judge: Andy Nolan
Coach: Potomac School
LDArea: Former Policy Debater
LDYears: 1-3 years
LDRounds: 0-20 rds.
LDRate: Rapid Conversational Speed
LDDeliveryWeight: No
LDDeliveryViolation: No
LDCriterion: It is a major factor in my evaluation.
LDCriterionWeight: No
LDFinal_Rebuttal: both
LDVoting_Issues: either is acceptable, not necessary
LDJargon: acceptable
LDWinner: the winner of the key arguments in the round.
LDEvidence: Evidence is always neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I keep a rigorous flow.
CXArea: Experienced CX Judge
CXYears: 6-10 years
CXRounds: 0-20 rds.
CX_Approach: Policymaker
CX_Delivery: Mr. Scott, Give Me Warp Factor 9!
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are Really Cool, I Love 'Em!
CX_Disads: Give me those Good Ole Disads
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 19 Jan 2008
Time: 10:42:37
I debated as a policy debater for 7 years; I coached policy debate for 5 years as well. I'm new to LD debate, but I generally view the debate as who best persuades me to uphold or negate the resolution as a value statement. I view the value as a means toward evaluating the arguments in the debate, but the value in and of itself is meaningless w/o reference to the arguments in the debate or the resolution.
Judge: Bob Powers
Coach:
LDArea: Current LD Coach
LDYears: 6-10 years
LDRounds: 60+ rounds
LDRate: Typical Conversational Style
LDDeliveryWeight: Yes
LDDeliveryViolation: No
LDCriterion: It is a major factor in my evaluation.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: both
LDVoting_Issues: either is acceptable, not necessary
LDJargon: should be kept to a minimum
LDWinner: the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.
LDEvidence: Evidence is somewhat neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I keep detailed notes throughout the round.
CXArea: Select your experience with CX Debate
CXYears: Experience
CXRounds: Rounds
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach to Judging CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 20 Jan 2008
Time: 15:45:06
Judge: Sandra Moore
Coach: Blacksburg High School
LDArea: Current LD Coach
LDYears: 1-3 years
LDRounds: 0-20 rds.
LDRate: Slow, Conversational Style
LDDeliveryWeight: Yes
LDDeliveryViolation: Yes
LDCriterion: It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: both
LDVoting_Issues: either is acceptable, absolutely necessary
LDJargon: should be kept to a minimum
LDWinner: the winner of the key arguments in the round.
LDEvidence: Evidence is somewhat neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I write down the key arguments throughout the round.
CXArea: Select your experience with CX Debate
CXYears: Experience
CXRounds: Rounds
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach to Judging CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 20 Jan 2008
Time: 17:29:33
Judge: Meghan Drummond
Coach: Blacksburg High School
LDArea: Current LD Coach
LDYears: 1-3 years
LDRounds: 0-20 rds.
LDRate: Typical Conversational Style
LDDeliveryWeight: Yes
LDDeliveryViolation: Yes
LDCriterion: It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: both
LDVoting_Issues: either is acceptable, absolutely necessary
LDJargon: should be kept to a minimum
LDWinner: the winner of the key arguments in the round.
LDEvidence: Evidence is somewhat neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I write down the key arguments throughout the round.
CXArea: Select your experience with CX Debate
CXYears: Experience
CXRounds: Rounds
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach to Judging CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 20 Jan 2008
Time: 17:30:46
Judge: Ryan Van Parys
Coach: None
LDArea: Former Policy Debater
LDYears: 1-3 years
LDRounds: 20-40 rds.
LDRate: Typical Conversational Style
LDDeliveryWeight: No
LDDeliveryViolation: No
LDCriterion: It is a major factor in my evaluation.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: both
LDVoting_Issues: moving down the flow, absolutely necessary
LDJargon: acceptable
LDWinner: the winner of the key arguments in the round.
LDEvidence: Evidence is somewhat neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I keep a rigorous flow.
CXArea: Former CX competitor
CXYears: 1-3 years
CXRounds: 60+ rounds
CX_Approach: Tabula Rasa
CX_Delivery: Mr. Scott, Give Me Warp Factor 9!
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 20 Jan 2008
Time: 23:19:38
I do not mind creative argumentation/positions, and I would actually encourage it more in LD. I would best describe myself as a Tabula Rosa judge One thing that I have noticed by judging local LD this year is the lack of substantive clash when comparing criterions. It is absolutely necessary to establish why your criterion is the best link to the agreed upon value, but also, how your evidence links to your respective criterion. Additionally, it would be nice to see some of the debaters link their evidence/advocacy to the opposing debaters criterion so that the decision is clear for the judge. Speed is definitely OK, but clarity is absolutely necessary.
First and foremost, I will listen to any argument. I am not a conservative judge by any stretch. OK, so the questions given here do not really give an accurate portrayal of what is important to me in Policy. I do not mind speed whatsoever, but I would prefer it if you spread with a purpose. Understand your positions, develop a coherent strategy, and chrystalize for me in your rebuttals. I am a huge proponent on weighing impacts, as I would believe every judge is. In a K debate, I cannot stress how important framework is. If you do not understand the world(s) in which your K operates, or really, what it is actually saying, do not run it. Finally, I am happy to vote on Topicality or any type of voting issue stemming off of theory but it must be developed well and not just merely extended continuously across the flow. When discussing any claim regarding fairness, one needs to persuade not just assume.
Judge: Stephen L. O'Baugh
Coach: Turner Ashby High School
LDArea: Former Policy Debater
LDYears: 6-10 years
LDRounds: 40-60 rds.
LDRate: Typical Conversational Style
LDDeliveryWeight: No
LDDeliveryViolation: No
LDCriterion: It is a major factor in my evaluation.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: both
LDVoting_Issues: either is acceptable, absolutely necessary
LDJargon: acceptable
LDWinner: the winner of the key arguments in the round.
LDEvidence: Evidence is somewhat neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I keep a rigorous flow.
CXArea: Former CX competitor
CXYears: 4-5 years
CXRounds: 20-40 rds.
CX_Approach: Stock Issues
CX_Delivery: Flow at a Contemporary Clip
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 21 Jan 2008
Time: 12:43:57
While the above mentions specifically my policy experience it should be noted that I've judged high school LD for over 4 years and participated in collegiate LD (which I consider to be more of a one-man policy). I also have experience in Forensics so I keep a keen eye on speaking ability as well as the above criteria.
While the above mentions specifically my policy experience it should be noted that I've judged high school LD for over 4 years and participated in collegiate LD (which I consider to be more of a one-man policy). I also have experience in Forensics so I keep a keen eye on speaking ability as well as the above criteria.
Judge: Rebecca Jackson
Coach:
LDArea: Former LD competitor
LDYears: 4-5 years
LDRounds: 60+ rounds
LDRate: Typical Conversational Style
LDDeliveryWeight: No
LDDeliveryViolation: No
LDCriterion: It is the primary means by which I make my decision.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: voting issues
LDVoting_Issues: either is acceptable, absolutely necessary
LDJargon: acceptable
LDWinner: the winner of the key arguments in the round.
LDEvidence: Evidence is somewhat neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I keep a rigorous flow.
CXArea: Collegiate Policy Debater
CXYears: 1-3 years
CXRounds: 0-20 rds.
CX_Approach: Stock Issues
CX_Delivery: Mr. Scott, Give Me Warp Factor 9!
CX_Topicality: Always vote on Topicality
CX_Counterplans: Get that Counterplan outta here!
CX_Disads: Give me those Good Ole Disads
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Hate Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 23 Jan 2008
Time: 18:03:10
Don't be mean to me or the other debater...you'll lose. Don't lie you'll lose. Have fun it's just debate.
Time sucks suck don't do them. Have fun, its just debate
Judge: Mallory Pelletier
Coach:
LDArea: Community Judge
LDYears: 1-3 years
LDRounds: 0-20 rds.
LDRate: Typical Conversational Style
LDDeliveryWeight: No
LDDeliveryViolation: No
LDCriterion: It is the primary means by which I make my decision.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: both
LDVoting_Issues: moving down the flow, absolutely necessary
LDJargon: should be kept to a minimum
LDWinner: the winner of the key arguments in the round.
LDEvidence: Evidence is always neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I write down the key arguments throughout the round.
CXArea: Select your experience with CX Debate
CXYears: Experience
CXRounds: Rounds
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach to Judging CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 23 Jan 2008
Time: 18:06:32
Whatever arg you give I just hope your ev. is right...just make sure your facts are correct
Judge: Brandi Davis
Coach: Turner Ashby High School
LDArea: Former LD competitor
LDYears: 1-3 years
LDRounds: 40-60 rds.
LDRate: Typical Conversational Style
LDDeliveryWeight: No
LDDeliveryViolation: No
LDCriterion: It is a major factor in my evaluation.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: both
LDVoting_Issues: moving down the flow, not necessary
LDJargon: acceptable
LDWinner: the winner of the key arguments in the round.
LDEvidence: Evidence is somewhat neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I keep a rigorous flow.
CXArea: Select your experience with CX Debate
CXYears: Experience
CXRounds: Rounds
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach to Judging CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 24 Jan 2008
Time: 08:15:57
Judge: Lord, Molly
Coach: JEB Stuart HS
LDArea: Current LD Coach
LDYears: 1-3 years
LDRounds: 0-20 rds.
LDRate: Typical Conversational Style
LDDeliveryWeight: Yes
LDDeliveryViolation: Yes
LDCriterion: It is a major factor in my evaluation.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: both
LDVoting_Issues: moving down the flow, absolutely necessary
LDJargon: unacceptable
LDWinner: the winner of the key arguments in the round.
LDEvidence: Evidence is always neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I keep detailed notes throughout the round.
CXArea: Select your experience with CX Debate
CXYears: Experience
CXRounds: Rounds
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach to Judging CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 25 Jan 2008
Time: 05:12:15
I feel LD has become too much like policy debate, from the resolutions to the execution. I prefer that LD remain what it was meant to be, a Jargon-free VALUES debate where philosophers are relied upon and the V and VC are of the upmost importance.
Judge: Nick J. Sciullo
Coach:
LDArea: Current LD Coach
LDYears: 1-3 years
LDRounds: 20-40 rds.
LDRate: Rapid Conversational Speed
LDDeliveryWeight: No
LDDeliveryViolation: No
LDCriterion: It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.
LDCriterionWeight: No
LDFinal_Rebuttal: both
LDVoting_Issues: either is acceptable, not necessary
LDJargon: acceptable
LDWinner: the winner of the key arguments in the round.
LDEvidence: Evidence is somewhat neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I keep a rigorous flow.
CXArea: Experienced CX Judge
CXYears: 11+ years
CXRounds: 60+ rounds
CX_Approach: Tabula Rasa
CX_Delivery: Mr. Scott, Give Me Warp Factor 9!
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are Really Cool, I Love 'Em!
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: I love a good ole' CNP
CX_Debate_Theory: Love Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Love those Kritiks! Can't get enough
Date: 26 Jan 2008
Time: 05:30:22
I support anything and everything. It's all fair game. I am a long time policy coach and debater.
Anything goes!
Judge: Bill Wonneberger
Coach: TurnerAshby High
LDArea: Select your experience with LD Debate
LDYears: Experience
LDRounds: Rounds
LDRate: Select the rate of delivery in LD Debate you prefer
LDDeliveryWeight: Yes
LDDeliveryViolation: Yes
LDCriterion: Select the weight you place on the Criterion in LD Debate
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: Select one
LDVoting_Issues: Select one, Select one
LDJargon: Select one
LDWinner: Select the best answer on who is the winner of the debate
LDEvidence: How necessary is evidence (analytical and empirical) in the round?
LDNotes: Select the answer that best describes how you flow the round
CXArea: Select your experience with CX Debate
CXYears: Experience
CXRounds: Rounds
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach to Judging CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 30 Jan 2008
Time: 04:53:24
Judge: Bill Wonneberger
Coach: TurnerAshby High School
LDArea: Current LD Coach
LDYears: 11+ years
LDRounds: 60+ rounds
LDRate: Typical Conversational Style
LDDeliveryWeight: Yes
LDDeliveryViolation: Yes
LDCriterion: It is a major factor in my evaluation.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: both
LDVoting_Issues: either is acceptable, Select one
LDJargon: acceptable
LDWinner: the winner of the key arguments in the round.
LDEvidence: Evidence is somewhat neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I write down the key arguments throughout the round.
CXArea: Current CX Coach
CXYears: 11+ years
CXRounds: 60+ rounds
CX_Approach: Policymaker
CX_Delivery: Flow at a Contemporary Clip
CX_Topicality: Always vote on Topicality
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are acceptable
CX_Disads: Disads are acceptable
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Despise Kritiks... a waste of time
Date: 30 Jan 2008
Time: 05:06:30
I'm flexible, but I do respect the traditional intentions of the people who developed Lincoln-Douglas Debate. It is values debate and therefore the rule stating that no plans will be permitted does matter.
I will listen to arguments and weigh accordingly. If a team says it, I weigh it. If they don't present an argument, I don't consider that argument. If a team runs a generic DA and their opponent calls it that, I will happily agree. Likewise, T arguments, or any other arguments, are only as good as they are presented.
Judge: Marha Anne Lee (Carr)
Coach:
LDArea: Current LD Coach
LDYears: 11+ years
LDRounds: 60+ rounds
LDRate: Rapid Conversational Speed
LDDeliveryWeight: Yes
LDDeliveryViolation: Yes
LDCriterion: It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: voting issues
LDVoting_Issues: either is acceptable, absolutely necessary
LDJargon: should be kept to a minimum
LDWinner: the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.
LDEvidence: Evidence is somewhat neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I write down the key arguments throughout the round.
CXArea: Select your experience with CX Debate
CXYears: Experience
CXRounds: Rounds
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach to Judging CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 01 Feb 2008
Time: 14:40:34
Opponents must respect eqach other, ie no first name put-downs. Depth of argumentation cunts for a lot with me. Throwing out one line arguments and coming back in crystallization to claim the opponent never addressed it will lose you the round.
Judge:
Coach:
LDArea: Select your experience with LD Debate
LDYears: Experience
LDRounds: Rounds
LDRate: Select the rate of delivery in LD Debate you prefer
LDDeliveryWeight: Yes
LDDeliveryViolation: Yes
LDCriterion: Select the weight you place on the Criterion in LD Debate
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: Select one
LDVoting_Issues: Select one, Select one
LDJargon: Select one
LDWinner: Select the best answer on who is the winner of the debate
LDEvidence: How necessary is evidence (analytical and empirical) in the round?
LDNotes: Select the answer that best describes how you flow the round
CXArea: Select your experience with CX Debate
CXYears: Experience
CXRounds: Rounds
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach to Judging CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 01 Feb 2008
Time: 14:42:43
Respect is important, ie no first name put-downs. Depth of argumentation counts. Do not throw out a tag line argument and come back in the crystallization to accuse the opponent of not having addressed it. If an argument is worth my vote, it is worth developing.
Judge: Patricia Hagy
Coach:
LDArea: Current LD Coach
LDYears: 1-3 years
LDRounds: 20-40 rds.
LDRate: Typical Conversational Style
LDDeliveryWeight: Yes
LDDeliveryViolation: No
LDCriterion: It is a major factor in my evaluation.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: voting issues
LDVoting_Issues: either is acceptable, absolutely necessary
LDJargon: should be kept to a minimum
LDWinner: the winner of the key arguments in the round.
LDEvidence: Evidence is somewhat neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I write down the key arguments throughout the round.
CXArea: Select your experience with CX Debate
CXYears: Experience
CXRounds: Rounds
CX_Approach: Select ONE that BEST describes your approach to Judging CX Debate
CX_Delivery: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Topicality: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Counterplans: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Debate_Theory: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Kritiks: Select how important this is to you in your decision
Date: 01 Feb 2008
Time: 18:01:27
well organized and developed cases Appreciate good signposting Look for effective cross-x Selecting key arguments good eye contact Most of all being civil to each other throughout the round
Judge:
Coach:
LDArea: Select your experience with LD Debate
LDYears: Experience
LDRounds: Rounds
LDRate: Select the rate of delivery in LD Debate you prefer
LDDeliveryWeight: Yes
LDDeliveryViolation: Yes
LDCriterion: Select the weight you place on the Criterion in LD Debate
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: Select one
LDVoting_Issues: Select one, Select one
LDJargon: Select one
LDWinner: Select the best answer on who is the winner of the debate
LDEvidence: How necessary is evidence (analytical and empirical) in the round?
LDNotes: Select the answer that best describes how you flow the round
CXArea: Former CX competitor
CXYears: 1-3 years
CXRounds: 40-60 rds.
CX_Approach: Policymaker
CX_Delivery: Oratorical and Classic
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Get that Counterplan outta here!
CX_Disads: Give me those Good Ole Disads
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: Huh? Missed the memo.
CX_Debate_Theory: Hate Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Despise Kritiks... a waste of time
Date: 27 Feb 2008
Time: 11:51:20
Judge: David A. Downes
Coach:
LDArea: No LD Judging Experience
LDYears: No Experience
LDRounds: 0-20 rds.
LDRate: Rapid Conversational Speed
LDDeliveryWeight: No
LDDeliveryViolation: No
LDCriterion: It is a major factor in my evaluation.
LDCriterionWeight: Yes
LDFinal_Rebuttal: voting issues
LDVoting_Issues: moving down the flow, absolutely necessary
LDJargon: acceptable
LDWinner: the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.
LDEvidence: Evidence is always neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: I keep detailed notes throughout the round.
CXArea: Former CX competitor
CXYears: 1-3 years
CXRounds: 60+ rounds
CX_Approach: Hypothesis Tester
CX_Delivery: Mr. Scott, Give Me Warp Factor 9!
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Counterplans are Really Cool, I Love 'Em!
CX_Disads: Give me those Good Ole Disads
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: CNP's are acceptable
CX_Debate_Theory: Love Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 01 May 2008
Time: 08:31:16
I have been a trial lawyer for the past 20 years. Prior to my professional career, I was actively involved with the Wake Forest Debate program for three years and an assistant debate coach at the University of Richmond.
Judge: transunion
Coach: orchard
LDArea: No LD Judging Experience
LDYears: 6-10 years
LDRounds: Rounds
LDRate: Rapid Conversational Speed
LDDeliveryWeight: Yes
LDDeliveryViolation: No
LDCriterion: Select the weight you place on the Criterion in LD Debate
LDCriterionWeight: No
LDFinal_Rebuttal: Select one
LDVoting_Issues: Select one, not necessary
LDJargon: unacceptable
LDWinner: the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.
LDEvidence: Evidence is always neccessary in LD Debate
LDNotes: Select the answer that best describes how you flow the round
CXArea: Former LD Debater
CXYears: 6-10 years
CXRounds: 60+ rounds
CX_Approach: Policymaker
CX_Delivery: Flow at a Contemporary Clip
CX_Topicality: I can take or leave Topicality...
CX_Counterplans: Get that Counterplan outta here!
CX_Disads: Select how important this is to you in your decision
CX_Conditional_Neg_Pos: I hate Cond. Neg. Pos.
CX_Debate_Theory: Can handle Debate Theory Arguments
CX_Kritiks: Can handle Kritiks like everything else
Date: 30 Jun 2008
Time: 02:42:44
Nice Site! http://google.com
Nice Site! http://google.com