WIXLIB

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL ACADEMIC STATE MEET 2018 — LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATEJUDGEDENNY, MELLESSAPhilosophy StatementCOMM. SKILLS VS. RES. OF ISSUES NUMERICAL RANKINGSCommunication SkillsResolution of iaApproach43443GHI like to see value clash. I think communication is as important as the quantity of evidence. I can flow quickly but I want to see you communicate to me instead of spew a bunch ofsources without any analysis.DICKSON, CHRISTOPHERPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 33333HADEFI am a tabula rasa adjudicator. I feel like it's very important for the debaters to establish the framework for the debate round. Tell me what to vote on and how that is important for theround. It is imperative to tell me where and how to vote. Value and criterion is a great example of framework, but there are other great frameworks as well in LD. Make sure you tell mehow your framework should be applied in the round and how it should be considered superior to your opponents. I can flow all speeds. However, this is a UIL State Tournament, so it'simperative you adapt to the UIL speaking style in your oral delivery to ensure clarity. Congrats and have fun!DO, HANHPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 33333GHAI tend to be very traditional with my LD philosophy and style and will also accept progressive argumentation only if they pertain to the topic. I despise non-unique argumentation that hasno links. Please make sure you are organized on your casing and properly formatted your argumentation with claim, warrant, impact. Specific questions? ASK.DUNCAN, CODYPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 33342HIt is about communication and persuasion. I enjoy good philosophy application. I am good with wherever you find the weakness in your opponent's arguments. Assertive is fine- rudewill get you a loss. No spreading.COMMUNICATE.page 5

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL ACADEMIC STATE MEET 2018 — LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATEJUDGEEDWARDS, KAYPhilosophy StatementCOMM. SKILLS VS. RES. OF ISSUES NUMERICAL RANKINGSCommunication SkillsResolution of iaApproach53533AI primarily did policy debate in high school, but have judged LD on an almost weekly basis since graduating.I am open to any type of debate that you want to have whether that is a more traditional or more progressive debate. I am comfortable with policy-style argumentation as well as valuecriterion debate.Note about my rankings: I placed a 5 on rate of delivery to indicate that I am comfortable with speed, but don't feel like you have to go fast if you aren't comfortable with it. I put a 3 oneverything else (except Appeals) because I don't really have a preference; ex. criteria may be "necessary" to you, so I will vote like it is if you give me a good, warranted reason to andvice versa.In short, do what you are most comfortable with and I will adapt to you in almost all instances.**I do default to an offense-defense paradigm if no one gives me a weighing or framing mechanism; I prefer you just to give me framing/weighing mechanisms, so that we're on thesame page about the lens through which the round is being evaluated.FENG, MATTHEWPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 55534GI look for logical arguments that have strong supporting evidence. I will not do the work for you in round, so you must explain why an argument is good or not and how it impacts theround. Impacts are important for winning the round, but without warrants, you can't win the impacts.GARDINER, DAVIDPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 34453GHADFI am not a progressive LD judge. I prefer the Value and Criteria to frame the round. I will defer to the main points and positions if the V & C are the same or are not won by either side. Iwill not fill in positions for you but I will extend and cross apply as instructed.GODSEY, SUEPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 42552HI strongly believe that LD is a value debate that requires the upholding of a value with a stated or intrinsic criterion that connects to the topic and provides a good ground for debate.I will not award a win on the basis of amount of evidence, but on consistently built arguments that outweigh the opponent's attempts. Evidence, quotes, theories, and examples are alluseful tools for LD debate which should be used to explain and/or narrow the main points of the debate, but the round should be won by the best-developed argument, success in attackand defense, and most persuasive debater.I have no problem with passionate debates or with those using a lot of evidence, but neither of these will win my ballot.page 6

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL ACADEMIC STATE MEET 2018 — LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATEJUDGEGRAVES, VICTORIAPhilosophy StatementCOMM. SKILLS VS. RES. OF ISSUES NUMERICAL RANKINGSCommunication SkillsResolution of iaApproach33434GHADEFI probably default to policy maker judge but consider myself a critic of argument. I view debate as a discourse for growth and education. I am okay with progressive arguments in LD butdo teach LD in a traditional value and criterion format. Overall, I will vote for the debater with the better argument and the best impact calculus.Summary: I competed in policy debate and extemporaneous speaking for 2 ½ years in a AAAAA high school. I coach at a AAAAA school and have been coach for approximately 5years. I will try to answer questions to the best of my ability before the round within reason. I have taught English for approximately 5 years. I have been judging for 12 years.HAREN, DEBBYPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 35554HDI coached LD for 17 years at Harker Heights High School and was a college CX debater MANY years ago.When I judge an LD round, I pay attention to my flow. I care about dropped arguments, and that certainly includes the value/criterion framework. That said, be sure I can take a goodflow by speaking at a reasonable rate of speed. If you MUST speak quickly, at least give me a chance to catch your tag lines and source citations.I have no issues with theoretical debate or pre-standards or critical arguments, so long as you make me understand them. That said, I still prefer to judge a round about the resolutioninstead of a round about whether or not someone was abusive.I will listen to your Kritiks and Counterplans and even Politics DA’s, but I’m not a fan of any of these types of arguments for LD.I don’t like flex prep, and I do count flashing as part of your prep time. Be prepared and get on with what we all came here to do. Stand for CX.Don’t be rude to your opponent. Respect the activity with professional demeanor.HAYNES, TIMOTHYPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 33333HAThis is a value debate. I judge based on the value and criterion upholding that value. I am not a fan of spreading in LD, nor am I a fan of K's or CP's, but will certainly judge themaccordingly if appropriate and appropriately delivered.Decorum is a must---this is a debate and not an argument.I expect road mapping and sign posting throughout and even voting issues.If my pen is in my hand--I am following you. If not, then I am not understanding what you are debating.HENNESSEY, RYANPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 34433GHI'm like a 7/8 for speed in terms of what I can flow. My preference, however, is a 4/5 during case and a 7/8 in rebuttal where necessary.I will vote on a warranted argument (regardless of whether it is a "traditional" argument. That said, I am hesitant to vote on theory for the sake of running theory. Ex: Running theorywithout a clear in round abuse story is probably not going to fly with me.In general, I would say that I am just going to vote on whatever is the path of least resistance on the flow. Make it easy. Write my ballot.Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.page 7

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL ACADEMIC STATE MEET 2018 — LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATEJUDGEHENSON, JILLPhilosophy StatementCOMM. SKILLS VS. RES. OF ISSUES NUMERICAL RANKINGSCommunication SkillsResolution of iaApproach44353HI still believe this contest is about value debate. The value/criterion relationship is crucial; however, all case arguments should support and link to that framework and should containsufficient warrants. I am also swayed by solid supplementary common sense arguments. The debater who can do this, keep up well on the line by line, and crystallize arguments in thefinal rebuttals wins the round.HESTER, RONPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 13353HI would classify myself as a traditional coach who stresses communication and excellent speaking over the amount of information spread in a round. I prefer debaters who talk to meinstead of those who read to me and expect me to make sense of what I heard. I prefer the simplistic style of getting me to see and understand a debater's position and why I shouldaccept it. I expect both debaters to be polite and respectful at all times during the round especially during CX questions. I love UIL and always want the experience to educate andinspire students to greater heights. Congratulations to all of the students and coaches who earned this trip to Austin.HICKEY, JOANNAPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 33453GHAI am somewhat "old school" when it comes to LD debate. I expect to hear a value and criterion and clash at that level. I do not agree with the policy leaning that LD has taken in recentyears, but I will not automatically vote against you if you debate it. I do not like rudeness in debate rounds and if you are, it will be reflected in your speaker points. Please ask before theround if you have any specific questions. I can judge speed but I do not like it, especially in LD. I am a bit more forgiving in the Aff rebuttals. I tend to give more weight to claims that aresupported with evidence. It is imperative that you include tags with author and dates with your evidence and it should be clear where evidence stops and analysis starts.HOFF, ROXANNEPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 33343HGood communication skills and effective persuasive speaking are key. Convince me that you have the best value, supported by your criterion and contentions. Make connections thatare logical and persuasive. Be organized and go down the flow, hitting your opponent's value, criterion, and contentions and rebutting any attacks. Enjoy the debate!page 8

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL ACADEMIC STATE MEET 2018 — LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATEJUDGEHOLLAND, ROBEYPhilosophy StatementCOMM. SKILLS VS. RES. OF ISSUES NUMERICAL RANKINGSCommunication SkillsResolution of iaApproach44553GHAA more extensive paradigm is available online on the wiki and on tabroom.comMajor Highlights:- Do the things that you do best, I'll adapt to you.- Respect the UIL Forum. No spreading or off-case positions.- My voting process is to look at framework to determine what sorts of offense/impacts matter in the context of the round, then evaluating which side of the debate has the best access tooffense that links to the prevailing framework.- I like to see good line by line debating, argument extensions, and comparative analysis.- Weighing is important to win my ballot. If you're waiting until the end of the 2NR/2AR to provide any weighing that's late.HOLMES, DAVYPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 33324HAI don't have many preset notions regarding LD. I tend to think that the affirmative's burden is to prove that the resolution is true. The negative's burden is to prove the opposite or toshow that the affirmative has failed to meet its burden. I tend to evaluate LD debates as I do policy debates. I almost always default to the offense/defense paradigm.HUNT, TERRYPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 33433GHI am a tabula rasa judge who will allow the debaters to determine how I should evaluate the round. It is important for the debaters to explain to me how I should evaluate the round. I domy best to keep an accurate flow, and I make my decision for each round by how the debaters evaluate the round based on the flow.JOHNSON, AMANDAPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 33343Sum up the round. Explain to me how your value and criteria are better than that of the opposition.page 9HAE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL ACADEMIC STATE MEET 2018 — LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATEJUDGEKIRKSCEY, RUSSELLPhilosophy StatementCOMM. SKILLS VS. RES. OF ISSUES NUMERICAL RANKINGSCommunication SkillsResolution of iaApproach44452HAI prefer strong relationships between the framework and the contentions. Policy implications are fine for impact analysis; however, LD debate ought to address which values we shoulduse before we implement policies. I vote on what I see on the flow. Please give clear voting issues in rebuttals.KOHLEFFEL, ADAMPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of I like clash in LD debate, and I like to hear real-world impacts and consequences.KUEHN, JORDYNPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of IssuesEqualHI want you to stay true to the nature of LD debate. I don't mind speed or creativity in the round, but I do mind not discussing the topic or abusive tactics. You should write the ballot for meand provide a clear weighing mechanism. I'm not obligated to vote on something just because you said it, you need to give me a clear claim, warrant, and impact and even then, youhave to convince me. If I'm not convinced, you're not doing your job as a debater.I don't value pragmatism over philosophy, I believe it's a product of it.LANE, TIMOTHYPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 45543GFramework: is very important but will not decide the round alone. Unless otherwise convinced, I will evaluate the round based on the preferable framework and who better impacts backto that framework. If you can link into your opponents framework, that works too.Nonconventional Args: I am fine with T, K, CP, DA, Theory and Pre-standards, but having competed only in traditional UIL circuits has left me without an advanced understanding ofthem.Postmodernism: Assume I haven't read your author and explain it very clearly. The more complicated the content, the slower you should probably go.Speed: I don't mind if you want to pick up the pace. I will say clear or put my pen down if you are going too fast.Rebuttals: I try to avoid intervening as much as possible. Weigh arguments and give me clear voters. Don’t make me work – you might not like the work I have to do for you.page 10

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL ACADEMIC STATE MEET 2018 — LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATEJUDGELAYMAN, JESSICAPhilosophy StatementCOMM. SKILLS VS. RES. OF ISSUES NUMERICAL RANKINGSCommunication SkillsResolution of iaApproach33434GHIt is vital to have sound logical evidence to support each assertion. Arguments should be specific and well rounded.LONG, CAROLYNPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 34343HPresentation needs to be conducive to audience understanding. Need proof to justify the stance. Present ideas in clear, logical sequence. Need to refute the contentions of opponent.MACIARIELLO, RACHELPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 53353GHAI can keep up with anything you want to do. Please read real alternatives to Ks. Please have real links. If you read DnG please have a ROJ that doesn't contradict striation. I will alwaysdefault to framework as the highest level of the debate. The Roj and rob or Value and value criterion are the lens I'll evaluate the round under. Please tell me how to vote. Any racist,sexist, or homophobic arguments I won't vote on, and will give really bad speaks.MARKHAM, JAMESPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 33343HAUltimately, I believe LD to be determining WHY we should or shouldn't (aka, why its right or wrong) do the resolution, not how it should be implemented. Please avoid the whole 1person CX, as I believe it's totally counterproductive to the concept of Value Debate. Aside from that, as long as you communicate, provide clash, and show me why I should give youthe win, it'll be a great round.page 11

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL ACADEMIC STATE MEET 2018 — LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATEJUDGEMARTIN, JEFFREYPhilosophy StatementCOMM. SKILLS VS. RES. OF ISSUES NUMERICAL RANKINGSCommunication SkillsResolution of iaApproach33353GAI tend to prefer a traditional Value/Value Criterion Debate. I can and have handled more progressive debate involving Frameworks. A plan or alternative is not suggested in this format.Please apply arguments where you want them to be applied, I will not do that for you. Remember this is a communication event. Clear speech is paramount. Ask questions prior to startof round if necessaryMARTINEZ, VICTORPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 15353GHAValue and criterion should be developed and defended. Only arguments that have a claim, warrant and impact are weighed. I judge based on offense/defense, rebuttals, and voters.MCELYEA, PRESTONPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of 33333GAI’m a tab judge. Speech and communication matter greatly. Be sure you sign-post and effectively communicate your arguments; spreading is not always the most effective means ofcommunication.MCKENZIE, RORYPhilosophy StatementCommunication SkillsResolution of IssuesEqualDeliveryEvidenc

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL ACADEMIC STATE MEET 2018 — LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE COMM.SKILLSVS.RES.OF ISSUES NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE I am a traditional judge and appreciate a lot of value and criteria debate. Communication is a large part of this debate for me. 2 3 3 5 3