kissmycls
11-27-06, 12:02 PM
This is from the 2006 NPTE.
Danny Iberri-Shea
NAU
Parli Debates judged this year: 60+
Non-Parli Debates judged this year: 10+
Years Judging Debate: 4
Years Competed in Debate: 8
What School Competed at: L.A. Valley Moorpark NAU
Making Decisions: '--My decision is based on my approach to decision-making though I do consider adjusting for what the debaters argue I am fine with games but please explain/justify what you are attemting to do.'
Decision-making Approach: '--I focus on the stock issues (the government needs to show significance/harms inherency solvency disadvantages or for fact-value topics value-criteria and contentions) Solving for harms is more important to me than having groovy advantages. Significance is a stock issue.'
Assessing Arguments: 'Weak arguments can be dropped without penalty. Weak positions should be promptly kicked. You can t have your cake and eat it too! :)'
Presentational Aspects: 'Any delivery rate is fine so long as it is clear. I don t like seeing speed used as a tool of oppression but then again I don t expect any novices at the NPTE. Have fun!'
Strong Viewpoints: 'I find economic theory painfully boring. If the topic forces you to argue economics I would rather hear the human/labor/environmental perspectives that relate to economic theory.'
Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'I love theory and jurisdictional stuff. That being said I feel that way too many neg teams rely on PICS these days as a means of avoiding critical and deeply challenging positions to cases. I will listen to most any position including why topical counterplans justify voting aff.'
Other Items to Note: 'Not all claims warrant a plan. Think about what the resolution is asking you to prove. Be topical. Create unique burdens/criteria to prove each unique claim. Plese stand up for all questions and all speeches (this is only polite). Have fun be respectful and please avoid excessive talking while the other team is presenting arguments. :)
Danny Iberri-Shea
NAU
Parli Debates judged this year: 60+
Non-Parli Debates judged this year: 10+
Years Judging Debate: 4
Years Competed in Debate: 8
What School Competed at: L.A. Valley Moorpark NAU
Making Decisions: '--My decision is based on my approach to decision-making though I do consider adjusting for what the debaters argue I am fine with games but please explain/justify what you are attemting to do.'
Decision-making Approach: '--I focus on the stock issues (the government needs to show significance/harms inherency solvency disadvantages or for fact-value topics value-criteria and contentions) Solving for harms is more important to me than having groovy advantages. Significance is a stock issue.'
Assessing Arguments: 'Weak arguments can be dropped without penalty. Weak positions should be promptly kicked. You can t have your cake and eat it too! :)'
Presentational Aspects: 'Any delivery rate is fine so long as it is clear. I don t like seeing speed used as a tool of oppression but then again I don t expect any novices at the NPTE. Have fun!'
Strong Viewpoints: 'I find economic theory painfully boring. If the topic forces you to argue economics I would rather hear the human/labor/environmental perspectives that relate to economic theory.'
Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'I love theory and jurisdictional stuff. That being said I feel that way too many neg teams rely on PICS these days as a means of avoiding critical and deeply challenging positions to cases. I will listen to most any position including why topical counterplans justify voting aff.'
Other Items to Note: 'Not all claims warrant a plan. Think about what the resolution is asking you to prove. Be topical. Create unique burdens/criteria to prove each unique claim. Plese stand up for all questions and all speeches (this is only polite). Have fun be respectful and please avoid excessive talking while the other team is presenting arguments. :)