Kristen Reid -- Pepperdine

Use the back button on your browser to return to the pref entry page or tournament entry list. The judge philosophy appears in a different format at the bottom of the page.

Judging philosophy:

Kristen Reid
Pepperdine University
Rounds judged on topic: 48
I really feel that debate should be an activity for debaters not for judges. I want debaters to feel
comfortable running the positions that they like in front of me. I want you to have a good time in the
round. However, there are some things that you should take into account.
Also, I do not mind tag team cross ex but I
hate when one partner dominates. You should let your partner invite you to answer or ask questions during
cross ex do not just jump in. THIS IS MY PET PEEVE!! If I think that you are undercutting your partner
during cross ex I WILL NOT HESITATE to deduct two full speaker points from you.
I tend to vote affirmative on topicality a lot. I believe that the negative needs to spend a lot of time
discussing ground loss in order for me to vote on the argument. Also, you need to make sure that you are
warranting your arguments. A lot of topicality arguments become very repetitive and blippy and I find
those arguments very difficult to vote for. If you are going to go for topicality in your last speech you need
to spend a lot of time on it. My feelings about theory debates are much the same. Positions should be well developed and a substantial
part of your final speech should be devoted to it if you want me to vote on it.
I am fine with most mainstream kritik arguments. However, I was a politics debater so if you are running a
kritik you should take a little extra time to slow down a little and explain the argument in detail.
Particularly you should spend time discussing how the impact of the kritik affects the round, my ballot, the
case, etc. I believe that a kritik debate should be very in depth so you will lose speaker points for going for
a kritik when all you are doing is repeating tag lines and key phrases.
As far as performance arguments go I will listen to them and enjoy them but I am unpersuaded by the
argument that the other team must engage in the same types of performance that you do. I will vote for
you if you are able to use your creativity to engage in meaningful discussions about the issues. With regard
to kritiks of debate, I am unpersuaded by arguments about how fast debate, line by line argumentation,
linear argumentation, policy debates, etc. are exclusionary. I believe that there is room in debate for many
different kinds of argumentation.
Lastly, the more I judge the more I realize that good overviews in the final rebuttles have a significant
affect on how I sign my ballot. I want you to weigh your impacts versus the other team’s impacts.
Account for the possibility that you are losing some aspect of the debate and engage in some even-if
analysis. Make sure that you are warranting your arguments and making on point comparisons for why you
are better than the other team. Tell me where you want me to vote first and explain why. The more
directed analysis you give me for how you want me to sign the ballot the happier you and I will be. You
will find that I will just be angered when I give my decision and you start asking me things like: “Well
don’t you think the number 3 on the disad helps to answer the kritik?” If you want me to cross apply
arguments or you think that particular cards are especially important you better make that very clear to me
in your final speech.
Have a great time and good luck!

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision
CSUNOpen3ChicoLaczko27.4Trinkeller27CSUFBrown27.2bugrov27.6NEG
CSUNJV5ASUChotras27.8Rajan27.6SacSt.Renfree27.4Thiel27.3AFF
CSUNNov6SacSt.Fraracci27Powell27.1WeberHancock27.3Woodhall27.2NEG
NCFASpringOpen1FresnoMitchell26.5Tate26.5SacSt.Golsch27Powell27NEG
NCFASpringOpen2LRCCDBrooks27.5Thomson-Burns27.5PolySLCurtin28.5Irani27.5NEG
NCFASpringOpen3FresnoRandawa26.5Galvan27LRCCDDecristoforo26.5Priyadarshini27AFF
NCFASpringOpen4Fresno/SntaClBarton27Cruz27SacSt.Brumer28DeVera27NEG
NCFASpringNov5PolySLCarrasco27.5Jones27SFSUAlmario28Craig28NEG
NCFASpringOpen6SFSUTurner28.5Voeller29LRCCDEvans28Kumar28AFF
NCFASpringOpenQurtLRCCDChowdhury0Stanfield0SFSUHamud0Teter0AFF 2-1 (AFF)
D1QualNov3CSUNAlgorri26.5Babayans26.7LACCLopez28Oyarzun27NEG
D1QualJV5SacSt.Ashton26.6Herman26.5ChicoMcGarry27.7Trinkeller28.5NEG
D1QualNov6PolySLChristos27.1Harris27UNLVLilienthal27.2Scherr27.3NEG
D1QualJVQurtUSCKaiser0Nhan0CSUFAlvarado0Su0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
D1QualJVSemiUSCKaiser0Nhan0ASUChotras0Rajan0AFF 2-1 (NEG)

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: