[eDebate] Judge Philosophy: Noriaki Tajima, Wayne State

Kelly Young kel1773
Mon Sep 8 13:31:33 CDT 2008






Name: Noriaki Tajima

Position: Assistant
Debate Coach

School: Wayne
 State University

Years of Judging: 6 years
(mostly in Japan)

 

I am a doctoral student
at Wayne State
 University, studying rhetorical
theory and criticism, critical/cultural studies and whatnots. I was a policy
debater in Japan
for 4 years, judged tons of rounds there and 10+ rounds in the US,
and now I?m working as an assistant debate coach at Wayne.

 

General Philosophy: I am pretty
open to any types of arguments. If I had to give you my preference between a
policy, K, and performance debate I?d probably tell you I prefer policy, only
because I do not have a firm grounding in all K literatures and because I may
be culturally blind to some race/ethnicity/gender/etc. But, again, as far as
you can make them clear in round, I can be quite easily open.

 

Flow: I?m okay with fast
AND clear delivery, and I?ll make my best effort to note your arguments as far
as they?re intelligible. But it?s better to keep in mind that my primary
language is not English: Maybe you want to slow down on tags and plan text, and
explain more about your arguments in overviews.

 

Evidence: In rebuttals, I
don?t want to hear tag lines just reiterated but the contents of cards
elaborated and some lines highlighted or even re-read with good warrants. Post-round
inspection is just for confirmation of what I heard in round.

 

Theory: I ran a lot of
theory arguments, but I scarcely voted on them. If you want to run, please make
your arguments thorough and specific, spotting why their _particular_ argument/act/performance needs
to be voted against.

 

Ks: I?m okay with any Ks,
but I prefer the ones specific to this topic and the aff. case. If you want to
run a language, K, please be careful--my native language is not English.

 

Ts: I?m probably an neg.
hack. I was a big fan of Herbeck and Katsulas? ?reasonability standard?
article, and I still think that, if the aff. case is not blatantly non-topical,
topicality debates are very likely to end up unproductively. So, if you want to
run Ts, please show me a clear, specific
in-round ground loss, and probably give more efforts to explain that
than you may do to other judges.

 

CPs: I?m okay with any
types of CPs. Some of my minimal predispositions include: Topical CPs welcomed;
perms must be clear; exception CPs can be easily
absorbable in this topic (if you don?t want that, please make solid arguments
on ?nearly all?, theoretically shift my position, and/or make a good effort on
plan and 1AC CX); international fiat can be (easily, I believe) justified
and/or good solvency cards that prove workability and desirability.

 

CX: Obviously most
exciting part of debate. I like questions trying to establish your own ground,
discredit their arguments, and to show to me how you want to win. _Please
please_ be nice, civil, and enjoy yourself.



Kelly M. Young, Ph.D.
Director of Forensics/
Assistant Professor
Communication Department
Wayne State University
585 Manoogian Hall
Detroit, MI 48201
(313) 577-2953
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080908/0d4cd003/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list