Dillard,+Tiffany

Tiffany Dillard

Judging Philosophy

Ede Warner, 16 years coaching experience Tiffany Dillard, 5 yrs. Lindsey Bird, First year judging Arayfael Guillemet, First year judging George Zubaty, First year judging. Motriyo Isles-Warner, 6 yrs.

Our default framework for evaluation of a debate is a persuasive-speaking model of policy debate. We embrace the following method for evaluation of a policy debate: we will make three judgments to decide a debate: one for which team had the best ethos or ethical appeal (credibility) regarding the topic; one for which team had the best pathos appeal (emotional appeal) regarding the topic; one for which team had the best logos appeal (evidence and reasoning) regarding the topic.

The evaluation standards for each category we default to are as follows: ethos- the communication of one’s competence and character regarding the topic; pathos- identification of what emotions are being conveyed to audience and whether those emotions are best for policy making with regards to topical argument; and finally, logos- communication of whose evidence and reasoning are better.

To summarize, at the end of the debate, these Louisville judges will make a decision for the team who wins at least 2 of the three evaluation categories. Debaters are free to make persuasive arguments challenging either our default framework or the default standards for one or more of the three categories, but recognize that the judge must be able to access the arguments being made. Louisville judges will take extensive notes, although not necessarily trained in “flowing” and not necessarily trained in handling “speed”.

We have all been judging debates in this model.