Hartney,+Gregg


 * //CX Judging Philosophy for Gregg Hartney//**
 * //School: Jenks HS, Oklahoma//**
 * //Number of years judging policy debate: 46 (nope, that's not a typo)//**
 * //Number of years coaching (HS & college): 42//**
 * //OK, the numbers above should tell you a lot. I'm not the Fastest Pen in the West anymore, and if I can't flow it I can't/won't vote for it. I'll give you non-verbal and verbal warnings when you have passed my capacity. After that, you're on your own.//**
 * //I probably come down as being relatively conservative in my approach to judging. My default position is as a traditional policy-maker; if you want me to be something different, you'd better give me a really good reason. I'll tell you up front that I am not an astute critic of dance, poetry reading, mime, or song, so asking me to judge your performance in those modes of communication is not likely to yield the result you want. It took me long enough to learn how to judge orally presented arguments in a speech format; anything else is beyond my pay grade.//**
 * //I am slowly warming to kritiks, and have found a few I like. The link story is absolutely critical (no pun intended), and by that I don't mean "well, they have the government do something so that triggers ___." Specific links to specific policies are expected. I don't think I have ever voted for a kritik that did not have an articulated and defended alternative. Do not assume that I will automatically accept a position just because some of my teams run it.//**
 * //Evidence to me is the backbone of debate, but I will not call for it at the end of the round unless there has been an articulated dispute over its content or meaning; I won't re-read a card simply because it was read unintelligibly in the first place.//**
 * //Cross-Ex is important, and it is binding. While my strong preference is for "closed" CX, I acknowledge that this places me in the small minority of judges so I won't impose that on the debaters. But if all CX is going to used for is to find out what the other people said in the preceeding speech, I think we are missing an important part of the debate process. Show me you really understand the issues by your questions and your answers and your points will go up and I'll be more likely to accept your closing arguments in rebuttals.//**
 * //On language: I'm certainly no prude, but nothing in my job description requires me to sit in a room while a HS student spews profanity at me. I'll be signing the ballot for the other team as I leave.//**


 * //LD JUDGING PHILOSOPHY for Gregg Hartney//**

School: Jenks HS, Oklahoma Number of years coaching LD: 33 Number of years coaching speech and debate: 39

I came to value debate after having debated policy for 8 years in HS and college and after 2 years of coaching college policy debate and 4 years of coaching HS policy debate, and I still actively coach HS policy debate. Thus undoubtably colors my approach to value debate; I see policy and value as 2 variations on the same theme. The essence of ALL debate is clash, and my mantra for successful debate has always been: apply it, prove it, defend it, extend it. Given that this is Value Debate, there should be a value, and the debaters should identify it in their case or their subsequent argumentation. I would expect that the support and development of this value would be the crux of the case development. This issue tells me how I weigh your value versus your opponent's value and/or how I measure how well your side of the resolution succeeds in achieving that value. As such, it is a critical element of each debater's case.
 * Values:**
 * Criterion/Criteria:**


 * Evidence and Basic Argumentation:**

If all I wanted to hear was debaters' opinions on a subject, I would judge more Original Oratory. You must prove what you claim, but I also want to hear you develop and apply that proof with your own analysis and warrants. Don't expect me to fill in the gaps for you or to know what the nuances of a philosopher's writings have been. I do my level best to vote based on what the debaters tell me in the round and not what I bring to the round with me.
 * Voters:**

This is where you give me your interpretation of the round and what you think justifies a ballot in your favor. Be selective in what you include in your voters, but also make sure theres something there you can hang your hat on. Please give voters; however don't give 5 or 6. You should be able to narrow the debate down to the critical areas. If an argument is dropped, then make sure to explain the importance or irrelevance of that argument; don’t just give me the "it was dropped so I win argument." I may not buy that it is an important argument; you have to tell me why it is I am no longer the "Fastest Pen In the West" (if indeed I ever was); I do my best to keep up, but your presentational skills have as much to do with that as my aging fingers. Clarity and organization wil take you a long way and will make my understanding of your positions that much better. Being nice is a plus, being funny while still being nice is even better
 * Presentation:**