Judge Philosophies
Aaliyah Drayton - VSU
n/a
Aaliyah Castro - LEE
n/a
Aaron Calhoun - BPCC
n/a
Abby Weiss - ACU
n/a
Adam Naiser - UAMONT
n/a
Adrienne Lunceford - Jeff State
n/a
Alec Edstrom - LTU
n/a
Alex Vera - MSU
n/a
Alex Gibson - BPCC
n/a
Alex Mills - A-State
!!!!!IPDA!!!!!
As for the affirmative and negative,you really cannot go wrong with me in terms of what kinds of arguments I like or dislike as long as they are both reasonable and fair.That being said, I really enjoy out of the box arguments or those that have huge impacts. When it comes to weighing mechanisms just keep it simple, I'd rather hear more about the actual topic than the fw.
I'm pretty much chill with anything in the round, just be nice to one another and debate! :)?
Amelia Southern (They/Them) - UARK
n/a
Amy Madrid - CoSI
n/a
Andrew Jones - LEE
n/a
Andy Orr - CoSI
As a communication instructor, I believe the purpose of this activity is to prepare students to critically think and engage others in a meaningful way. Ergo, students should deliver arguments clearly with emphasis on effective communication. I am convinced that a few well-developed arguments can prove to be more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.
For constructive speeches, try to address arguments individually. However, grouping is absolutely fine too. With the final rebuttal speech, avoid line-by-line and instead provide a summary of voting area that address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches.
On Policy & Fact Debate:
For organization, sign post your tag lines, and give your citation clearly. Let us know when you have finished quoting material before your own analysis.
Avoid oral prompting or interrupting your partner as much as possible. I consider it to be rude and disrespectful toward your partner. Additionally, part of this activity is learning to work as a team and depending on another person for your success. This is an essential skill in life and you would never use verbal prompting in a business meeting, sales pitch, or political speech. Therefore, it really has no place in an activity designed to create in students those skills.
On Value Debate:
Value debate is by definition, a meta analysis of a topic. The first level of that debate is the overarching value. Students should present and defend a value that has been carefully chosen to have a non-absurd and debatable counter value e.g. capitalism vs. socialism and not freedom vs slavery (forces the opponent to be morally repugnant).
Wonderful debates can occur on by debating value level, but they rarely will win the debate because people (smarter than us) have discussed philosophers, implications, etc. and we still have no concrete answers.
Criteria are the next level of the meta debate. Again we could have a wonderful discussion on the merits of act utilitarianism vs. the categorical imperative, but it would not settle the issue, nor would it persuade the judge on either side of the resolution (although you can win a round by default if your opponent is not able to effectively articulate their value or criterion). Criterions are most useful if treated separately as a test of your contentions rather than a policy-type mechanism for achieving a value.
Your contentions are the real heart of the debate and should be the main focus. Claim, warrant, and conclusion are essential to every argument and can be contested on each or every one of those tenants. The key in value debate is to provide context after giving your argument as to how it affects the criterion and proves your case & value.
On Debate Theory
I have no preference in terms of philosophical, theoretical, or empirical arguments as long as they contain the three parts to make them an argument. Be sure that each part is present: claim, grounds, and warrant. Use this strategy: a. I say.....(claim) b. because......(grounds & warrant) c. and this means.....(impact)
I would find it difficult to vote for a kritik in general, and it would be extremely unlikely in a value round. First, there is already so much to cover in a limited amount of time; I dont think one can do the kritik justice (in other words, I am not often convinced of their educational/rhetorical value because we simply do not have enough time to reach that goal). That being said, if there is an in-round instance prompting a performative kritik, I think there can be a direct link made to education and the ballot being used as a tool.
Second, these arguments by their nature avoid the proposed topic. Thus, they skew preparation time when run by the affirmative and are seemingly a method of last resort when put forward by the negative. Moreover, in a value debate, a kritik provides no ground (or morally reprehensible ground) on which to make a counter case. Thus, the only way to rebuttal is to argue against the philosophical grounding (which leads to a muddled debate at best) or the alternatives which makes it a de-facto policy debate (and is contrary to the purpose of value debate).
The only stock issue that is a default voter is inherency. If the status quo is already addressing the problem, then there is no reason to prefer the plan. Harms and significance are at best mitigations. If you win those arguments, there still is no reason not to do the plan. Solvency and advantages must be turned to become voters. You'll need to prove the plan causes the opposite effect. However if you mitigate either of these, you'll need to pair it with a disadvantage or counter plan to give me a reason not to try the plan.
Each off case position must have a good structure and be complete in its construction (I wont fill in the blanks for you). Additionally any off case argument needs a clear under-view when it is presented (not just in the rebuttals) indicating how it fits into the round, and how I should consider it in my vote.
I prefer debate theory responses to be the first counter/refutation against an argument. In essence, they are a reverse voting issue, and do not easily fit into a line-by-line. Take a few moments and tell me the theory story, then (just in case I don't buy it) get into actually refuting the opponent's arguments.
Angel Smith - ACU
n/a
Angelina Peruzzini - MTSU
n/a
Anita Francis - LEE
n/a
Anna Ward - UAMONT
n/a
Anthony Copeland - LTU
n/a
Ashley Hale (she/her) - LTU
n/a
Ashley Rodriguez - LEE
n/a
Athena Shead - UTK
n/a
Aubrie Cagle - UU
n/a
Avery Appleton - UARK
n/a
Billy Owens (he/him) - LTU
n/a
Blake Denney - Jeff State
n/a
Bob Glenn - Owensboro
n/a
Brandon Knight - WmCarey
Compete with dignity.
Brayden Chiatovich - CoSI
I appreciate it when both the affirmative and negation can move past definitions and framework and focus directly on clashing and analyzing the arguments brought into the round. Take time to address major issues in the round and make impactful rebuttals and arguments, I do not like it when people bring up repeated arguments or have replies that do not address the core issue of the opponents claim. Quality over quantity of arguments will always win in my book, otherwise I am open to different debate strategies and techniques.
Breanna Betts - MSU
n/a
Bright Ajayi (he/him) - Park
n/a
Bryton Miller (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Cameron Richards - UTK
n/a
Carlos Reyes - LEE
n/a
Cassie Kutev - LEE
n/a
Charis Murrey - UU
n/a
Christian Huggins - A-State
Christina Smith - A-State
n/a
Cole Pawlaczyk - UTK
n/a
Cooper Longino - BPCC
n/a
Cuauhtemoc Olvera - MVC
n/a
Daisy Rehbock (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Daniel Davis (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
David Bowers - MVC
n/a
Dayhath Marte-Herrera - WmCarey
n/a
Devin Hutchins - MSU
n/a
Diego Moreno - LEE
n/a
Elaine Csoros - UU
n/a
Eli Bowles - CoSI
n/a
Elias Perry - LEE
n/a
Elijah Jarrell - UTK
n/a
Elizabeth Newland - CoSI
n/a
Ella Heath - A-State
n/a
Elliot Certain (he/they) - MTSU
n/a
Emily McDonald - ACU
n/a
Emma Jaramillo - LEE
n/a
Emma Jaax - ACU
n/a
Emmitt Antwine - LTU
n/a
Emmy Rains - Jeff State
n/a
Eric Ryan - SMU
n/a
Ethan Arbuckle - ACU
n/a
Eva Agcaoilli - MVC
n/a
Evy Jones - CoSI
n/a
Faith Carter (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Falk Gilch - CoSI
n/a
Gracyn McGathy - ACU
n/a
Greenlee Crow (They/Them) - UARK
n/a
Hailey Hazen - SMU
n/a
Hannah Risker - A-State
Hannah Maniscalo - ACU
n/a
Hannah Morris (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Hannah Dryer - UU
n/a
Hannah Freeland - UU
n/a
Heaven Sheppard - Jeff State
n/a
Hunter Sullivan (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Isabelle Marshall - UTK
n/a
Jack Clifford - CoSI
n/a
Jacob Hayes - VSU
n/a
Jacob Goldberg - Jeff State
n/a
Jacob Davidson - Jeff State
n/a
Jake Peace - ACU
n/a
Jakob Volcheck - BPCC
n/a
Jane Anne Carroll - ACU
n/a
Jason Rogers - WmCarey
n/a
Jeremy Wallace - CoSI
n/a
Jessica Rogers - MTSU
n/a
Jewel Thomas (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Joe Dattola - ACU
n/a
Jordan Jones - CoSI
n/a
Josh Danaher - ACU
n/a
Josh Doile - VSU
n/a
Joshua Rogers - WmCarey
Joshua D Rogers Paradigm
Joshua Rogers
B.A. Classics, Ph.D. Linguistics
Director of Forensics & Latin Teacher - Presbyterian Christian High School (Hattiesburg, MS)
Forensics Head Coach - William Carey University
Experience:
Oratory and Communication experience in High School
Discourse and Communication theory in Undergrad and Graduate work
Teaching Speech and Debate since 2015
Basic Judging Paradigm:
I will judge the flow
I want substantive arguments and clash
Weigh your impacts at the end
Bad sportsmanship leads to reduction of points
Don't talk down to the judge
Public Forum: Give evidence, cite, analyze - don't just restate claims three ways. I encourage Neg, don't just rebut, build a world in which you can win.
Lincoln Douglas/Policy:
I attempt to be tabula rasa, but when no decision-rule calculus is provided, I default to understanding and applying morality arguments. I tend to see the debate in an offense/defense paradigm.
I default to competing interpretations on Topicality, and reasonability on all theory. If you define value and criteria, stay with your parameters.
I am fine with speed, but clarity is key.
I would like to be on your email chain (jdrogers @wmcarey.edu) so I can look at cards that your reference in cross-examination.
LD Note: I tend to view the value/value criterion debate as less important than substantive arguments. Impacting your arguments is incredibly important. Cheap shots / tricks are not the way to my ballot (because: reasonability). I also will not vote for an argument I don't understand based on your explanation. I will not read your case later to make up for a lack of clarity when you spread. If I can't flow it, it's like you never made that argument.
Policy: I like to hear clash on evidence. Evaluate evidence since you have it in front of you. But more important, outline and build a plan. Explain how and why it works.
Don't give me outrageous impacts, we all know the world COULD end. Show how the plan results in impact, not just slippery slope.
Neg feel free to build Kritic if you can, always enjoyable.
I would like to be on your email chain (jdrogers @wmcarey.edu) so I can look at cards that your reference in cross-examination.
Joshua Julian - VSU
Joshua Wheaton - MTSU
n/a
Jovanni Arellano - LEE
n/a
Kailee Carter - LTU
n/a
Kale Rector (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Kaleb Chester - ACU
n/a
Kara Taylor - LTU
n/a
Kaylee Tegan - CoSI
DEBATE
My debate philosophy is quite simple, I prefer clear, structured arguments about the resolution. I dont enjoy spending the entire round hearing arguments about framework and definitions unless ABSOLUTELY necessary to the round. I also prefer quality arguments over a mass quantity of arguments. I prefer speeches that are slow and easy to understand rather than overloading your opponent and judge with fast arguments. I tend to not vote on dropped arguments unless it is absolutely necessary in the round. With organization, signposting contentions and on-time, brief road maps are preferred.
Most importantly, I expect all competitors to be respectful and civil when debating. I will not tolerate rude competition.
IE
For individual events and speeches, organization is very important. All parts of a speech should be easily identifiable. I am listening to the content of a speech as well as the delivery. Is there eye contact with the judge and audience? Do you know your speech well? Speeches should not be over the time limit.
Kimberly Truong - LEE
n/a
Lauren Lindley - CoSI
n/a
Lea Sutton (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Leslie Alexander - BPCC
n/a
Lynn Foster - WmCarey
n/a
Madison McCarthy - UU
n/a
Madison Plaisance - LTU
n/a
Marie Stone - A-State
I am a student at Arkansas State University currently pursuing a bachelors degree in psychology with a minor in communication studies and a certificate in debate and forensics. I prefer if you dont spread, but I can usually understand fast talkers pretty well. In a debate round, I like to see passion and interest in the subject in a speaker. Normally, I dont do hand signals, but if you need them I need you to tell me before you start. Also, please time yourselves.
Matt Ritchie - ACU
n/a
Matthew Gedeon (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Meeyah Davis - ACU
n/a
Megan Dial (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Megan Niju - UU
n/a
Merry Ashlyn Gatewood - UU
n/a
Micah McGee - UU
n/a
Micah McGee - A-State
n/a
Michael Gray - A-State
This part pertains mostly to
Parli, BUT you should probably read it since it represents what I believe about debate in general. See below for IPDA.
Me: Debated for A-State from
2007-2011; mostly Parli, but some IPDA and Worlds. Assistant coach for A-State
from 2011-2013 and Director of Debate for A-State from 2016-present.
In General: I'll listen to anything,
but I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants or logical impact
scenarios.
Speaker Points: These
exist to reward good speakers. What is a good speaker? For me, a good speaker
has little to do with who won the round. Speed doesn't make you a good speaker. Knowing
lots of stuff doesn't make you a good speaker. Winning an argument doesn't make you a good speaker. It's that other thing that makes you good. Do that. Make sense?
Case: By default, my stance is that the Aff has the
burden of proof & the burden of rejoinder. It is your job to fairly limit
the round and present a clear case that upholds the resolution. If you can
convince me otherwise, do it.
I'll gladly vote on an aff
K if it makes sense and wins. But listen... it is better when your opponent can
engage. So, make your aff K clear and accessible. Save the ninja stuff for neg.
T: I love a well-run
topicality argument. Or 2. Or 3. I am completely okay with collapsing to T. I
actually think teams should do it more often. It's a lost art.
Spec/Vagueness: Yes. But be reasonable with it. And don't take my use of the work "reasonable" as an indication that it's the only counter-standard you ned (aff).
K: Yes, please. Avoid
any blatant mis-readings and misapplications (please listen to this...
please). You will have a difficult time winning my ballot if you're
(intentionally or not) misrepresenting the nature of another
person's rhetoric or using well-established theory in a way that it was
not intended. If you need to make an argument that you cannot find written in a tome somewhere, make the argument from your own brain... don't try to shove a square author into a round round.
DA/CP/Condi: structure,
structure, structure.
My default stance is that all Neg arguments are conditional. If, however, the debate turns to theory, Aff can win condi-bad. I'll listen. I need clear articulation of theory arguments, not just blippy responses that require me to intervene to fill in the blanks.
Speed and Speed K: I
prefer upbeat debate and a good pace. If you've clocked yourself, I am totally comfortable
with a clear rate of speech around 275-325wmp. I've rarely seen a need for
anyone to argue that fast. In all honesty, parli is at its best when
highly-trained, charismatic debaters engage in argumentation at about
200-250wpm. Anything faster and you're probably repeating yourself, skipping
syllables, and missing good arguments for the sake saying more words. That
said, if you're one of those super-clear talkers (you know who you are), I
might be willing to tolerate your top speed for part of the debate. <--- maybe 1% to 5% of the field in parli can really do this well. Chances are, you are not in that 1% to 5%. In competition, go as fast as you need to go and can go without losing clarity... and go no faster. Please.
If I or your opponent
calls clear and you do not respond appropriately, you will receive the lowest
speaker points you've ever gotten. I promise. You may well win the round, but
you will have done so unethically and I cannot award high speaks to unethical
debaters who intentionally ignore a legit request for access. I really don't care how you feel about this. I will
vote on a speed K... IF it is run correctly, makes sense, and defended
appropriately. I will not vote on "they talk fast and it's not fair."
Rebuttals: By the time
we get to the rebuttals, I've heard enough line-by-line. I'd appreciate a
bit more here, but if your rebuttal sounds exactly like your previous speech
(pay attention, Neg), I'm already bored. Come on, this is your chance to really
secure those speaker points. Show me that you can tend to the line-by-line and
cover the flow and still give me a clear summarization of advocacy and impact
analysis at the bottom.
Time, Timers, &
Beeps: Thanks and roadmaps off time; quickly. I prefer you time one another. If
you are unable, I'll start my timer when you start debating. When my timer
beeps, you get maybe 10 words before I stop flowing. I've had more sentence
fragments at the bottom of a flow than I can count. Look... just time your
arguments. It's not difficult to just be done talking 1 second before the timer
goes... it's impressive and judges notice it. Be impressive.
At the end of the day, I
believe that debate is an educational game and that education does not have to
be at odds with gameplay. It's both, so do both. Make it interesting and
competitive, play fair, and you'll receive what you earn.
Anyway, unlike some other judges, I will offer you the respect of listening very closely to well-structured, well-thought-out articulations of abuse; I'll listen to vagueness presses; I'll listen to articulations of abuse at the level of definitions, as well as criteria/framing. If your opponent really has skewed ground in the round, then you have 6 minutes to really, really, really dig into the implications of that and convince me that it is a voting issue (HINT: USE THE CONSTITUTION).
Mik Davis - MTSU
n/a
Mike Eaves - VSU
Procedurals:
T-I have no artificial threshold on topicality. I will vote on abuse. Typically, cross x checks back on T.
Ks-framwork is paramount and the alternative. Please do not run "Vote Neg" as the sole alternative. There
should be more thought on the alt.
Speed. I have a high school and college policy background. I coached CEDA from 93-00 and coach NPDA, parli style
from 01-present
Counterplans--PICS are fine. Agent CPS are fine. In the end, I am tabula rasa and will default to impact calc to resolve plan debate
Das--uniqueness is key. Internal links are important. Please watch double turning yourself in the 2AC. I do not like performative contradictions and will vote against them
Performance/Project-I am progressive and liberal here. Run it and defend it. If you are on the other side, debate it straight up. A counter-performance is a legit strategy.
Have fun. I dislike rude debaters. I will vote on language abuse if a team calls it (ex: sexist, racist, etc lang)
Nate Goldstein - LTU
n/a
Nathan Mustapha - LEE
n/a
Nathan Marshall - ACU
n/a
Neel Patel - LTU
n/a
Ngan (Kim) Dong - UU
n/a
Paavan Atluri (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Paris Thompson - LTU
n/a
Patricia Meyer - MVC
n/a
Patrick Richey (he/him/Dr.) - MTSU
Meh. I've judged a few rounds. I hate rudeness and disrespect in rounds. Keep it nice and cordial. Don't BS me. I like cats!!!!
Price Morgan - SMU
n/a
Priscilla Guerra - LEE
n/a
Rachel Wisden - ACU
n/a
Rebecca Richey - MTSU
Dr. Who or Super Natural references!
Rebecca Currie - LEE
n/a
Reid Pinckard (He/They) - UARK
n/a
Rigo Ruiz - LEE
n/a
Rodricqus Scott - VSU
n/a
Ruth Dismukes - Jeff State
n/a
Ryan Wagy - UU
n/a
Sarah Coppola - UU
n/a
Seth Blair - UU
n/a
Shahroz Zameer - UARK
n/a
Somer Shannon - A-State
IPDA Judge Philosophy
Stassja Campbell (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Stephania Ortez - VSU
n/a
Swasti Mishra - UTK
n/a
Tabitha Keylon - UU
n/a
Tanner Marlow - MSU
n/a
Tanner Bowman - ACU
n/a
Thaddeus Stringer - ACU
n/a
Trakevious Thompson - WmCarey
n/a
Trenon Pritchard - ACU
n/a
Will Jamison - UARK
n/a
Will Jamison - UARK
n/a