Judge Philosophies
Abigaile Grubb - Hired
n/a
Ben Krueger - Nevada
Ben Krueger (he/him/his)
University of Nevada, Reno
I competed in Parli and IEs in the early 2000s at Northern Arizona University. After many years away from competitive forensics, I returned to judging in 2016. I have been the assistant director at UNR since 2019.
General Debate Views and Preferences
1. I come from a traditional policymaking background, but I'm open to multiple frameworks and interpretations of debate. It's up to you to defend and justify your framework choices in the round.
2. I don't do well with speed. The faster you spread, the more likely it is that I'll miss arguments on the flow and make a decision you won't like.
3. Structure is good and I appreciate signposting, but remember that it's not a replacement for substantive argument. Having a catchy tagline is not the same thing as having a well-developed warrant that supports your claim.
4. Rebuttal speeches should "zoom out" and give me a big picture overview of what's going on in the round. When the rebuttal is simply a line-by-line analysis, I inevitably have to do more work to weigh the issues myself.
5. I viscerally dislike "gut check" arguments and won't vote for them. Instead, give me more specific analytic reasons why I shouldn't believe a specific claim (for example, it doesn't have a clear source, it's based on a post hoc fallacy, it's based on a faulty analogy, etc).
6. Don't be jerks. It is possible to make assertive, highly competitive arguments while still recognizing the humanity of your opponents. Hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior cheapens the pedagogical value of competitive debate and drives students away from the activity.
My views on Parli
I rarely judge Parli anymore, but in case you encounter me in a Parli round, there are a few things to be aware of about how I approach the event: (1) I hate stupid T arguments and tend to default to reasonability over competing standards unless there's something really wonky going on. (2) K's absolutely must have clear links and clear alt-solvency that I can weigh against the plan. If they don't, I will have a low threshold for accepting any plausible-sounding answer to them. (3) I will not vote for poorly-explained technical arguments just because they're on the flow if they aren't properly weighed or impacted out.
My views of IPDA
IPDA is NOT parli-lite! If you treat the round that way, I will at minimum tank your speaker points.
I believe that IPDA should be publicly accessible as a debate format, by which I mean that speeches should be delivered at at a conversational rate and and should minimize use of technical jargon as much as possible. I will still evaluate IPDA rounds from a flow-centric perspective, which means that things like top-of-case and dropped arguments still matter. Eloquent oratory or witty comebacks alone will not be enough to win my ballot if you aren't winning on flow. I tend to be disinclined to vote on framework presses beyond the level of definitions reasons to prefer a specific criterion.
Although uncommon, I find myself giving more low-point wins in IPDA than I did in Parli. If I give you a low-point win, it typically means one of two things happened: (1) you clearly won on flow, but there was a major issue with your delivery/presentation style, (2) you weren't winning on flow, but your opponent collapsed to the wrong voting issues or made some major strategic blunder in rebuttals that led me to buy your voting issues instead.
A Final Note on Recent Political Developments (6/2022)
In light of recent developments in national politics, I am choosing to disclose that I am a gay man. Please be mindful that resolutions about legal rights of specific groups (such as LGBTQ+ individuals, women, or racial minorities) can be triggering to competitors and judges when framed as a binary either/or choice between maintaining civil rights or eliminating them. In such rounds, I will grant leeway to both affirmative and negative teams to frame their arguments in ways that avoid a morally problematic division of ground. If you find yourself on the "bad" side of such a resolution, some ideas for you how might reframe include: state-level counterplans, constitutional amendments, constitutional convention, secession, Northern Ireland-style consociationalism, etc.
Bob Becker - NWC
As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round. I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so. To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues. Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important. All of that said, I am not an information processor. I am a human being and so are you. If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance.
When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose. Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I dont require competing interpretations.
I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. Im fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. We dont like the resolution doesnt cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some contradictory arguments good answers.
Performance based argument need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you dont tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round.
As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says one million deaths and the other says dehume, but doesnt explain why dehume is worse than deaths, Ill vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then Ill vote for dehume. I think Im telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.
I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast. I will tell you if I can't understand you. Also, one new trend I find frustrating in LD is tag lines that are multiple sentences long. Your tag line is a claim, but make it a brief one. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. Thats why Im here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.
Carter Reed - Hired
n/a
Christina Lorete - CC
n/a
Connor Hunt - Hired
n/a
Donald Moore - CC
n/a
Elissa Shore-O'Dell - Hired
n/a
Emily Unruh - Hired
n/a
Garrett MacDonald - CC
n/a
Grant Langdon - Hired
n/a
Hamiyyet Bilgi - CC
I am a lay judge. I'm open to most arguments as long as they are well impacted.
Evidence is necessary. Applying it and
analysis is more important. I want to hear a clear description of evidence,
even if there is only time to present limited evidence. Rather than a speed
listing of memorized evidence items, I want to hear an explanation and greater
detail on individual items .Make an argument. Provide support. Relate the
support to the argument. Restate the point. I would vastly prefer a
well-analyzed argument with quality evidence than five or six cards read at
lightning speed.
I also want to see a lively debate with good
clash. If you chose to speed read, you must do it well or it comes across to me
as a distraction technique. I expect teams to be well versed in the
topic, informed, and have good research. By the end of the debate, I
should be able to clearly understand the significance of your position to the
resolution. I tend to prefer argumentation to be grounded somewhat in the real
world. Real World scenarios resonate better with me. Not everything is a zero
sum game. Regardless, I appreciate a direct, clear, and concise presentation of
each issue. Signposting is important; label information with more than just a
number.
Go with what you are comfortable with. Run
what you have taken the time to research. I will evaluate the round in whatever
way the more persuasive team tells me I should.
Isaabella Robbins - Hired
n/a
Jacob Kirksey - CC
I am a former CX debater (high school) and IE competitor
(high school and college). Im a Ph.D. candidate in education policy, and I got
my B.A. in economics. In general, I prefer a policymaking framework for
debates. Im open to being convinced otherwise in a round.
Speed: Im okay with moderate speed. While I can listen to
spreading, I dont find it necessary in parli. If were in an out round and the
other two judges are fine with it, Ill turn on my CX ears.
Impacts: After debating for four years and listening to
debates for over a decade, Im over nuclear war and extinction impacts.
Controversial as it may be, Im not going to weigh these impacts. Dehum is
fine, but I want empirical examples. Everything else is fair game.
DAs: Absolutely necessary.
Ks: Ran a lot. Listened to a lot. No longer like them. Ks
ask me to insert my own subjectivity into a round, and Im not here for that.
CPs: Not a fan of conditional CPs; otherwise, love.
T: Only when theres clear abuse. Again, not a fan of
conditional Ts.
Partner work: Ive seen partners work well when using each
others flow, and Ive seen complete disasters. You choose.
Other notes: I do not intervene on the flow. I love
intentional clash. You represent yourself in and out of rounds. Be nice.
Jeanine Prescott - CC
n/a
Jessica Jatkowski - Hired
n/a
Joseph Maroney - CCU
n/a
Josiah Hogan - Hired
n/a
Jules Patelita - BGSU
I live for chaos ... and Godzilla ... and D&D ... possibly veggie pizza ... but only good veggie pizza.
Kaylee Crivello - CC
n/a
Maggie Wallisch - CC
n/a
Michael Starzynski - Hired
n/a
Mikayle Scheffel - CCU
n/a
Mollie Hayden - CC
n/a
Nikolas Welker - BGSU
I hate debaters ... especially with sauerkraut ... because that is nasty.
Noah Hirshorn - CC
n/a
Paul Wesley Alday - BGSU
I strongly believe that waffles are superior to pancakes and that soy milk is not really milk.
Philip Sharp - Nevada
Phil Sharp- University of Nevada-Reno
Sarah Hinkle - CC
I mostly live in the world of IEs (read: 20 years of either
competing or coaching) but have moderate experience training in Worlds and IPDA-style
debate.
I like speakers who are fair and balanced: Ethics, Argumentation, Strategy, and Style.
Construct your case carefully with well-developed arguments. Build a foundation with clean definitions. Create values/criteria so I know how to weigh out the evidence. Provide Impacts and explain how you get there. I want a lively debate with good clash. Be well-versed in the topic while implementing high quality and recent research. Respect each other.
By the end of the debate, I should be able to clearly
understand the significance of your position to the resolution.
I tend to prefer argumentation to be grounded somewhat in
the real world and prefer depth rather than rattling off a list of contentions.
Tell me a story. Paint a picture. Speakers who effectively demonstrate why an issue is significant and/or relevant are building strong ethos. I want to be as
involved as possible.
Have fun and ignore my non-verbals! I tend to look surly but
that's just my face. J
Victor Torres III - CC
I have competed in Speech and Debate in college as well as
coached it at my Alma Mater. I am very familiar with the IE side of things;
however, I can hold my own in comprehension and analysis of debate arguments.
I expect you to tell me where
we are and how to vote. I will watch time, but I prefer you to time yourselves
in case I am flowing. I would also appreciate if the burdens were introduced
early in the debate (e.g., criteria, key values, decision-rules, framework-type
arguments, moral imperatives, and etc.). I would lastly emphasize the
importance of a clear impact analysis. Be clear on your positions and be
careful to present it in a clear an organized fashion that is easy for me to
digest.
With regards to critical arguments, I need you as the debater
to explain to me how your argument impacts the round. These points are
important for me to see in your argument: be sure to explain your view of the
world and of your own argument, link to some sort of advocacy for the other
team and offer a constructive solution. I support critics that offer solutions
to the problems they bring up.
Performance debate arguments are fine; however, I need to
see that you have clear framework on how I should vote. I like to know the role
of the ballot and why I should vote the way I should.
I do not have much experience
as a debate judge so be careful with the technical finer points of your debate
strategy. Also please be aware of your speed. I am fine with you speaking fast;
however, please be cognizant that I may not be able to flow that fast. If there
is some point or argument topic that you would like me to write down, please
repeat it so that I have the signal âOh that is importantâ? and then will write
it down. Be sure to speak clearly, annunciate, and have fun.
Zak Kroger - Hired
n/a