Aaron Aubuchon -- Tournament Judgesn/a
Abigail Gray -- Arkansas State Universityn/a
Amethyst Lehman -- Webster Universityn/a
Ashley Bernaugh -- Tournament Judgesn/a
Brock Ingmire -- Tournament Judgesn/a
Caden Owens -- McKendree Universityn/a
Christopher Thomas -- Park Universityn/a
Darren Kootz-Eades -- The University of Central Missourin/a
David Bailey -- Southwest Baptist Universityn/a
Elizabeth Snow -- Arkansas State Universityn/a
Emma Webster -- McKendree University
Greg Moser -- Butler Universityn/a
Jack Rogers -- The University of Central Missourin/a
Janis Crawford -- Butler Universityn/a
Jeff Kratz -- Tournament Judgesn/a
Jordan Compton -- Southwest Baptist Universityn/a
Karen Hoffman -- Tournament Judgesn/a
Kirby Weber -- Tournament Judgesn/a
Kirsten Richey -- Arkansas State Universityn/a
Kyle Garrett -- McKendree Universityn/a
Laurel Kratz -- Webster Universityn/a
Lora Cohn -- Park Universityn/a
Maggie Crawford -- Butler Universityn/a
Marisa Mayo -- The University of Central Missourin/a
Melissa Benton -- Tournament Judgesn/a
Michael Gray -- Arkansas State University
This pertains mostly to Parli.
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.
I'll listen to anything, but I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants or logical impact scenarios. I don't need them to tell me not to evaluate an argument if you didn't make an argument. Debate jargon is useful, but it is not some magic trick that replaces argumentation. Don't try to teleport from links to terminal impacts and expect me to fill in the blanks for you. That's called intervention.
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. I have been known to give out more than a few low-point wins – but that may be a regional nuance or because I sometimes vote on presumption. Just speed doesn't make you good. Just knowing lots of stuff doesn't make you good. Just winning an argument doesn't make you good. It's that other thing that makes you good. Do that. Make sense?
Case: 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’s 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’m completely okay with collapsing to T. I actually think teams should do it more often. It’s a lost art.
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.
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 225-250wpm. 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.
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 like "clear." 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."
If you holler clear or slow when it is honestly not necessary, I will… look, just don’t do it. Only use that when you must.
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 stuff 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 and you'll receive what you earn.