Judge Philosophies
Aaron Aubuchon - Gateway
n/a
Abigail Gray - A-State
Amethyst Lehman - Webster
n/a
Ashley Bernaugh - Gateway
n/a
Brock Ingmire - Gateway
n/a
Caden Owens - McK
Christopher Thomas - Park
n/a
Darren Kootz-Eades - UCMO
n/a
David Bailey - SBU
Elizabeth Snow - A-State
I've judge all IEs, IPDA, and parli. In debate, I prefer clear examples and explanations. Don't go to fast; there really isn't a need to. I don't think I've ever head an IPDA round that was too fast, if that helps you with how fast is too fast.
Please sign-post as you go.
Emma Webster - McK
Greg Moser - BU
n/a
Jack Rogers - UCMO
n/a
Janis Crawford - BU
n/a
Jeff Kratz - Gateway
n/a
Jordan Compton - SBU
I competed in NPDA and IDPA for four years. I've coached NPDA, IPDA, and PF for 10+ years.
I'm a communication guy. That will never change. I'm much more of an IE coach/judge than a debate coach/judge but I should be able to follow along with most anything.
I loathe speed. See the line above. I'm a communication guy.
I try to be a flow judge as much as possible. It's your job to tell me where to flow your argument. If you organize for me and tell me what to do, I'm going to do it and I'll probably like you more for doing that.
I will not do the work for you. You need to explain your argument super clearly. And like I said above, you need to tell me where to put that argument on the flow.
If you give me a criterion that's what I'm going to use to help guide my decision. If you give me a criterion and then fail to use it throughout the debate, you're probably going to lose. (If you say we're doing CBA and then don't give me any costs/benefits, what's the point of the CBA criterion?)
NPDA/LD
Not a huge fan of Ks but I'll listen. Remember everything I said above about being clear and organized. That goes triple here.
I like case debate.
I'll listen to a good CP.
I'll vote on T if abuse is articulated well.
In Parli, I will not flow any argument from a partner who speaks when it's not their turn to speak. I kind of hate when this happens.
I'm happy to answer specific questions before a round, but I probably won't go into great detail. My usual response when asked what I like to hear in debate is, "Don't suck."
Karen Hoffman - Gateway
n/a
Kirby Weber - Gateway
n/a
Kirsten Richey - A-State
Kyle Garrett - McK
Laurel Kratz - Webster
n/a
Lora Cohn - Park
n/a
Maggie Crawford - BU
n/a
Marisa Mayo - UCMO
n/a
Melissa Benton - Gateway
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).
Mitch Deleel - McK
Nikki Freeman - UCMO
n/a
Patrick Stack - Gateway
n/a
Robert Scherr - Gateway
n/a
Ryan Louis - Ottawa
n/a
Scott Jensen - Webster
n/a
Stacy Bernaugh - Gateway
n/a
Stephanie Kratz - Gateway
n/a
Timothy Bill - UIS
n/a
Tom Serfass - Webster
n/a