Judge Philosophies
A Adams - MNSU
n/a
AJ Luebert - Gorlok
n/a
Abron Hester - UNT
Adam Enz - IC
n/a
Ailey Pope - Gorlok
n/a
Alec Hubbard - Truman State
n/a
Alex Cunningham - MVC
n/a
Allilson Levin - Gorlok
n/a
Andrea Harper - Gorlok
n/a
Andrew Hart - MoState
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=35837
Anthony Cavaiani - Marian
n/a
Art Silverblatt - Gorlok
n/a
Ashley Bernaugh - Gorlok
n/a
Bailey Rung - WKY
n/a
Bethany Davis - Sacramento
Please set up a SpeechDrop (https://speechdrop.net/) to share files. Or include me in the email chain (Bethanydavis@csus.edu). As a last resort share a USB, I will request to see all files on it at the end of the round.
I will be timing you through each portion of the round. I will not provide visual or audio clues to your prep time usage (i.e. 30 seconds used). Help me to help you, please signpost.
If you perm, give me analytics (better yet, evidence) on why the positions are not mutually exclusive.
Topicality - it is a voting issue. As long as you meet the definition and have a reasonable counterinterp I will vote aff. I will vote neg if a counterinterpretation is not provided, or is unreasonable.
K's - I am unfamiliar with this position, if the benefits do not outweigh the plan, I will vote aff. You can run this position, but be prepared for leg work to convince me. Be careful running K-affs, I have no idea how these function.
Counterplans- don't be a time suck. Prove preferability through evidence support. Prove mutual exclusivity if permed. Have evidence to back up your argument.
Advantages vs. Disadvantages - timeframe, magnitude, probability. Impact calculus will be your best friend if you run none of the other strategies above.
Happy debating!
Breezey Fox - Marian
n/a
Brent Mitchell - MNSU
n/a
Bri Jones - Gorlok
n/a
Brian Anderson - WKY
n/a
Brian Swafford - NW Mo St.
n/a
Brock Ingmire - Gorlok
n/a
Brooke VonJensen - Gorlok
n/a
Burcu Pinar Alakoc - Gorlok
n/a
Carl Nappa - Gorlok
n/a
Chad Meadows - WKY
n/a
Chris Schneider - Hills
n/a
Chris Outzen - Truman State
Judging Philosophy: NFA-LD
I take the position that any form of public communication, including debate, is an audience-centric endeavor. The role of each debater is to convince the judge that they are the more right debater in that round. Adaptation of strategy and delivery of argument necessitates consideration of both your opponent AND the experience of the judge. To that end, I submit the following paradigm:
Judge Experience: DOF at Truman State University since 2015. I hold an MFA-Forensics, have been involved in college forensics since 2007, and have been coaching/judging forensics since 2011. Primarily IE oriented, but with knowledge of policy debate terminology and consistent LD judging experience since Fall 2015. Listening and flowing speed will not to the same level as career policy judges and coaches.
Speaker Speed: I disagree with the trend of increasing speed in LD debate. I believe that LD inhabits a unique position where both argumentation and strong speaking skills can be valued. I take the position that increasing speed of delivery to maximize argument quantity is antithetical to effective public communication. It is also a performative border which keeps those outside policy debate experience from engaging with our activity, which I believe to be a fundamental error in ensuring support for our activity as relevant and valuable.
To that end, debate which is a bit faster than conversational is ok but I will be listening for the deployment of strategic vocal variety to enhance your communication within your quick pace. As a judge who does not have decades of flowing experience, I cannot keep up with true spreading. If you are a traditional spreading debater, consider this an exercise in audience adaptation skills. Failure to adjust appropriately may result in lost speaker points or even a lost round. Spreading does not guarantee a lost round, but it does increase the likelihood I will miss critical components of your case. Extreme cases of spreading or the clear abuse of speed against another competitor may impact my final decision. I will not tell you to slow down mid-round unless I am directly asked to do so.
This position on speed is related to audience adaptation. I expect and encourage ALL debaters to adapt to other judge's speed preferences and the other competitors, as warranted in each individual round. This is simply my personal position from which I will be judging my assigned rounds.
Argument Explanation: You are welcome to run any arguments you wish in front of me in varying levels of complexity. However, remember the audience-centric principle. Debate can be a teachable moment where you can inform us in order to justify your win. This means you should be practicing breaking down complex concepts and providing strong links between the different pieces of your argument.
Ethical Speaking: Engaging in unethical or obfuscating behavior, including but not limited to misleading card cutting, deliberate spreading against judge preference, ignoring the audience as consumers of your message, or styling your arguments deliberately to be overly complex/dense, are not acceptable as a speaker. You are also expected to grant your opponent the same ground/courtesy as you expect. Example: If you cut off their answers in CX to move on to your next question, do not talk over/ignore them when they do the same thing in their CX.
Topicality: I’m open to T arguments. Proven abuse is the best course to win a T argument, but I’m willing to consider potential abuse if the possible abuse is of a significant magnitude.
Kritiks: I’m open to K debate on two conditions. 1) K-Affs must pass the test of topicality, linking to the resolution. 2) Kritik arguments are often dense and highly specialized. Those who run K arguments have an elevated burden to educate in your arguments. Do not assume we are all well-read in the highly specific literature of your kritik.
Judge Intervention: I would rather see you make the arguments and guide my thinking through strong transitions, roadmaps, etc. I typically do not believe in intervening as a judge in debate rounds to complete your arguments for you and hold myself to that standard to the degree possible. However, I will intervene in issues of a) Overt racism, homophobia, sexism, and/or other forms of hate speech; b) Lies about rules or anything which was clearly said in round by either competitor; c) New arguments in non-constructive speeches (as defined by NFA-LD rules), especially in the final AR.
To summarize, I'm open to all forms of argumentation on the premise that a) They are understandable and follow basic ethical guidelines; and b) They are justified by you as fitting in the round and resolution. Arguments should be presented in a way which reflects is accessible to the judge in question.
I will assume that students who do not ask me questions about my paradigm I will assume have read it. It is the job of the students to make sure they understand how the judge will engage with the round.
Chris Hachet - Cap
Christina O'Keefe - Gorlok
n/a
Christopher Langone - OCC
n/a
Christopher Thomas - Park
n/a
Christopher Castellanos - Gorlok
n/a
Cody Jackson - CMU
n/a
Colin Quinn - UNT
Colin Quinn
University of North Texas
Framing how I should evaluate things is the most important thing to do. When that doesn't happen I have to intervene more and rely more on my predispositions rather than the arguments made.
Topicality: I like T debates. I think that for the neg to win a T debate there needs to be a well established competing interpretations framework and a good limits or ground argument. Affs need to have a reasonability argument paired with a decent we meet or counter-interpretation.
Counterplans: The neg needs to establish competition and a clear net benefit. I think i'm generally aff biased although they need to focus on what they can win (Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument except conditionality bad, I think most condition/consult-esque counterplans are legitimate but not competitive, etc).
Disadvantages: Impact calculus should be a priority. I do not think that there's always a risk of anything and can be persuaded that there's zero risk.
Kritiks: Impact framing arguments are the most important thing to win. They filter how I evaluate the rest of the debate in terms of deciding what is important to win and what isn't. I think that negatives need to make definite choices in the 2NR in terms of how to frame the K and what to focus on otherwise the aff is in a strategic place. Link/Impact scenarios that are specific to the plan make the debate much harder for the aff.
Affs: I think that framework is useful and can be won but I am sympathetic to affs that are topical without maybe defending a resolutional agent. I think a winning framework argument should be centered around a method that encourages the best discussion about the topic rather than just the government. When negs lose framework debates they fail to win links to the aff c/i or role of the ballot arguments. Topical version arguments are useful but negs need to remember to explain the reason they solve the affs offense; "you can still talk about x" often doesn't cut it. I think that affs that don't defend a plan need to focus on framing the ballot because that's how I will filter all of their arguments. I think that it is difficult for aff's to win framework debates without a we meet or counter-interp that can frame any other offense you have in the debate.
I may not know the very specific part of the topic/argument you are going for so make sure it's explained. I'm pretty visible in terms of reactions to certain arguments and it will be obvious if i'm confused as to what is going on.
Don't cheat.
Connor Loehr - Gorlok
n/a
Craig Hennigan - Truman State
Updated for LD judging
Craig Hennigan
Truman State University
TL/DR - I'm fine on the K. Need in round abuse for T. I'm fine with speed. K Alts that do something more than naval-gazing is preferred. Avoid running away from arguments.
I debated high school policy in the early 90’s and then college policy in 1994. I also competed in NFA-LD for 4 or 5 years, I don't recall, I know my last season was 1999? I then coached at Utica High School and West Bloomfield High school in Michigan for their policy programs for an additional 8 years. I coached for 5 years at Wayne State University. Now I am the Assistant Director of Forensics at Truman State University in my 2nd year running the debate part of the program.
I think of myself as adhering to my flow. Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat, and bonus if it’s a messy round and you are able to clean up my flow for me. Saying this, it’s a good idea for debaters to have clear tags on their cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence. If it blends together, I do not do well.
With regard to specific arguments – I will vote seldom on theory arguments that do not show significant in-round abuse. Potential abuse is a non-starter for me, and time skew to me is a legit strategy unless it’s really really bad. My threshold for theory then is pretty high if you cannot show a decent abuse story. Showing an abuse story should come well before the last rebuttal. If it is dropped though, I will most likely drop the argument before the team. Reminders in round about my disposition toward theory is persuasive such as "You don't want to pull the trigger on condo bad," or "I know you don't care for theory, here is why this is a uniquely bad situation where I don't get X link and why that is critical to this debate."
I don’t like round bullys. Especially ones that run a very obscure K philosophy and expect everyone in the room to know who/what it is saying. It is the duty of those that want to run the K to be a ‘good’ person who wants to enhance the education of all present, rather than roll eyes because the opponents may not be versed in every 19th century philosopher from the highlands of Luxumbourg. I have voted for a lot of K's though this season so it's not like I'm opposed to them. K alternatives should be able to be explained well in the cross-x. I will have a preference for K alts that actually "do" something. The influence of my ballot on the discourse of the world at large is default minimal, on the debate community default probably even less than minimal. Repeating jargon of the card is a poor strategy, if you can explain what the world looks like post alternative, that's awesome. I have found clarity to be a premium need in LD debate since there is much less time to develop a K. This being said, I look hard for argument mutations. If the K alt mutates into something else in the NR, this is a pretty compelling reason to vote Aff. (Or in the opposite of the person running the K for that matter). Failing to explain what the K does in the 1AC/NC then revealing it in the 1AR/NR is poor form.
Never run from a debate. I'll respect someone that goes all-in for the heg good/heg bad argument and gets into a debate more than someone who attempts to be incredibly tricksy in case/plan writing or C-X in order to avoid potential arguments. Ideal C-X would be:
"Does your case increase spending?"
"Damn right, what you gon' do about it? Catch me outside."
I will vote on T. I typically don't vote on T arguments about capital letters or periods. Again, there should be an in-round abuse story to garner a ballot for T. This naturally would reinforce the previous statement under theory that says potential abuse is a non-starter for me. Developing T as an impact based argument rather than a rules based argument is more persuasive. As potential abuse is not typically a voter for me, I'll strike down speaker points with great vengeance toward RVI's based on theory. Regarding K's of T, there are better ways to garner offense, like say... your case.
Anything that you intend to win on, it's best to spend more than 15 seconds on it. I won't vote for a blip that isn't properly impacted. Rebuttals should consist of focusing on the arguments that will win you the round. It should reflect some heavy lifting and doing some real work on the part of the debater. It should not be a laundry list of answers without a comparative analysis of why one argument is clearly superior and a round winner.
Performance: Give me a reason to vote. And make sure to adequately respond to your opponents arguments with the performance. I do not see that many of those rounds in the first place. If you win a framework debate, you're more than halfway there to a win. I think there are lots of ways that framework can be run that isn't inherently exclusive to debate styles. However I think there are framework arguments that are exclusive too, which isn't very cool. The main issues that I voted on in those rounds were dropped arguments. If a team running an alternative style aff/K is able to show that the other team is dropping arguments then that is just as valid as the traditional style making claims that arguments are dropped and should be weighed accordingly. The fact that you did a performance is not an independent reason to vote for you. I am seldom compelled that my ballot changes anything outside the debate community or outside the room. If you have specific evidence to why it does, then I have listened to and voted on those arguments (Think Giroux type evidence on pedagogy). Most of the time though, the idea that my ballot changes anything places too much importance on me. I'm just a ham and egger. However if there's things in the room that are going on that can be remedied by my ballot, I'm definitely listening.
Speaker Points -
Upon entering the LD community, I was informed that my previous speaker point distribution was akin to Santa Claus on a meth binge. It has now been revised. This rating system is subject to a "level of difficulty." Meaning if you're totally outmatching your opponent, you're going to earn speaker points not by smashing your opponent, but rather through making debate a welcoming and educational experience for everyone.
Floor- 25 - you might have said something offensive about the other team or my family. I may have had to think about whether or not to stop the round. You didn't complete a speech and conceded. You were racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic and unapologetic.
26-26.5 - You made me feel like a qualified judge. (There were noticable and glaring flaws in your strategy. You went for Condo Bad without a unique reason why I should vote and there was only 1 K and 1 CP in the round. You have problems with fundamentals of making arguments)
26.5-27 - I had to think and do work, but also had to send you a message that I'm not a good judge. (You made some tactical errors that I noticed perhaps went for the wrong NR, or you asked a bunch of questions in C-X that never came up in the speech. Or you lacked confidence, you looked like you were behind. You dropped a lot on the flow.)
27-27.5 - Meh. Middle of the road.
28 - You made me pay attention to my flowing. At one point I was hoping you would not go for the PIC because I had no idea what was happening on that flow. (Odds are you made the correct strategic decisions, outcarded your opponents or did not drop round-winning arguments and tooks advantage of your opponents dropped arguments. You should get a low-mid speaker award)
28.5-29.5 - I would give you a cigarette after the round if asked if I still smoked. (You have noticed a double turn or a speech act by your opponent that is a round winner. You also have reminded me of items in my paradigm for why you are going for the items that you are. I quit smoking so don't ask.)
29.5-30 - Would you like to do my oral defense for me? (I could not find a flaw in your performance to incredibly minor flaws that there is little way to realize that they even happened)
Card Clipping addendum:
Don't cheat. I typically ask to be included on email chains so that I can try to follow along at certain points of the speech to ensure that there isn't card clipping, however if you bring it up I in round I will also listen. You probably ought to record the part with clipping if I don't bring it up myself. Also, if I catch clipping (and if I catch it, it's blatant) then that's it, round over.
Darren Kootz-Eades - UCMO
n/a
Dava-Leigh Brush - Gorlok
n/a
David Bowers - MVC
n/a
David Bailey - SBU
Deano Pape - Simpson
n/a
Drew Stewart - Marian
n/a
Dustin Greenwalt - PSU
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=greenwalt
Dylan Rothermel - Truman State
n/a
Eduardo Magalhaes - Simpson
n/a
Eric Morris - MoState
Eric Morris, DoF - Missouri State â 29th Year Judging
++++ NFA-LD Version ++++
You can see NDT version, which is different, here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6383
I primarily judge in NDTCEDA (which I enjoy), but operate under different assumptions when judging in NFA-LD (if you want to read my NDT CEDA philosophy to understand how I think, it can be found here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_account_id=6383).
I like NFA-LD because it is more novice-friendly, and most of the community prefers DA-case debate. I don't dislike CP's (or K's that refute the plan) outside of the novice division, but direct refutation is refreshing to me.
I tend to prioritize probability (strength of link and internal link) when two impacts have a large magnitude. Uniqueness is rarely 100% either direction (although it can be).
Explicitly non-topical affs or K's which refuse the topic entirely have a huge presumption to overcome.
I have a presumption for NFA-LD rules, but you need to apply the specific rule. There is often room for counter-interpretations (including mine). Use them to help you refute arguments instead of making a bunch of independent voters. Thus, stock issues may be a place for debate more than "voting" issues - since negative often minimizes them instead of completely refuting them.
I like that NFA-LD is not as fast as NDT (for access reasons), but the line of "how much is too much" is hard for me to judge. I want debaters to negotiate this before the round - the round should be no faster than the preferences of either participant (including others judges on a panel).
Although I lean negative on many T questions relative to the NDT community, I'm not a hardliner on effects T. I think the literature base is relevant to how much is "too much" on extra T. I think T arguments should be grounded in clear definitions/interpretations, and I lean aff when there is uncertainty about the violation. I think spec arguments are best handled as CX questions, and generally have a strong presumption against theory voting issues - reject the argument not the is my leaning.
If you share evidence via email chain (the best method), my gmail is ermocito. Given quick decision times, I prefer to get a copy of all speeches in real time (even if by flash drive) so I can double check things during prep time and CX.
I will flow closely but often my RFD for the opponent could be reversed with better application of your argument to theirs, or better readings of their evidence to support your argument. Those things are excellent debating.
Eryca Sutherland - Gorlok
n/a
Flemming Rhode - CMU
n/a
Gabbi Ray - NW Mo St.
n/a
Gabe Cervantes - Gorlok
n/a
Garland Young - Gorlok
n/a
Garrett Crane - Cap
Gina Avila - Gorlok
n/a
Gretta Rollins - Gorlok
n/a
Heather Walters - MoState
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml
Jack Rogers - UCMO
n/a
Jared Anderson - Sacramento
Logistics:
1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.
2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. mrjared@gmail.com
3) If there is no email chain, Im going to want to get the docs on a flash drive ahead of the speech.
4) Prep stops when you have a) uploaded the doc to speechdrop b) hit send on the email, or c) pulled the flash drive out. Putting your doc together, saving your doc, etc... are all prep. Also, when prep ends, STOP PREPPING. Don't tell me to stop prep and then tell me all you have to do is save the doc and then upload it. This may impact your speaker points.
5) Get your docs in order!! If I need to, I WILL call for a corrected speech doc at the end of your speech. I would prefer a doc that only includes the cards you read, in the order you read them. If you need to skip a couple of cards and you clearly indicate which ones, we should be fine. If you find yourself marking a lot of cards (cut the card there!), you definitely should be prepared to provide a doc that indicates where you marked the cards. I dont want your overly ambitious version of the doc; that is no use to me.
** Evidence sharing should NOT be complicated. Figure it out before the round starts. Use Speechdrop.net, a flash drive, email, viewing computer, or paper, but figure it out ahead of time and dont argue about it. **
I have been coaching and judging debate for many years now. I started competing in 1995. I started out coaching CEDA/NDT debate but I have now been coaching LD for a long time. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate in any number of ways, provided you support your arguments clearly and are within the rules. You can win my ballot with whatever. I dont have to agree with your argument, I dont have to be moved by your argument, I dont even have to be interested in your argument, I can still vote for you if you win. I do need to understand you. Certain arguments are very easy for me to understand, Im familiar with them, I enjoy them, I will be able to provide you with nuanced and expert advice on how to improve those arguments?other arguments will confuse and frustrate me and require you to do more work if you want me to vote on them. Its up to you. I will tell you more about the particulars below, but it is very important that you understand - I believe that debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine. You can make a bunch of arguments, all the arguments you want, if YOU do not apply them and make the comparisons to the other team, I will almost certainly not do this for you. If neither team does this work and you leave me to figure it out, that is on you.
The rules are the rules and I will follow them. I will not intervene; you need to argue the violation. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules to resolve any violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it.Topicality is a voting issue. This is VERY clear. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I vote neg. I dont need abuse? proven or otherwise. Not all of the rules are this clearly spelled out, so you'll need to make arguments. Speed is subjective. I prefer a faster rate (I can flow all of you, for the most part, pretty easily) of delivery but will adjudicate debates about this. On the current topic (2019-2020) I will probably have a pretty low threshold on Vagueness/Spec arguments. You need a clear plan. Neg arguments about why the aff needs to clearly outline how and what amount they propose investing will be met with a sympathetic ear.
Attempts to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, shame, or otherwise treat your opponents or judges poorly will not be a winning strategy in front of me. If you cant find it within yourself to listen while I explain my decision and deal with it like an adult (win or lose), then neither of us will benefit from having me in the room. Im pretty comfortable with most critical arguments, but the literature base is not always in my wheelhouse, so youll need to explain. Particularly if you are reading anything to do with psychoanalysis (D&G is possibly my least favorite, but Agamben is up there too). Cheap shot RVIs are not particularly persuasive either, but you shouldn't ignore them.
Jason Roach - Gorlok
n/a
Jeff Kopolow - Gorlok
n/a
Joan Llufrio - Gorlok
n/a
Joe Provencher - UTTyler
The allegory of the cornbread:
Debate is like a delicately constructed thanksgiving dinner. Often, if you take time to make sure you donât serve anyone anything theyâre allergic to, we can all grit it and bear it even if we really didnât want to have marshmallows on our sweet potatoes. Mashed potatoes and gravy are just as good as cranberry relish if you make it right. Remember, If youâve been invited to a thanksgiving dinner you should show up unconditionally unless you have a damn good excuse or your grandma got hit by a reindeer because weâre here to eat around a point of commonality unless your great uncle happens to be super racist. Then donât go to thanksgiving. Iâll eat anything as long as youâre willing to tell me whatâs in it and how to cook it. Remember, you donât prepare stuffing by making stuffing, thatâs not a recipe thatâs a tautology. I eat a lot, Iâm good at eating, and Iâd love to help you learn how to eat and cook too.
PS: And why thanksgiving? Because youâre other options are Christmas featuring a man way too old to be doing that job asking if youâve been naughty or nice at the hotel lobby, the Easter bunny which is just a man way older than youâd think he is in a suite offering kids his definitely-not-sketchy candy (who maybe arenât really even old enough to be eating all that candy), or Labor Day where everyone realizes they canât wear their hoods and be fashionable at the same time.
Joe Allen - Washburn
n/a
Joe Blasdel - McK
Section 1: General Information
I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so ever since.
In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.
On trichotomy, I tend to think the government has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I donât see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. Iâm also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.
If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If youâre calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.
Iâm not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ânewâ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ânewâ PMR arguments.
Section 2: Specific Inquiries
Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).
Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be âcontradictoryâ? with other negative positions?
Iâm open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than your average judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, itâs important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, itâs likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.
Performance based argumentsâ?¦
Same as above.
Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?
Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position thatâs run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework â Iâm not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an âaverageâ threshold. I donât vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a âhighâ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, Iâm probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.
Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?
All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I donât have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.
In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?
All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.
How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.
Joe Gantt - Lewis & Clark
Joe Chung - Gorlok
n/a
John Boyer - Lafayette
n/a
John Williams - Washburn
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."
Jordan Smith - CTC
n/a
Justin Rudnick - MNSU
n/a
Karen Hoffman - Gorlok
n/a
Katherine Bloomquist - Gorlok
n/a
Kathleen Hancock - Hills
n/a
Kathy Gregory - Gorlok
n/a
Katie Brunner - MNSU
n/a
Katie Stringer - CU
n/a
Kelle Daniels - Gorlok
n/a
Kelsey Schott - BSU
I am a former NDPA & PF debater at Simpson College and am currently a debate coach and public speaking instructor at Ball State University.
NPDA:
I will flow the entire round and use my flow to determine the round. I can follow speed most of the time and if Iâm not writing you should slow down. Please make sure your opponents are okay with speed before the round to ensure fairness and education for everyone. If an opponent or judge requests you to slow down, please do.
I will flow procedural and critical arguments but need to be convinced of their value to the round. I am likely to vote on topicality if the AFF is clearly outside a predictable interpretation of the resolution. I am less likely to vote on topicality if the NEG is able to participate in a competitive debate round and is running a T to run a T. I will listen to K debates and weigh them in the round as they are presented. K debates are not my favorite but I will vote on them if that is the winning argument/perspective so be clear why the K matters to your round.
I like framework arguments if theyâre done well. Both sides should address framework arguments if they are presented and carry them through all speeches for me to fully consider them. Please present net-benefits and impacts in the round. I favor debaters who articulate why their argumentation matters and impact out all arguments. I do not like nuclear war/extinction impacts unless there is a clearly articulated link story to get you there. I will default net-bens when voting if I am not presented with another weighing mechanism.
Most importantly, I hope debaters enjoy the event and are able to come out of every round having learned something new. There is incredible value to a competitive and educational debate.
Kirby Weber - Gorlok
n/a
Kirk Swearingen - Gorlok
n/a
Kit Jenkins - Gorlok
n/a
Kristen Stout - MoState
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml
Lance Allen - McK
I competed for Mckendree for 4 years and have been coaching since 2013. I try to open about most any arguments that are placed in front of me. I am pretty good with speed, but clarity is important, because Im not as good as I used to be. I will say clear or speed if Im not getting enough. I am open to most any critical arguments; I just need it to be explained and impacted effectively. I am open to performance based args as well, again impacts are important and should be obvious to me and to opponents.
When it comes to topicality, I do not require in round abuse, but it helps. Competing interps is the best way get ahead as an Aff. You should be able to explain why your interp was best.
CP: I generally think pic are bad, but Im ready to hear that debate in round. And, in some specific cases a PIC can be warranted. Any type of competition is acceptable to me in CP.
I usually start evaluating a round on the procedural items and then make my way to case. I think that DA come last because even if I win 100% solvency of the AFF there is a chance I link to the DA or K. If I link, then I evaluate the off-case impacts. To be clear, I should never have to make the choice about where I need to go to evaluate. Debaters should be framing their offense for the judge.
I think that in most cases the easiest thing to default to is terminal impacts. I tend to weigh them first. Systemic impacts are next. Again, I feel uncomfortable making the choice as to what come first, I really want the debate to tell me what needs to be weighed and why.
Make the rounds as clear as possible for me. An arg you know best and can explain best to me is you best route to my ballot.
Leigh Cummings - Ottawa
n/a
Lora Cohn - Park
n/a
Lorna Gaffney - Gorlok
n/a
Louis Petit - UNT
Lucas Barker - MVC
n/a
MIchael Schliewe - BSU
Mahliyah Adkins-Threats - Truman State
Margaret Michels - PSU
I competed in policy debate many years ago
and this is my second- year coaching and judging Lincoln Douglas debate. As an argumentation instructor, I value the
quality of evidence and so will examine it in the roundbest say what you claim
it says. I also want to hear warranted
arguments, not labels i.e. just saying education on topicality is not a
sufficient argumentative claim. I will
vote on stock issues so long as the debater justifies doing so.
I, to the best of my ability, adopt the
perspective of tabula rasa and will listen to any argument presented in the
debate EXCEPT I still retain common sense.
If you tell me the sky is green with orange polka dots, I wont buy it.
As mentioned, any types of arguments (Ks,
counter plans, topicality, etc.) are accepted and can win you the debate, if you
convince me why your position is best. I expect to hear an explanation for why you
have won the debate in your final rebuttal.
Or in other words, I dislike having to pull out and weigh the arguments
on my own.
I agree
with the spirit of the LD rules. If
invoked by debaters, they become part of the debate. I believe speed should not be used as a tool.
I get annoyed when a debater talks very rapidly and then has time remaining in
the speech. I also frown upon a debater
who attempts to spread out the opposition and then concedes many arguments in
the rebuttal. In addition, speed can
disadvantage the inclusion of international students. I do not mean to suggest by this comment that I
per se dislike speed. I will listen and
flow and let you know if I cant follow you.
Be smart, be civil, have fun.
Marisa Mayo - UCMO
n/a
Mark Turner - KWU
Martha Davis-Goldstein - Gorlok
n/a
Martin Mercer - Gorlok
n/a
Mary Baken - Gorlok
n/a
Matthew Doggett - Hills
n/a
Michael Baumann - Marian
n/a
Mikayla Throne - SBU
Morgan Authement - Gorlok
n/a
NIcole Miller - Gorlok
n/a
Nadia Steck - Lewis & Clark
Nadia here, I am currently the Coach for Lewis and Clarkâs debate team I graduated from Concordia University Irvine where I debated for 2 years, before that I debated for Moorpark College for 3 years. Iâm gonna give you a TL:DR for the sake of prep time/pre-round strategizing, I want my personal opinions to come into play as little as possible in the debate round. I want the debate to be about what the debaters tell me it should be about, be it the topic or something totally unrelated. I am fairly familiar with theory, policy, and critical debate. I donât have a strong preference for any one of the three, all I want you to do is not be lazy and expect me to backfill warrants from my personal knowledge of arguments for you. If you donât say it, it doesnât end up on my flow, and thus it doesnât get evaluated. There arenât really any arguments I wonât listen to, and I will give the best feedback I have the ability to give after each round.
For out of round thinking or pre tournament pref sheets here are a few of the major things I think are important about my judging philosophy and history as a debater
â?¢I hate lazy debate; I spent a lot of time doing research and learning specific contextualized warrants for most of the arguments I read. It will benefit you and your speaks to be as specific as possible when it comes to your warrants.
â?¢I did read the K a lot during my time as a debater but that doesnât mean I donât also deeply enjoy a good topical debate
â?¢I did read arguments tethered to my identity occasionally; if you want to read these sorts of arguments I am sympathetic to them, but I believe you should be ready to answer the framework debate well.
â?¢As far as framework and theory arguments go, I am open to listening to any theory argument in round with the exception of Spec args, I honestly feel like a POI is enough of a check back for a spec arg. I have yet to meet a spec arg that was justified much beyond a time suck. If youâre In front of me, I give these arguments little credence so you should respond accordingly.
â?¢As far as the actual voting issue of theory, I by default assume they are all Apriori, as theory is a meta discussion about debate and therefore comes as a prior question to whatever K/CP/DA is being read. When it comes to evaluating the impacts of theory, please please please do not be lazy and just say that fairness and/or education is the voter without justification. These are nebulous terms that could mean a thousand things, if you want to make me really happy as a judge please read more specific voters with a solid justification for them. This way I have a more concrete idea of what you mean instead of me having to insert my own ideas about fairness or education into the debate space.
â?¢As far as policy debates go, I default net bens, and will tend to prefer probable impacts over big impacts. That being said, I am a sucker for a good nuke war or resource wars scenario. My favorite policy debates were always econ debates because of the technical nuance.
â?¢Go as fast as you want, just make sure if your opponent calls clear or slow you listen because if they read theory or a K because you didnât slow down or speak more clearly I will most likely vote you down.
Naomi Henry - Lafayette
n/a
Nick Niemerg - SIUE
n/a
Nik Fischer - McK
Nikki Freeman - UCMO
n/a
Nora (Justin) Fausz - McK
I also go by Nora. If you want, you can ask which I prefer by going by that day. But I won't be upset if you don't or use either name (I use any pronouns, feel free to ask)
Important Stuff (PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE):
--Do not use ableist slurs. It is offensive and traumatic for me. This is a vote down on the spot issue. This includes the term p*ranoia/p*ranoid and d*lusional. I have a zero tolerance policy on this. I do not care if you do not view them as a slur, they are a slur to me. Do not test me.
--I will drop a team on the spot if they advocate suicide/the opposing team killing themselves . I will quit flowing the round and will sign the ballot right then and there
--Misgendering someone on purpose, (including being corrected on pronouns, but refusing to the correct ones) will result in me voting you down on the spot. I have no tolerance for transphobia in debate.
--Do not lie in round
Overall/Background:
I have competed in Debate for 3 years. 1 year of Parliamentary Debate and 2 years of Lincoln Debate. I have also done Policy Debate at a tournament. Since then, I have been judging and helping out with McKendree Debate for 2 years judging both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary Debate for them. I also have judged Policy Debate for the Saint Louis Urban Debate League for 4 years.
On Kritiks/Critical Affs:
I can vibe with the Kritik. But Please explain your kritik (Underview or overview). Dont say buzzwords and taglines and expect me to understand it. Im not really up to date with the literature. I also have comprehension issues when it comes to this. Please Know your Kritik. Also, I am open to kritiks on the language used in the round (Ableism for example). You can be non topical in front of me. But you must be able to defend it.
On T/theory:
For Potential Abuse: Id like some example of abuse or a reasonable disad/cp that could not have been read (you don't have to read the disad that no links, a simple here's a disad I could have ran works fine). Because they are so potent, I like the team to be winning at every level and the majority of standards. I would also like some form of impact coming off of T, something you can argue why this is bad and such.
Cross-X:
I do hold cross-x as binding. However, I do not flow it. But you can extend argumentation and answers said in cross-x on the flow and I will consider them as arguments/stuff the other team said.
Misc.:
Speaks for me start at 27, meaning a 27 for me is a normal speech, not exceptional but not bad. I am somewhat fine with speed to an extent (this is more for parliamentary). Dont use it to purposely discriminate/exclude a person from the activity. If you are going to fast for me. I will say SPEED to signal to slow down (if you are becoming incoherent I will say CLEAR). If you dont slow down, I will try to flow But I probably wont get it all so you probably wont like my RFD (Please be considerate, I have ADHD and autism so if you are going too fast it can cause me to end up losing my focus, I'll let you know if this is happening). I am in favor of disclosing RFDs and can explain my reasoning, you are welcome to ask questions. I view Politics as a legitimate disad. Do Impact Calculus please. It makes my job easier and increases the likelihood I vote your way.
Patrick Stack - Gorlok
n/a
Peggy Woodward - Gorlok
n/a
Peggy Dohlke - Gorlok
n/a
Peggy Dersch - Gorlok
n/a
Ralph Olliges - Gorlok
n/a
Rena Rockwell - Gorlok
n/a
Richard Paine - Noctrl
As a competitor, I used the NDT style. As a coach, I have coached NDT-CEDA (for about 10 years), LD (for about 7 years), IPDA (for about 7 years), and Parli (for about 15 years). My philosophy obviously has to shift in various ways depending on the type of debate I'm judging, but here are a few key points that generally apply:
(1) Seek clash. Don't let the debate become two ships passing in the night. If your opponent makes an argument, don't drop it - respond to it directly, and show me why your position directly clashes with and takes out theirs. If your opponent drops an argument of yours, make sure you pull it across and tell me why it matters.
(2) Be organized. Regardless of the format, I want to hear numbers/letters and clear tags that are maintained throughout the debate. Don't just speak in uninterrupted sentences. Give me numbers and tags if you want me to flow the arguments.
(3) Topicality matters to me. The affirmative/government has the initial right to define the terms, but they must be reasonable. Any challenges coming from the other side must be premised on the question of reasonability.
(4) I don't like counterplans. If you feel that you absolutely must run one, you should know that I feel counterplans must be NON-topical.
(5) I'm also not a fan of kritiks. They seldom strike me as the best way to go.
(6) In a policy round, I am a "stock issues" judge.
(7) Don't just make claims. Be sure you support those claims with both logic and concrete evidence whenever possible. Seek to demonstrate the impact of any given argument.
(8) Affirmative plans should be fully developed. It is the initial responsibility of the affirmative to provide all plan components - it is not the responsibility of the negative to seek them through cross-ex.
(9) Cross-ex questions are binding. In formats that allow questions to be asked during speech time, the speaker should take questions QUICKLY. No "I don't have time" or "I'll take it at the end of this (endless) position." If you ignore legal questions for more than a short time, I quit flowing your speech.
(10) Speed should be easily comprehensible and flowable. If I can't get your arguments written down, then I can't base my judgment on them.
(11) Be cordial and polite to your opponents. I appreciate intensity and assertiveness - but please don't cross the line into downright rudeness.
(12) I do not believe that debate is a "tag-team" sport. Thus, debaters should not interrupt their partners' speeches to add information, clarify statements, tell them what to talk about next, answer questions for them, or whatever. Only the person whose official speech time we are in should be talking for your team.
(12) If you have other specific questions, please ask them just before we start debating the round.
(13) Have fun! The whole point of this is to enjoy it as we develop our skills together. Trophies aren't the point - greater skills are.
Ryan Louis - Ottawa
n/a
Sam Winters - Marian
n/a
Sarah McEwan - Marian
n/a
Scott Thomson - Ithaca
Years involved in collegiate debate: 35
Debated: NDT policy debate
Coached: NDT, NFA LD, Worlds style BP
I like NFA LD style debate because it relies on evidence and emphasizes the stock issues. I default to policy making but will adjust my paradigm if directed to do so by the debaters.
I will seriously consider nearly every argument - CP's are ok, procedural arguments (T, Vagueness, K's) need to be very clearly explained. I have voted for K's but don't find them super compelling - I think they are frequently vulnerable to perms.
Please be clear, number your arguments, explain why you are winning issues.
Shanna Carlson - ILSTU
Background: I competed in parliamentary and LD debate for Washburn University for five years (2005-2010). I freelance coached and judged for three years. I have taught high school and college debate camps for the University of Texas-Dallas, ISU, and Kyushu University in Japan. I am currently the Director of Debate at Illinois State University.
DISCLOSURE THEORY IS LAZY DEBATE AND I WILL GIVE YOU NO HIGHER THAN 15 SPEAKER POINTS IF YOU RUN THIS POSITION (this means at best you will get a low point win).
I am unable to flow too much speed due to an issue with my hand. I will give you 2 verbal "speed" warnings before I just stop flowing all together!
I believe that the debate is yours to be had, but there are a few things that you should know:
1. Blippy, warrantless debates are mind numbing. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. This usually occurs at the top of the AC/NC when you are trying to be "clever." Less "clever," more intelligent. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence.
2. I believe that the speed at which you go should be accessible to everyone in the round, this means your competitor and other judges on a panel. I am open to voting on accessibility and/or clarity kritiks. SPEED SHOULD NOT BE A TOOL OF EXCLUSION!!!!!!
3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not evaluate moral obligations in the round (if you say "Moral Obligation" in college LD Debate I stop flowing, take a selfie, and mock you on social media). This does not mean I will not vote for dehumanization is bad, but I need a warrant outside of just telling me I am morally obligated to do something. Moral obligations are lazy debate, warrant out your arguments. HIGH SCHOOL LD DEBATERS- IGNORE THIS
4. Run whatever strategy you want--I will do my best to evaluate whatever you give me in whatever frame I'm supposed to--if you don't give me the tools I default to policy maker, if it's clearly not a policy maker paradigm round for some reason I'll make something up to vote on...basically, your safest bet is to tell me where to vote.
5. If you are rude, I will not hesitate to tank your speaker points. There is a difference between confidence, snarkiness, and rudeness.
6. When running a kritik you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative text, alt solvency, and role of the ballot (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like.
7. If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow.
8. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round.
9. Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" or "And" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. It also makes it easier for me to make a decision in the end.
10. I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision.
11. If you advocate for a double win I automatically vote for the other person, issue you 1 speaker point, and leave the room. This is a debate, not a conversation. We are here to compete, so don't try to do something else.
12. Wilderson has stated that he does not want his writings used in debate by white individuals. He believes that the use of his writings is contradictory to what he overall stands for because he feels like you are using his arguments and black individuals as a tool to win (functionally monetizing black individuals). So for the love of all that is good please stop running these cards and respect the author's wishes. If you are white and you run his evidence I will not evaluate it out of respect for the author.
13. I will give you auto 30 speaker points if you read your 1AC out of an interp black book with page turns.
Really, I'm open to anything. Debate, have fun, and be engaging. Ask me any questions you may have before the start of the round so that we can all be on the same page :) I also believe this activity should be a learning experience for everyone, so if after a round you have any questions please feel free to approach me and talk to me! I truly mean this because I love talking about debate and the more each debater gains from a round will provide for better rounds in the future for me to judge. If you ever have questions about a comment or RFD please ask. My email is sjcarl3@ilstu.edu
Shawna Merrill - IC
My competitive background is mainly in parli, but I judged LD throughout the 17/18 season and am currently head coach of a program competing in NFA-LD.
Debate is ultimately a communication endeavor, and as such, it should be civil and accessible. I’m not a fan of speed. I can handle a moderate amount especially as I follow along with your docs (I want to be included on speechdrop, email chains, etc.), but at the point that you’re gasping for air, I’m over it. Using speed as a strategy to spread your opponent out of the round is not okay for me.
I’m not a big T person. While I prefer proven in-round abuse to vote on T, I will vote for competing interpretations if it’s done well. Basically, if you run T, you’d better mean it. Don’t use it as a time sink.
I will vote on Ks if they address the topic/refute the plan. I enjoy a good critical argument, but don’t assume I’m familiar with all of your literature.
My favorite types of rounds are ones that engage in direct clash and cover the flow. Attend to the link stories and connect the dots as to how we get to your impacts. I’ll vote on just about any argument as long as it’s clearly explained and defended.
Bottom line: don’t try to get too fancy. Run arguments you understand and do what you’re comfortable with.
Sierra Weber - Gorlok
n/a
Spencer Waugh - Simpson
n/a
Stacy Bernaugh - Gorlok
n/a
Steve Doubledee - Washburn
n/a
Steven Gill (Online) - Simpson
n/a
Taylor Corlee - MoState
Terri Magalhaes - Simpson
n/a
Thomas Herring - Gorlok
n/a
Tim Overton - MNSU
n/a
Tina Wheeler - Gorlok
n/a
Tom Bostick - Gorlok
n/a
Tom Serfass - Gorlok
n/a
Tyler VonJensen - Gorlok
n/a
Walter Lindwall - UIUC
n/a