A Adams - MNSU

n/a

---

Adam Blood - UWF

n/a

---

Adeja Powell - McK

If you're reading this, that's already a good start. You should continue to do so until there are no words left. I debated in parli for ~5 years at McKendree University, and did 4 years of high school LD before that. My partner and I won the 2020 NPDA. All of these things mostly tell you nothing about my thoughts on debate, but they should tell you that I have quite a lot of them. I'll do my best to keep it brief here.

Before I get into any specifics, I want to avoid what I assume most of your coaches or veteran debaters on your team will tell you about my time as a debater. Was I fond of the K? Yes. More accurately, I was fond of winning and a good chunk of the time, I found the K to be the best way to do so. With that being said, I would by no means describe my career as being a "K debater." I won just as many debates reading a topical policy aff as I did reading a K aff. In the same vein, our neg strat was a one off K just as often as it was a DA/CP combo or sometimes just straight up case turns against the aff. I did it all, and I consider myself to be a judge that can evaluate any kind of debate you put in front of me because, well, I used every tool at my disposable to win debates. I think you should as well. I pride myself on having been an incredibly versatile debater so please, for the love of god, do not high pref me for your "k teams" and low pref me for your "non-K teams" because you think that's the kind of debate I wanna hear/am best positioned to evaluate. I will get tired of hearing Ks every round very quickly, then I'll get annoyed, and then I won't be a good judge for anyone because I'll want to go home. Do not make me want to go home (chances are I already want to by no fault of yours so like, don't pile it on).

Max Groznik recommended I add these quotes from a conversation between the two of us. I donât know why I am, but Iâm not sure any of this means anything anyway:

â?Ah, my life is a series of baubles that I must sort. Both real and fabricated for me to have something to do. Câest la vie.â? - Me, 2020

â?I think everyone is stupid except for me. It actually makes me care more. Iâll steer them in the right direction.â? - also Me, 2020

In general, I think debate is a technical game and I evaluate it as such. I'm not easily swayed by positions that rely on some other metric that's not a net-benefits paradigm where my role is to weigh impacts and evaluate the arguments on the flow. That being said, I did dabble in this kind of non-traditional debate during my career. I think it's interesting, and I'm all for arguments that lightly poke and push at the limits of parli debate, I'm just not at all sure how I evaluate these arguments as a judge. If that's your thing, my advice is to proceed with caution and keep in mind that at my core, I'm a technical debater and that's where I'm comfortable. If you want me to throw tech out the window in favor of something else, you'll have to be fairly convincing and exceptionally clear on what exactly this means. This in no way means I'm unwilling to listen to a less technical argument. I definitely will, I just don't have a concrete framework for how I evaluate these arguments, so I think it's important that you make this clear for me so that I don't end up making a decision that misses the point entirely.

I also think I should address MG theory here. If you've read Alyson Escalante's philosophy, I pretty much agree 100% with her about the direction this activity is going and what's causing it. The proliferation of nonsense MG theory is definitely up there for me in terms of something that's threatening this activity, and you will be hard pressed to get me to vote on it. The only legitimate MG theory in my mind is CP theory (PiCs bad, multiple actor CPs bad, floating PiCs bad, Delay bad, for the most part) and Condo bad. These are debates that I will listen to, and that for the most part, I don't have a huge bias for voting one way or the other (maybe Condo, but read my later section on that). Any other silly MG theory about passing texts or reading the plan text in 30 seconds or whatever is becoming increasingly annoying to me. I don't even want to listen to these debates, so your speaker points will reflect my annoyance if these are even apart of the MG order. Beyond that, you likely will not get a ballot out of me that even references the MG theory as a part of my decision. My threshold for abuse on these sheets is very high, and absent an incredibly legitimate abuse claim, I will find any small defensive argument possible to make this sheet of paper go away, and your speaker points will suffer the more you press the issue. Please keep this in mind if you have me as a judge.

Read whatever you want on the aff. I truly don't care, and I'll evaluate the debate that happens in front of me. Just a few specifics though:

1. I need texts read twice and slowly.

2. Don't try to be faster than you are. It's probably my biggest pet peeve in this activity. Clarity is just as important as speed, and I won't be nice with your speaker points if your inability to be honest with yourself about your own skills means we all have to suffer through a speech that's unclear.

3. I love a non-topical aff - in theory. In practice, I find myself begging for just one or two arguments that clearly explain why you ought to be non-topical. If I get those, I'll be far more enthusiastic about whatever your k aff is. Also, referencing the topic on your link page and giving a lackluster warrant as to its connection to whatever your k aff is about does not make you "topical" and I will vote on framework 99% of the time in these cases.

As far as negative strats go, I also pretty much think you should do whatever you want, but as for specific thoughts:

1. I assume all negative advocacies are conditional unless specified otherwise. As a person, I think you should say most things with your chest, which would naturally mean I think condo is bad. BUT, as someone that understands how the activity works and would like it to keep working that way, I think condo is good and I don't think there are many scenarios where I would vote for condo bad unless it's an egregious abuse of condo.

2. I love a T debate - in theory. I don't think many judges or debaters really agree on how a T debate ought to be evaluated, which is why most of the time every judge in the room ends up sighing, groaning, and shaking their heads through a T debate and then punishing debaters for committing any number of "sins" that are entirely based on their personal views on T and not some agreed upon community norm. So, here are my thoughts: I think of interps similarly to counterplans. It's a specific text (that defines a certain word in the resolution), with "net-benefits" (or standards) that resolve or cause certain negative or positive impacts (that discuss an effect on debate as an activity). Although the interp usually defines a singular word, it's defining that word in the context of the resolution, not in a vacuum. The violation describes this context. That's typically how words work, alongside other words or groups of words. I evaluate topicality in this way. If you don't win a standard on your interp, then there's not reason for me to vote for it instead defaulting to the PMC (just like there's no reason for me to vote for a counter-plan if it doesn't have a net benefit. I would just vote for the aff). If both interps win a standard, then I need impact weighing to compare offense and determine which interp solves the most. We-meets can be terminal defense, if they sufficiently resolve the offense gone for in the context of the violation. Just like in any other debate, if the defense isn't enough to outweigh the offense gone for in the MO, I can still vote on the offense. For example, if you read defense against one link on the disad but not the other, I can still vote on the offense triggered by the second link. This goes for T as well. These are just my thoughts, but if you keep them in mind, I will not groan through your MO/PMR on T. I think T is fun and more people should go for it.

3. Please...collapse...in the block...

4. Whatever your nonsense k is, please explain it to me as if I did not pay attention in my intro ethics class (I did not). This threshold is much higher for D&G (I just don't get it. I'm sorry).

Finally, I was pretty deep in the anti-blackness literature as a debater, I mostly debated pess, but I also dipped into futurism/nihilism/etc. I mean like, 5 years and lots of books and research and readings by lots of different authors deep. This is a topic area that I have a lot of knowledge on because I did a lot of work to accumulate this knowledge. I like these arguments, and I don't think parli has even scratched the surface of this lit base and the type of arguments that can come from it. That being said, I have zero respect for debaters that think they don't need to do any of this work and that they can formulate an argument based entirely on their own (albeit real and highly valuable) cultural knowledge. This isn't twitter, (although if you're funny and often talk about your cultural experiences as a Black there, I might follow you) but there's a reason tweets have a character limit, this activity does not. Luckily, there are a ton of Black authors that have just as much cultural knowledge, paired with years of academic research and writing that contains well thought out and explained theories regarding the Black experience and anti-Blackness generally. Please give them their clout, read their books/essays, and use them as at least the basis for your argument. Otherwise, you're not engaging in this activity in the way that it's designed to be engaged in and I won't be the judge that rewards you for it.

Also, I have opinions about speaker points. Mainly, that a 30 ought to be virtually unattainable and given only to those that are truly exceptional - not just in a given round, but compared to the rest of the field. I will almost never give one, and my average range is somewhere between a 27.7 and a 29.7. If youâre on either side of that range it means you were particularly impressive (either negatively or positively). Judges that give these out like candy or debaters that explicitly ask for them when theyâve not given a speech that constitutes a 30 generally tend to make speaker awards not reflective of the actual ranking of debaters at the tournament. Iâm pretty committed to not contributing to that, so if you receive a 30 from me just know it was well deserved. If you ask for a 30, I probably will not respond nicely with how many speaker points I end up giving you. 30s ought to be earned; and, if the 2020 NPDA is any indication, when people explicitly ask for them and judges give them, people who actually earned their 30s end up not getting rewarded for it.

TLDR; say whatever you want, I'm a good judge for any of it. Condo is good. Books are fun and you should read them. There's someone out there that has spent years researching whatever thought you think you came up with all on your own, I promise.

---

Alex Rivera - WKY

n/a

---

Alissa Xiao - UIUC

n/a

---

Amethyst Lehmann - Hireds

n/a

---

Ami Diallo - Hireds

n/a

---

Amy Arellano - BSU

I have both competitive experience and coaching experience. When I was in college I did NPDA and IPDA. As a coach, I have successfully coached students to attain national success in NPDA, IPDA, Public Forum and NFA-LD.

Overall I feel that debate is a game, other than the obvious rules of the game (time limits, speaker order, resolution) I feel the debaters set the tone for the debate. I am a critical judge that prefers to hear K's or projects. While this is my preference, I can act as a policy maker if this is what you need me to do. Give me voters, do not make me decide what is important, it may cost you the round. Also give me structure, if you do not number your arguments separately than I am okay with your opponent collapsing your six arguments into one. Remember to signpost, it is important. Debaters should remember that I am not voting for good positions; I am voting for good arguments. A superior position is nothing if it does not take advantage of the superior arguments that make it a superior position. To win my ballot, out-impact your opponent. Impacts may be ideological or real world. It is a lack of weighing impacts that usually forces judge intervention. If you do the work for me, I won’t have to do it on my own.

I do not like to intervene as a judge; this means that it is your responsibility to give me everything I need to vote for you so that I am not forced to fill in gaps or assumptions. If you want me to vote on topicality, tell me why I should vote on topicality. If you tell me that your position has more advantages, tell me why this means you should win. If this isn’t done, I will resort to whatever decision criteria is advocated in the debate or impose one of my own if no such criteria is offered.

 

I have no problem voting on topicality or on critical arguments, but they must be structured. If your opponents are forcing either of these positions you must explain why your stance does not bite topicality or the critical argument, because it doesn’t is not sufficient argumentation. I HATE POSITIONS THAT ARE JUST TIME SKEWS. If your opponent fails to structure the topicality or critical argument, point that out, give me an RVI and move on, I will not vote on the issue if it is not structured.

The Flow: A dropped argument means nothing if you don’t tell me why it matters. Weigh it for me. I won’t vote for you just because the other team dropped arguments. Also, two or three well developed strong arguments are better than ten undeveloped arguments.

Debate as a Forum of Communication: Being rude is not acceptable; play nice or I will dock your speaker points. I am average when it comes to my acceptance threshold of speed. I have grown tired of judging debates where a team simply out spreads their opponents. Please do not use speed as a weapon within the debate space. If you are going to fast I will give you two "clear" warnings before it impacts you in round. When speed comes into conflict with clarity, I always prefer clarity.

---

Amy Holley - Hireds

n/a

---

Andrea Harper - Hireds

n/a

---

Andrew Hart - MoState

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=35837

---

Andy Luster - Hireds

n/a

---

Ann Shofner - WTAM

n/a

---

Ant Woodall - KWU

n/a

---

Anthony Survance - WKY

n/a

---

April Kidd - CSCC

n/a

---

Ashley Bernaugh - Hireds

n/a

---

Audrey Brown - Hills

n/a

---

Austin Sopko - Hireds

n/a

---

Autumn Zimmerman - KWU

n/a

---

Benjamin Lange - CUI

TL;DR: Do what you want, but I have a high threshold for theoretical defenses in favor of rejecting the topic (although I'm very in favor of creative ways to endorse the topic), and I tend to hold proximal impact framing/proximal solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard as well. 

While I'm open to arguments about debate being a "training ground" for personal advocacy and political change, I view debate itself as a game. This means that I view arguments very impersonally, and I care more for the strategic aspect of the game than the emotional or truth-based appeals. Those things are obviously still important, but that just means I will very likely vote for arguments that are "winning" even if I don't necessarily like them (just because of how I understand the utility of debate). For impact weighing, I probably default to magnitude>probability>timeframe unless told otherwise, so do in-depth impact comparison that includes weighing of the different metrics. I tend to hold proximal impact framing and solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard, and while I'm down to vote on proximity you should just keep in mind that I think of all of these arguments as pieces to a game, so I'm not more persuaded by proximal impacts than magnitude-based impacts absent a clear reason.

I'm fine if you want to reject the topic on the Aff, but I'll be very sympathetic to the Neg's theoretical objection to that. You can win the theory debate, but I'll have a pretty high threshold for your theory answers so just be aware of that. Impact turning theory out of the aff is fine as well, but I've found that if the Neg team wins that you shouldn't get to leverage the Aff against theory if truth-testing the aff is impossible, I'll usually evaluate the theory prior to the PMCs reasons that fairness and education are bad or impossible to access. I'm pretty indifferent about conditionality also, but will vote on theory saying it shouldn't be allowed if you win that sheet.

Also on theory, this has only mattered a couple of times, but if I'm not given a paradigm by either team I have a tendency to default to reasonability instead of competing interpretations. This is largely because (absent being told otherwise/as a default) I tend to evaluate theory as a check against abuse (i.e., should I penalize a team for doing something unfair), rather than evaluating it as the endorsement of the "ideal model" of debate, which tends to make a difference regarding how I evaluate the impact framing on the theory, but this has only ever mattered when neither team makes any of the arguments that would give me a cohesive story on theory and I'm left pretty much evaluating a non-functional/unclear interp with no voters.

I love policy debate, but I was also super into reading Ks and I dig janky stuff from obscure philosophical sources. In my opinion, I'm able to understand and follow pretty much whatever you want to throw at your opponent. On the flip-side though, that also means that you probably won't get very far with super ambiguous solvency. You need to have some kind of solvency that is (at the very least) a clearly explained mechanism that is preferably drawn from the literature that the K is based on. As a Neg, I think your best bet is to read a diverse strategy, but if you have a baller K that you want to go all in on then go for it.

Finally, and I've realized that this is probably a very important thing to make clear, I am willing to vote on terminal defense if you are able to explain what it means for the round. That means that if you win the "we meet" on theory, then the rest of the sheet is irrelevant - even under a paradigm of competing interpretations, their rule is irrelevant if you followed it.

 

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me in person! Good luck :)

---

Beth Rowe - Hireds

n/a

---

Bill Lucio - Harper College

---

Blake Longfellow - DVC

I am primarily an IE coach and very much approach forensics (including debate) as a communication/persuasive activity. I approach debate with the mindset that all stories are arguments and all arguments are stories. With that said, the story which is the most internally cohesive (narrative probability) and that lines up across the debate (narrative fidelity) is likely to win my ballot.

Here is a list of things Paul Villa thinks you should know about debating in front of me:

- Truth over tech: Blake isn't flowing the debate like this is the national circuit, he is going to take minimal notes, you aren't going to win by pointing out some drop on the flow or technical analysis of the round.

- Don't spread. Like, at all. However fast you are thinking will be fine I'd go slower than that.

- Reading theory is a non-starter, if the other team isn't topical just tell Blake they aren't topical and explain why that means they should lose the debate without getting all technical.

- Blake would probably vote on a K, especially a performance one, assuming it made sense to him in the round.

- Less is more, the more simple the path to the ballot for you the more likely Blake is to vote for you.

---

Bob Luna - TTU

n/a

---

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.

---

Brad Bull - TTU

This activity is to promote rational communication NOT auctioneerring skills. One well-reasoned mediocre argument outweighs 10 great arguments I can't hear. In addition, while the public often likes zingers and rudeness, I will automatically give a loss to a team that is flagarantly rude. If both teams are rude, I'll flip a coin, write down the winner, and put down my pen. Usually, however, judging these events gives me great hope for the future, and I look forward participants giving me hope for reasoning and civility.

---

Brandon Wood - COD

Did you persuade me with complete arguments? Did you make this seem like a general audience could follow and enjoy? Did you treat your opponent with respect? Did you speak passionately and compellingly? Did you not talk about the value of education? If you answer yes to all of these then you have mastered my criteria.

It is highly, highly appreciated if opponents greet each other by first or last names and I will only mark refutation on my flow if a specific name is attached to it during the constructive. Personally, I don't respond well to rhetorically being told what I have to do as a judge. This likely isn't an LD round where I'm not being shown a document of cut research that compels me have to vote for someone because of decades of debate theory. Whether it's parli or IPDA you should avoid words like, "you must", "you should strike this", "you have to vote for our side because we did this/they didn't do this", or "here is why we won". Every time I deduct 3 speaker points and will likely be unable to pay attention for approximately 30 seconds of your speech because I will be writing what I've already written here, and therefore, will not be flowing. Don't meet competitor hostility with hostility unless you want to assure a hostile ballot.

For me, arguing that something is or is not"educational" and therefore must be rejected is ultimately a weird form of hyperbole that has infected debate. Experiencing something that is unfair, like circular arguments or bad definitions, is educational. This activity makes it almost impossible to not engage in an educational experience, in the worldly sense. While I won't buy the education-has-been-removed-from-this-debate-round argument, I absolutely will accept issues regarding abusive definitions, incomplete argumentation, denial of ground, moving goal posts etc...

FAQ: Speed? = me not flowing. Jargon? = To me it creates assumed enthymemes and sloppy debate (usually). Technical elements? = will accept them as needed (in Parli). Partner communication during constructives? = Really, really dislike it now that flex time exists because it just decimates your percieved credibility in my eyes ( your ethos is the unspoken contract to accepting information at face value). Role of the judge? = Parli- Tabula Rasa , except when it comes to trichotomy. Lingusitically, resolutions come with burdens that most often are objectively implied ("should" is policy for example) as policy, value, or fact. I flow the entirety of the constructives and dropped arguments are a big deal. IPDA - I am a general audience member and enter each round with my complete knowledge as a human. I approach the resolution with an open mind and a desire to be persuaded but factual errors, fallacious argumentation, and hostile debate styles will not be flowed. I take notes that summarize the debates progress rather than the technical flow I would use for Parli/LD/CEDA.

---

Breezey Fox - Marian

n/a

---

Brian Gerber - CSCC

n/a

---

Brian Lain - UNT

---

Brian Matuszak - Hireds

n/a

---

Brock Ingmire - Hireds

n/a

---

Carolyn Clarke - NIU

n/a

---

Cassity Morlan - UCMO

n/a

---

Chad Meadows - WKY

n/a

---

Char Sucik - Hireds

n/a

---

Charles Lally - IGF

n/a

---

Chris Langone - Oaktion Debate

n/a

---

Chris Cohen - Lynn

n/a

---

Christina Newell - Hireds

n/a

---

Claire Rung - Lafayette

n/a

---

Coby Berg - Simpson

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.

---

Connie McKee - WTAM

n/a

---

Craig Hennigan - Truman

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 90âs 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 5th year running the debate part of the program.

Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. This being said, I have been more truth over tech lately. Some arguments are so bad I'm inclined to do work against it. If its cold conceded I will go with it, but if its a truly bad interpretation/argument, it won't take a lot to mitigate risk of it happening. I have responded well to sensible 'gut check' arguments before.

I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat. You need to have clear tags on your cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence. If it blends together, I do not do well flowing your argument.

With regard to specific arguments â 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 itâs 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." Intrinsic and severance perms I think are bad if you can show why they are intrinsic or severance. Again, I'd drop argument before team.

I donât like round bullys. If you run an obscure K philosophy don't 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 âgoodâ person who wants to enhance the education of all present. I have voted for a lot of K's though 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 is 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. Failing to explain what the K does in the 1AC/NC then revealing it in the 1AR/NR is bad. 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).

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. 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 and I'll strike down speaker points toward RVI's based on bad theory. Regarding K's of T, there are better ways to garner offense, like say... your case.

Anything that you intend to win on I need to have more than 15 seconds spent 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. Kevin Ambrose said during one of my decisions that the ability to encapsulate the round in the last 15-20 seconds of your speech is a lost art. I agree.


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. 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 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 poor debate coach. 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.

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. Or you didn't complete speeches.

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 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. You should be top 10 to top 5 speaker.)

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)

Small note: 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.

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, other team doesn't have to bring it up if I noticed it.

---

Dallas Phillips - DVC

Parli Philosophy:

I debated for the University of the Pacific. NPTE attendance: 4. #2 in the nation two years in a row.

I've been out of debate for almost 3 years now so I'm not as great as flowing as I used to be. Be clear.

I love theory but apparently people are forgetting to put voters on them so don't make that mistake please and thank you.

I need impact calc in the rebuttals: Why should I prioritize your arguments? Probability, magnitude, timeframe
Humor is great, be funny. Jokes are good. Just not offensive ones, that's not okay at all.

Do what you want have fun I'm here to type the things you sa

---

Dallis Pike - BSU

n/a

---

Dana Trunnell - Prairie State

In competitive debate, I am looking for well-argued and evidenced constructive cases that are strongly upheld through fallacy-free argumentation in rebuttal. The presentation of the top of the case should clearly identify a weighing mechanism for the round, which need not be value-based, especially when a policy or fact resolution is selected.

In each debate, clash should be evident. The AFF/Government should not run cases that prevent the NEG/Opposition from developing its case. Any unfair top-of-the-case definitions or abusive development of constructive cases by the AFF/Government will be frowned upon.

Other factors that are important to my decision:

1. As this is a communication activity, delivery (especially in IPDA), should be extemporaneous, conversational, and communicative. In rounds where I am judging, speed, especially for the sake of "spreading," will not be valued.

2. Being able to talk about controversial topics in a civil and productive manner is a skill that will be upheld in my rounds. Please be courteous to your opponent(s). Any rude behavior or comments are negative points for me.

3. I am okay with counter plans and topicality arguments if good justification can be made for using them. I am more likely to value counter plans in a policy debate.

4. I'd like to think that I am an intelligent coach/judge who writes thoughtful critiques that consider the myriad skills a good debater possesses. When proposing voters, it's okay to ask me to consider argumentation or lack thereof in my decision, but please do not tell me what I can or cannot uphold.

5. The educational pursuit of an eager debater is important to me and I will go out of my way to ensure I am contributing my part to a debater's success. I value debates where all debaters in the round seem passionate about becoming better at argumentation and conversation. In other words, each debater should want to be in the room where it happens, so to speak.

---

David Bowers - MVC

n/a

---

David Sylva - Simpson

n/a

---

David Bailey - SBU

---

David James - Hireds

n/a

---

Deanna Beaton - Hireds

n/a

---

Deano Pape - Simpson

n/a

---

Doug Whitman - Hireds

n/a

---

Dr. Joseph Pecorelli - UNG

n/a

---

Drayton Willey - KWU

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

---

Eduardo Magalhaes - Simpson

n/a

---

Elizabeth Bishop - Hireds

n/a

---

Emily Shepardson - MNSU

n/a

---

Emily Ritter - Hireds

n/a

---

Emily Morrison - Hireds

n/a

---

Eric Long - UIC

n/a

---

Erin Messmer - ETSU

n/a

---

Ernest Mack - TSU

n/a

---

Estitia Stone - Hireds

n/a

---

Ethan Besser Fredrick - Simpson

n/a

---

Fendrich Clark - SE

n/a

---

Gabe Cervantes - Hireds

n/a

---

Gage Brookman - MVC

n/a

---

Garrett Hayden - Ottawa

n/a

---

Gary Jackson - Hireds

n/a

---

Graham Deese - Hills

n/a

---

Grayson Lovelace - Hireds

n/a

---

Harry Bodell - Highland

Experience/Background: I competed for four years in Individual Events (Primarily LP and PA with an ill-fated foray or two into interp) and Parliamentary Debate, and I competed in IPDA toward the end of my college career as it was starting to catch on in Illinois. I have since coached IE, Parli and IPDA for eight years between North Central College, Northern Illinois University and Highland Community College. I have also judged Lincoln-Douglas and can get through a round, but probably won't be able to handle speed as well as more seasoned LD judges and coaches.

General Individual Events Philosophy:In general, I want you to have fun and commit to your performance in any IE -- you only get so many chances in life to perform for a "captive" audience! As long as you have fun and use your 7-10 minutes effectively, you have a shot on my ballot. That said, my general preferences (which evolve and should not be taken as gospel) by event category are:

• Interp: In Prose, I'm looking for engaging storytelling with emotional levels, narrative flow, clear cutting, etc.; In DI, I'm looking for thoughtful character development (vocal and non-verbal characterization, emotional depth) and establishment of space/scene; In Poetry, I'm looking for powerful use of physical movement and vocal rhythm to enhance the power of the language; In POI, I am looking for a strong and thoughtful argument explored through a unique combination of perspectives of stylistic difference (and clarity in blocking, characterization, cutting, etc.); In DUO, I care most about chemistry and (depending on the lit) blocking/use of space.
• Public Address:In general, I value the content of speeches over the delivery of speeches, but both are naturally important (in other words, in a tie-breaker I will default to the content/messaging). Don't sacrifice in-the-moment connectiveness for the sake of "polish". Really communicate with the audience as opposed to "at" the audience. A few event-specific notes: I'm not crazy about hand-out's in PER/STE -- feel free to use them, but they won't impact my rank; In CA, I really value the crafting of a RQ that leaves room for generalizable rhetorical conclusions and analyses that illuminate how an artifact communicates rather than whether an artifact "checks boxes A, B and C"; In STE, don't be afraid to dive into a comedic persona -- try not to sound the same tonally as you would in an Info round :)
• Limited Prep: In both LP events, I generally value analysis above all else. A well-delivered Extemp that doesn't dig far beyond the surface will not rank as highly as a "shaky" speech with really interesting/in-depth analysis. I will always prefer the impromptu speaker who makes me think about something in a new light over the speaker who takes a very common approach to an interpretation (not every prompt is about success, growth, etc.). That isn't to say that delivery isn't important -- it is, and confidence/willingness to engage/entertain in an LP event is often the difference in a tough round.

General Debate Philosophy: While I do not believe it is realistic for any judge to be truly tabula rasa (a "blank slate" as a judge), I do my best to filter my own beliefs out of debate rounds. I try to focus only on what is on the flow to the best of my ability. That said, the flow isn't the end-all-be-all in a debate. I won't give more weight to a dropped-but-inconsequential argument than I would to a strong-yet-well-refuted argument, for example. Likewise, I'm not going to give an argument that is just blatantly untrue the same weight as a well-researched/supported argument just because it is on the flow.

In general, I judge primarily on quality of argumentation and clear impacts. I will always refer to impacts to Weighing Mechanism (even in IPDA) and general impact calculus unless told to judge otherwise. If you want me to weigh the round in a particular way, tell me that and justify it to me. Always hold my hand through your impacts and explain clearly why any given argument should win you the round. Don't trust me to make connections for you.

Speed/Jargon: While I can follow speed, I don't love speed -- I think that speed-and-spread tactics are detrimental to the accessibility and growth of the activity. That won't factor into my decision if you do speed, but don't assume that I'll keep up with everything. Your first priority should be to have a good debate, not to win the debate, and a good debate requires clear communication between debaters. If your opponent is going too quickly for you to follow the debate, don't be afraid to yell "clear". If your opponent yells "clear", you should try to slow down and risk a dock on speaker points if you refuse to adapt.

As for jargon, I'm familiar with pretty much any debate terminology you may use and can probably follow along just fine (that goes for both Parli and IPDA -- see below).

Differences Between Parli and IPDA:While I recognize that IPDA emphasizes delivery as a tie-breaking factor (or, in some cases, a primary deciding factor), I frankly don't care how "well" you speak in debate as long as you make good arguments and I can follow them clearly (no need for extra flowery language, emotional delivery, introduction/conclusion, etc.). I vote on line-by-line argumentation in either style. I generally reject the "de-debatification" of IPDA. In my mind, debate is NOT just discussion - they're fundamentally different, and the event is not called International Public Discussion. I'm perfectly fine with procedural arguments (topicalities need to be run in IPDA sometimes!) and prefer to see prima facie issues established in an affirmative policy case. Don't limit the tools in your toolbox.

That said, please be respectful of different debating paradigms and styles. There is no one "right" approach to either Parli or IPDA. If you run into a clash of styles (ex: one debater believes you should use plan texts in policy IPDA rounds while the other debater believes that IPDA places less emphasis on resolution "types" and that a policy round should simply focus on clashing contentions), simply justify the value of your approach and its logical application toward enhancing the debate.

Cross-Talk in Parli:Flex time allows you to collaborate with your partner between speeches for a reason. Please don't talk to your partner or obnoxiously wave notes -- let your partner do the debating when they are the one speaking. Even novice debaters need to be able to learn to get through a speech without mid-speech guidance. As such, I will not flow any arguments that are directly provided vocally or via note by a partner who does not have the floor.

Questions and Cross-Ex:First of all, please be polite when asking questions. There's no need to get personal or confrontational. At the same time, please don't try to use questions to "suck time" from your opponent. More debating is better than less debating.

In Parli, please don't arbitrarily limit the number of questions that your opponent can ask ("I'll allow your first of two questions"). Simply adapt as necessary. If you honestly don't have time for a fourth question, politely say that and move on. (That said, you should generally have time for three questions if you manage time effectively). In Parli Flex Time, I prefer that questions asked focus on clarification ("can you repeat your tag for contention 1b?") rather than argumentative cross-examinatio questions so as to protect the right of debaters to ask questions during constructive speeches (I'm not okay with debaters saying "ask that during flex time" when a question was legally allowed to be asked during the speech).

In IPDA, I encourage debaters to use all cross-examination time and keep questions challenging-yet-polite.

Kritiks:While I understand the value in some K arguments, I generally find most K's to be pre-constructed distractions from the actual debate at hand. In other words, I'm probably not the judge to use a K with unless you have a really good justification for doing so and can articulate that justification clearly. While I recognize the need for pre-debate argumentation (topicality, etc.) in most cases, I generally want to listen to a debate about the actual topic at hand.

Roadmaps:Always on time. If you try to roadmap off time, I'll just start my timer and stop flowing once you hit your time limit.

Precision of Language: I flow and judge based on what you say, not what I think you meant to say. Be clear and accurate with language. If you say something that inadvertently supports your opponent, that's how I'll flow it!

Decorum Notes: First of all, be friendly -- let's have fun and avoid getting too heated over an educational activity. I appreciate thank you's at the start of speeches and don't consider them wastes of time. Along those lines, I value the depersonalization of argumentation. In other words, I prefer that you do not refer to opponents by name but rather by speaker position (AFF, NEG, PM, LO, etc.). While that may seem to some to strip debaters of their individual identities, I find that it actually keeps the debate focused on arguments and keeps us out of ad hominem territory (not to mention you would never see one lawyer refer to another lawyer by name in a courtroom trial -- they'd refer to "the defense" and "the prosecution", etc.). It also helps to prevent mis-gendering with inaccurate pronouns ("he/she says" assumes too much about your opponent's gender identity, "Aff/Neg says" is always acceptable). Likewise, whenever possible, please direct eye contact at the judge rather than your opponent.

Debate Pet Peeve!: Few things in debate bother me more than "You will vote X" language ("Judge, you will be voting AFF"; "Judge, you'll be voting on this point"). That just isn't a good practice inside or outside of debate (when would you ever tell a teacher/employer/etc. "you will do ____"?). It's just as easy to say, "Judge, youshould vote X". While it won't ever impact my decision, this may impact speaker points.

---

Heather Walters - MoState

 https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

---

Henrey Deese - Hills

n/a

---

Hernan Sanchez Garcia - Hireds

n/a

---

Ian Mikkelsen - WU

---

Isaac Goff-Mitchell - BSU

n/a

---

Jacinda Rivas - Kentucky

n/a

---

Jackson De Vight - CUI

Background: I have been debating for 10 years. I started in high school with LD, policy, and parli, and did parli in SoCal for 4 years. I’m now a graduate coach at TTU.

 

General:

- PLEASE READ: I am hard of hearing and have wrist issues so please emphasize clarity and word economy over speed. I'll get to argument preferences later, but TBH just understand that I prefer depth and organization way more than speed. If you're one of the faster teams, go about 2/3s your full speed for maximum comprehension. I will clear and speed-check you, but if I drop my pen, that's the final signal that you've lost me. I vote on my flow so don’t lose my flowing.

 

- Read all plan texts, counterplan texts, advocacy texts, alternative text, and interp/role of the ballot arguments slowly, twice, and clearly.

 

- I don’t time speeches myself.

 

- I may want a copy of all texts, interps, and ROBs beyond specifically what I flow, so be prepared.

 

- Topical debates are by far my preferred mode.

 

- I generally dislike Condo, mostly because it's generally deployed pretty poorly. You can use it, but I'm pretty sympathetic to Condo Bad when warranted well.

 

- Ideologically I’m fairly open to most arguments but do realize that my social location and political perspective are probably irrevocably intertwined in the way I evaluate rounds. Like, I’m pretty moderate, so warranted arguments about the wonders of the free market or the necessity of social purging aren’t likely to do well in front of me if your opponent knows what they’re doing.

 

- For the K:

 

TL; DR: unless it’s a pretty well-structured criticism that links well and specifically, I’m probably just not the judge you want in the back of the room. Ultimately, I'm compelled to vote for well-warranted, smart arguments regardless of the form they take. Because of my experience/background, I'm less compelled out-of-hand by approaches that do not seek to engage the core of the topic (and that goes for aff and neg), but see previous sentence for how you should to debate in front of me. I want to hear your best arguments, and I'll vote on what's won.

 

Assume I don’t read your lit base. Most of my issues following those arguments have to do with the use of phrases I’m not familiar with. If you have me in the back of the room, consider simplifying the terminology and I should be fine. However, I am not the best critic for your arguments. I think about public policy frequently. This is less true for critical arguments. Also, if you go one off and 5 minutes of case and the one off is a disad, you’ll probably have my heart forever.

 

I very much believe that debate is a game that you are trying to win. Utilizing debate rounds as personal platform ventures into a realm I am deeply uncomfortable assessing. You are free to engage in debate in a manner you see fit, but realize that I likely do not possess the capacity to properly assess the role of personal history as part of a critical debate. You will do much better here if you have a solidly built framework and well articulate ROB.

 

* I cordially dislike almost every affirmative criticism that does not uphold the burden of the affirmative in relation to the resolution.

 

** For criticisms that utilize personal experience, please avoid using arguments about mental health issues or sexual violence.

 

*** Performance-oriented criticisms will need to do serious work to justify a performance as something I should vote on.

 

**** When I ran critical arguments, they were mostly economic, ablism, or ecological in nature.

 

Arguments: Overall, you’re going to get a lot more mileage from me by going for fewer, more well-articulated, and more warrant-heavy argumentation. As indicated above, speed is not your friend when I’m in the back of the room so just go for depth over breadth.

 

Counterplans: I prefer that you provide a copy for the other team. Make sure you have a written text. I like advantage counterplans, PICs, and actor counterplans. Consult less so, but I’m open to it. For the affirmative: I’m open to PICs bad but don’t default that way. Well utilized CP strats are beautiful.

 

Permutations: Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies. Multiple perms aren’t unfair, but they’re a little silly unless you explicate why you want more than one. I will not reject a permutation outright unless you give me a reason of why it shouldn’t be evaluated. HAVE A PERM TEXT

 

Theory: All theory positions should have an interpretation, a violation, standards, and voting issues. Please read your interpretations more than once. I am pretty willing to vote on well warranted theory arguments.

 

Topicality: My threshold for T is maybe lower than some. If you win your interpretation, violation, and your standards outweigh I will vote for you.

 

Speaker Points: Be smart and concise and your speaker points will range between 26-30. Utilization of racist, sexist, etc. rhetoric will sink your points pretty quick, as will parroting to your partner. Like, win the round, but don’t parrot if you can help it.

 

Voting/Rebuttals/POO: Have clear voting issues either through distinct voters, two world analysis, or some other format. YOU MUST DO IMPACT CALCULUS IF YOU WANT IT CONSIDERED. Call POOs if you hear them. I try to protect, but you should call them all the same.

Feel free to ask questions. I can give you my professional email if you’d like it. Debate is great.

---

Jacob Stutzman - WU

---

Jacob Krol - UIC

n/a

---

Jaelyn Ashford - TxState

n/a

---

Jake Stoulil - Simpson

n/a

---

James Hansen - Hireds

n/a

---

Jamie Maas - BSU

n/a

---

Janice Witherspoon - BSU

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 Jordan - Utah

*I have fairly significant hearing loss. This is almost never a problem when judging debates. This also doesn't mean you should yell at me during your speech, that won't help. If I can't understand the words you're saying, I will give a clear verbal prompt to let you know what you need to change for me to understand you (ex: 'clear,' 'louder,' 'slow down,' or 'hey aff stop talking so loud so that I can hear the MO please'). If I don't prompt you to the contrary, I can understand the words you're saying just fine.  

*make arguments, tell me how to evaluate these arguments, and compare these arguments to the other teams arguments and methods of evaluating arguments. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to place me within. I have very few, if any, normative beliefs about what debate should look like and/or be. 

 

---

Jason Roach - Hireds

n/a

---

Jeff Przybylo - Harper College

---

Jeff Kopolow - Hireds

n/a

---

Jeremy Frazer - WKY

n/a

---

Jeremy Hutchins - TxState

I’ve been involved in competitive forensics in one way or another for 30 years. I competed primarily in pre-merger CEDA and have coached CEDA/NDT, NPDA, IPDA, BP, and NFA LD at various points during that time.

I don’t think I’m absolutely ideologically opposed to any particular type or form of argument. 

I’m probably a bit behind the times in terms of theory. 

Topicality: I think the topic matters. I’m more open to discussions about how it matters or what role it plays in the debate but, in my opinion, the proposition is a critical stasis point that encourages argumentative clash. I don’t have a good answer for what my threshold on topicality is. I think it’s a viable check for the negative. However, if the affirmative interpretation is reasonable, I probably wouldn’t spend much time on T. If you don’t think the affirmative interpretation is reasonable, you should spend time explaining and comparing implications of the competing interpretations.

Critical Arguments: Link work is critical. I’m more flexible in terms of alternatives. Explanation is important. Don’t assume that I’m familiar with the esoteric literature base that your argument is grounded in. I’m a fan of performative consistency.

Counterplans: The opp should invest time in explaining and applying standards for competition. The gov should do the same with permutations and relevant theory. Because participants often take those theory debates for granted and make assumptions about what is known, agreed upon, and understood, I tend to prefer substantive debates on counterplans.

I also have some stylistic preferences.

I like judging debates when I can keep up and when I feel like I’m in the loop. I haven’t been in a lot of fast or highly technical debates in a while. Plus, I never had the best flow. So, you’ll probably want to slow down and give me pen time. 

I enjoy debates when there is a clear and well justified framework for how arguments interact with each other and, as a result, should be evaluated. My default is to put procedural questions first, critical questions second, and policy questions third. The lines between those are sometimes blurry. Feel free to make arguments that would rearrange that hierarchy or, assuming you have an alternative, that suggest those categories are outdated, arbitrary, exclusionary, etc.

I like listening to debaters who see the big picture and are able to figure out which arguments matter and which ones don’t. Make smart choices. World building and comparison is appreciated.

I don’t have fun judging when arguments are underdeveloped or lack explanation, when you assume that I’m going to do work for you, when you assume that we’re all on the same page about some theoretical precept, when you make ten blippy claims when two or three well developed arguments will do, when you throw everything at the wall and expect me to figure out what sticks, when you continue to talk about an argument even though I’ve turned that page over and  haven’t been flowing for a minute. 

I don’t like watching debates where participants are smug, rude, overly aggressive, dismissive, mean, etc.

---

Joanne Stopke - Hireds

n/a

---

Joe Gantt - Lewis & Clark

 

---

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.

---

Joey Barrows - UOP

I competed in LD for two years, and did Parli for one. I don't have much of a bias towards any particular strategy. I am willing to vote on pretty much anything if it's winning on the flow. If I'm having a problem with speed I will let you know.

---

John Boyer - Lafayette

n/a

---

Johnnie Johnson - Hireds

n/a

---

Jon Agnew - BSU

Saved Philosophy:

Last updated: 24-March-2018

I have been involved in competitive forensics for 13 years. I am cool with speed as long as tags for claims are not cumbersome and difficult to flow. I’m cool with just about any argument as long as it is well warranted. I won’t want to hear “genocide good” “rape good” or similar arguments. Moreover, I’m not sure of all the preconceived biases I have about judging debate. I know I am more inclined to prefer probability and timeframe arguments over magnitude. But overall, the game of debate is however you want to play it. Just play it well and play it by the rules. Last thing, as a critic at the end of the round I prioritize arguments that have been denoted in the debate via jargon or argumentation as most important. I always try and work through these arguments before working through the rest of the debate. What I mean by this is questions of: a priori, decision rule, RVI, framework, role of the ballot, role of the critic, theory sheets….I try and resolve these kinds of questions before resolving other substantive issues in the debate.

Question 1 : What is your judging philosophy?

Background: I debated 4 years in at Hillcrest High School in IF, Idaho. I did 3 years of LD, 1 Year of CX/PF, and speech. I debated Parli/IPDA for 4 years at Boise State and I.E.s. I have been an assistant coach at Boise State since 2013. And this will be my 13th year involved in competitive forensics.

Other Background:

·       I will default Net-Benefits/Policymaker unless told otherwise.

·       I try to be as Tabula Rasa as possible. I don’t want to involve myself in your debate. I don’t have any preconceived biases about what arguments or strategies should or should not be deployed in any given round.

·       I will vote for arguments I do not ideologically agree with every time IF they are won in the round. 

·       I am relatively okay with speed. I have difficulty flowing overly cumbersome or wordy taglines. Plan texts, Interpretations, CP Texts, K alts, perms, T vios need to be read slowly twice OR I/your opponents need to be given a copy. I find it difficult to judge textual questions in a debate round when I don’t have the text proper written down word for word.

·       I am lenient to “no warrant” or “gut check” arguments. I don’t want to do the work in your round. I do not want to fill in the blanks for your scenarios. In saying such I will always evaluate a developed warranted impact scenario over a generic one, IF the arguments are won in the round.

·       I think offense and defense are necessary to win debate rounds. I am also relatively lenient on terminal defense. If you win the argument that there is absolutely no risk of a link or impact I will evaluate it strongly. I want to hear intelligent, sound, strategic arguments in every debate round. The aforementioned claim strongly influences my speaker points.

·       My high school coach used to always say “debate is a game you play with your friends”. I identify strongly with the statement. In saying such, please do not put me in the situation where debate is not fun, where any individual (partner, opponents, myself) feels berated, and please do not deploy obscene/vulgar arguments.

·       POO’s: please call them. I usually reply “under consideration”. I’m not lenient on new argumentation in the rebuttals. Honestly, I feel this is important. I tend to flow everything in the debate round. Even if the argument is new in the rebuttal. I feel it is important to call these arguments. I don’t know how well my paradigm works with multiple judges. But ya, POO are ok and encouraged to call.

·       POI’s: please do not get excessive. Teams should probably always answer a question or two. I will give weight to in-round argumentation regarding “you should have taken a question” on any sheet of paper.

·       Speaker points: I tend to give between 26-29.5 at tournaments. 30s definitely occur. So do speaker points below 26. I tend to evaluate these via sound, strategic, intelligent arguments. Delivery/style is not the most important factor for speaker points. I have never looked but I feel like I give higher speaker points than most.

 

Case: I’m cool with any type of affirmative strategy (mini-affs, K affs, performance, comp-ad). However, I want to know how your case functions in the round. Framework/RAs are very important. Advantages must have uniqueness, link and an impact. Aff’s should solve for something. Plan texts should be read twice or I/opponents should be given a copy. If you are running performance or a critical affirmative I need to know how it engages the round and resolution. For example, if you are criticizing—topicality, language, semiotics—I need to know how to evaluate these arguments with your opponents. I find these types of debate engaging/fun to judge, but I have often been put into a position where I do not have a clean and accessible framework to evaluate the rhetoric and argumentation in round. Additionally, I have always felt somewhat icky inside when my personal identity or the competitors has been attached to the ballot. If this is important to the round. Framework is everyone’s friend. I want to be as much as a blank slate as possible.

 

T/Procedurals: I ran a lot of procedurals arguments in college. I feel in order for me to vote on this position I need a clear interpretation explaining how the debate should occur, a violation explaining specifically why your opponents do not meet your interpretation, I need standard(s) to detailing why your interpretation is good and/or why your opponents do not garner/violate them, and a voter(s) demonstrating why I should vote for the argument. Again, please read your interpretation/violation slowly twice or give myself/opponents a copy. I really really enjoy watching good T debate. And vote on T relatively often.

Kritiks: my partner and I ran a lot of kritiks in college. I need a clear and accessible thesis. Arguments that tend to be stuffed into kritiks (no value to life, K Alt solves aff, X is root cause of violence) should be well developed. Please engage these arguments on the case debate as well. I am familiar with a lot of the K literature (POMO, Frankfurt School, Lacan). However, I’M NOT AN EXPERT. I think a kritik needs a framework, link, implications, alternative. I am a fan of good kritik debate. I am persuaded by well warranted impact turns to K’s or compelling arguments regarding how the K engages the assumptions that inform the PMC. Please do not prove the “K’s are for cheaters” club by deploying confusing/absurd, and blippy arguments.

CP’s: I am not very familiar with the ins and outs of CP’s. Functional CP vs. textual CP debates are usually educational for me. I say that because, I again, am not nearly as familiar with CP debates then K debates. I am not biased on any type of CP theory. I will listen to all types of CPs (consult, agent, delay, multi-actor, multiple, PICS). In saying such, some of these types of CPs are subject to very compelling theoretical arguments about their fairness and educational merit. I think solvency is very important for CP vs Case debates. I like to hear arguments regarding how the CP/Case solves or does not solve each advantage or net/benefit debate. Therefore, if the debate comes down to case vs. CP/NB/DA…solvency is very important for weighing impacts.

DA’s: need uniqueness, link, impact to be evaluated. Please explain why the status quo changes post the affirmative plan. I enjoy listening to strategic DA debates. Well-developed impact and link turn arguments make for lovely debate rounds. Defense and offense is usually important to deploy in any DA debates. I find the interaction of these arguments critical in deciding the round. Please explain these relationships in regards to impact calculus. Like I said earlier I tend to evaluate probable scenarios over their magnitude. Politics debates are fun to listen to. I like well warranted scenarios. Additionally, I’m not a fan of perceptual IR DAs (they tend to be under-developed and lack warrants) but nevertheless I will definitely listen to them.

If you have any other questions please ask. My email is jonagnew@u.boisestate.edu

---

Jon Sahlman - WKY

n/a

---

Jon Rowland - CSCC

n/a

---

Jonathan Bridenbaker - VSU

---

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."  

---

Joseph Packer - CMU

n/a

---

Joshua Green - Prairie State

In terms of debate I'm looking for well evidenced argumentation. Clearly defined adherence to structure and flow. Reasoned logical argumentation. Civility in terms of tone and delivery.

---

Joshua Stegall - MoState

---

Juliana Ness - Hireds

n/a

---

Justin Kirk - UNL

Justin Kirk

Director of Debate at University of Nebraska-Lincoln

20 years judging experience @ about 40 rounds per year

"I believe I have an obligation to work as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates." Scott Harris

General philosophy Debate is primarily a communications based activity, and if you are not communicating well, your arguments are probably incoherent, and you are probably not going to win many debates in front of me. It is your responsibility to make quality arguments. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Evidence supports argumentation, it does not supplant it. However, analytic arguments and comparative claims about argument quality are essential to contextualizing your evidence and applying it to the issues developed throughout the debate. Quality arguments beat bad evidence every time.

I flow every debate and expect teams to answer arguments made by the other team. You should also flow every debate. That does not mean start flowing after the speech documents run out. Cross-examinations that consist mostly of "what cards did you read" or "what cards did you skip" are not cross examinations and do you little to no good in terms of winning the debate. If you have questions about whether or not the other team made an argument or answered a particular argument, consult your flow, not the other team. The biggest drawback to paperless debate is that people debate off speech docs and not their flows, this leads to shoddy debating and an overall decline in the quality of argumentation and refutation.

Each team has a burden of refutation, and arguing the entire debate from macro-level arguments without specifically refuting the other side's arguments will put you at a severe disadvantage in the debate. Burden of proof falls upon the team making an argument. Unwarranted, unsupported assertions are a non-starter for me. It is your responsibility is to make whole arguments and refute the arguments made by the other side. Evaluating the debate that occurred is mine. The role of my ballot is to report to the tab room who I believe won the debate.

Online Debate - everyone is adjusting to the new world of online debate and has plenty of burdens. I will be lenient when judging if you are having technical difficulties and provide ample time. You should record all of your speeches on a backup device in case of permanent technical failures. Speechdrop is the norm for sharing files. If there are bandwidth problems, I will ask everyone to mute their mics and videos unless they are talking.

Paperless Debate You should make every attempt to provide a copy of the speech documents to me and the other team before the speech. Disclosure is a norm in debate and you should endeavor to disclose any previously run arguments before the debate. Open source is not a norm, but is an absolutely preferable means of disclosure to cites only. The easiest way to resolve this is through an email thread for the debate, it saves time and the risk of viruses are decreased substantially through email. I suspect that paperless debate has also led to a substantial decrease in clarity and corresponding increases in cross-reading and clipping. I have zero tolerance for cheating in debate, and will have no qualms about voting against you, assigning zero speaker points, and speaking to your coaches about it. Clarity is a must. You will provide me speech documents to read during the debate so I may better understand the debate that is occurring in front of me. I will ask you to be clearer if you are not and if you continue to be unclear, I will stop flowing your arguments.

Topicality Is good for debate, it helps to generate clash, prevents abusive affirmatives, and generally wins against affirmatives that have little to no instrumental relation to the topic. Topicality definitions should be precise, and the reasons to prefer your topicality violation should be clear and have direct relation to your interpretation. Topicality debates are about the scope of and competition generated by the resolution. I usually default to competing interpretations, as long as both sides have clear, contextual, and well warranted interpretations. If your interpretation is missing one of these three elements, go for another argument. Reasonability is a winnable argument in front of me as long as you offer specific and warranted reasons why your interpretation is reasonable vis- -vis the negative. I vote on potential abuse and proven abuse.

Kritiks Should be based in the resolution and be well researched with specific links to the affirmative. Reading generic links to the topic is insufficient to establish a link to the affirmative. Alternatives should be well explained and evidenced with specific warrants as to the question of link solvency. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by negative teams where they have failed to explain the link debate or alternative adequately. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by affirmative teams when I am judging are ones where the affirmative failed to sufficiently argue for a permutation argument or compare the impacts of the affirmative to the impacts of the criticism sufficiently. I firmly believe that the affirmative gets to weigh the advantages of the plan against the impacts of the criticism unless the link to the criticism directly stems from the framing of the Affirmative impacts. I also believe that the affirmative can usually win solvency deficits to the alternative based upon deficits in implementation and/or instrumentalization of the alternative. Arguments that these solvency deficits do not apply because of framework, or that the affirmative has no right to solving the affirmative, are non-starters for me.

Counterplans Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans. NR counterplans are an effective means of answering new 1AR arguments and add-ons and are fair to the affirmative team if they are responses to new 1AR developments. I believe that counterplans are the most effective means of testing the affirmative's plan via competitive policy options and are an effective means of solving for large portions of the affirmative. Counterplans are usually a fair check against new affirmatives, non-intrinsic advantages, and affirmatives with bad or no solvency evidence. If you have a theoretical objection to the counterplan, make it compelling, have an interpretation, and win offense. Theoretical objections to the counterplan are fine, but I have a high threshold for these arguments unless there is a specific violation and interpretation that makes sense in the context of competitive demands in debate.

Disads Yes and yes. A likely winning strategy in front of me usually involves going for a disadvantage to the affirmative and burying the case with quality arguments and evidence. Disadvantages should have specific links to the case and a coherent internal link story. It is your job to explain the causal chain of events that leads to the disadvantage. A disadvantage with no internal links is no disad.

Case Debate - Is a lost art. Most affirmatives are a hodgepodge of thrown together internal links and old impact evidence. Affirmatives are particularly bad at extending their affirmative and answering negative arguments. Especially new affirmatives. Negative teams should spend a substantial portion of the debate arguing why the affirmative case is problematic. Fewer and fewer teams invest any time in arguing the case, at the cost of a criticism or disadvantage that usually isn't worth reading in the first place. Time trade-offs are not nearly as valuable as quality indictments of the 1AC. Spend those three minutes answering the advantages and solvency and don't read that third criticism or fourth disadvantage, it usually doesn't help you anyway. Inidict the 1AC evidence, make comparative claims about their evidence and your evidence, challenge the specificity or quality of the internal links.

Evidence - Qualifications, context, and data matter. You should answer the evidence read in the debate because I will read evidence at the end. One of the largest problems with paperless debate is the persistence of reading cards to answer cards when a simple argument about the context or quality of the evidence will do. It takes less time to answer a piece of terrible evidence with an analytic argument than it does to read a card against it. It is useless to throw good cards after bad.

Speaker Points - Are a reflection of the quality of speaking, arguments, and strategic choice made by debaters in the debate no more, no less.

One final note - I have heard and seen some despicable things in debate in the past few years. Having a platform to espouse your ideas does not give you the right to make fun of other debaters' limitations, tell them to die, blame them for other's deaths, threaten them with violence (explicitly or implicitly), or generally be a horrible person. Debate as an activity was designed to cultivate a community of burgeoning intellectuals whose purpose is the pedagogical development of college students through a competitive and repetitive engagement of complex ideas. If you think that something you are about to say might cross the line from argument into personal attack or derogatory statement do not say it. If you decide to cross that line, it is my interpretation of the event that matters and I will walk out of your debate and assign you an immediate loss.

---

Justin Perkins - Sacramento

My name is Justin Perkins, I am an assistant coach at California State University, Sacramento where I am primarily responsible for Individual Events and Debate events including Parliamentary Debate and NFA-LD. I have competed in Competitive Forensics for 4 years in High School for Oceanside High and 4 years in College for Palomar College and California State-University Los Angeles, primarily in Interpretation events. I majored in Performance Studies and am inclined academically and intuitively with the message and the performer-audience relationship in all its critical perspectives. I think persuasion is magic, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. I have been coaching since 2006, and have been judging debate since 2007. I judge about 40 rounds a year, if not more, I don't really keep count. I also judge that many and more in Individual Events. I'd like to get as close as I can to cohesive way to view and judge all forensic performance, for after all, every event seeks to persuade its audience, and each does so in similar yet beautifully different ways.

Everything is debatable. I view debate as a fun and complex game of serious, academic inquiry. I view myself as a referee of said game and am inclined to allow the players to decide the outcome on the field of play. With that said, I'll get one thing out of the way, because I forget to say it most of the time; If you have any position that is fun, experimental, controversial, out-of-the-box, or non-traditional, I may be your best chance to win it. This means I'm willing to listen to anything; there is nothing you can say that will automatically lose my ballot or automatically win my ballot. I will fight to remain objective and not weigh in on my decision until the final second has expired and will try as I may to write, record, and weigh everything levied in the round. I also tend to weigh inventive, on the spot, witty in-round arguments more than I should.

This leads into the first question that debaters usually have; speed and structure. I don't find speed to be a particularly appealing way to persuade an audience, and debaters usually out pace their structure to the point of incomprehensible stammering, but hey, itâs your round as much as it is mine. I will, upon verbal agreement in the round, verbally call out âclearâ? for you to speak more clearly, âSpeedâ? to speak more slowly, and âSignpostâ? if I don't where you are. Feel free to adhere to these cues at the expense of speaker points and possible arguments that might influence my decision. Don't âcross applyâ? or âpull throughâ? arguments, especially just incoherent numbering/lettering systems, please restate and analyze and then weigh why you're winning under the agreed upon criteria.

I enjoy the procedural debate as long as it is a witty, intellectual exercise of logic. I weigh offense on the procedural in the time trade off and donât really recognize âreverse votersâ? for numerous reasons. I weigh good, practical arguments more than dropped, fallacious arguments unless really encouraged to do so. The best way to not lose a procedural is to not violate procedure in the first place. I love positions that interrogate structures of power, and criticize aspects of society at large. I embrace the Kritik, but also traditional forms such as DA/CP and other inventive double binds. Give me your best and have fun.

---

Justin Henry - BSU

n/a

---

Justin Raymundo - Hireds

n/a

---

KIrby Weber - Hireds

n/a

---

Kacy Stevens - COD

I will listen to every argument a debater presents. However, as much as I try, I do find it difficult to divorce myself from my knowledge of fallacious argumentation. Thus, I tend to focus on logical links and how they tie back to the weighing mechanism of the round. If there are links to nuclear war or other hyperbolicscenariosthatare easily broken, I am unlikely to vote on such unrealistic impacts, especially if they have been delinked.

IPDA should be dramatically different than parli. When a debater turns an IPDA round into a parli round, I am likely to vote for the OTHER debater in the round. Delivery, organization, and ethos matter significantly more in IPDA than in parli.

I highly value courteous and respectful debate in both parli and IPDA. I believe strongly in the idea that one of the major distinctions between debate argumentation and "verbal fighting" is the high degree of respect debaters show each other in and out of rounds. Ethos has its place in debate and respect to others does impact ethos. I strongly believe in the distinction between fact, value, and policy resolutions. The burdens for each are vastly different and require teams to focus the debate in drastically different ways. I hold true to the idea that setting up a case using the correct resolutional type is a burden of the government team.

In voting in parli, I equally weigh prima facia issues and the weighing mechanism of the round. I expect debaters to impact their arguments directly to the weighing mechanism established in the round. IMPACT, IMPACT, IMPACT

In parli, speed sometimes occurs, but should not be relied upon. I will make it clear when the speed becomes so quick that I can no longer flow the debate by simply putting my pen down. It should be a clear nonverbal indicator to every debater that I am no longer flowing the debate because of speed, and therefore will not vote on the arguments that are not on my flow. However, I will pick back up my pen and continue flowing when the speaking rate becomes reasonable enough to flow.I also believe that speed impacts credibility. While debate relies heavily upon logos, ethos and pathos should not be ignored. Beyond speed, I also highly encourage debaters to use strong organization including, taglines, roman numerals, capital letters, etc. Labeling and numbering arguments is one of the easiest ways to ensure that both teams and the judge(s) are on the same page. Jargon alone does not make an argument; a debater's explanation of the jargon makes an argument. Jargon alone will never be voted on by me. I expect debaters to explain why the jargon is significant to the round and how it should impact my voting. Technicalities can matter but only if the debater(s) impact out why the technical elements have a bearing on the round itself. Procedural arguments are a part of debate for a reason but should not be relied upon solely to win rounds. If procedurals are present, debaters should feel free to run them and IMPACT them, but not force them to work.

---

Kaitlyn Bull - WU

---

Kari Troyer - Sterling

n/a

---

Katie Baldwin (Reining) - McK

---

Keegan Bosch - CMU

n/a

---

Kelly Burns - WU

---

Kelsey Schott - BSU

n/a

---

Ken Newby - Morehouse

n/a

---

Kensey Dressler - Utah

n/a

---

Kevin Minch - Truman

---

Kevin Ozomaro - UOP

I’ve debated for 5 years, I’ve coached hs LD, parli, and pf. I have about 5 years of coaching between high school and college. I have a years worth of middle school debate coaching.

The Basics:

• In NFA-LD Post AFFs you have run on the case list or I get grumpy (https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/)

• Use speechdrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy Debate rounds

• NOTE: If you are paper only you should have a copy for me and your opponent. Otherwise you will need to debate at a slower conversational pace so I can flow all your edv. arguments. (I'm fine with faster evidence reading if I have a copy or you share it digitally)

• I’m fine with the a little bit of speed in NFA-LD and Parli but keep it reasonable or I might miss something.

• Procedurals / theory are fine but articulate the abuse

• I prefer policy-making to K debate. You should probably not run most Ks in front of me.

• I default to net-benefits criteria unless you tell me otherwise

• Tell me why you win.

General Approach to Judging:

I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments I'm going to be disappointed.

Organization is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around—if necessary—but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.

I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it.

If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some other time during the tournament.

Kritiques: I'm probably not the judge you want to run most K's in front of. In most formats of debate I don't think you can unpack the lit and discussion to do it well. If you wish to run Kritical arguments I'll attempt to evaluate them as fairly as I would any other argument in the round.I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you debate. You should probably go slower with these types of positions as they may be new to me, and i'm very unlikely to comprehend a fast kritik.

I will also mention that I’m not a fan of this memorizing evidence / cards thing in parli. If you don’t understand a critical / philosophical standpoint enough to explain it in your own words, then you might not want to run it in front of me.

Weighing: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like overviews and clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I’m in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Do some impact calculus and show me why you won.

Speed: Keep it reasonable. In parli speed tends to be a mistake, but you can go a bit faster than conversational with me if you want. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can’t do that and go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear…please do so. If someone asks you to slow down please do so. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I'm pretty good if I'm on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.

Speed in NFA-LD: I get that there is the speed is “antithetical” to nfa-ld debate line in the bylaws. I also know that almost everyone ignores it. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call “clear” or "slow." That said if you use "clear" or "slow" to be abusive and then go fast and unclear I might punish you in speaks. I'll also listen and vote on theory in regards to speed, but I will NEVER stop a round for speed reasons in any form of debate. If you think the other team should lose for going fast you will have to make that argument.

If you do not flash me the evidence or give me a printed copy, then you need to speak at a slow conversational rate, so I can confirm you are reading what is in the cards. If you want to read evidence a bit faster...send me you stuff. I'm happy to return it OR delete it at the end of the round, but I need it while you are debating.

Safety: I believe that debate is an important educational activity. I think it teaches folks to speak truth to power and trains folks to be good citizens and advocates for change. As a judge I never want to be a limiting factor on your speech. That said the classroom and state / federal laws put some requirements on us in terms of making sure that the educational space is safe. If I ever feel the physical well-being of the people in the round are being threatened, I am inclined to stop the round and bring it to the tournament director.

stolen from Ryan guy of Mjc

---

Kevin Garner - Hireds

n/a

---

Kim James - Hireds

n/a

---

Kimberly Winkle - TTU

n/a

---

Kortni Clements - BSU

n/a

---

Kyle Cheesewright - CofI

This is my most recent judging philosopy. If you want to see a collection of them, with information that is more or less relevant, Net Benefits has an interesting archive.

“All that you touch
You Change.
All that you Change
Changes you.
The only lasting truth
Is Change.
God Is Change.”
–Octavia Butler, “Parable of the Sower.”

Debate is a game. Debate is a strange, beautiful game that we play. Debate is a strange beautiful game that we play with each other.

I love debate. It’s the only game that exists where the rules are up for contestation by each side. There are some rules that aren’t up for discussion, as far as I can tell, these are them:

1/ Each debate will have a team that wins, and a team that looses. Say whatever you want, I am structurally constrained at the end of debate to award one team a win, and the other team will receive a loss. That’s what I got.

2/ Time limits. I think that a discussion should have equal time allotment for each side, and those times should probably alternate. I have yet to see a fair way for this question to be resolved in a debate, other than through arbitrary enforcement. The only exception is that if both teams decide on something else, you have about 45 minutes from the start of the round, to when I have to render a decision.

Pretty much everything else is open to contestation. At this point, I don’t really have any serious, uncontestable beliefs about debate. This means that the discussion is open to you. I do tend to find that I find debates to be more engaging when they are about substantive clash over a narrow set of established issues. This means, I tend to prefer debates that are specific and deep. Good examples, and comparative discussion of those examples is the easiest way to win my ballot. Generally speaking, I look for comparative impact work. I find that I tend to align more quickly with highly probable and proximate impacts, though magnitude is just so easy.

I tend to prefer LOC strategies that are deep, well explained explorations of a coherent world. The strategy of firing off a bunch of underdeveloped arguments, and trying to develop the strategy that is mishandled by the MG is often successful in front of me, but I almost always think that the round would have been better with a more coherent LOC strategy—for both sides of the debate.

At the end of the debate, when it is time for me to resolve the discussion, I start by identifying what I believe the weighing mechanism should be, based on the arguments made in the debate. Once I have determined the weighing mechanism, I start to wade through the arguments that prove the world will be better or worse, based on the decision mechanism. I always attempt to default to explicit arguments that debaters make about these issues.

Examples are the evidence of Parliamentary debate. Control the examples, and you will control the debate.

On specific issues: I don’t particularly care what you discuss, or how you discuss it. I prefer that you discuss it in a way that gives me access to the discussion. I try not to backfill lots of arguments based on buzzwords. For example, if you say “Topicality is a matter of competing interpretations,” I think I know what that means. But I am not going to default to evaluating every argument on Topicality through an offense/defense paradigm unless you explain to me that I should, and probably try to explicate what kinds of answers would be offensive, and what kinds of answers would be defensive. Similarly, if you say “Topicality should be evaluated through the lens of reasonability,” I think I know what that means. But if you want me to stop evaluating Topicality if you are winning that there is a legitimate counter-interpretation that is supported by a standard, then you should probably say that.

I try to flow debates as specifically as possible. I feel like I have a pretty good written record of most debates.

Rebuttals are times to focus a debate, and go comprehensively for a limited set of arguments. You should have a clear argument for why you are winning the debate as a whole, based on a series of specific extensions from the Member speech. The more time you dedicate to an issue in a debate, the more time I will dedicate to that issue when I am resolving the debate. Unless it just doesn’t matter. Watch out for arguments that don’t matter, they’re tricksy and almost everyone spends too much time on them.

Before I make my decision, I try to force myself to explain what the strongest argument for each side would be if they were winning the debate. I then ask myself how the other team is dealing with those arguments. I try to make sure that each team gets equal time in my final evaluation of a debate.

This is a radical departure from my traditional judging philosophy. I’ll see how it works out for me. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. For the record, I have strong opinions on just about everything that occurs in a debate round—but those strong opinions are for down time and odd rants during practice rounds. I work to keep them out of the debate, and at this point, I think I can say that I do a pretty good job on that account.

I just thought of a third rule. Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I thought speeches are. If you tell me what speaker points I should give you, I will listen, and promptly discard what you say. Probably.

For the sake of transparency: My personal gig is critical-cultural theory. It’s where my heart is. This does not mean that you should use critical theory that you don’t understand or feel comfortable with it. Make the choices in debate that are the best, most strategic, or most ethical for you. If your interested in my personal opinons about your choices, I’m more than happy to share. But I’ll do that after the debate is over, the ballot submitted, and we’re just two humans chatting. The debate will be decided based on the arguments made in the debate.

“[Y]ou can’t escape language: language is everything and everywhere; it’s what lets us have anything to do with one another; it’s what separates us from animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so on.”
-David Foster Wallace, “Authority and American Usage.”

---

Laughton Messmer - ETSU

n/a

---

Laura Moreno - UNG

n/a

---

Laurie Rowland - CSCC

n/a

---

Leah Pryor - Ottawa

n/a

---

Linda Dahlgren - Hireds

n/a

---

Lora Cohn - Park

n/a

---

Louis Petit - UNT

---

Lydia Brown - CofI

n/a

---

MIchael Bartanen - Hireds

n/a

---

Mackenzie Moss - BSU

Mackenzie Moss- Judging Philosophy

I did NPDA for 4 years at Boise State University and just graduated in May of 2018. I like all different kinds of arguments, and think I'm okay with hearing whatever you want to read. I like the rebuttal speeches to paint a pretty clear picture of what each team thinks I should be voting on. I encourage watching my facials/demeanor for recognition throughout the debate. I do pretty well with speed, but I’ll say something if I can’t understand. It should be pretty obvious if there comes a point where I'm not following. I think the only thing I really care to see in a round is people being nice to each other. I am likely to drop someone treating someone else not well. I like debate a lot, and am excited to be judging.

More specifically —

FW: I will assume NB unless told otherwise. I get kind of frustrated when the framework debate isn’t clear. My decision usually starts with what FW I’m supposed to be using to evaluate the rest of the arguments in the debate, so it’s a lot better for both teams if there is either a clear consensus on how I’m evaluating, or if the argumentation regarding FW is clearly outlined throughout the debate. This heavily impacts how I know how to see the potentially more substantive parts of the debate.

T: I need a pretty slow reading of the interp. I also need the debate to slow down a bit when it comes to counter-standards and cross applications of the standards debate on T. And I also need the debate to slow down if T is going to be a big part of the rebuttals.

Case: I think my bias is to like realistic impact scenarios over hypothetical, but I’ll listen to whatever you have to say. Clear impact calc helps avoid any of the intervention that could come from that bias.

K: Read whatever you want. Again clear FW is important because it’s likely I haven’t read what you’re telling me about.

Project: I’ll listen to your project.

Speed: I’ll ask for speed or clarity if I need to. And I appreciate when the speed is accessible for all the debaters in the round, but I’ll vote based on the arguments made.

Feel free to ask if there’s anything else you want to know.

---

Madison Ward - UNL

n/a

---

Mallika Dinesh - Hireds

n/a

---

Maple Adkins-Threats - Truman

---

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.

 

---

Margaret Bilos - Harper College

---

Mariah Gilmore - UCMO

n/a

---

Marisa Mayo - UCMO

n/a

---

Mary Talamantez - Lewis & Clark

n/a

---

Matt DuPuis - NIU

n/a

---

Matthew Doggett - Hills

n/a

---

Matthew Anderson - WTAM

n/a

---

Megan Butts - Hireds

n/a

---

Melissa Benton - Hireds

n/a

---

Micah Huff - Utah

n/a

---

Michael Dvorak - GCU

---

Michael Baumann - Marian

n/a

---

Micheal Mounce - Hireds

n/a

---

Miguel Porfirio - TxState

n/a

---

Mikayla Throne - SBU

---

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)

---

Monica Henson - Hireds

n/a

---

Morgan Authement - Hireds

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.

---

Nathaniel Hosmer - PLNU

I've been debating and coaching for about 10 years (NPDA, IPDA, BP, and LD). You can run any argument you want in front of me provided you give a good justification to do so and explain it well. In general, I prefer debate on the rez, if you run a K it had better be a well-structured one or I will likely vote it down. Tell me why you won and give me impacts!

---

Nick Sitzman - BSU

n/a

---

Parker Hopkins - MoState

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

---

Paul Bloss - WU

1) I would prefer a traditional policy round where impacts are weighed against each other.

 

2) I will only evaluate kritiks if there is a viable textual alternative with solvency. Reject the aff is not enough.

 

3) The ballot is only a tool to show I fulfilled my judging obligation.

 

4) I dont connect the dots for you in terms of your arguments, if you want to win the ballot you need to do that work and tell me why you win with your arguments. I only vote for the arguments you give me and that you end up pulling thru the round.

5) If you decide to run a Performance debate I am not a fan and you will have to do so at your own peril with me as your judge.

6) Topicality you need to cover and win it, but I am pretty liberal on what is Topical. You must prove in round abuse.

7) Counter plans needs to be separate from plan and have solvency for advantages and be competitive. I would rather focus on merits of plan vs counter plan instead of theory debate about was it legitimate and pic good or pic bad.

8) I believe all affirmatives must have a plan text.

9) I am just a judge you need to do all the work in the round to win, dont leave it for me to do your work to decide a round because then you insert my opinions into your round.

 

Background, former College NDT debater at Baylor University, former High School Debater and  Forensic competitor, have been involved in College and High School debate community for over 40 years. I have been involved in recruiting for College Speech programs. I have judged the final rounds of High School Nationals 3 times.

---

Paul Villa - DVC

Updated: September 2023

In debate, the most important thing to me by far is fairness. Fairness gets a lot of lip service in debate and is frequently treated like any other piece on the game board, which is to say that it is wielded as a tool to win rounds, but that isnt what I mean. I dont think fairness is an impact in the same way nuclear war or even education are. Fairness is a legitimate, ethical consideration that exists on the gameboard and above it, and as such, weighs heavily in how I make decisions.

In the context of the game itself, all arguments and strategies exist upon a continuum from a mythical completely fair to an equally mythical completely unfair. I am willing to vote on the vast majority of arguments regardless of where they fall on this continuum, but it is certainly an uphill battle to win those that I perceive as falling closer to completely unfair. Arguments that I would say are meaningfully unfair include:

- Conditional Strategies (Especially multiple conditional advocacies)

- Untopical Affirmatives

- Vacuous Theory (think Sand paradox or anything a high school LD student would find funny)

- Arguing Fairness is bad (obvi)

- Obfuscating

In the context of things that occur above the board, I similarly observe this fairness continuum but am even less likely to vote for these unfair tactics because I view them as a conscious decision to exclude people from this space. I view the following as falling closer to the unfair part of the continuum:

- Refusing to slow down when spreading

- Using highly technical debate strategies against new debaters

- Being bigoted in any way

I tend to find myself most frequently voting for arguments that I perceive as more fair and that I understand and feel comfortable explaining in my RFD. With all of this said, I have voted on Aff Ks, theory I didnt especially like, and conditional strategies, I just want to be upfront that those ballots are certainly more the exception than the norm.

Background: I am the director of debate at Diablo Valley College, I competed in LD and NPDA at the University of the Pacific for 3 years and then was an assistant coach for the team during grad school. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.

---

Peggy Dohlke - Hireds

n/a

---

Quinlan Pulleyking - MoState

---

Quintin Brown - WU

updated: October 24, 2019

Experience: 2 years of parliamentary debate at Northwest Community College, and did 3 years of NPDA and NPTE debate at Washburn University. During this time, I was semi-competitive at both levels. Many of my thoughts and upbringing of debate comes from a multitude of people from the community college circuit and the national circuit. I would say my views on debate though have been largely shaped by Jeannie Hunt, Steven Doubledee, and Kevin O?Leary.

General: Debate to me is a multitude of things meaning that it is an open space for a diversity of arguments. It still to me though is largely a game that is shaped by the real world and lived experience. I am fine with you doing whatever you please, but I am not saying that I will understand it, I will do my best to evaluate all arguments as best as I can. Make the debate yours, have fun, and compete, that?s what I believe.

--Defense (I love terminal defense, to me it is very underutilized)

--Ask for copies of texts or repeat them (ROTB, interps, or anything I will need word for word please read slowly and repeat)

--Partner Communication is fine

In general, I do not have a preference in the style of the way you debate, do you, and I will evaluate the best I can.

Theory: This is one subset of arguments that I wished I delved more into when I debated. I will not say I am the best at understanding theory, but I do not mind a good procedural or a strategic use of theory. Deploy it as necessary or as an escape valve, it doesn?t matter to me. I think having impacted out voters is nice. Although, the standards debate to me is the crux of the shell, gotta win a substantive standard to get the impact/voter. I probably would mostly default to competing interps, as well, to me it just makes the most sense.

Case: I love case debate. Good terminal case defense and awesome turns, to me, is an underutilized strategy. Aff?s be able to defend the case, sometimes as MG?s we get too bogged down prepping for the off case positions, just be sure to be able to defend your case. I think LOC?s should get to case to at least mitigate each advantage, but I understand time constraints and time management.

Performance: To me all debate is a performance, right? Like the judge is basically the audience and evaluates two opposing speakers, seems like a performance, but I digress.

- You should have a role of the ballot/judge argument (probably in your framework interp).

- Explain how the opposing team ought to interact with your performance.

- Explain the importance of your specific performance within the context of the topic.

- Frame your impacts in a manner that is consistent with your performance

The K- I think a good criticism has framework, thesis, links, impacts, alt, and alternative solvency. The thesis allows the judge to be able to better understand the K itself, by giving a short synopsis of the K, the framework tells me how to evaluate it, is fiat illusory, should evaluate epistemology over ontology, etc. The links should be specific to the topic and grounded to the literature or if the aff is a critical aff then there should be good justifications for why you are rejecting the topic ( I will vote on framework). If the aff is a critical aff, if you are on the neg and don?t have good links to the aff and you prepped your k, and you are also going to read Framework, just make a decision and either go for framework or the K (I just think many instances framework contradicts criticsms so reading framework and a K seems to be contradictory to me unless they don?t contradict). The K should probably outweigh and turn the aff. I do not know all critical literature but the literature bases I do know are:

- Post Modernism

- Post Structuralism

- Whiteness

- Critical Race Theory

Don?t let this constrain you though, I love to learn new things and don?t mind listening. I will try my best to evaluate your arguments

CP Theory: Read whatever theory related to Counterplans you want, if you win it you win it. If you lose it, you lose it.

Permutations:

- Always and only a test of competition

- Should explain how the Permutation resolves the links/offense of the DA/K.

- You don't ever need 8 permutations. Read one or two theoretically sound perms with net benefits.

- Sev/Intrinsic perms are probably not voting issues given they are merely tests of competitiveness.

Speak Points: I will probably range from 26-30. 30 would be excellent, 29 is almost excellent, and so forth.

---

Ralph Olliges - Hireds

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.

---

Ruben Flores - Concordia

n/a

---

Ryan Corso-Gonzales - CUI

---

Ryan Louis - Ottawa

n/a

---

Saeed Malami - Lafayette

n/a

---

Sage Austin - Hireds

n/a

---

Sam Begley-May - UNL

---

Sam Winters - Marian

n/a

---

Sam Jones - GCU

---

Samantha Haskell - BSU

n/a

---

Sara Gronstal - EIU

n/a

---

Sara Hertweck - Hireds

n/a

---

Sarah Muir - Truman

---

Sarah Stansbury - TTU

n/a

---

Scott Placke - Lafayette

n/a

---

Scott Jensen - Hireds

n/a

---

Sean Allen - TSU

n/a

---

Sean Atkins - MoState

n/a

---

Shae Khan - CMU

n/a

---

Sharon Turner - Hireds

n/a

---

Shaun Sletten - MoState

---

Shawn Hoover - Hireds

n/a

---

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.

---

Stacy Bernaugh - Hireds

n/a

---

Starr Lee - NIU

n/a

---

Stephanie Goggin - Hireds

n/a

---

Steven Farias - UOP

(March 2022) Quick Read (NPDA/NPTE):

Most debates I watch these days in parliamentary debate discuss structural and/or systemic violence both on the AFF and NEG. The second most common thing I see is theory of some sort. The best debates I see discuss these issues across the debate (i.e.- how does access to the debate implicate the way folks in the round acknowledge and interrogate structural and/or systemic violence). Debates that often end in frustration tend to silo arguments and retreat from counter-arguments in favor of concessions.

I think the AFF should defend a topical advocacy. This does not mean I believe the AFF MUST role play or defend the state structure of the status quo. I believe being creative in how we imagine what state structures can become can allow us to engage in what Native Hawaiian scholar Manulani Aluli Meyer refers to as the radical remembering of the future. Societies and nations have excisted without structures of oppression in the past which means that the current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable. I borrow here because I think there are excellent justifications (although many in debate may end up half-measures) for why the AFF can be topical AND critically interrogate current political and economic systems.

I think NEG advocacies in parli should be unconditional as the concept of testing the AFF and what it means to do so is altered by the structure of parli debate. Theory and advocacies are distinct. Theory is distinct from T. If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then they presumption flips to the AFF as the burden of proof has shifted. Kritik, performance, T, theory, framework, Disads/CP to non-topical AFFs, and Disads/CP to topical AFFs are all open to the NEG. However, I think that the opportunity to indict the AFF in the LOC is often overlooked and many NEG teams allow the AFF infinite offense by conceding case warrants and relying on implied clash.

I think that parli debate is a unique format and that format allows meaningful engagement. While these are things I think the AFF and NEG should do, the only thing you MUST DO is defend a world view at the end of the debate and if you want to win, you ought be comparative in your impact analysis. If you have any questions, I have a lot more below and also am happy to answer any questions at sfarias@pacific.edu.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. In terms of theory I generally have a medium threshold for voting T/Spec except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. However, clever theory is great and generic CONDO Bad is meh. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually have a high propensity to solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.

Section 1: General Information-

While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE PROBABILTY MEANS MORE THAN MERELY CONCEDING AN ARGUMENT/LINK CHAIN.

I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips dont ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say I didnt get that. So please do your best to use words like because followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.

Section 2: Specific Arguments

The K- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality/framework with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that Ks without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves.

In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provided a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how I should perform that role will be ahead on Framework.

For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Please also provide a space for your competitors to engage/advocate with you. If they ask you to stop your position because arguments/rhetoric have turned the space explicitly violent then all folks should take it as a moment to reorient their engagement. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not.

I believe you should be able to read your argument, but not at the expense of others engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.

Topicality/Theory- I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competing definitions and a question of what debate we should be having and why that debate is better or worse than the debate offered by the AFF. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an AFF who is winning that the plan meets a definition that is good in some way (my understanding of reasonability), if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T.

In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized arguments to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win.

Counter Advocacies- Best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team. It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. ALTs, PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with so long as you defend the solvency of your advocacy. Theory can even be a counter advocacy if you choose to articulate it as such. You should do your best to not link to your own advocacy as in my mind, it makes the impacts of your argument inevitable.

With regard to permutations, if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the ALT/CP alone is insufficient and should be rejected as an offensive voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. I do not believe that every link is a disad to the permutation, you must prove it as such in the context of the permutation. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the ALT is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links in both instances as well.

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as I would when I was a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.

LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

Section 1 General Information

Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 12 years coaching experience (2 Grad years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 7 years A/DOF years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific)

General Info: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. I think the AFF should find a way to be topical, but if you are not I then I am sure you will be ready to defend why you choose not to be. I think the NEG is entitled to read whatever they like but should answer the AC and should collapse in the NR. Failing to do one or both of these things means I am much less likely to vote for your strategy because of the primacy of the AFF and/or an inability to develop depth of argument in the NR.

As an academic familiar with critical theory across a host of topics (race, gender, "the state", etc.) feel free to read whatever you like on the AFF or NEG but I expect you to explain its application, not merely rely on the word salad that some of this evidence can use. I understand what is in the salad but you should be describing it with nuance and not expecting me to do that for you. The same is true for standards on theory, permutation arguments, solvency differentials to the CP, or the link story of an advantage or disad. I am willing to vote on any theory position that pertains to the topic (T) or how debates should happen (all other theory). This includes Inherency, or any stock issue, or rules based contestation.

In terms of impacts, I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war, or other black swan events, and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.

Last--I do not think you need evidence for everything in the debate. Feel free to make intuitive arguments about the world and the way things operate. I do think its good if you have evidence for 80-90% of your arguments. I will also say that evidence on issues where it is usually lacking (like voters on theory or RVIs) will be weighted heavily if the only response back is "that's silly"

Section 2 Specific Inquiries

1. How do you adjudicate speed? What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?

I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debaters lack of clarity you will say clear (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debaters excessive speed, I expect you to say speed. In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to report me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.

2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you dont find yourself voting for very often?

I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.

3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achievable at the end of the debate.

4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue

Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons to ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all theory arguments are voting issues.

5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?

Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.

6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months

Yes

7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?

I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.

8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?

No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.

9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?

You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way I am told to weigh them. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.

10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?

My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.

Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!

---

Steven Gill (Online) - Simpson

n/a

---

Sydney Crank - UCMO

n/a

---

Taylor Wilson - Hills

n/a

---

Taylor Ashe - BSU

n/a

---

Taylor Roberson - Hireds

n/a

---

Tennisha Sonsalla - Hireds

n/a

---

Terri Magalhaes - Simpson

n/a

---

Tim Overton - MNSU

n/a

---

Tim Walden - Hireds

n/a

---

Tom Preston - UNG

n/a

---

Tom Serfass - Hireds

n/a

---

Tomeka Robinson - Hofstra

n/a

---

Travis Wolven - ETSU

n/a

---

Trezette Dixon - Hireds

n/a

---

Tyler Behymer - UNL

Hello friends!

Experience: I debated for 3 years of policy in high school, and did 4 years of NFA-LD in college. I am now an assistant coach at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. In my experience as a debater, I primarily focused on policy arguments but did some K debate as well.

Speed: Speed is fine with me, but please be clear, and please respect the wishes of your opponent. I won't drop you for continuing to spread if your opponent asks you to stop, but I will dock your speaks.

Evidence: Obviously skipping in between lines when highlighting is fine, but if you change the intent of the author, or highlight the evidence in such a way that ignores grammar (incomplete or incoherent sentences, subject-verb disagreement, generating entirely new significations, etc.) I won't be happy. Changing the intent of the author is cheating and is sufficient ground to drop you if pointed out by your opponent, and poor-highlighting practices make me inclined to ignore that piece of evidence, or listen to theory about how your evidence practices are abusive/anti-educational.

Framework: Stock Issues don't matter much to me. I evaluate the debate through an offense-defense paradigm unless you tell me otherwise. I'm very open to you changing the frame of the debate, so don't hesitate to do so.

Impact Framing: Please do. If you don't, I will intervene and evaluate the round in terms of the relative probabilities of 'something bad' happening, so it comes down to the risk of the aff solving something bad vs. it creating something bad. If you don't do impact framing, and I 'intervene' in a way that you disagree with, that's your fault.

K: K's are persuasive to me. Please read framework in the 1NC if you wish to change the frame of the debate (ROB, ROJ, etc.). I'm generally comfortable with K lit, but there are definitely some lit bases that I'm less familiar with, so be sure to ask me before round if you have any questions regarding my expertise or whatever. Alt debate is important, and you should probably spend a fair amount of time here, but its not necessary. If you kick the alt but win the framework and link debate you can still get my ballot. The perm is a test of competition, but you can talk about the perm in terms of an 'advocacy' in order to stress test the links. In other words, talk about the perm as if it 'goes into effect' in order to imagine if the perm resolves the links. If there are conceded links to the aff, its much harder to vote on the perm, but I could still do so if it sufficiently resolves the links.

CP: Cool with me. The CP just needs to be a competitive option of action compared to the aff. The perm is a test of competition.

T: T is persuasive to me, especially toward the beginning of the season. You don't need in-round abuse for me to vote for you, but I do find it persuasive, and you need to internal link potential abuse arguments out to your voters. I probably default to viewing the T debate through competing interps, but I will vote on reasonability if you win the framing question. On reasonability, note that I view it operating in conjecture with the counter-interp. Reasonability means that if the aff provides a 'reasonable' counter-interpretation, and meets it, then I don't drop the aff on T. Reasonability does not mean 'I reasonably meet my opponents interp,' so don't frame it this way.

Theory: T is more or less persuasive to me, depending on the abuse/fairness/education story. If an argument is clearly abusive, or operating on sketchy ground theoretically, then make a theory argument. Here's some specifics:

Condo: If the opponent reads 2+ conditional advocacies, condo is more persuasive to me than if they just read one.

PICS Bad: Not overly persuasive unless the PIC is uniquely abusive, but I'll always listen to it.

Vagueness: Probably the least persuasive to me. The plan/cp/alt has got to be really vague for me to vote here. Once again, I'll always listen to it.

Intl Fiat/States Fiat: I will definitely listen to theory args here. I don't think that either type of fiat is inherently abusive, but they have the potential to be.

Do nots: Don't be racist/sexist/transphobic/etc. Don't tell your opponent to harm themselves. Don't flagrantly insult your opponent. I'll drop you.

---

Tyler Garcia - Lewis & Clark

n/a

---

Vani Balram - WU

---

Wendy Braun - Hireds

n/a

---

Wes Lowrey - Sterling

n/a

---

Will Seiler - Simpson

n/a

---

Will Wheeler - SBU

---

Ximena Bustillo - BSU

n/a

---

Zach Thornhill - ILSTU

See tabroom: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=Zach&search_last=thornhill 

---

Zach Hadenfeldt - UNL

---

Zach Oehm - Concordia

n/a

---

Zach Hill - BSU

n/a

---