Aaraf Azad - MoState

n/a

---

Al Primack - Pitt

To all interested in a PhD program in communication

The University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) has a strong communication program that emphasizes rhetoric and public affairs, critical media studies and media theory (including: media criticism, media political economy, film, and media history), and argument. Our program only accepts students we can guarantee funding to (tuition remission, teaching assistantships/fellowships, and health insurance). The debate program is looking for high-character coaches that are interested in making debate accessible, educational, and inclusive. Grad students that work with the team receive at least one course release, work a relatively light coaching/judging schedule, and have opportunities to develop skills and competencies around directing a program and planning events. Applications are typically due by early January. For more information, email me atdebate@pitt.edu

Background

I competed in speech and debate at the college level from 2010-2014. My primary debate event was NPDA, but I also competed in some LD and attended policy camp and workshops. My favorite things to run were performance-based critical arguments (e.g., hip-hop), critical race theory, feminist criticism, queer theory-based arguments, but I mostly debated case in NPDA due to partner preference. I coached IEs and some NPDA at CSU Long Beach from 2014-2016. I have been the director of the William Pitt Debating Union since FA 2023.

I do not need content warnings for sensitive topics, but you should always check with your opponent, read other judges paradigms for elimination rounds, and consider providing them if there is an audience.

Labeling

I have realized that I have a strong preference for debaters to label the parts of their arguments (e.g., tell me if something is your link, your solvency, your impact, etc.) and when responding to your opponents arguments, let me know which specific aspect of the argument, or which card, or which claim you are responding to if engaging in direct refutation. I miss the days of "The link is... the internal link is... the impact is... on their solvency... In response to [Author, Date]..." Nowadays, I find I get lost sometimes when, for example, the 1NC does something like "On case" or the aff says "On the econ DA" and then the debater reads a ton of cards without indicating first the specific thing to which each card is being used as a response.

Speed

I prefer debates at a conversational rate of speech. Sometimes I struggle to hear or process spreading (I cannot actually make out the words, and the sound at that speed doesn't help me process the card information before me). Also, for how my mind functions, I have trouble communicating my need for people to slow down because I am so over-focused on trying to comprehend verbal messages.

Affs

I am open to anything, but regardless of the argument you run, you need to provide the grounds and warrant for your claims. Regardless of your aff type, be sure you also have your best, most relevant cards in your 1AC. There are too few speeches in LD to add too much to the backend.

Advantages/Disadvantages

I need a solid link story for ad/disads and I need clearly articulated impact calculus between them. I am a fan of analysis at the link level as I think there is a strong burden for the Aff to show a propensity for their ability to solve or garner an advantage, and I think the same rule applies to disads for the negative. I also prefer more specific evidence than generic evidence. Also, dont make me do the work of impact calculus; thats your burden.

Counterplans

I am open to all sorts of CPs, but the negative needs to defend a CPs theoretical legitimacy if challenged. I also require a clear link story and explanation of exactly how a CP avoids a disad and/or garners a unique benefit that the Aff doesnt. I do think it is ethically best if the neg is upfront about the conditionality of their CP (unconditional, conditional, dispositional) and I am open to argumentation about CP theory. Losing a CP is not an RVI as only the aff has the burden to prove their case.

Kritiks and Framework

I am open to K debate, but I need your Ks philosophical premises explainedclearly. In all my days of performing critically oriented academic research and graduate coursework on queer theories, critical race theory, settler colonial studies, psychoanalysis, etc., I can tell you that everyone has their own Lacan, Foucault, "Butler," Fanon, etc. If you dont want my very particular rhetorical interpretation of your critical argument to guide my evaluation of the round, then please summarize the key theses (or common knowledge) you want me to use when understanding your critical lens - even if it means putting that in your tag or an overview in your constructive speech. In other words, I do not want to intervene, so guide me clearly through the terrain of your argument so that I can reasonably follow without having to review my own version of the map I drew myself the last time I traveled in the critical territory you bring the round to.

All criticisms need to have a 1) strong link story to the specific thing being critiqued (the specific plan or take on the resolution, the specific language used in round, the specific aspects of intercollegiate debate being criticized, etc.; 2) a clearly defined alternative; and 3) an impact.

All criticisms also need a clearly articulated framework that includes: roles for the judge and debaters, role of the ballot, and an understanding of what our debate is. Try to avoid convoluted alternatives, or be ready to explain or "paint a picture" of what the alternative means. If you ask me to prefer deconstructive textual activism over the 1ac, I need to know what your definition of deconstructive textual activism is and how your K functions as that sort of activism or relates to the world of such efforts. You need to make clear to me what your advocacy or alternative is, what my role is in evaluating the round, and what function my ballot serves in the round. Additionally, I am not a fan of alternatives that cannot be enacted. I will take your alt or advocacy quite literally within the context of your argument.

Topicality

I like very specific and contextually relevant definitional work. I am not a fan of T debates where the interpretation comes from a lower-court ruling on an unrelated legal matter or the Merriam Webster's dictionary. Give me relevant legal interpretations (statutory or judicial), industry interpretations, or something actually related to the topic. All words have commonly understood meanings, but with respect to the resolution, we are working with contextually specific interpretations of terms.

If the aff is using the resolution's terms metaphorically, they should be up-front for that and have good responses for the standards debate (and should probably be pre-empted in the framework).

I like a very organized T. I also like T to provide specific articulations of abuse in round, how it might ripple out to the community, and possibly some examples.

If you are running a distinct kind of T (effects, extra, etc.), for the benefit of everyone in round, please explain how that is distinct from just regular T. It's not that I don't know it, but it's that sometimes in the middle of a round during a long day, any little bit of work you can do to reduce a judge's cognitive load is beneficial to you.

Cross Examination

I will typically flow cross-ex but I will not consider it within my evaluation of the round unless those comments are brought up within round (i.e., "In cross-ex they said [xyz], which means [abc])." I really do not like the performance of antagonism, hostility, or aggressiveness that often comes with cross-ex.

Rebuttals

Final rebuttals should provide the judge any necessary instructions for evaluating the round. I don't just need an overview of your argument (although that is helpful), but I need: your impact calculus, judge instructions, and a way to understand the framework/theory debate (if relevant).

Also, the best rebuttals tend to collapse and do great comparative work. Some of the rebuttals that are most difficult to evaluate attempt to go for everything.

---

Alexandra Walthes - McK

n/a

---

Andrew Rea - WU

n/a

---

Angie Dunk (She/Her) - SIC

I come from an individual events competitive background, with my philosophy of debate being derived from that of a non-debate judge, though I thoroughly enjoy debate as a whole. I believe a strong, logical argument rooted in sound research is paramount in debate. Fluency of speech, organization, and good research are all things I hold high on the list of priorities in debate. It is also so important to be respectful of your opponent. Keeping your cool while effectively getting your point across should be something that can be easily achieved. Ethical, respectful behavior is just as, if not more, important in my mind than any other aspect of the competition.

---

Arie Likhtman - Pitt

n/a

---

Ashley Bernaugh - WU

n/a

---

Austin Sopko - Truman

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=296640

---

Ben Davis - Truman

n/a

---

Colten White - UNL

---

Elijah Baum - Truman

n/a

---

Eric Morris - MoState

Eric Morris, DoF - Missouri State â 29th Year Judging 

++++ NFA-LD Version ++++ 

You can see NDT version, which is different, here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6383

I primarily judge in NDTCEDA (which I enjoy), but operate under different assumptions when judging in NFA-LD (if you want to read my NDT CEDA philosophy to understand how I think, it can be found here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_account_id=6383).

I like NFA-LD because it is more novice-friendly, and most of the community prefers DA-case debate. I don't dislike CP's (or K's that refute the plan) outside of the novice division, but direct refutation is refreshing to me.

I tend to prioritize probability (strength of link and internal link) when two impacts have a large magnitude. Uniqueness is rarely 100% either direction (although it can be). 

Explicitly non-topical affs or K's which refuse the topic entirely have a huge presumption to overcome. 

I have a presumption for NFA-LD rules, but you need to apply the specific rule. There is often room for counter-interpretations (including mine). Use them to help you refute arguments instead of making a bunch of independent voters. Thus, stock issues may be a place for debate more than "voting" issues - since negative often minimizes them instead of completely refuting them. 

I like that NFA-LD is not as fast as NDT (for access reasons), but the line of "how much is too much" is hard for me to judge. I want debaters to negotiate this before the round - the round should be no faster than the preferences of either participant (including others judges on a panel). 

Although I lean negative on many T questions relative to the NDT community, I'm not a hardliner on effects T. I think the literature base is relevant to how much is "too much" on extra T. I think T arguments should be grounded in clear definitions/interpretations, and I lean aff when there is uncertainty about the violation. I think spec arguments are best handled as CX questions, and generally have a strong presumption against theory voting issues - reject the argument not the is my leaning. 

If you share evidence via email chain (the best method), my gmail is ermocito. Given quick decision times, I prefer to get a copy of all speeches in real time (even if by flash drive) so I can double check things during prep time and CX. 

 

I will flow closely but often my RFD for the opponent could be reversed with better application of your argument to theirs, or better readings of their evidence to support your argument. Those things are excellent debating. 

---

Holden Bukowsky - UNL

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. My timer is the official timer for the round. You should time yourselves, but check your time against mine. Also, when you are ready to begin speaking, just start speaking. I don't need any "on my first word" or countdowns.

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 Edgar - Morton College

Make Logical, Rational Arguments and Speak with Conviction. Oh, and you can't spell debate with T.

---

Ken Troyer - Sterling

n/a

---

Kevin Minch - Truman

---

Lance Allen - McK

I competed for Mckendree for 4 years and have been coaching since 2013. I try to open about most any arguments that are placed in front of me. I am pretty good with speed, but clarity is important, because Im not as good as I used to be. I will say clear or speed if Im not getting enough. I am open to most any critical arguments; I just need it to be explained and impacted effectively. I am open to performance based args as well, again impacts are important and should be obvious to me and to opponents.

When it comes to topicality, I do not require in round abuse, but it helps. Competing interps is the best way get ahead as an Aff. You should be able to explain why your interp was best.

CP: I generally think pic are bad, but Im ready to hear that debate in round. And, in some specific cases a PIC can be warranted. Any type of competition is acceptable to me in CP.

I usually start evaluating a round on the procedural items and then make my way to case. I think that DA come last because even if I win 100% solvency of the AFF there is a chance I link to the DA or K. If I link, then I evaluate the off-case impacts. To be clear, I should never have to make the choice about where I need to go to evaluate. Debaters should be framing their offense for the judge.

I think that in most cases the easiest thing to default to is terminal impacts. I tend to weigh them first. Systemic impacts are next. Again, I feel uncomfortable making the choice as to what come first, I really want the debate to tell me what needs to be weighed and why. 

Make the rounds as clear as possible for me. An arg you know best and can explain best to me is you best route to my ballot. 

---

Lars Wagener - Truman

n/a

---

Matt Parnell - WU

n/a

---

McN SU-Morgan LeBleu - McNeese

I was primarily a NPDA debater as a competitor. IPDA is very new to me. If you know NPDA I am one of the few judges that would welcome the cross over in the event. Overall, I like a nice clean debate and don't mind a rules debate. I will listen to any arguments you want to put on the flow as long as you can back them up. I like creative and unique arguments. Have fun and don't be abusive.

---

Molly Martin - Pitt

Molly Martin - they/them -mollyam22@gmail.com

Email chain: Always in policy. (Subject Line: Tournament - Round - Aff vs Neg)

Graduate student and assistant coach with the University of Pittsburgh. I competed in policy debate for C.K. McClatchy (14-18) and Gonzaga University (18-22). Mostly read and went for policy affs in college but my research is more aligned critical literature. Regardless of the style of argument you want to make, I care more about an interesting strategy and well-executed decision-making in rebuttals than what type of strategy you choose.

TLDR, 9-14-24:

I'm very warrant-centric, so the more you're explaining your arguments past the tagline and telling me why those arguments matter for the debate, my ballot, etc., the better! I benefit from really direct communication and clear judge instruction about which arguments you think are the most important and which evidence helps support your arguments the best - regardless of the style or types of argument you wish to make. I look for judge instruction, direct clash, evidence comparison throughout a debate, extension of and reference to warrants (beyond the tag), and clear impact analysis/calculus/comparison to help me decide a debate.

I am looking forward to judging your debate, and to hear the arguments that you are interested in making. My argumentative preferences are left at the door; just make complete arguments (claim-warrant-impact) and we'll be good!

Prioritize clarity over speed. Please avoid starting your speech at max speed - work up to that speed. Slow down more for me on analytics, topicality, theory, and case overviews; annunciation is important.

Tech over truth, for the most part - still gotta tell me why things matter. For example, you need to tell me why dropped arguments matter in my decision-making process.

While defense is important (and wins championships), I find that rebuttals that sound or aretoodefensive miss the boat for me in controlling the debate.

I believe that debaters should want to control the perception of their arguments as much as possible so that judges should not have to read evidence after the debate, and that debaters should attempt to write as much of the judge's ballot as possible. While I will read cards needed, my preference is to vote off your explanations of the evidence over the author's - just don't rely on the card doc to do work for you.

Pet peeves: top-heavy overviews, not timing yourselves, stealing prep, excessive CX interruptions, rudeness to your opponents, teammates, or me.

Content:

Case debate -- do it. The best 1NCs on case have analytics that indict affirmative evidence/solvency claims AND evidence. Follow a consistent format/formula to extend your evidence.

Off-case arguments: Links should directly implicate the affirmative or be contextual to the aff, whether it's on a DA or a kritik. I like diversified links to the aff, use of CX moments, and rebuttals that make choices that best tell the full story of the plan and why it is a bad idea.

Affirmative teams should actively use the aff in responding to off-case positions. I find that high-school debates I judge that go for the kritik often do not talk about the affnearlyas much as you should. Links should be predicated on some consequence to the plan, whether it be epistemic or direct.

Turns case arguments are especially important. I want to know how impacts in debate interact.

The best extension of kritiks use examples. What can your theory or thesis be applied to?

Explain, in detail, your permutations. The 2AR is too late to start that. I find it helpful when include info about net benefits to the permutation.

K Affs: I like debates with at least a tangential tie to the resolution, but I will still evaluate affs that don't. I do think not being in the direction of the topic makes negative arguments about limits more compelling. Have reasons why your project is key to resolving specific impacts. What does solvency mean to your project and what role does debate have in it?

Framework: In terms of impacts, internal links, I prefer debates over clash and predictable limits or skills and deliberation over debates about fairness. This just means explain to me why fairness is an impact if that's your preferred strategy.
Use framework as a mechanism to engage with the aff - how can your interpretation speak to and enable debates about what the affirmative is discussing? Have examples of what debate looks like under your topic.

Theory:

I hated judge kick as a debater - I encourage all aff teams to make no judge kick arguments. My preference is that the negative mentions if I can judge kick or not in the block and in the 2NR - I feel it is judge intervention otherwise.

If you are winning theory and you are winning substance, go for substance. If you go for theory do not make me evaluate anything on/about the case.
I will evaluate theory as is debated in the round, and will put aside any preferences I have. Conditionality is not my favorite argument, but will vote on it if debated well/if it is dropped.
Slow down on your theory blocks. A good final rebuttal will break away from pre-written blocks to explain how their interpretation resolves their opponent's offense.

Please feel free to reach out with questions before the round if there is something I didn't include. Happy to talk about debating in college for any high school teams I judge.

---

Naomi Jiminez - Morton College

n/a

---

Noah Smentkowski - SEMO

n/a

---

Rachel Parish (She/Her) - SIC

I approach IPDA from the perspective of a non-debate judge. I believe the event should be able to call without the knowledge of jargon or formal debate mechanics. The best argument will win every time and I do not reward technicalities.

---

Robert Markstrom - McNeese

n/a

---

Scott Elliott - UMKC

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 - WU

---

Stef Cambra - Drury

n/a

---

Steve Doubledee - WU

---

Tryfon Boukouvidis - McNeese

n/a

---

Zach Wallenburg - UNL

n/a

---