Aaraf Azad - MoState

n/a

---

Adam Enz - IC

n/a

---

Ailey Pope - Hireds

n/a

---

Al Primack - Pitt

---

Alexandra Walthes - McK

n/a

---

Alexis Hughes - Laf

n/a

---

Alicia Stout - Truman

n/a

---

Allison Levin (Online) - Hireds

n/a

---

Amy Lorenz-Moser - Hireds

n/a

---

Andrea Harper - Hireds

n/a

---

Angela Guo - Hireds

n/a

---

Anne Smith - Lewis & Clark

n/a

---

Arie Likhtman - Pitt

n/a

---

Ashley Bernaugh - Hireds

n/a

---

Audrey Baker - Truman

n/a

---

Austin Sopko - Truman

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

---

Avery Henry - FSU

n/a

---

Aydan McMahon - NW Mo St.

n/a

---

Baylynd Porter - Hireds

n/a

---

Ben Davis - Truman

n/a

---

Beny Grace Bimenyima - Hireds

n/a

---

CJ Miller - UCMO

n/a

---

Carolyn Clarke - Highland

Individual Events (not debate) paradigm: I appreciate when there are content warnings for events (especially interp) that need them. I understand that what "need" means can get subjective. When in doubt, ask your coaches about this... but I would say if you are on the fence about it, it is better to have one if I am judging than not to. For example, if an interp is graphic, involves acting out something that can be considered traumatic.... (such as abuse, etc.), no matter how good the performance is, a lack of a content warning will likely effect your rank because folks need to be able to consent to seeing it.

~*Debate Paradigm*~

*Please take my directness in this paradigm as only my opinion-- there is no "wrong" way of doing things and when in doubt, listen to your coach! This paradigm just describes stylistically/behaviorally, what I prefer in a debate.:)*

My debate paradigm prefers styles that are more common at tournaments such as Pi Kappa Delta and Phi Rho Pi as opposed to the styles more commonly associated with NPDA or IPDA nationals. I genuinely love debate and I enjoy watching/judging rounds and providing feedback. Watching an amazing debate is like, eating a decadent cake for me. So just know, I am happy to be there and excited to see you learn and grow as a debater.

I consider myself a "mostly" tabula rasa (blank slate) judge-- but I also understand that some arguments are inherently stronger than others. I would like to be directly told why one argument should be valued over the other. I like being blatantly told, reminded, and shown how and why you are winning over your opponents. I also like when you compare the quantity and quality of your impacts to your opponents' (impact calculus).

I can enjoy almost any debate, but I am particularly fond of the following: Directness. I. Love. Directness. I've realized that the more direct a debate round is, the more I tend to enjoy it. I love pathos, but poetic and flowery langauge / delivery is less engaging to me than directness and being real about what is happening in-round. Show and tell me why your argument matters and why I should care. I want the debate round to be acknowledged as such and for there to be direct clash of arguments. Essentially, I want to hear "voter issue"- type reasoning that the (aff/gov/opp/neg) won the round throughout the debate and not just in rebuttals/summaries. I do not want to see two competing extemps. I want to know why you are winning. Show me and sell it to me directly, please. No fluff. (**Voter issue - summarized reason of why you won the round).

I firmly believe that everything in debate is up for debate and there are very few "rules". The rules are the timeframes in which you speak, if there is flex time or cross examination, using internet within rounds, etc. When it comes to arguments, to me, there are no rules. So any "that's against the rules!" claims are unlikely to move me.

I think debate should be accessible. Thus, I hate speed (talking really fast). Do not speed. If you are gasping, you are speeding. If your opponent or I say "clear", slow down or it will really effect your speaker points. Like I will cut them in half. Speed = inaccessable to many people and thus, makes for crappy debate. It's also hinders genuine persuasion. If your idea of winning means putting the most on the flow and hoping the other team drops arguments due to your speed----What does that say about your confidence in your logical argumentation and engagement with your opponents? Just don't speed. It's cringe. I also have a very hard time understanding speed and can't flow it so you risk me dropping all of your arguments. It's a risk you don't want to take.

Continuing on accessiblity: Jargon - I know pretty much all debate jargon but it should be explained before using it. This makes it more accessible to your audience and competitors who may not know the term you are using. I feel this about any form of debate I am judging. Don't just say "Perm the counterplan", first explain what a perm is. Don't just say "the weighing mechanism is more true than false", first explain what a weighing mechanism is, and then how "more true than false" works as a weighing mechanism. If your opponent has never heard of a term, your built-in description of what it is should still give them the opportunity to understand and argue against it. I feel like debate should be won by good logic and argumentation, not "I know this term and you don't.".

On General Argumentation: As a judge, I want to hear all of the "hows" and "whys". I vote on arguments, not claims. I love good links. Show me how you got to your claim. I will not make links for you. Also, I really love fully fledged out impacts. How does your argument impact back to the weighing mechanism? The resolution? The debate? Debate as a whole? Outside the realm of debate? I generally don't consider arguments without links or impacts on the flow. If your opponent lacks links or impacts bring that up to me (**Flow - documentation of debate arguments and responses throughout the round).

On evidence: I believe, a form of debate that allows/encourages citing sources means sources along with their credibility can be up for debate. Cite your dates because that is also up for debate. Sources are not evidence-- they are used to validate your evidence. Evidence is an example "proving" your claim or link. I firmly believe that, at least in IPDA & NPDA, sources are not necessary to win a round. However, evidence, is.... but if your opponent has no sources that should still be brought up (use all your tools).

On organization: I prefer clear hierarchical structure. Give me your 1's, 2's, A's and B's. Example:

Contention II.

___A.

________1.

____________a.

____________b.

________2.

____________a.

____________b.

____B. ....... get it?

Label your structure so it can be easily found on the flow. I expect this in Parli. I know it may not always be realistic in IPDA. Try to also label your responses and refer directly to where they are on the flow: "On the Government's Contention 1, Big A, little 1, little b: They stated x, y, and z. I have 3 responses to this. First,..... second,.... third,... This type of structure makes for such a clean debate.

On Resolutional Analysis: I expect clear, concrete, definitions. Don't leave room for questions. Put it all on the table and own it. Neg - if something feels fishy or unfair, it probably is. Figure it out and call it out. Be direct and again, own it.

On definitions: I care a lot about aff's rights... especially in a format like IPDA where the rebuttal & summary are only 3 minutes. Neg does not just get to bring up definitions because they decide to, and they don't win on spontaneous definitions with no warrant. "My definitions are preferable because xyz" is not good enough. Aff needs to commit a violation in order for neg to change the definitions. However, the affirmative NEEDS to call out any attempt at newly established definitions by neg. Otherwise the neg gets away with it. I see this too often in IPDA. There needs to be a justification as to why the definitions have to change. It's aff's burden and right to define the round and set the parameters on it. "My definitions are better" or "my definitions have a source" or "the source for my definitions is better" are not good enough reasons. Unless aff has 1. caused ground loss in the way they have set up the round, 2. are flat out wrong and are framing the round in a way that is not in line with the resolution, 3. are so vague that clarification needs to occur or 4. The choices were so offensive that it becomes something that cannot be debated, then AFF is who gets to define the round. Neg, if you are dying to change the definitions, you need to explain which of those four violations aff has committed and why it matters. Aff, even if neg doesn't provide those links and impacts, you still need to combat the claim by proving you aren't doing whatever the violation is. It cannot go unresponded to.

On Trichotomy in Parli and IPDA: I am used to and expect cases to be fact, value, or policy ("metaphor" can just be sorted into one of those 3). While I prefer policy rounds, I do not come from the mindset that all rounds are or should be policy. There are multiple formats of debate dedicated to that, and it isn't IPDA or NPDA. Parli was created to expand the resolution types into fact, value, and policy instead of ONLY policy... and you can consider IPDA Parli's younger, also-trichotomous cousin. Thus, I tend to sympathize with opp/neg teams facing unpredictably defined rounds on the basis of trichotomy, but it needs to be brought up and called out directly. I will not make that argument for the negative. (***Trichotomy - a debate framework that allows for 3 types of resolutions: fact, value, and policy).

On Policy in IPDA: To me, IPDA norms are the wild west and I'm still undecided if having a formal policy is a competitive approach (As opposed to just arguing "should we do this, or should we not?"). That said, I think I am personally starting to lean toward wanting to see even just one mandate. I think it's important to "play" policy-maker in debate because whose to say you won't be one someday? It also helps you understand "real world" policies. I think debaters should also be able to form plan-specific disadvantages -- not just disadvantages to a world without the harms described by aff... which is what we usually see in IPDA. I'm not sure which approach is more competitive, but to me I think even just having one formal mandate is more educational for both sides than not.

On Topicality in IPDA - Necessary. Just don't call it a topicality argument or use jargon. Explain it like you are talking to a 6 year old. (**Topicality - when the neg team asserts the aff's case does not fall within the scope of the resolution, or violates what is considered to be a foundational standard in defining a round).

On Performative Debate: If you can justify it, can defend it, and are direct about it, I'm open. Tell me what is going on though. Like, if you want to bring out a guitar for a debate round...or play pretend with the room... OK, but warrant it.

On Abuse: I accept all forms of abuse arguments. However, I expect to be walked through HOW the abuse occurs and I need to know why it matters 1. To the round but 2. More importantly, out of this round. Why should we care about abuse in debate? What are the implications of letting your opponents do what they are doing? Tell. me.

Kritiks: I accept K's. I actually love them--- but I find resolutional K's to be incredibly frustrating. I feel they are often used as a tactic to just catch opponents off guard as opposed to making a genuine, contextual, and appropriate critique on what is happening in the round. Please do the latter if you are going to run a K. (***Kritik/K - a critique of something rhetorical in the round that then becomes a voter issue. Some examples of what a kritik could be called on are: someone saying something incredibly offensive in-round, a resolution that is problematic or definitions that force the negative to be problematic, speeding and thus making your arguments inaccessible to various types of folk, etc.).

Counterplans: Ew. I'm allergic to counterplans. I will accept counterplans but I strongly dislike them. *Especially in IPDA*. The only time I think a counterplan is necessary is when the harms are so valid (and probably identity-related) that refuting them would be offensive (in which case, you should also run a K. See above). If you are running a counterplan, it NEEDS to be nontopical (as in, I still expect neg to uphold the burden of refutation and oppose the resolution. Aff needs to be upholding the resolution, not neg.). I also expect the plan to meet all of the solvency and advantages that the original plan does, plus more. AND, it needs to be mutually exclusive to the original plan. Whenever it's not, I always hope that the affirmative perms the counterplan. I accept perms with little justification. To me, if neg decides to run a counterplan that does not directly conflict with the original plan, Aff can say "ok, we will do both plans, and claim all of the advantages!"-- in that case, I'd give the round to an affirmative team, because both teams met the affirmative burden: upholding the resolution.... while neg did not uphold their burden because they did not negate the resolution. So. Long story short, I don't like counterplans and I don't think they are as an effective approach as disads. I think running a counterplan is less competitive. In my experience, it reduces clash, which makes for worse debates. It's like throwing two plates of spaghetti at a wall and seeing which one sticks. At least to me. Ick. (***Perm - short for permutation - an argument made by the affirmative team to show that their plan and the negative's counterplan are not mutually exclusive and can be done at the same time...usually winning aff the round. In order to overcome a perm, the negative must prove that their counterplan alone without the affirmative plan is superior to a case where both plans are run).

Illegal Should Would Arguments: The affirmative has fiat power. The plan passes. Period. It doesn't get bogged down in congress, there is no "well so and so will veto this". Nope. As far as I am concerned, the plan passes the moment the aff is done announcing it. (Illegal should would arguments*** - when the negative (unless it's in response to a counterplan) argues that the affirmative can't pass their plan for any reason. Nope. the plan passes. By any and all means necessary, the plan passes. Feel free to say that whenever announcing your plan!).

Weighing Mechanism: I do not like "preponderance of evidence" as a WM because it values the evidence part of the argument over the arguments as a whole. When you run that as a WM, you open the door to the other team citing more sources than you and then arguing "well, we had more evidence, our evidence was of higher quality, etc. and thus we win the round." that to me is incredibly frustrating. I want clash, logic, and direct refutation. Not inherant wins because of "I had more/better evidence". Even worse, I dislike "judge, however you feel personally". That opens a nasty can of worms--- when this happens, I tend to vote for the team that did not establish that WM. Because I personally feel that is a bad WM. That demonstrates the problem with it. (***Weighing mechanism - a way for debaters and judges to compare or "weigh" arguments, ultimately deciding which side should win the round).

Partner to partner communication: I accept whispering and quietly communicating with your partner during the round (although, not verbally DURING your partner's speech). Flashing / passing notes is fine by me, but if you speak during your partner's speech it will negatively affect your speaker points. A lot.

Shaming or hissing - will negatively effect your speaker points. Like, I will cut them in half. If your opponent offends you or says something offensive it is so much more competitive and persuasive to bring it up in the round as a K or a voter. That said, when I have heard shaming or hissing it has never been warranted. "I am winning over my opponent because..." does not warrant that. "The affirmative team has violated the standard of education" does not warrant that. Think of a really nasty insult you would hate to hear-- that could warrant shaming or hissing, but wouldn't you rather bring it up as a K so you could win on it? (**Shaming and hissing - when opponents or audience members verbally "shame" (Like, they literally say "shame" during your speech) or hiss at a speaker, insinuating they did something "shameful" or offensive).

Questions: Love questions. Ask questions during cross examination alone in IPDA. For Parli, ask questions in flex time but ask them during speeches too. Flex time is not the same as cross examination. It's a time for clarification and preparation. As a debater, I think it is important to try to use all of the tools you have available to you-- asking questions during a speech is a tool.

Policies: I expect policies to contain at the very least, some form of CLEAR mandate statement(s), a timeline, and funding. There probably should be more and could prompt disads if there isn't, but hey. It's your round. In IPDA I am more open-minded about this though I think I am starting to want to see mandates.

Values: Usually in value rounds there is the WM and then an additional value or value(s) applied as structural lens for the round. If the affirmative team wants to establish a value in a value round, that value should either be fair and applicable to both teams or the affirmative should literally tell the negative that they are selecting that value, and expect the negative to select a countervalue. If the affirmative does not specify this and they apply a value that does not provide ample ground for both teams, the negative should bring up a warrant for a countervalue. By warrant, I mean, what is wrong with the original value? I don't think neg is just effortlessly granted a counter value just because. Explain why neg needs a counter value and then provide a better one. However, if aff is expecting neg to bring up their own value, they need to say that. Otherwise their aff-only value could be twisted as a structural element that also applies to neg, and is thus abusive or unfair...which could win neg a round, if they bring it up.

(***Splitting the neg - bringing up new arguments in the Member of Opp speech in Parli): I believe bringing up a ton of new arguments in the second negative speech is incredibly abusive. If you plan on giving the gov only their last, 5-minute speech to refutue your brand new arguments, continue the old ones, and get to voters, then you have the wrong judge. That said, aff needs to call out this abuse in order for me to vote on it. Why is this abusive? What is this abuse's impact on debate? I especially love when aff preemptively calls it out and says "don't let them bring up a bunch of new arguments" when they had the chance to assert them in the first negative constructive.

On pronouns and names: I prefer for students to call each other by their roles: "the negative", "the affirmative", "The prime minister", "The opposition" etc. This is because saying names opens the door to mispronouncing names and it also makes the round so personal-- something about that layer of intimacy whilst engaging in clash makes me uncomfortable. Also, if the debate round gets heated, it feels MUCH more personal when names and pronouns are being used. Speaking of pronouns- using them makes it more likely to misgender someone. So instead, using "they" and refering to your opponent as their position as opposed to their name allows for less unneccessary risk.

On thank yous and cross ex behavior:Keep thank you's short and genuine. A "blanket" of thank yous means you are thanking everyone in one thank you. No need to go through and thank individual people after saying "blanket of thank you's". That defeats the purpose of the blanket. No need to have "How are you?" or "How is your day going?" as cross examination questions. To me it can come off disingenous and somewhat unsettling--too intimate for the context. You can be kind and polite to your opponents, even be friends with them, without making it performative for a debate. Stick to the meat.

AGDs in any form of debate: Not for me. Time is a precious resource in debate and to me, that is a waste of it--- unless it involves going straight into the topic and gives context (and even probably then), cut it if I am your only judge.

Burdens: I think it is aff's job to fulfill the burden of proof and neg's job to fulfill the burden of refutation. If I'm confused in a round as to what is going on, I will vote on who upheld their burden the best.

---

Cassidy Troyer - Sterling

n/a

---

Char Sucik - Hireds

n/a

---

Christine Miller - Sacramento

n/a

---

Christopher Lapee - KCKCC

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=107362

---

Clint Wooderson - SBU

n/a

---

Colten White - UNL

---

Dan Bloomingdale - Texas Tech

n/a

---

Dani Belo - Hireds

n/a

---

Darren Elliott - KCKCC

Darren Elliott "Chief" --Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City KS Community College

Director and Head Coach at KCKCC for the past two decades. In that time we have had multiple late elim teams at CEDA Nats, multiple teams qualified to the NDT, 2015 NPDA Parli National Champions, 2016 NFA LD National Champion, mulitple CC National Championships in all formats of Debate and some IE's as well. I appreciate the breadth the activity provides and I enjoy coaching, judging hard working students who value the activity.

*PARLI ADDITION--The Aff should have any plan texts, ROTB, ROTJ, Alts, Etc. written on paper prior to the end of the PMC. The Neg should have any counterplan texts, ROTB, ROTJ, Alts, Etc. written on paper prior to the end of the LOC. Debates are routinely spending 3-5 minutes prior to FLEX time after the first two speeches to manage these issues.

Probably the least interventionist judge you will encounter. Will listen to and fairly consider any argument presented. (Avoid obvious racist and sexist arguments and ad Homs). For an argument to be a round winner you need to win the impact the argument has in relation to the impacts your opponent might be winning and how all of those affect/are affected by the ballot or decision (think framework for the debate). No predispositions against any strategy be it a Disad/CP/Case or K or T/Framework on the Neg or a straight up policy or K Aff. Win what it is you do and win why that matters. I actually appreciate a good Disad/CP/Case Offense debate as much as anything (even though the arguments a number of recent KCKCC debaters might lead one to think otherwise). The beauty of debate is its innovation.

I appreciate in-depth arguments and hard work and reward that with speaker points. A debate that begins in the first couple of speeches at a depth that most debates aspire to be by the last two speeches is a work of art and shows dedication and foresight that should be rewarded. Cross-X as well, in this regard, that shows as good or better of an understanding of your opponents arguments as they do will also be rewarded. Cross-X is a lost art.

Most of all--Have Fun and Good Luck!!

---

Dave Dobyns - Hireds

n/a

---

David Pennington - Hireds

n/a

---

Deanna Beaton - Hireds

n/a

---

Debbie Berrong - Hireds

n/a

---

Elijah Baum - Truman

n/a

---

Elyssa Mersdorf - Newberry C

n/a

---

Emily Schmich - Hireds

n/a

---

Emily Breeze - Hireds

n/a

---

Emily Morrison - Hireds

n/a

---

Evan Grisham - Lewis & Clark

n/a

---

Fionnuala Matthews - Hireds

n/a

---

Fred Schrick - Hireds

n/a

---

Gabby Lamura - FSU

n/a

---

Garrett Dohlke - Hireds

n/a

---

Grace Wigington - UCF

n/a

---

Harriet Clark - Hireds

n/a

---

Hayden Etter - UCMO

n/a

---

Holden Bukowsky - UNL

n/a

---

Iris Vermillion - UCMO

n/a

---

Isabella Orsay - Hireds

n/a

---

Jaime Staengel - MurSta

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 Roach - Hireds

n/a

---

Jeff Harkleroad (Online) - Hireds

n/a

---

Jeff Kratz - Hireds

n/a

---

Jeff Kopolow - Hireds

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.

---

Jessica Teska - Hireds

n/a

---

Jessie Paxton - UCMO

n/a

---

Joe Blasdel - McK

Section 1: General Information

I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so ever since.

In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.

On trichotomy, I tend to think the government has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I donât see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. Iâm also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.

If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If youâre calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.

Iâm not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ânewâ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ânewâ PMR arguments.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).

Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be âcontradictoryâ? with other negative positions?

Iâm open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than your average judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, itâs important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, itâs likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.

Performance based argumentsâ?¦

Same as above.

Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position thatâs run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework â Iâm not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an âaverageâ threshold. I donât vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a âhighâ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, Iâm probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.

Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?

All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I donât have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?

All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?

I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.

---

Joe Gantt - Lewis & Clark

 

---

John Wallis - Newberry C

n/a

---

Jonathan Arens - Hireds

n/a

---

Jonathan Conway - UCF

n/a

---

Jordan Compton - UCMO

n/a

---

Jordan Smith - Hireds

n/a

---

Josh Sanders - MurSta

n/a

---

Joshua Kofahl - UCMO

n/a

---

Juliana Ness - Hireds

n/a

---

Kamryn Moore - Hireds

n/a

---

Ken Troyer - Sterling

n/a

---

Kevin Minch - Truman

---

Kirby Weber - Hireds

n/a

---

Kit Jenkins - Hireds

n/a

---

Lars Wagener - Truman

n/a

---

Laurel Kratz - Hireds

n/a

---

Lauren Woodall - UMKC

n/a

---

Leigh Cummings - Hireds

n/a

---

Mariah Gilmore - Simpson

n/a

---

Marisa Mayo - Simpson

n/a

---

Mary Preuss - Hireds

n/a

---

Matt Parnell - Hireds

n/a

---

Matthew Wilkinson - MoState

n/a

---

Maya Szafraniec - KCKCC

I debated for 8 years. In college, I debated mostly parli, some LD and Policy, for Saint Marys College of California. My partner and I dropped in octos of NPDA in 2019. I have been coaching debate both at SMC and at KCKCC since then. In college, My debate partner and I mostly read critical arguments. So Im cool with Ks, and a well-written K will make me happy. Make sure you can explain how you link and how your alt solves. I also know my way around a plan debate, so read whatever draws you. Make sure your Aff is inherent, and have a clear, consistent story through uniqueness, links, and impact. Im also down to hear your CP/DA and think condo is probably good. I would be equally happy to vote on a theory or framework argument as long as you tell me how it wins the debate. I can handle speed, just slow down for your alt/plan and interps and dont use it to exclude people, that will make me fussy.

I also reserve the right to vote teams down for being overtly oppressive (saying something racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, ablest, Islamophobic, etc.), generally or directed to competitors.

Bring me a chai and you get block 30s

Overall: Read offence. Use more warrants. Do impact calc, the more work you do for me explaining how you win the better your chances are of winning. Be nice to each other.

---

Md Ragib Rahman - MoState

n/a

---

Melissa Benton - Hireds

n/a

---

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.

---

Murray-Ana Moyers - MurSta

n/a

---

Nikki Blue - McK

n/a

---

Noah Smentkowski - SEMO

n/a

---

Olivia Potter - Hireds

n/a

---

Pampa Sarker - Texas Tech

n/a

---

Peter Lundrigan - Simpson

n/a

---

Rebecca Elsen - Noctrl

n/a

---

Rhys Love - Highland

I have a background in ipda and parli and think the event thrives on clear and consistent argumentation. Try to organize as best as you can. Try not to speak and spread is the only thing I dislike, if you use jargon or run anything else make sure that you define and clearly state your grounds for it. Otherwise have fun in the rounds!

---

Robin Higgins - Hireds

n/a

---

Sarah Hill - Hireds

n/a

---

Scott Elliott - UMKC

n/a

---

Scott Thomson - Texas Tech

n/a

---

Sha Wilson - MVC

n/a

---

Shanna Carlson - ILSTU

Background: I competed in parliamentary and LD debate for Washburn University for five years (2005-2010). I freelance coached and judged for three years. I have taught high school and college debate camps for the University of Texas-Dallas, ISU, and Kyushu University in Japan. I am currently the Director of Debate at Illinois State University.

DISCLOSURE THEORY IS LAZY DEBATE AND I WILL GIVE YOU NO HIGHER THAN 15 SPEAKER POINTS IF YOU RUN THIS POSITION (this means at best you will get a low point win).

I am unable to flow too much speed due to an issue with my hand. I will give you 2 verbal "speed" warnings before I just stop flowing all together!

I believe that the debate is yours to be had, but there are a few things that you should know:

1. Blippy, warrantless debates are mind numbing. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. This usually occurs at the top of the AC/NC when you are trying to be "clever." Less "clever," more intelligent. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence.

2. I believe that the speed at which you go should be accessible to everyone in the round, this means your competitor and other judges on a panel. I am open to voting on accessibility and/or clarity kritiks. SPEED SHOULD NOT BE A TOOL OF EXCLUSION!!!!!!

3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not evaluate moral obligations in the round (if you say "Moral Obligation" in college LD Debate I stop flowing, take a selfie, and mock you on social media). This does not mean I will not vote for dehumanization is bad, but I need a warrant outside of just telling me I am morally obligated to do something. Moral obligations are lazy debate, warrant out your arguments. HIGH SCHOOL LD DEBATERS- IGNORE THIS

4. Run whatever strategy you want--I will do my best to evaluate whatever you give me in whatever frame I'm supposed to--if you don't give me the tools I default to policy maker, if it's clearly not a policy maker paradigm round for some reason I'll make something up to vote on...basically, your safest bet is to tell me where to vote.

5. If you are rude, I will not hesitate to tank your speaker points. There is a difference between confidence, snarkiness, and rudeness.

6. When running a kritik you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative text, alt solvency, and role of the ballot (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like.

7. If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow.

8. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round.

9. Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" or "And" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. It also makes it easier for me to make a decision in the end.

10. I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision.

11. If you advocate for a double win I automatically vote for the other person, issue you 1 speaker point, and leave the room. This is a debate, not a conversation. We are here to compete, so don't try to do something else.

12. Wilderson has stated that he does not want his writings used in debate by white individuals. He believes that the use of his writings is contradictory to what he overall stands for because he feels like you are using his arguments and black individuals as a tool to win (functionally monetizing black individuals). So for the love of all that is good please stop running these cards and respect the author's wishes. If you are white and you run his evidence I will not evaluate it out of respect for the author.

13. I will give you auto 30 speaker points if you read your 1AC out of an interp black book with page turns.

Really, I'm open to anything. Debate, have fun, and be engaging. Ask me any questions you may have before the start of the round so that we can all be on the same page :) I also believe this activity should be a learning experience for everyone, so if after a round you have any questions please feel free to approach me and talk to me! I truly mean this because I love talking about debate and the more each debater gains from a round will provide for better rounds in the future for me to judge. If you ever have questions about a comment or RFD please ask. My email is sjcarl3@ilstu.edu

---

Shawna Merrill - IC

My competitive background is mainly in parli, but I judged LD throughout the 17/18 season and am currently head coach of a program competing in NFA-LD.

Debate is ultimately a communication endeavor, and as such, it should be civil and accessible. I’m not a fan of speed. I can handle a moderate amount especially as I follow along with your docs (I want to be included on speechdrop, email chains, etc.), but at the point that you’re gasping for air, I’m over it. Using speed as a strategy to spread your opponent out of the round is not okay for me.

I’m not a big T person. While I prefer proven in-round abuse to vote on T, I will vote for competing interpretations if it’s done well. Basically, if you run T, you’d better mean it. Don’t use it as a time sink.

I will vote on Ks if they address the topic/refute the plan. I enjoy a good critical argument, but don’t assume I’m familiar with all of your literature.

My favorite types of rounds are ones that engage in direct clash and cover the flow. Attend to the link stories and connect the dots as to how we get to your impacts. I’ll vote on just about any argument as long as it’s clearly explained and defended.

Bottom line: don’t try to get too fancy. Run arguments you understand and do what you’re comfortable with.

---

Sonja Vrhovac - Hireds

n/a

---

Spencer Marcum - Hireds

n/a

---

Stacy Bernaugh - Hireds

n/a

---

Stella Park - Hireds

n/a

---

Sydney Crank - UCMO

n/a

---

Tanya Prabhakar - WKY

n/a

---

Taylor Corlee - Crowder

n/a

---

Tess Welch - Hireds

n/a

---

Tiana Brownen - Simpson

n/a

---

Tracy Vonderhaar - Hireds

n/a

---

Tyler Smith - ILSTU

n/a

---

Wes Lowrey - Sterling

n/a

---

Xavier Rantz - Hireds

n/a

---

Zach Dodson - Hireds

n/a

---

Zachary Clark - Hireds

n/a

---