Judge Philosophies
Agatha Attridge - Cal State LA
In NPDA, I find clear warranting in-case and impact calculus very helpful, particularly direct comparison between the world each side's impacts create. I am more than fine following quick speed in delivery, though clarity is still appreciated in both delivery and argumentation (the latter particularly within rebuttal). Argumentative consistency helps me in adjudicating, and so clear disclaimer regarding which arguments within cases are being addressed or rebutted is very useful. In line with this organization's values, I value more critically-directed debate, though this approach does not necessarily require argumentative structures idiosyncratic to NPDA or other forms of debate. I believe that the debate space should be safe for protected populations, and behavior that threatens these populations will be at the very least remarked upon on the ballot, and may impact my judging decision if egregious. My familiarity in debate is more philosophically and policy-directed, though arguments making other appeals will still receive full consideration.
Alex Brehm - LCC
Bio: I have been the Director of Forensics at Lower Columbia College since 2016. I coach a little bit of everything, but prioritize IPDA, Platform, and Limited Prep.
IPDA: I coach and judge a lot of IPDA. I love this event. Some preferences that I have in this event include:
- IPDA debaters should prioritize effective communication. Keep the pace reasonable and limit your use of jargon. I'm generally not receptive to Ks in IPDA.
- Though the IPDA Constitution and Bylaws do not explicitly require the use of sources, I believe that good arguments are supported by evidence.
- I'm a sucker for thorough framework. Leave no ambiguity about how the resolution is being interpreted and what each debater needs to do in order to win.
- The wording of the resolution is important, and the way that the debaters agree to interpret it is important. Expect me to revisit the res and framework for the round after the debate has finished. I will make my decision after carefully considering which side has better upheld their burden. Be sure to read the resolution carefully and make sure that your advocacy is in line with what the resolution is asking of you.
- Treat your opponent with respect - they are a human person and this activity is hard.
Other forms of debate (Parli, BP, LD): I don't coach a lot of debate outside of IPDA, but still enjoy when I have the opportunity to judge other formats. Some common thoughts that apply across any non-IPDA format:
- At the end of the day, I'm an IPDA judge - I prefer style and language that is approachable. But I'm also not going to tell you to reinvent your style on my behalf. I'll engage with any style of debating as long as it flies in your format and your opponents find it accessible.
- The farther I get from my comfort zone, the more I appreciate clean framework and clear signposting. You're helping me out a lot if you give me clear verbal cues about your organization. The better I understand your arguments, the more likely you are to get my ballot.
- Otherwise, my judging philosophy for other formats of debate is largely in line with my IPDA philosophy.
Limited Prep: I coach and judge a lot of limited prep. Some preferences I have in these categories include:
- The spirit of these events is that they are delivered with limited preparation and limited notes. When making a close decision, I will prioritize competitors whose examples and attention grabbers do not seem canned or over-rehearsed. Keep your notes to a single notecard in open divisions.
- In extemporaneous, please be careful to answer the full question. Your question is not a general prompt, but rather a specific inquiry that you are asked to respond to. Answer the question, cite good sources, and structure your speech well... you'll end up near the top of my rankings.
- In impromptu, it is important that your interpretation of the prompt is not too much of a stretch, and your examples are reasonably in line with your interpretation. Reusing examples is fine, but fully memorized content does not belong in this category.
- I'm happy to give whatever time signals you want - just ask before the speech :)
Platform: I coach and judge a lot of platform speeches. These were my favorite categories to compete in. Some preferences here include:
- Across all platform categories, I'm interested in evidence. Cite lots of credible sources.
- I'm interested in actionable solutions and smart implications. I've been known to bump a speaker up in my rankings if I'm particularly moved by solutions/implications.
- Time matters... but it's not everything. If your speech goes over time, I'm probably breaking ties in your opponent's favor... but I'm not automatically dropping you to the bottom of the round.
- I will always consider evidence, structure, argument, and delivery when making my ranking decisions. In a competitive round, I will additionally consider originality of topic, scope of impact, and creativity when making tough choices between well-matched competitors.
Interpretation: I don't coach much interp, but I do judge it somewhat often. Some philosophies include:
- I don't need to see trauma to give you my 1. Please care for your mental health while engaging with raw, emotional topics.
- Authenticity matters. I want to believe your character(s), and I want to believe the connection that you have to your performance.
- Good interp makes an argument. I don't need you to solve world hunger in your interpretation, but I still want to hear some advocacy.
Barbara Baron - Hired
n/a
Ben Walker - SMSU
n/a
Benni Fraley - UIndy
n/a
Brandon James - Vanderbilt
n/a
Brian Lain - UNT
Carlos Tarin - UTEP
n/a
Charli Aster - Casper College
n/a
Chris Medina - PVAMU
n/a
Clara Adkins - Marshall
n/a
Clarissa Bowers - UIndy
n/a
Dan Leyes - Hired
n/a
Dani Soibelman - Yale
n/a
Daniel Broyles - Pac U
n/a
Danny Iberri-Shea - USAFA
David Trumble - STA
n/a
Dillon McCoy - TxState
n/a
Doug Hall - Casper College
IPDA: The intent of this event is to be accessbile to the layperson. This is 100% how I look at and judge this event. Detailed procedural arguments have no place in this event. I will not vote on kritik and will likely reject a debater attempting these positions. If the procedural argument is accessbile and well linked, I may consider the reasoning. Other than that, I am looking for fluency of speech, sound logic, good argumentation and research, and an appropriate CX. As for rate, my rule in IPDA is if I can't flow it, I won't. Don't rush! I also, always, look for mutual respect between debaters. Treat each other with kindness.
LD/Parli: I will vote on procedural arguments IF they are well linked and make logical sense. If procedural arguments are being run as a strategy, and do not link well to the resolution in question, I'm not likely to consider it; this especially applies to Kritik positions. Linking a Kritik and offering an alt are critical. Without those two things, I will not vote for K. While I don't necessarily like or respect spreading, I will flow what I can.
Eric Mishne - CU Forensics
n/a
Eric Garcia - IVC
Eunice Adounkpe - Hofstra
n/a
Gavin Gill - Vanderbilt
n/a
Gina Jensen - Webster
n/a
Gina Iberri-Shea - USAFA
Glenn John Cervantes - LCC
n/a
Gloria Batiste-Roberts - TSU Debate Team
n/a
Greg Gorham - GCU
Jacqueline Yu - IVC
n/a
Jaelyn Ashford - TxState
n/a
Jamie Parker (she, her) - UL Lafayette
n/a
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 Stahl - Belmont
n/a
Jennifer Baney - MSJC
My judging paradigm is a policymaker. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option picking up the ballot.
Tips for the neg team: I will vote heavily on disadvantages and counter plans. I find that the chance for students to build their neg case in relation to those items makes for a debate round that is both entertaining and educational therefore easier to judge. However, something that I do not value in a debate is arguments used to fill time rather than which appears to be the overall use of Topicality. Specifically, unless someone is clearly not topical I think it just fills time in debate and removes any educational value so don't run it just to run it. Additionally, my paradigm solves so there should be no need to have a topicality. K's are okay but again unless there is a blatant obvious or necessary it removes the educational value from the debate. To clarify K's are awesome when if you want to sip on some coffee and talk about all sorts of theories, please send me an invitation. However, in a debate round.
Tips for aff: you should make sure that you are calling the neg for these items. It is your job to shape the round fairly and to hold a lasting impact. Do not remove education by making the round too restrictive and please include advantages as well as impacts that are unique. The simplest way to view the debate and remove bias is weighing affirmative's advantages versus the negative's disadvantages because it allows for impacts to decide the ballot. Impacts win my ballot 9/10 times but this does not mean claiming the biggest impact wins but rather the most logical impact carries the most amount of weight.
General tips: I like clear speed but you have to create the most inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. If you are competing against someone who cannot handle your speed it is your responsibility to become inclusive. I flow on a laptop so that means that I need labels to be explicit regardless if you spread or not. I refuse to take "outside gossip" as a role on my ballot and if you decide slander is your game, best of luck.
TLDR; All I really care about are impacts, however, if you want to make the round more enjoyable for me and follow the other stuff I really enjoy, sounds good.
Jennifer Conner - Pac U
n/a
Jenny Billman (She/Her) - SIC
I competed in LD and parli debate. I have coached LD, parli, and IPDA. I believe it's important to use time wisely and be respectful. I'll listen to debates on anything else.
I don't time roadmaps unless they are excessively long.
Jeremy Coffman - PVAMU
n/a
Jewel Smith - TSU Debate Team
n/a
Jill Kraatz - Hired
n/a
John Corum - SIC
I am an experienced policy debater. I am typically standard issues as a judge, but I will let you frame and shape the round for me. Procedurals (especially topicality) will need proven in-round abuse. It is very important to me that both debaters are respectful to each other for the entirety of the round. Have fun and be kind and I will love you.
Julie Walker - SMSU
n/a
Kaden Meyers - OSU
n/a
Katie Thomas - NSU
n/a
Kaylee Kohlmaier - Vanderbilt
n/a
Kensey Dressler - Utah
n/a
Kinny Torre - UNT
Hi Everyone!
I'm Kinny, I'm a Chamoru from Guam, my pronouns are He/Him, and I'm a new graduate assistant at the University of North Texas.
My background is in NPDA debate in college at Western Washington University and policy debate in high school. My competitive career in college mostly involved going for the K or T but please don't let that inhibit you from your ideal strat. I've coached at WWU for 4 years as well as directed high school debate programs. With my students, I've helped coach national champions in a variety of styles and I've judge deep outrounds at most of the tournaments that I've attended so I'd like to think that I can hang with the new debate generation. Feel free to debate in whatever style that you feel is ethical and useful--like all things in debate, it's up for the debaters to justify. To that end, I'll do my best to adapt to you and I expect you to make the same effort. I will say that I won't tolerate someone being an asshole in a debate; depending on the context, that can result in low speaks or an auto-loss. Also, I've only judged one College LD tournament since joining the Mean Green in the Fall of 2020 so do with that what you will.
Below is some of my thoughts about debate when I was a coach at Western Washington University in their Parli program:
TL;DR Do your shit but not at the expense of excluding your opponents* Hello! Background Info: been doing this for too long I debated for 3 years doing policy in Washington State (lol) and 4 years of parli at Western. Im starting my 3rd year of coaching at Western but Ive coached policy, LD, and PF.
*Ill start of by saying that I stayed in this activity because I found this activity to be both fun and educational. Its therefore important to recognize find that diversity can be dangerous if it allows for people to advance an agenda that hurts marginalized individuals. Like obvi you shouldnt be a nazi but its more than just that; speed and frivolous theory should not be a weapon used against novices because of its exclusionary nature. You dont need to go to many tournaments to understand that this format is dying so perhaps we should take measures to prevent its death.
Beyond that, run whatever argument you want at whatever speed or method you wish. The only exception is that there must be a winner/loser at the end of the debate AND the debate must follow speech times and order. Ill do my best to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible. This means that Ill entertain framework arguments against nontopical affs. Delays CPs with tix DAs are cool. Same with floating PICs and Consult nature CPs. Please run all of the weird and untraditional arguments as well as the Heg DA in front of meI just want a good debate!!! The important part is that you tell me what the key issues are and how to I prioritize them. Some random particularism:
¢ Its probably not a good idea to run frivolous theory shells in front of me. Especially MG theory since I dont understand how to judge a theory shell that always gets golden responses. Since the MO needs to deploy offense against the interp or at the very least a net-benefit to their own, then the PMR would always win with the impact-turn. Like I get why MG theory is strategically viable and even a necessity sometimes; however, the more silly or ubiquitous the shell(s) become, the higher a chance that Ill default Neg.
¢ Dont start at your full speed. I know that youre fast and that you want to awe your judge and overwhelm your opponents with your sicknasty blocks but you should give me like 10 seconds to adjust your voice.
¢ Repeat interp texts twice or pass a text to your opponents.
¢ Give a perm text. Perm Do Both on rejection alts as well as all noncompetitive parts of the alternative ARE NOT PERM TEXTS.
¢ Dont Point of Order more than 3 times; I promise I'm flowing and is usually unnecessary.
Louis Petit - UNT
Marcus Ester - TSU Debate Team
n/a
Matthew Maddex - CF
n/a
Micah Huff - Utah
n/a
Michael Dvorak - GCU
Michael Middleton - Utah
A Quotation:
"The present situation is highly discouraging" -Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari
A Haiku:
Debate is Awesome
Judging Makes Me Cry Softly
Do I weep in vain?
Some things to consider (when debating in front of me):
10. I DO NOT support speed as a tool of exclusion
9. I DO NOT like deciding for myself what is the most important thing in the round or how to evaluate the competing arguments; You should do this for me. You will like it less if you don't. On the other hand, I will like it more.
8. I DO like well-structured debates. I also like interesting structures.
7. I DO like creative interpretations; I DO NOT like when you don't explain/provide a rationale for why your interpretation makes for a productive/rewarding/interesting/good debate.
6. I DO NOT like nor understand potential abuse arguments; I DO like and reward teams that demonstrate compellingly that the quality of the debate has been compromised by an interpretive choice made by the other team.
5. I DO NOT vote for any given argument or against any given type of argument. Run whatever strategy you like; Be clear about your strategy.
4. I am a participant in the round also. While I make my best effort to vote on who is winning and losing the debate based on the arguments, I use speaker points to evaluate and highlight both excellent and poor behaviors, i.e. if you create a hostile environment, you get massively low speaker points.
3. Jargon does not equal argument. Nor does it equal a good time.
2. Cross-application does not equal new argument. It doesn't really equal anything.
1. Debate is not life. Losing a ballot will not steal your humanity. I tend to prefer rounds that demonstrate everyone in the room knows this.
0. Have Fun
Michael McHan - Grossmont
I'll try to keep this as brief and simple as possible.
For Parliamentary Debate:
- Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments. I won't accept arguments I know to be blatantly false, even if your competitor doesn't call you on your BS.
- Structure, structure, structure.
- The PMC speech should contain a clear and fair resolutional analysis. Be very clear when providing the voting criterion (V/C) and articulating how the judge should weigh the round. *Remember, if the Gov. team fails to offer a V/C then the Opp. has the right to do so for them.
- Please make sure you are signposting and clearly labeling your arguments.
- Not a fan of Ks.
- Okay with Ts, but not when levied as a strategy to take up time.
- Both sides should have clear, numbered voters in their final speeches. Don't just summarize existing arguments but TELL me why you should get my vote.
- Ultimately, I like to hear a clean debate, with ample clash, and arguments properly linked and warranted.
For IPDA Debate:
Since IPDA was created for a lay audience it is important that debaters keep their cases as simple and clear as possible.
- Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments. I won't accept arguments I know to be blatantly false, even if your competitor doesn't call you on your BS.
- Very important to speak with a clear and calm pace.
- Signposting and labeling your arguments is a necessity.
- Please do not get too fancy with the voting criterion.
- Avoid technical debate jargon.
- Offer numbered voters (reasons why you won the debate) in final speeches.
- Be kind and respectful to each other.
- Smile and have fun!
For other Speaking Events:
- One of the elements I notice first is delivery - I tend to focus first on verbal and nonverbal variety, then command of gestures, then how well you engage your audience (if appropriate for your speech).
- Second, content. How well does your content flow, how organized is it, and how much do you enjoy /belief what you are saying.
- Third, have fun and entertain me! Typically, at any given tournament, I am observing 10-20 debates/speeches, and I like to be entertained by what I am judging. Have fun!
If you have questions about something that was not mentioned in my judging philosophy please do not hesitate to ask me before the round begins!
Michael Christler - SJSU
n/a
Miguel Porfirio - TxState
n/a
Natalie Kellner - LPC
I am an Individual Event judge. I value clarity of structure, specificity of examples & illustrations, preciseness of voting criteria, and (above all else) a delivery that enables ease of understanding for the listener. Avoid "debate speak" at all costs....I will not understand you, and if I do not understand you then you can not win the ballot. Civility is also of key importance. I will look at an IPDA debate as if it were an interactive Persuasive Speaking round: be clear, be organized, be understandable, be engaging. I can't be any more clear than that I think.
Nick Niemerg - SIUE
n/a
Nick Butler - Hired
n/a
Nicole Bright - Belmont
n/a
Noah Hirshorn - CC
n/a
Noah Smentkowski - Marshall
n/a
Onyeka Onyekwelu - TSU Debate Team
n/a
Paul Cummins - SIC
Rebecca Pool - USAFA
n/a
Reefat Aziz - USAFA
n/a
Renee Orton - MSJC
Renee Orton's Debate Paradigm
I believe
that debate is a communication event and therefore the participants should use
a clear, audible, understandable vocal rate, tone, and inflection in their
delivery. I do not like nor tolerate
spread. I do not like fast speaking in debate. A quick rate that is clear,
understandable, and respectful to the opposing side may be used. I expect the
debater's delivery to create an inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. I
debated CEDA in college, (value debate). I did LD at debate camp. Now you
understand my delivery preferences.
I
flow on paper. Use clear tags lines. Make sure that you clearly state the
resolution, provide clear definitions, interpretation, weighing mechanisms,
impacts, voters etc. Do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the subject
matter. Explain it to me in your case. This is your responsibility. If I don't
understand it from your argument, then you run the risk of losing the ballot.
Debate is essentially the affirmative's advantages verses the negative's
disadvantages. Make me understand your case. Thank you.
In
NPDA policy rounds I expect light stock issues to be addressed in plans and
counter plans. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option
picking up the ballot. As for topicality, it should only be run if a case is
indeed not topical. If it is, go for it. Throwing a T argument on the flow just
to see if it sticks or to use it to suck time from the affirmative's speaking
time does not promote educational debate. Doing so significantly risks a loss
of ballot. As for K arguments, I am not a fan. Use only if there is a blatant,
obvious necessity to do so. Topicality and K arguments when used improperly
remove the educational value from the debate.
Rezi Manaj - Belmont
n/a
Robert Hockema - USAFA
n/a
Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont
Background: I am the Director of Forensics at Grossmont College, for the past 30 years. I have been judging and coaching Parli for at least 20 years, and coaching and judging IPDA for about 10 years, or since southern California started competing in this event. I am not an NFA/LD coach or judge.
Educational Activity: I believe that debate is an educational activity that teaches some very important skills from the areas of argumentation and public speaking. I want to hear clear, well structured, arguments. I want the speaker to label their points/sign posting throughout. I need a road map, throughout the speech, not just at the top of the speech. I want to hear arguments that have claims, with reasoning/evidence. I still believe that this is a speaking event, and using some clear structure to you debate is important to me.
Regional Differences: At a state or national tournament, I know that there are different terms/jargon that have developed from individual regions. Therefore, dont assume that everyone should know the same terms. If you use a term, quickly explain it, the first time you use it. I welcome an opposing team to ask the other team for explanations of their terms. I do not expect that team to respond with something like, everyone should know this term. If that is true, give us the definition. I see far too many debaters misusing and miscommunication about jargon.
Topicality/Spreading/Ks: Of course, I expect to occasionally hear a topicality argument, when warranted. I dont want to hear a kritik for the sake of using it, or because you have nothing else to offer. However, if warranted, I may be open to one.
I believe there is no place for spreading/speed in Parli or IPDA. Everyone who continues to encourage or allow spreading is encouraging poor communication skills, defeating the purpose of Parli/IPDA debate. It isnt about my ability to flow, it is about your ability to communicate logical, argumentation to any audience.
During rebuttals I am looking for very clear voters, to tell me why your team wins the debate.
IPDA specifically: I have watched the progression from CEDA to Parli and now IPDA. I would like judges to follow the guidelines for IPDA, which says that there should be lay judges for IPDA. This means that even though I am a Parli judge, I should listen without expecting to hear jargon. I do think a well structure speech is required to be successful.
Having said all that, I love judging Parli debates. I am excited to hear your well structured, lively, debates.
Russell Skorina - CC
n/a
Ryan Greenawalt - Belmont
n/a
Salim Razawi - LPC
n/a
Sam Jones - GCU
Sarah Kellner - LPC
n/a
Sondera Malry - TSU Debate Team
n/a
Stephanie Avila - Hofstra
n/a
Stephanie Wideman - UIndy
n/a
Tameike Washington - TSU Debate Team
n/a
Tom Serfass - Webster
n/a
Tomeka Robinson - Hofstra
n/a
Trendi Nguyen - TSU Debate Team
n/a
Tyshee Sonnier - TxState
n/a
Victor Torres III - CC
I have competed in Speech and Debate in college as well as
coached it at my Alma Mater. I am very familiar with the IE side of things;
however, I can hold my own in comprehension and analysis of debate arguments.
I expect you to tell me where
we are and how to vote. I will watch time, but I prefer you to time yourselves
in case I am flowing. I would also appreciate if the burdens were introduced
early in the debate (e.g., criteria, key values, decision-rules, framework-type
arguments, moral imperatives, and etc.). I would lastly emphasize the
importance of a clear impact analysis. Be clear on your positions and be
careful to present it in a clear an organized fashion that is easy for me to
digest.
With regards to critical arguments, I need you as the debater
to explain to me how your argument impacts the round. These points are
important for me to see in your argument: be sure to explain your view of the
world and of your own argument, link to some sort of advocacy for the other
team and offer a constructive solution. I support critics that offer solutions
to the problems they bring up.
Performance debate arguments are fine; however, I need to
see that you have clear framework on how I should vote. I like to know the role
of the ballot and why I should vote the way I should.
I do not have much experience
as a debate judge so be careful with the technical finer points of your debate
strategy. Also please be aware of your speed. I am fine with you speaking fast;
however, please be cognizant that I may not be able to flow that fast. If there
is some point or argument topic that you would like me to write down, please
repeat it so that I have the signal âOh that is importantâ? and then will write
it down. Be sure to speak clearly, annunciate, and have fun.
Waylon Baker - JSCC
n/a
Will Reilley Silberman - USAFA
Zihad Amin - IVC
Judging Philosophy
2 year community college debater. Competed at state and nationals. Open to everything. Prefer to see debate centered around the resolution. Will flow critiques, but need to make sure the link is clear and strong. Be respectful to your opponents. Partner to partner communication is acceptable, but do not speak for your partner. Will only flow what the primary speaker is saying, nothing that the partner says will be flowed. I have a hearing disability so try not to speak too fast and be clear. Extremely important to be clear so I can get as much of the argument as possible. Will default to judging rounds based on net benefits unless am told otherwise. Really enjoy impact calculus and the round will heavily be weighed on which side provides the clearest and most powerful impacts. I am willing to answer any specific questions debaters may have prior to the round