Judge Philosophies
Andrew Eilola - BUST
n/a
Ashton Poindexter - Utah
I competed in NPDA and NFA-LD throughout my college forensics experience and currently coach at the University of Utah.
Kritiks need to explain what the alternative does.
Averie Vockel - Utah
I am of the position that it is your debate, and you should do with it what you want. I do not automatically reject arguments based on the type of argument. There are a couple of things that are important to me as a critic that you should know...
DON'T use speed to exclude your opponent. If you need to go fast, do so. BUT no one (including me) should have to ask you to slow you multiple times. Also of note, slow and clear mean different things so make sure you are clearly expressing your needs.
DON'T be rude.
DON'T assume that I will fill in holes for you. It is your job to give me complete arguments with reasons why they win the round.
DO start flex when the speech ends. Flex doesn't start after you have asked for texts of CPs, plans, etc.
DO provide terminalized impacts and weigh them.
DO be clear on how you would like me to evaluate the round. This means you should compare your arguments to your opponents and tell me why I should vote for you.
DO give me proven abuse on T. I like T, but not if it is incomplete. I like T, I think it's useful. BUT you need to make sure the pieces are present and explained.
DO tell me how you want me to evaluate T against other arguments.
DO engage with the topic in some way. If you are rejecting, I need you to be clear on why that is fair to your opponent. There are many ways to affirm, and I am interested in all ways. If it is LD, I expect the aff to affirm.
Ben Voth - SMU
Treat your opponents with affirming respect. Pursue the educational value of debate as an ethic. I have judged debates for over 30 years in various formats. I look forward to hearing your voice on this matter. I like good research and good delivery.
Courtney Meissner - SDSU
n/a
David Daye - BUST
n/a
Deion Hawkins - Emerson College
n/a
Erika Portillo - EPCC
I am not a debate coach or judge. I view IPDA as a public speaking experience. If you can get my attention at the beginning, preview your main points, provide support for your points logically and end with a call to action, I'll be looking for it.
Make sure to cite your sources with the author and year. I can't verify it during the speech, but I might want to look it up after the debate.
I'll also be paying attention to your delivery - eye contact, gestures (no dead arms or robotic movements, please!), good pacing, enunciation, and vocal variety. Talk to your opponent as a human being.
I'm not too fond of the fake thank you's every time it's your turn to talk. Just say it at the beginning and be respectful throughout your speech.
Gavin Gill - Vanderbilt
n/a
Harry Schulte - EPCC
I appreciate a well structured argument with appropriate references that are relevant and dated.
I appreciate a respectful exchange between parties that respects the other's viewpoint without being condescending for effect.
Delivery of arguments in a clear and concise public speaking tone that does not sacrifice clarity for speed is key.
Jeannie Hunt - Utah
TLDR: This is your round - do what you want, tell me how I should vote, and don't be mean.
FLEX TIME - stop stealing flex and adding several minutes to each round. You should have a plan text, alt, CP text, interpretation - anything you know the opposition is going to want a copy of - written and ready to go. And flow, ask for it to be repeated when they say it, or let them know before the round starts what you will want in writing. I will not wait more than 30 seconds for you to write it out before I start flex.
I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of intervention on my part. That means a couple of things:
You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round. I don't care what that framework is, but I want one. If there is debate about that, make sure the theory is clear and there are specific reasons why one framework is preferable to the other. That framework is what I will follow, so please don't set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits at the end. More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.
I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, and something tangible for me to vote on. Absent that, I have to intervene. There are no specific arguments that I prefer over others. I will vote on pretty much anything and I am game for pretty much anything (except stealing flex).
I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions or present narratives that you don't want to be attached to the currency of a ballot, which is what presenting the narrative in the round really comes down to. If you run a k you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about. However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out. This is true of any theory-based argument you choose to run.
I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important. If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don't have to spend time flowing it. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well.
Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective. I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K. Make sure the framework is very specific so I don't have to abandon objectivity altogether.
Finally, make your own arguments. If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago. Prompting someone with a statement (like, go to the DA) is fine. Making an argument, and then having it repeated is not.
Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn't mean you should have no style. You should be clear, structured, and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is a team). Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.
Speed is not a problem if it is clear, but never be used to exclude others from the round.
Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round - that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing, I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what could have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is just you saying think you should have won on that argument.
Because I don't want to intervene, I don't appreciate points of order. You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way. Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn't vote on new arguments. I won't. If you feel particularly abused in the round and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill-advised.
I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.
Jenna Dewji - Emerson College
n/a
Jennifer Conner - Pac U
n/a
Jillian Jaeger - CC
I competed in policy and NPDA and currently coach IPDA, NPDA, and BP styles of debate.
I have no preference in terms of what arguments are run in a round, but do expect that there is clash with the Aff's case and that you explain why the argument matters and why it is a voting issue.
- Topicality is always an apriori issue (if it is applicable) and will be voted on first.
- Kritiks need to explain what the alternative does and why voting for it matters - I'm not convinced by "nuclear war will never happen, but your ballot is a stand against racism." Do better. Be thoughtful. I seldom believe that Kritiks should be run as an Aff plan, but if they strongly link to the resolution, I may be persuaded.
Jonathan Laner - WSC
n/a
Jules Bruetsch - SDSU
n/a
Matthew Minnich - EPCC
I like debaters to be respectful of one another, but passionate delivery is also important.
I like roadmaps and clear arguments.
Delivery is also just as important as the arguments themselves.
Megan Baus - OSU
n/a
Michael Loberg - BUST
n/a
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.
Nathaniel Hosmer - PLNU
I've been debating and coaching for about 10 years (NPDA, IPDA, BP, and LD). You can run any argument you want in front of me provided you give a good justification to do so and explain it well. In general, I prefer debate on the rez, if you run a K it had better be a well-structured one or I will likely vote it down. Tell me why you won and give me impacts!
Richard Falvo - EPCC
My philosophy is focused on debaters speaking with great structure. I like to hear strong signposts and transitions. For IPDA debate, I prefer the 3 contentions format. I do not expect, nor do I condone "sweeping" or "speeding."
I expect competitors in IPDA debate to cite their sources, using an oral format consisting of Identity, Date, and Location for the source. I expect debaters, to focus on attacking the fallacies of reasoning of their competitors. I do not condone ad hominem attacks on fellow competitors. I also do not want my competitors to engage in personal experiences for their supporting material.
I also expect speakers to engage in the rebuttals of their competitors when ther are in the rebuttal phases of their respective rounds. The rebuttals should be separate from their case constructions.
In sum, I want the IPDA debaters to avoid the CEDA style of speaking (or in the CEDA tradition of reading word for word their cases and rebuttals at an alarming rate of 300 or more words per minute.
Additionally, it is important that a debater be clear and correct with words and word use. A debater's articulation of words (including effective enunciation and pronunciation) will build a stronger case for my understanding a debater's ideas.
A polished and smooth delivery (that is, stylistic Sophistry) will never replace the substance of ones content; and clearly is no guarantee of effective argumentation and debate. But, as a judge, I need to be able to process a debater's words and ideas. Therefore, the faster a debater speaks, the more difficult it may become to better understand their content.
On that same note, effective use of English makes it more likely that a debater's content will likely be understood. This (in turn) can strengthen the clarity of a debater's ideas. We know that people with perfect clarity and perfect command of English do not guarantee themselves success in debate. However, people who do not have adequate clarity or adequate command of English open themselves up to possible risks that their ideas might not be clearly understood, and place their reasoning and evidence (in short, their entire case) in danger.
Sharifa Simon-Roberts - Emerson College
n/a
Skip Rutledge - PLNU
?
Tryfon Boukouvidis - McNeese
n/a