Judge Philosophies
AJ Edwards (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Aaliyah Castro - LEE
n/a
Abbey Barnes (she/her's) - USM
not as dumb as I look
Abbi Jose - LSUS
n/a
Abby Albin - UU
n/a
Adam Siler - BSU
n/a
Adam Naiser - UAMONT
n/a
Addy Koneval - Whitworth
n/a
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.
AhLana Ames - Whitworth
n/a
Alatheia Nielsen - PHC
n/a
Alec Tyner - OKBU
n/a
Alex Fingeroot - MTSU
n/a
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.
Alex Arroyave - PLNU
n/a
Alex Tseng - PLNU
Alex Mills - A-State
!!!!!IPDA!!!!!
As for the affirmative and negative,you really cannot go wrong with me in terms of what kinds of arguments I like or dislike as long as they are both reasonable and fair.That being said, I really enjoy out of the box arguments or those that have huge impacts. When it comes to weighing mechanisms just keep it simple, I'd rather hear more about the actual topic than the fw.
I'm pretty much chill with anything in the round, just be nice to one another and debate! :)?
Alex Gibson - BPCC
n/a
Alexander Cadena - RioRunners
Background Information:
I have 4 years debate experience in Parli. I competed at Rio Hondo Community College in NPDA and IPDA then transferred to the University of Utah and competed in NPDA and IEs. I have experience judging policy while I was in graduate school. This is my third year of coaching forensics. I enjoy the spirit of this event and I am hoping to do so for more years to come.
How I evaluate rounds:
I find clarity important, make it clear what your argument is and how your impacts are the most important in the round. I like filled and completed arguments. Do you have Uniqueness, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts? I would like Plan texts and CPs to be stated twice. In the rebuttals, tell me what arguments to vote on and why they have greater importance than your opponent's arguments.
If you are running a K, please state the Roll of the Ballot and Alternative twice, it helps me get it down precisely as well as the opposing team. If your K is highly technical, please explain and articulate your argument. For the times when it is K v.s. K debates, (I will question my life choices) I will try to vote on the most articulated position that is flushed out in the rebuttals. I am not a fan of spread. If competitors ask how I feel about spread, I will say Its hurts my head.
Topicality Theory Procedurals, great! I expect all important aspect of the T-shell to be there. Do not expect me to fill in the blips of your standards and impacts. Im not the biggest fan of multiple theory shells that get kicked in the block. Ive been persuaded by a compelling RVI against that tactic in the past. (They made pretty smart argument which had no response.)
Some other comments:
Debate is an animal that can bring out a lot of different emotions, please remember that you are competing against humans and treat each other as such. There is no need to reduce our humanity to win a ballot. If you dont care how you win and are willing to treat your opponents poorly. Please strike me, I will not be a critic you want in the back of the room. POIs are good, and remember to call out POOs in the rebuttals.
P.S. Flex-Time is NOT a designated CX period. There are still POI allowed in speech time, I am not a fan of this social norm where questions are only allowed in-between speeches! Also if you have time before your speeches, you should be pretty close to speaking by the time FLEX ends!
Alexandria Ritchie - ACU
n/a
Ali Richard - Jeff State
n/a
Alyssa Gomez - RioRunners
n/a
Amanda Kronenberger - MSU
n/a
Amarah Hindi - RioRunners
n/a
Amina Onyame - LEE
n/a
Amy Martinelli - UF
n/a
Ana Dosianu - CCU
n/a
Andde Mendez-Rhoades - BSU
n/a
Andie Anderson - UU
n/a
Andrew Lonon - PHC
n/a
Andrew Jones - LEE
n/a
Andy Orr - CoSI
As a communication instructor, I believe the purpose of this activity is to prepare students to critically think and engage others in a meaningful way. Ergo, students should deliver arguments clearly with emphasis on effective communication. I am convinced that a few well-developed arguments can prove to be more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.
For constructive speeches, try to address arguments individually. However, grouping is absolutely fine too. With the final rebuttal speech, avoid line-by-line and instead provide a summary of voting area that address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches.
On Policy & Fact Debate:
For organization, sign post your tag lines, and give your citation clearly. Let us know when you have finished quoting material before your own analysis.
Avoid oral prompting or interrupting your partner as much as possible. I consider it to be rude and disrespectful toward your partner. Additionally, part of this activity is learning to work as a team and depending on another person for your success. This is an essential skill in life and you would never use verbal prompting in a business meeting, sales pitch, or political speech. Therefore, it really has no place in an activity designed to create in students those skills.
On Value Debate:
Value debate is by definition, a meta analysis of a topic. The first level of that debate is the overarching value. Students should present and defend a value that has been carefully chosen to have a non-absurd and debatable counter value e.g. capitalism vs. socialism and not freedom vs slavery (forces the opponent to be morally repugnant).
Wonderful debates can occur on by debating value level, but they rarely will win the debate because people (smarter than us) have discussed philosophers, implications, etc. and we still have no concrete answers.
Criteria are the next level of the meta debate. Again we could have a wonderful discussion on the merits of act utilitarianism vs. the categorical imperative, but it would not settle the issue, nor would it persuade the judge on either side of the resolution (although you can win a round by default if your opponent is not able to effectively articulate their value or criterion). Criterions are most useful if treated separately as a test of your contentions rather than a policy-type mechanism for achieving a value.
Your contentions are the real heart of the debate and should be the main focus. Claim, warrant, and conclusion are essential to every argument and can be contested on each or every one of those tenants. The key in value debate is to provide context after giving your argument as to how it affects the criterion and proves your case & value.
On Debate Theory
I have no preference in terms of philosophical, theoretical, or empirical arguments as long as they contain the three parts to make them an argument. Be sure that each part is present: claim, grounds, and warrant. Use this strategy: a. I say.....(claim) b. because......(grounds & warrant) c. and this means.....(impact)
I would find it difficult to vote for a kritik in general, and it would be extremely unlikely in a value round. First, there is already so much to cover in a limited amount of time; I dont think one can do the kritik justice (in other words, I am not often convinced of their educational/rhetorical value because we simply do not have enough time to reach that goal). That being said, if there is an in-round instance prompting a performative kritik, I think there can be a direct link made to education and the ballot being used as a tool.
Second, these arguments by their nature avoid the proposed topic. Thus, they skew preparation time when run by the affirmative and are seemingly a method of last resort when put forward by the negative. Moreover, in a value debate, a kritik provides no ground (or morally reprehensible ground) on which to make a counter case. Thus, the only way to rebuttal is to argue against the philosophical grounding (which leads to a muddled debate at best) or the alternatives which makes it a de-facto policy debate (and is contrary to the purpose of value debate).
The only stock issue that is a default voter is inherency. If the status quo is already addressing the problem, then there is no reason to prefer the plan. Harms and significance are at best mitigations. If you win those arguments, there still is no reason not to do the plan. Solvency and advantages must be turned to become voters. You'll need to prove the plan causes the opposite effect. However if you mitigate either of these, you'll need to pair it with a disadvantage or counter plan to give me a reason not to try the plan.
Each off case position must have a good structure and be complete in its construction (I wont fill in the blanks for you). Additionally any off case argument needs a clear under-view when it is presented (not just in the rebuttals) indicating how it fits into the round, and how I should consider it in my vote.
I prefer debate theory responses to be the first counter/refutation against an argument. In essence, they are a reverse voting issue, and do not easily fit into a line-by-line. Take a few moments and tell me the theory story, then (just in case I don't buy it) get into actually refuting the opponent's arguments.
Andy Luster - PVAMU
n/a
Angela Anima-Korang - ETBU
n/a
Angela Lovelace - A-State
Anna Warren - UU
n/a
Anna Ward - UAMONT
n/a
Anna Pounds - MSU
n/a
Annalise Welsh - PLNU
n/a
Anthony McMullen (he/him) - UCA
Experience: Competed for the University of Arkansas (2000-05); Coach at the University of Central Arkansas (2007-present). Most of that experience is in IPDA. While I appreciate and am happy to participate in other forms of debate, I'm an IPDA purist at heart and that governs my philosophy. I'm also a licensed attorney and spent seven years working for the Arkansas Court of Appeals. My job involved reading arguments with real world consequences. As such, while I am willing to vote for any well-reasoned argument, I'm a policymaker judge more than anything.
Delivery: I'm not a fan of speed. If I am judging a form of debate where that is the norm, I'll accept the burden of listen to rapid-fire delivery. Otherwise, don't do it. I often listen to podcasts at 1.5x speed. That's fine. Because it is a debate, I can probably listen to you at 2x speed and be fine. Anything faster, and you risk losing me. I find spreading unethical. Don't do it.
Speaker Points: Pretty arbitrary, especially if the ballot does not contain a rubric. If it is an IPDA round, I will have traditional criteria in mind: delivery, courtesy, organization, tone, logic, support, CX, refutation. In each category, you start with a 3 in each category. An average debater will receive a 4, a good debater will receive a 5. I won't go less than 3 in a category unless you "earn" it. Low point wins are a thing.
Case: The affirmative has the burden of proof, and the negative has the burden of clash. Failing to meet those burdens is an automatic L before we reach the rebuttals.
As a policymaker judge, I would prefer to give a win or loss based on the merits/demerits of the resolution itself, especially if it is form of debate where you get to choose the topic. I'll vote on topicality, but if it is close, I'll give the affirmative the benefit of the doubt. (If you are going to run T, I'm big on framer's intent.) I'm willing to vote on a K, but again, I would rather vote on the merits of the resolution itself. Like topicality, the affirmative will get the benefit of the doubt if it is close.
I flow the round. By the time we get to rebuttals, tell me why you won. Put out any fires created by your opponent's previous speech if necessary, but please don't go line by line. I'm very big on impact calculus, especially if the criterion is cost-benefit analysis, comparative advantage, or something similar.
Evidence: First, quality over quantity. Better evidence will always beat more evidence. Explain why your evidence supports your case. I do not enjoy rounds where debaters dump numbers and stats without context. Second, source presses are a waste of time unless (1) your opponent makes a spurious claim or (2) you have evidence that contradicts your opponents. If the only argument you have against an argument is that no source was provided, you will lose that argument unless you tell me why the lack of source is important.
Topic Disclosure: I'm not a fan of it, but I recognize that I'm in the minority. If the resolution is fairly straightforward and affirmative's interpretation is in line, I will not entertain an argument that the debate was unfair due to a lack of disclosure. If the resolution is metaphorical or otherwise vague, you should probably disclose.
While I will not punish a debate who does not disclose, I will DQ a debater who gives a false or misleading disclosure. At the same time, I believe that the affirmative is entitled to use the prep time as they see fit. If you plan takes you in a different direction, you are entitled to change your mind (especially if the negative pressed you for disclosure before you started prepping your case). But be reasonable. Doing so with twenty minutes of prep left is okay. Doing so with ten minutes left isn't.
NPDA debaters: I miss points of information. Please use them.
Art Walker - LSUS
n/a
Ashley Hale (she/her) - LTU
n/a
Ashley Sanchez - RioRunners
n/a
Ashlyn Jones - UU
n/a
Audrey Paul - LTU
n/a
Aurora King (she/her) - UCA
Austin Robison - BPCC
n/a
Avery Harrison - ETBU
n/a
Ayana Jones - NSU
n/a
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.
Benjamin Kosanke - ORU
n/a
Betsy DeSimone - TTU
n/a
Billy Owens (he/him) - LTU
n/a
Blake Harris - CCU
Blakely Rudolph - Whitworth
n/a
Bob Glenn - Owensboro
n/a
Bob Luna - TTU
n/a
Bob Alexander - BPCC
n/a
Brad Phelps - Owensboro
n/a
Brad Bull - TTU
This activity is to promote rational communication NOT auctioneerring skills. One well-reasoned mediocre argument outweighs 10 great arguments I can't hear. In addition, while the public often likes zingers and rudeness, I will automatically give a loss to a team that is flagarantly rude. If both teams are rude, I'll flip a coin, write down the winner, and put down my pen. Usually, however, judging these events gives me great hope for the future, and I look forward participants giving me hope for reasoning and civility.
Brad Baker - Weber
n/a
Brandon Carlson - MSU
n/a
Bri Miller - Whitworth
n/a
Brian Lain - UNT
Brianna Harperhoward - NSU
n/a
Brittney Harris - LSUS
n/a
Callie Nguyen - Ithaca
My name is Callistina, but call me Callie, it's 2 syllables shorter :)
I debated parli 2 years for Valley Christian High School in San Jose, CA and then another 2 years LD for Ithaca College. Now I'm coaching LD at Ithaca College and occasionally judge for the Penn State Speech and Debate Society. My favorite kinds of tournament are those with a lot of food and those with civil, respectful and friendly debaters.
That being said, right off the bat, I don't tolerate any kind of disrespect and/or incivility towards your opponent and/or literally anybody else. I think it's important to maintain an educational environment with courtesy and respect to encourage debaters, especially novice debaters. If you're rude in round, make fun of your opponent under any circumstances, make racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/ableist, etc. statements, misgender anyone in the round intentionally (and/or keep doing so after knowing everybody's pronouns) or just generally make the round hostile and intimidating to your opponent, I will drop you, period. Courtesy is a voting issue, and I have a generally low threshold for it, because I think it's important to be courteous before being a good debater.
On that note, I'm ok with speed, but please signpost and be clear and slower with your tags and plan text. I will frown upon spreading if it 1. trades off with your clarity and 2. excludes your opponent, especially when they're international students and/or don't speak English as their first language (like myself).
About CX and prep time - Please don't cut off your opponent as they're legitimately answering, BUT feel free to do so when they start rambling on to waste your time or frustrate you. Don't use CX as a weapon to exclude your opponent. If I notice things like that in round, the least severe action I will take is docking your speaks significantly, and the most severe being possibly dropping you, especially if a legitimate argument for that is raised by and defended by your opponent in their next speech. Also, I frown upon people attempting to start CX time or prep time for their opponent - it's pretty rude actually, so please try not to do that. I will notice if you do.
Now about debate itself. Tell me how you want me to vote and explain clearly why you're winning the argument.
Before your speech: please please please (yes I'm begging you) never ever forget to give me an off-time roadmap/order (if it's IPDA, then 10-15s at the beginning of your speech time). I've had to ask for it quite a handful of times and I kinda not want to anymore, because it really isn't my job to have to keep asking for it. Roadmaps/orders are extremely helpful for me to follow you in your speech, since (believe it or not) I struggle with English in debate pretty often.
For LD
** PSA** Regarding tagging and highlighting/underlining evidence: Please make sure your tags accurately reflect the body of your evidence and your highlighting/underlining preserves the context of the evidence and respects the intention of the author. Powertagging and highlighting/underlining out of context and the author's intention are enough grounds for dropping the debater who commits these practices, especially when called out by the opponent. At best, this will lead to the entire evidence card being rejected, which also hurts the debater in the round.
I really don't want to have to penalize anyone for this, so please try to avoid this situation entirely.
Stock Issues:
You as the aff should present/explain the stock issues clearly, and be ready to defend them against the neg with everything you have. That's the easiest way to get my ballot there. On the other side, when you're neg, if you can show me that the aff doesn't meet any of the stock issues they're supposed to present, then I will vote for you there.
Topicality:
This is also another easy way to get my ballot because I've found myself starting to love T debates a lot more lately.
T is a priori, but depending on the wording of the resolution, my threshold for T fluctuates accordingly. If you as the neg wanna go for T, then you should clearly explain 1. why I should prefer your interpretation, 2. why your standards are better and how the aff hasn't met them and 3. what I should be voting on and why I must do so.
Kritiks:
I don't love them, but I'll listen to them. My threshold for Ks isn't as high as it used to be, but it's definitely still not low. In a nutshell, Ks are some sort of thought process concerning certain issues, and I find them perm-able most of the time, since it is possible to enact policy and embrace a thought process at the same time. I don't hate Ks though, but you gotta do some real work to show me why your K is not perm-able and explain to me which level your K is engaging in and why it matters more than the aff.
My threshold for any theory against condo Ks varies depending on the K, but usually it's pretty low.
If you read a K aff, you'd better have a plan text and a good reason why your aff is better than a policy aff. My threshold remains high for those also.
Counterplans:
I think CPs are really strategic if done right. I think unconditional CPs are best. Condo CPs can get abusive in my opinion, so my threshold for any condo theory will be pretty low. It doesn't mean I'll vote against a condo CP right away though - I'll listen to it and try to follow it to the best of my ability, and how I vote also depends on the neg strat you're reading. Other than that, you should explain why your CP is competitive and why you have the net benefit, as well as how your CP doesn't bite (a) disad(s) like the aff does. I don't care whether or not your CP is 100% topical, but it's best to have a CP that has some sort of relevance to the resolution in my opinion. It'll be helpful to, based on my experience. Also you should be able to defend why the aff can't perm your CP and be very sure that you can fight tooth and nail to defend your position.
Disads:
I think these are underrated; disads are pretty straightforward and more often than not they do force a choice. To win a disad you need to do some impact calculus and show me why your impact(s) outweigh(s) the aff advantage(s). You also need to clearly explain why your disad scenario is unique and establish a link to the aff. As the aff, you only need to beat either uniqueness, link/threshold or impact, whichever one you can beat, to beat the disad.
Theories:
I have a love affair with those. I actually have a reputation of having read full cites way more than I should've, and I wear it like a badge of honor :D
That being said though, since theories are interesting wildcards, my threshold for those varies depending on how you read them, though my threshold for voting on theories without proven abuse is pretty high. I find them entertaining and refreshing, but you really need to tell me why your theory argument matters and what implications it has regarding the round. Be careful when reading these though; they can sometimes toe the line of an ethical charge, and you'd better make it clear that you're reading a theory and not bringing any charge against your opponent.
However, I will never, ever, ever vote for disclosure theory on either sides, in any shape or form, so don't bother. You'll be wasting your time.
RVIs:
All is fair game. If an RVI is not answered to sufficiently, I will vote for it.
--
For Parli/NPDA and IPDA: TL;DR I'm pretty open-minded when it comes to parli or IPDA, so I will evaluate everything you say to me, as long as you can clearly explain it. I will not vote for something I don't/can't understand, because it's your job to help me understand where you're at in the debate. Be nice and courteous, because you can cross apply my whole paragraph on courtesy here too.
--
That's it for my rambling TED Talk. Thanks for reading! If there's still anything you need me to clarify before your round with me, just ask!
Final note: Debate can sometimes be overwhelming and intimidating, and sometimes you find yourself in a bad tournament for you. It's discouraging and exhausting. I know, I've been there before. Please please please know that even if you don't do as well as you'd like to, you are a great debater with a lot of potential, and that a few bad tournaments don't define you as a person or even a debater. I'm always available to support you even emotionally in a tournament, should you feel like you need someone rooting for you during a tough weekend. I've made many friends from other schools during my debate years who have supported me, and I'd like to do the same for you too.
Cameron Hodge - Jeff State
n/a
Cameron Champine - UU
n/a
Carter Wynn - LSUS
n/a
Charis Murrey - UU
n/a
Cherelle Kozack - LSUS
n/a
Chip Myers - SMU
Chloe Wyand - SMU
n/a
Chris Josi - Mt. Hood CC
I have coached for about 3 years after competing and becoming nationally recogonized. My goal now is to always be available to help debaters improve their technique.
I try to be as impartial as I can, and limit the scope to what is happening in the round. However, please do not inflate the truth. I default to qualitative on balance.
You need to impact your points and explain why it is imperative I need to vote for your case. Structure is also very important; I won't connect arguments for you.
Speaking quickly is up to you and your opponent, not me. Please respect each other's pacing. However, as long as I can understand what you're saying I will flow it.
I believe Topicality and Kritik arguments are import, but they should be resevered for when your opponent has stepped out of the bounds of the debate.
Chris Medina - PVAMU
n/a
Christian Thomas - UTK
n/a
Cidney Lacour - LSUS
n/a
Clark Hathaway - UTK
n/a
Cleatta Morris - LSUS
n/a
Codey King - UTK
n/a
Colby Walker - LSUS
n/a
Cole Brown - CCU
IPDA is supposed to be a common-sense, rhetoric-based event. Please refrain from using overly technical language, speed, policy tactics, or anything else that would not be persuasive to the average person off of the street. The point of debate is to make us better at discussing issues with real people, and IPDA is trying to achieve this goal. Also, please be courteous and kind to your opponent.
Cole Franklin - ETBU
n/a
Connor Johnson - BSU
n/a
Cyrano DAVIS - UF
n/a
Dan Streety - ETBU
n/a
Daniel Sileo - PHC
n/a
Daniel Giorello - Whitworth
n/a
Danielle Noordman - ORU
n/a
David Trumble - STA
n/a
David Poythress - PHC
n/a
David Coston - LSUS
n/a
David Hale - Cal State LA
n/a
David Sheilley - UU
n/a
David Issacs - LSUS
n/a
Dayhath Marte-Herrera - WmCarey
n/a
Dena O'Banion - BPCC
n/a
Devanie Carattini - UU
n/a
Diego Moreno - LEE
n/a
Dulce Aguirre - RioRunners
n/a
Dustin Miller - LTU
n/a
Edson Valdisimio - BSU
n/a
Eduardo Pacheco - UCSD
n/a
Edward Minasyan - RioRunners
When evaluating debate rounds I find that I look for structure and clarity of all arguments made. An argument without proper taglines or a response without signposting ends up being a thought thrown out with the hope that the judge or opponent flows it in the proper place.
I like to see topical affs who engage with the resolution, regardless of debate format, and negs who engage with the aff through DA, CP, T, and other arguments on case. Stock issues are extremely important to me in both Parli and NFA-LD. If you don't meet those burdens as an aff you will lose if the neg points it out. Fairness should be a priority for everyone, so take questions and be courteous to all.
NFA-LD specific things:You should come prepared to the rounds. That means making sure everyone has access to your case and any cards you read. It doesn't matter if it's a paper copy or on speechdrop.net. I believe that the rules matter, are important, and are the guidelines to competitors and judges in this event. That means stock issues are the most important voting issues, neg should have logically consistent arguments, and excessive speed will mean a loss.
General Notes:I like straight up debates and will almost never vote for K's just run without a truly justified reason. I think spread delivery actively hurts the competition of debate, so just don't do it in front of me if you want my ballot. Don't run excessive or abusive theory just to win a ballot in front of me. Try not to run apocolyptic impacts because they're never explained enough or convincing enough to be realistic. Probability > Magnitude. Don't lie or cheat.
Be nice, have fun.
Elaine Eaton - NSU
n/a
Elana Daniels - USM
n/a
Eli Stroud (they/them) - UCA
Elijah Biedinger - ACU
n/a
Elizabeth McDowell - LTU
n/a
Elizabeth Snow - A-State
I've judge all IEs, IPDA, and parli. In debate, I prefer clear examples and explanations. Don't go to fast; there really isn't a need to. I don't think I've ever head an IPDA round that was too fast, if that helps you with how fast is too fast.
Please sign-post as you go.
Elizabeth Bone - Whitworth
n/a
Elle Baez - PLNU
Emily Director - CCU
Emma Jaax - ACU
n/a
Emma James - BSU
n/a
Emma Busby - OKBU
n/a
Emmitt Antwine - LTU
n/a
Erica Davis - STA
n/a
Ethan Bond - ETBU
n/a
Ethane Ricks - BSU
n/a
Evan Smith - UF
n/a
Gabe Graham - Cumberland
n/a
Garrick Pass - LEE
n/a
Gavin Simone - UTK
n/a
Gene Vargas - LSUS
n/a
Geoffrey Klinger - DePauw
Background: Policy and LD debater for four years in high school (1980-84). NDT and CEDA debater for DePauw University (1984-88). M.A./Ph.D. in Communication at the University of Iowa. Director of Forensics at Hanover College (1995-99) (NEDA debate). Director of Forensics at the University of Utah (1999-2003) (NPDA & CEDA debate). Director of Forensics at DePauw University (2003-Current)(NPDA & BP Debate).
To be sure, parliamentary debate has evolved fairly significantly over the last several years. I celebrate the various forms and manifestations of parliamentary debate. The strongest debaters are those who blend elements of argument with performance. These days, I hesitate to be too prescriptive in terms of the debate I like to see. It is up to individual debaters to find a style that best suits them. Nevertheless . . .
I like debates where there is a certain amount of 'resolutional fidelity.' I like teams to argue the resolution, not morph it beyond recognition in order to run an easier argument, or canned case. I like all types of arguments and am drawn to those that are more unique, sophisticated, and intellectually engaging (e.g. a well-developed kritik is often more compelling than a generic political disad with weak links). I especially like arguments that seem authentic and sincere. Final arguments that engage in comparative analysis (recognizing that both teams have ground upon which I can vote and explaining to me why your arguments are preferable) are always nice.
I do not have a fixed judging "paradigm" per se (any good rhetorician knows that all arguments/frames are inherently contingent, and can/should adapt to the uniqueness of each rhetorical situation). I am moved by persuasive arguments that are supported with compelling warrants. I am generally open to all forms and types of arguments, both substantive and procedural, as long as you provide solid analysis to back up your position. I believe that parliamentary debate is supposed to engender arguments designed to persuade a parliament, or public audience, not a panel of technocrats. As such, speaking rate should be intelligible, and arguments should not be overly technical.
Above all, I hope that you enjoy and treasure this activity (and each other) as I have for almost 40 years.
Giovanna Arena - RioRunners
n/a
Giselle Reyes - WmCarey
n/a
Glenn John Cervantes - LCC
n/a
Graham Christophel - MTSU
Grant Tovmasian - RioRunners
I debated NPDA and NFA-LD. In IE's, focused on Limited Prep and Platforms, minimal personal experience in Interps. Been coaching forensics speech and debate for the last 15 plus years.
You matter, your opponent matters, your speech matters, truth matters, rules matter, I matter. I refrain from interceding on any one's behalf up to a point. Please remember that although I approach the round as impartial as I can, that does not negate the truth, I still am aware which country I live in and who is the president and killing puppies is wrong (also, hurting, kicking, and just violence in general, I frown upon)
In all forms of debates my guiding principle aside from fairneness, consideration and humility will be the official rules of the event. Although I might disagree with some of the rules, untill they are changed, I will abide by the existing sets.
I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any students. Do not isolate, offend, or make your opponent feel less than wonderful human beings and students that they are. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attacks and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments and not a bully pulpit to bash fellow students.
I prefer good On Case/Off Case. Be aware that procedurals force judge intervention. As such I am a believer that presentation and sound argumentation is critical towards establishing one's position. DA vs Advantages. CP vs Plan are all sound strategies and I hope students will use them. If you are running a CP, you give up presumption. You take upon yourself same burdens as the Aff. If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. Please call Points of Order and 95% of the time I will respond with (point well taken, point not well taken) That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete.
I firmly believe that speed kills, "DO NOT SPREAD" as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round. Critics, i.e. K are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important than whatever else is happening and is directly connected to either the actions of the other team or resolution in it of itself. As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything.
I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates.
Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)
On IPDA. It is a stand-alone debate. It is not Parli Light, it needs logic, anlaysis and persuasivness, which means for the duration of IPDA round I do not speak Parli. Make your arguments conversational, logical and devoid of lingo that has no place in this event.
On NFA-LD. Its stock issues and spread delivery is antithetical to this event.
Grant Degner - ETBU
n/a
Greg Foster - FSU
n/a
Gregg Trusty - LSUS
n/a
Greta Hacker - UCA
Hannah Ross - LSUS
n/a
Hannah Maniscalo - ACU
n/a
Hannah Rowland - MTSU
n/a
Hansen Penya (he/him) - ACU
n/a
Harrison Bogan - Abita Springs
n/a
Hattie Thomasson - UU
n/a
Hayden Wallace - LSUS
n/a
Heather Johnson (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Holland Smith - Cal State LA
Howie Long - BSU
n/a
Hunter Sullivan (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Isaiah Williams - UCA
Jack Waters - UU
n/a
Jacob Farrell - Whitworth
n/a
Jacob Chisom - UAMONT
n/a
Jacob Halterman - STA
n/a
Jagger Norris - LCC
n/a
Jake Guyette - UU
n/a
Jamie Maas - BSU
n/a
Jane Kent - MSU
n/a
Janice Witherspoon - BSU
n/a
Janine Wilkins - MNU
n/a
Jared Thomason - OKBU
n/a
Jascha Ely - DBU
n/a
Jason Stahl - Belmont
n/a
Jay bourne - Cumberland
n/a
Jeremy Coffman - PVAMU
n/a
Jerry McCauley - LSUS
n/a
Jo Spurgeon - Belmont Abbey
n/a
Joe Ganakos - LEE
n/a
John Gooch - UTD
I see myself
as open to most any argument, although I tend to prefer case arguments, disadvantages,
counterplans, and kritiks (the âKâ?) over topicality arguments. (At one time, I thought
of myself as fitting the âpolicymakerâ? paradigm when I was judging high school
C-X.) I do tend to give GOV teams leeway on topicality, but that doesnât mean they
should drop it! I also donât like seeing GOV case vanish from the round in
favor of only a theoretical debate. I
donât like seeing drops on the flow, but I expect debaters, themselves, to extend
dropped arguments. Simply put, I wonât intervene. In general, I expect good
clash as well as thorough and exacting refutation in all speeches. Speakers of
rebuttal speeches, for example, should tell me a good story; in other words,
they should tell me exactly why they
win the round and why.
With regard
to spreading, I find that I donât keep up with rapid delivery like I did when I
was competing, which is now more years ago than I like to admit. I am not âanti-speed,â? but if I signal a
debater to slow down, then he/she/they should do so. Bad argumentation is bad
argumentation; it doesnât matter how fast or how slow the debater if they are making
âjunkâ arguments (e.g., DAs or Ks with weak links). I have seen the fastest team
in the round lose to debaters who spoke more slowly. I also believe an exciting
and stimulating round can take place between debaters with slower delivery. Over
the years, I have witnessed several such debates in NPDA, IPDA, and LD as well
as in the college and high school policy formats.
Last, I
expect debaters to behave in a civil manner toward one another. I just donât
see any call for rudeness or incivility. I think now, more than ever, we need
to engage in civil discourse. Bad behavior in the round (or outside the round) just
doesnât bode well with me at all. Competitors participate in tournaments to learn
and to become better debaters. And this activity should be enjoyable. Itâs
supposed to be fun, and I think sometimes we forget that.
John Mikolajcik - TCC
n/a
Johnathon Randall - DBU
n/a
Jonathan Bridenbaker - VSU
Jordan Nickell - MTSU
n/a
Joseph Lee - SMU
n/a
Josh Farquhar - DBU
n/a
Joshua Hendricks (they/them) - USM
Joshua Tucha - TCC
n/a
Joshua Julian - VSU
Joshua Morgan - OKBU
n/a
Josiah Macumber - UF
n/a
Josiah Mancha - UU
n/a
Jules Shinbrot - SMC
n/a
Julia Mitchell - LCC
BIO:
- I competed in IPDA, limited prep, and platform events. I am a frequent judge in the Northwest circuit. Everything that follows are my general preferences within each respective category. If you have further questions, I am open to answering them before a round starts. Ultimately, my goal is to adjust my judging to fit you and the diversity within any given round over asking you all to accommodate me. All of the following preferences, I think, are general expectations everyone can agree makes for a more educational and fun experience.
IPDA/Parli: Preferences and pet peeves:
- Do not use the word abusive unless it is literally impossible for you to win the round under the given framework. Ground skew, uneven ground, and unfair framework all do the job. Abusive should be reserved for truly egregious circumstances.
- I am okay with fast talking if what you are saying is intelligible.
- I like a fair and clear framework. Clean top of case makes for a more educational round for everyone. Definitions, round type, weighing mech, and burdens are all appreciated. YOU should tell me how I should pick a winner rather than me being left up to my own devices. Nobody wants that.
- Do not be petty. I am fine with some more assertive (sometimes aggressive) debate styles, but I really do not enjoy pettiness. Do not misrepresent your opponent's arguments or make them seem stupid. Honor them and the best of their case within your refutation.
- Evidence is not required in IPDA, but it sure makes you seem more knowledgeable and credible.
Platform: Preferences and pet peeves:
- Good evidence is appreciated. Obviously, you are not going to be including more than you have at this point, but make sure your verbal citations are clear and well enunciated.
- Going overtime is not the end of the world to me, within reason. If you are more than ten seconds over, I am inclined to rank you lower than a near competitor in a very close round.
- Nonverbals are huge in Platform speaking. If your body language is stiff and awkward, I am likely to be distracted and not hear all the smart things you are saying. However, over gesturing and never letting your hands/upper body rest will also detract from what you are saying. Try and strike a balance between comfortable and confident.
Limited Prep: Preferences and pet peeves:
- In EXT, I value answering the actual question you are given fully and specifically. Also, please have evidence; the more, the merrier. I would love to see 6+ sources in your speech. I will offer time signals.
- In IMP, pacing, creativity, and cohesion are most important to me. Time allotments between points can easily get askew, and it causes thorough analysis to be cut short. Next, Impromptu is supposed to have an element of originality and spontaneity to it. I do not mind repeated examples (NOT scripted), but try and tell me something new every time about those examples. Finally, make it make sense. If your interpretation is miles away from the actual quotation, I am not inclined to buy your argument and supporting examples as much. I will offer time signals.
Interpretation: Preferences and pet peeves:
- Interp can be a lot. Regardless of the nature of your piece, the energy it can take to perform it well can be really draining. Try your best, but care for yourself. Ultimately, I want to see your connection to your work really shine through, whatever that looks like.
Julia Mixon - WmCarey
n/a
Julianne Kidd - PHC
n/a
Juliet Buckholdt - MSU
n/a
Justin Cummings - Shepherd
n/a
Justin Durbin - Cumberland
n/a
Justin Knapp - SMU
n/a
Kacie Hoch - BSU
n/a
Kacie Foster - Whitworth
n/a
Kaelee Novich - BSU
n/a
Kaleb Gauthier - NSU
n/a
Kara Taylor - LTU
n/a
Kate Mead - ETBU
n/a
Kathy Miller - UAMONT
n/a
Katie Horner - BSU
n/a
Kayla Griffin - Weber
Give trigger warnings if you talk about traumatic things. I don't like acted out rape scenes - I will give you the lowest score for that.
In debate I look for strong communication, logical links, and strong clash!
Kayla Jackson - LSUS
n/a
Keely Hardeman (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Keith Milstead - SMU
Kelea Ilac - Whitworth
n/a
Kellie Roberts - UF
n/a
Kelvin Thomas - Jeff State
n/a
Kevin Wilmoth - NWACC
n/a
Khaled Algohim - LSUS
n/a
Kia Min - UU
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.
Kirsten Gantt - LSUS
n/a
Kyle West - PHC
n/a
LaLa Arnold - MTSU
n/a
Laura Williamson - CCU
n/a
Lauren Pena - BSU
n/a
Lauren McHenry - UCA
Lauren Hand - WmCarey
Lea Sutton - NWACC
n/a
Leslie Alexander - BPCC
n/a
Leslie Salley - LSUS
n/a
Lianna Rachel - TCC
n/a
Lillia Poveda - UTK
n/a
Lindsay Culpepper - MSU
n/a
Logan Boline - NSU
n/a
Lori Welch - Whitworth
n/a
Louis Petit - UNT
Luke Lechner - LTU
n/a
Luke Arnold - MTSU
n/a
Mackenzie Moss - BSU
Mackenzie Moss- Judging Philosophy
I did NPDA for 4 years at Boise State University and just graduated in May of 2018. I like all different kinds of arguments, and think I'm okay with hearing whatever you want to read. I like the rebuttal speeches to paint a pretty clear picture of what each team thinks I should be voting on. I encourage watching my facials/demeanor for recognition throughout the debate. I do pretty well with speed, but I’ll say something if I can’t understand. It should be pretty obvious if there comes a point where I'm not following. I think the only thing I really care to see in a round is people being nice to each other. I am likely to drop someone treating someone else not well. I like debate a lot, and am excited to be judging.
More specifically —
FW: I will assume NB unless told otherwise. I get kind of frustrated when the framework debate isn’t clear. My decision usually starts with what FW I’m supposed to be using to evaluate the rest of the arguments in the debate, so it’s a lot better for both teams if there is either a clear consensus on how I’m evaluating, or if the argumentation regarding FW is clearly outlined throughout the debate. This heavily impacts how I know how to see the potentially more substantive parts of the debate.
T: I need a pretty slow reading of the interp. I also need the debate to slow down a bit when it comes to counter-standards and cross applications of the standards debate on T. And I also need the debate to slow down if T is going to be a big part of the rebuttals.
Case: I think my bias is to like realistic impact scenarios over hypothetical, but I’ll listen to whatever you have to say. Clear impact calc helps avoid any of the intervention that could come from that bias.
K: Read whatever you want. Again clear FW is important because it’s likely I haven’t read what you’re telling me about.
Project: I’ll listen to your project.
Speed: I’ll ask for speed or clarity if I need to. And I appreciate when the speed is accessible for all the debaters in the round, but I’ll vote based on the arguments made.
Feel free to ask if there’s anything else you want to know.
Mackenzie Zimmerman - SMU
n/a
Macy Dammen - LAC
n/a
Maddie Cupit - ACU
n/a
Madison Montes - UU
n/a
Madison Lopez - SMU
n/a
Madison Boelter - LSUS
n/a
Maggie Eaves - ETBU
n/a
Margaret McSherry - STA
n/a
Marie Stone - A-State
I am a student at Arkansas State University currently pursuing a bachelors degree in psychology with a minor in communication studies and a certificate in debate and forensics. I prefer if you dont spread, but I can usually understand fast talkers pretty well. In a debate round, I like to see passion and interest in the subject in a speaker. Normally, I dont do hand signals, but if you need them I need you to tell me before you start. Also, please time yourselves.
Marissa Reis - Whitworth
n/a
Mark Wasden - CoSI
Communication is vital to the creation of shared understanding. As a professor in our field for more than 20 years, I value debate for the central role in plays in our democracy and everyday interactions. While I did not participate in forensics as a student, I understand its importance as an academic activity and believe that it should be a learning exercise - regardless of the competitive outcome. Consequently, I value courtesy, respect, and the strength of the presented argument more than a rapid-fire discussion that attempts breadth but lacks depth. A recognition that this activity is the opportunity to develop skills, while analyzing our own views and the views of others, should guide the rounds and our participation in the event.
Mark Galaviz - Weber
I remember long ago never to walk in anyone's shadow. If I fail, or if I succeed, at least I lived what I believe.
Mary Joseph - UCF
n/a
Mary Rose Stepnowski - Belmont Abbey
n/a
Matt Jared - TTU
n/a
Matt Ritchie - ACU
n/a
Max Hogan - SMU
n/a
McKenzie McClain - UAMONT
n/a
Megan Smith* - LTU
n/a
Merry Ashlyn Gatewood - UU
n/a
Micah Fain - UU
n/a
Michael Ford - PHC
n/a
Michael Gray - A-State
This part pertains mostly to
Parli, BUT you should probably read it since it represents what I believe about debate in general. See below for IPDA.
Me: Debated for A-State from
2007-2011; mostly Parli, but some IPDA and Worlds. Assistant coach for A-State
from 2011-2013 and Director of Debate for A-State from 2016-present.
In General: I'll listen to anything,
but I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants or logical impact
scenarios.
Speaker Points: These
exist to reward good speakers. What is a good speaker? For me, a good speaker
has little to do with who won the round. Speed doesn't make you a good speaker. Knowing
lots of stuff doesn't make you a good speaker. Winning an argument doesn't make you a good speaker. It's that other thing that makes you good. Do that. Make sense?
Case: By default, my stance is that the Aff has the
burden of proof & the burden of rejoinder. It is your job to fairly limit
the round and present a clear case that upholds the resolution. If you can
convince me otherwise, do it.
I'll gladly vote on an aff
K if it makes sense and wins. But listen... it is better when your opponent can
engage. So, make your aff K clear and accessible. Save the ninja stuff for neg.
T: I love a well-run
topicality argument. Or 2. Or 3. I am completely okay with collapsing to T. I
actually think teams should do it more often. It's a lost art.
Spec/Vagueness: Yes. But be reasonable with it. And don't take my use of the work "reasonable" as an indication that it's the only counter-standard you ned (aff).
K: Yes, please. Avoid
any blatant mis-readings and misapplications (please listen to this...
please). You will have a difficult time winning my ballot if you're
(intentionally or not) misrepresenting the nature of another
person's rhetoric or using well-established theory in a way that it was
not intended. If you need to make an argument that you cannot find written in a tome somewhere, make the argument from your own brain... don't try to shove a square author into a round round.
DA/CP/Condi: structure,
structure, structure.
My default stance is that all Neg arguments are conditional. If, however, the debate turns to theory, Aff can win condi-bad. I'll listen. I need clear articulation of theory arguments, not just blippy responses that require me to intervene to fill in the blanks.
Speed and Speed K: I
prefer upbeat debate and a good pace. If you've clocked yourself, I am totally comfortable
with a clear rate of speech around 275-325wmp. I've rarely seen a need for
anyone to argue that fast. In all honesty, parli is at its best when
highly-trained, charismatic debaters engage in argumentation at about
200-250wpm. Anything faster and you're probably repeating yourself, skipping
syllables, and missing good arguments for the sake saying more words. That
said, if you're one of those super-clear talkers (you know who you are), I
might be willing to tolerate your top speed for part of the debate. <--- maybe 1% to 5% of the field in parli can really do this well. Chances are, you are not in that 1% to 5%. In competition, go as fast as you need to go and can go without losing clarity... and go no faster. Please.
If I or your opponent
calls clear and you do not respond appropriately, you will receive the lowest
speaker points you've ever gotten. I promise. You may well win the round, but
you will have done so unethically and I cannot award high speaks to unethical
debaters who intentionally ignore a legit request for access. I really don't care how you feel about this. I will
vote on a speed K... IF it is run correctly, makes sense, and defended
appropriately. I will not vote on "they talk fast and it's not fair."
Rebuttals: By the time
we get to the rebuttals, I've heard enough line-by-line. I'd appreciate a
bit more here, but if your rebuttal sounds exactly like your previous speech
(pay attention, Neg), I'm already bored. Come on, this is your chance to really
secure those speaker points. Show me that you can tend to the line-by-line and
cover the flow and still give me a clear summarization of advocacy and impact
analysis at the bottom.
Time, Timers, &
Beeps: Thanks and roadmaps off time; quickly. I prefer you time one another. If
you are unable, I'll start my timer when you start debating. When my timer
beeps, you get maybe 10 words before I stop flowing. I've had more sentence
fragments at the bottom of a flow than I can count. Look... just time your
arguments. It's not difficult to just be done talking 1 second before the timer
goes... it's impressive and judges notice it. Be impressive.
At the end of the day, I
believe that debate is an educational game and that education does not have to
be at odds with gameplay. It's both, so do both. Make it interesting and
competitive, play fair, and you'll receive what you earn.
Anyway, unlike some other judges, I will offer you the respect of listening very closely to well-structured, well-thought-out articulations of abuse; I'll listen to vagueness presses; I'll listen to articulations of abuse at the level of definitions, as well as criteria/framing. If your opponent really has skewed ground in the round, then you have 6 minutes to really, really, really dig into the implications of that and convince me that it is a voting issue (HINT: USE THE CONSTITUTION).
Mik Davis - MTSU
n/a
Mikayla Holzinger - Cal State LA
Mike Ingram - Whitworth
UNLIMITED...POWER!!!!!
Mike Eaves - VSU
Procedurals:
T-I have no artificial threshold on topicality. I will vote on abuse. Typically, cross x checks back on T.
Ks-framwork is paramount and the alternative. Please do not run "Vote Neg" as the sole alternative. There
should be more thought on the alt.
Speed. I have a high school and college policy background. I coached CEDA from 93-00 and coach NPDA, parli style
from 01-present
Counterplans--PICS are fine. Agent CPS are fine. In the end, I am tabula rasa and will default to impact calc to resolve plan debate
Das--uniqueness is key. Internal links are important. Please watch double turning yourself in the 2AC. I do not like performative contradictions and will vote against them
Performance/Project-I am progressive and liberal here. Run it and defend it. If you are on the other side, debate it straight up. A counter-performance is a legit strategy.
Have fun. I dislike rude debaters. I will vote on language abuse if a team calls it (ex: sexist, racist, etc lang)
Minseo Viveros - SMU
Misty Sutton - NWACC
n/a
Miura Rempis - MTSU
Molly Mahoney - LCC
n/a
Morgan Martin - OKBU
n/a
Muaz Wahid - SMU
n/a
Nate Goldstein - LTU
n/a
Nathan Silver - UCSD
n/a
Nathanial Crane - STA
n/a
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!
Nathaniel Williams - MSU
n/a
Natonya Listach - MTSU
Neel Patel - LTU
n/a
Neil David Mangrobang - PHC
n/a
Nhan Pham - NWACC
n/a
Nick Grunig - Idaho State
n/a
Nick Bitterling - UU
n/a
Noah Ayers - SMU
n/a
Noah Farley - PHC
n/a
Nora Crane - UF
n/a
Olivia Bolin - Whitworth
n/a
Omar Villarreal - WmCarey
n/a
Orion Young - SMC
n/a
Patricia Hughes - RioRunners
When weighing a round, I look first at stock issues, then weigh the clash on the advantage vs disadvantage, using the judging criteria. I like clear analysis of the functionality of each position (plan/counter plan/advantage/disadvantage). Simply put, explain how your warrants lead to your impacts on the advantage/disadvantage. Also explain how your impacts happen, and what your impacts mean. Terminalize, but only use nuclear war or mass extinction if it is actually warranted. On plan/counter plan, explain each plank, how the plan functions (works), and how it is going to solve the issue at hand. Fiat is not clear analysis. Counter plans should have a clear explanation of mutual exclusivity. Permutations should have a new plan text with both plan and counter plan, with an explanation of how they work together. I also have a soft spot for clearly articulated significance arguments. Also, make sure to call out points of order.
When it comes to theory arguments, use them sparingly. Procedurals are useful tools when stock issues are not met by Aff. Call topicalities and trichotomies when the Aff is not upholding their prima facia burdens. Do not run procedurals as a time skew tactic, or as an argument used in every round. I take the rules of debate seriously. Abusing these arguments will not end well for you. When running a procedural, I am looking for clear articulation of the violation, standards, and impacted voters; as well as counter definitions. I do consider RVI arguments; however, they should include counter standards and voters.
I am not a fan of K s; however, this is your round. If you choose to run a K, make sure you are able to clearly explain the theory, the roll of the ballot/alt, and clearly define what ground the other team has within the round. If I find the K to be exclusionary of the other team, I will vote against it. There should also be a clear link to the K and the resolution. Also, make sure not to bite into your own K. I judge K s harshly due to their nature of calling precedence in a round. For K s that are completely off topic from the resolution, I will highly consider arguments of disclosure; however, you do still need to interact with the K to the best of your ability.
I have a moderate tolerance for speed; however, I am not a fan of it. I like clear and articulate arguments. I believe speed is a useless tool that is irrelevant to everyday life. Again, this is your round. Before the round begins, I will ask if both teams agree to spread. If there is not an agreement, I will drop the first team to spread. If there is an agreement, be forewarned, if I put my pen down, I can no longer understand your arguments. I pay close attention to calls of slow/clear/speed. If any of the above are called, and the teams it is called against does not slow or improve articulation, they will be dropped.
While I understand the beast of competition, there is no need to be rude. I will vote down a team if they are exceptionally rude or condescending. There is no need to belittle the other team; it does not prove your intelligence. Bullying is unacceptable and poor sportsmanlike.
Patrick Richey (he/him/Dr.) - MTSU
Meh. I've judged a few rounds. I hate rudeness and disrespect in rounds. Keep it nice and cordial. Don't BS me. I like cats!!!!
Paul Jarzabek - LSUS
n/a
Paul Strait (he/his) - USM
n/a
Payton Lo - Whitworth
n/a
Phillip Allevato - CCU
n/a
Piper Colvin - OKBU
n/a
Porter Haux - BSU
n/a
Preston Langley - BPCC
This is a test
Rachel Robinson (she/her) - LTU
n/a
Rachel Sun - SMC
n/a
Raelen VanDuzer - UU
n/a
Rafay Wahid - SMU
n/a
Reagan Dobbs - UAMONT
n/a
Rebecca Korf - Whitworth
Bears.
Rebecca Pickner - LCC
n/a
Rebecca Currie - LEE
n/a
Rebecca Richey - MTSU
Dr. Who or Super Natural references!
Regan Hardeman - ACU
n/a
Rezi Manaj - Belmont
n/a
Richard Clair - ETBU
n/a
Rigo Ruiz - LEE
n/a
Riley Young - LSUS
n/a
Riley Carter - LSUS
n/a
Rishi Shah - UCSB
n/a
Robert Litan - SMU
n/a
Ronald Gitau - ORU
n/a
Ryan Greenawalt - Belmont
n/a
Ryan McDonald - PHC
n/a
Ryan Straughan - BPCC
n/a
Ryder Stahl - SMU
n/a
Rylie Bowman - A-State
Judge philosophy
I am familiar with IPDA debate with some understanding of Parli. I am extremely familiar, however, with IEs. My qualifications are about two years of collegiate debate, along with about seven years of IE experience. I am currently with the Arkansas State Debate team for IPDA and IEs.
I do pay attention to filler words. It's good to practice not constantly saying, like, um, stuff, etc. that's the IEer in me. Debate and certain draw rounds can be an exception to this, of course.
When it comes to specific debate strategies, I am familiar and okay with most of them. Debate is a game, if you play the right cards and make the right moves, it's a fun round! So, run and do what you think is good.
I am big on specific rhetoric that is used. However, that should be given. Don't be abusive.
During CX, I am okay with interrupting your opponent if it is your time to talk. I like straight to the point questions and answers. You don't have to make those sound all pretty and nice. You only have two minutes.
Other than that, I just want the round to be educational and fun!
Sahori Hernandez-Quinones (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Sam Director - CCU
IPDA is supposed to be a common-sense, rhetoric-based event. Please refrain from using overly technical language, speed, policy tactics, or anything else that would not be persuasive to the average person off of the street. The point of debate is to make us better at discussing issues with real people, and IPDA is trying to achieve this goal. Also, please be courteous and kind to your opponent.
Samantha Haskell - BSU
n/a
Samuel Stettheimer - UU
n/a
Sara Beck - BSU
n/a
Sara Beth Conley - UU
n/a
Sarah Thierfelder - UU
n/a
Sarah Darby - Weber
n/a
Sarah Ascraft - ETBU
n/a
Sarah Richert - USM
n/a
Scott Haines - BPCC
n/a
Scott Thomson - Ithaca
Years involved in collegiate debate: 35
Debated: NDT policy debate
Coached: NDT, NFA LD, Worlds style BP
I like NFA LD style debate because it relies on evidence and emphasizes the stock issues. I default to policy making but will adjust my paradigm if directed to do so by the debaters.
I will seriously consider nearly every argument - CP's are ok, procedural arguments (T, Vagueness, K's) need to be very clearly explained. I have voted for K's but don't find them super compelling - I think they are frequently vulnerable to perms.
Please be clear, number your arguments, explain why you are winning issues.
Sean Perez - RioRunners
n/a
Sergio Sarmiento - BSU
n/a
Seth Fendley - UCF
n/a
Seth Blair - UU
n/a
Shannon Valdivia - Mt. Hood CC
I have been coaching for 25 years. I was a CEDA-Value debater as a competitor and have coached NPDA, BP and IPDA.
I value substance AND delivery! You won't get my ballot by just talking pretty.
I want to see a clear framework set up with your resolutional analysis. I want a clear CRITERIA so you can tell me what lens am I to look at your arguments. I expect that if it is a value, policy or fact based resolution - that the case structure will resemble the resolution you've been given - not what you want to turn it into.
I expect competitors to be kind and respectful to each other - in every aspect of the debate - from saying hello, to how you ask questions in CX.
On the Neg. Please give me a Negative philosophy so I know how you are looking at the resolution. If you need to give counter definitions, values, criterias - then I need to know WHY you are doing this and HOW your offering is BETTER than the AFF. Please make sure you are linking your off case arguments to case so that I know which part of the case you are attacking. SIGNPOSTING IS IMPORTANT!
SPEED KILLS: I know that the times in this style of debate can be challenging....but instead of speeding - try word economy! Speed will impact your speaker points.
Bottom line: In the words of my late mother - PERSUADE ME!
Sheila Ritchie (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Shelby Kutev - LEE
n/a
Shuchi Patel - MSU
n/a
Sian Fox - UCA
Sierra Boudreaux - LAC
n/a
Skye Irish - MTSU
n/a
Skyler Cepek - Ithaca
n/a
Sofia Alcazar - DBU
n/a
Sophie Thompson - SMU
n/a
Stephen Hosmer - PLNU
?
Steve Garcia - LTU
n/a
Steven Barhorst - MTSU
Susana Cerino - LEE
n/a
Swasti Mishra - UTK
n/a
TJ Reynolds - ACU
n/a
Tandace Crane - CoSI
n/a
Tanner McGee - WmCarey
n/a
Tarun Eisen - Abita Springs
n/a
Tate Cronin - UU
n/a
Taushiawna Vick - OKBU
n/a
Taylor Ashe - BSU
n/a
Taylor Enslin - SMU
Thomas Gay - USF
Thomas Sorensen - ACU
n/a
Tijen Jones - USF
Tom Preston - UNG
Although I keep an open mind in listening and considering all arguments--so please don't change radically what you run on my behalf--I believe that tabula rasa is a myth, as we all bring a lifetime full of life experiences (on March 5, I will have 65 years of those), and background in debate (2022 marks my 50th year in debate, as I joined the Paisley 9th and 10th grade debate team back in 1972), and went on to debate for RJ Reynolds High School, in Winston-Salem, until I graduated in 1975. Atlhough I judged some high school debates while at the Unviersity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, I mainly competed inindividual events, and judged many college and high school tournament in graduate school at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Policy was fairly much the only debate type around then.
Much has changed since the days of cards literally being cards, when the long file replacing the kitchen recipe box meant that you had arrived as a varsity debater. In my first permanent gig at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, my first teams were policy teams, so that is what I learned. We then moved on to CEDA, and finally to NPDA debating. That lasted from 1984-2001. Even since 2001, neither CEDA nor NPDA are recognizable from what they were then.
I was interim NPDA coach at Rocky Mountain College in Billings, MT in 2001-2002, then took a hiatus from coaching or advising but judged many debates of various sorts on the high school and college level.
After a moved to a non-DOF position as full Professor at UNG (my home campus then was Gainesville State College, but UNG claims the history of both that institution and the former North Georgia College and State Unversity before 2013), a group of students asked me why UNG didn't have a debate team in 2005 and I told them that if they formed a club, I would be its adviser. Since 2007, I have voluntarily advised a student run club, although from that club sprang a debate practicum, two new debate program, and a full fledged traveling squad and service learning program run out of my debate curriculum. You could call it a bit of mission creep. That makes me a generalist in the field of debate and speech, and I often quote Forrest Gump when descripting the UNG Debate and Speech Club, which has won campus-wide awards for 15 years running: "UNG Debate and Speech is like a box of chocolates--you never know what you are going to get." But I have been blessed with great students everywhere that I have been.
Having both sponsored and been involved in international travel, Spanish language debate and speech in which UNG annually fields some contestants, and continue to be involved in the Atlanta Urban Debate league as part of UNG's service learning program, I place a strong emphasis in diversity, equity and service, and strive to reflect the values of the University of North Georgia. This was instilled in my experience at UNC-Chapel hill, all of those years ago.
In policy debate, here are some things to know about me other than the background noted above:
1. Performance--love it--but make sure the links are clear. Performance I know conceived at Louisville had evolved considerably by the time I visited a debate camp as an observer at Coppin State University a few years back. But as in kritiks--by now an old strategy--make sure the links are clear to what you are dramatizing.
2. Topicality--rarely vote on it, although will listen to it. You are asking me to vote on one issue and accusing the other team of an ethical violation, which I take seriously. You must specify standards, the violation, (importantly) a synergistic model for what would be topical, and what topicality is an a priory voting issue to have a chance to win it. Unless you win all four, I won't vote on topicality. Using it to exclude impacts on race, gender, and ethnicity won't fly with me.
3. Refutation--a good thing. Follow the four step model (this applies to any format of debate I hear--let me know by number what argument you are on (if the other team doesn't give you a structure, jump for joy as that allows you to impose your own structure to your advantage; give your counter-argument--give your evidence for the counter argument--and follow through with the oft forgotten fourth argument--tell me why your winning that position is worth it.
4. Delivery-will take care of itself if CX and rebuttals reveal that you undestand rather than can merely read your case.
5. Speed--you're going to have it as long as we have time limits. The debate over it is pointless will never be solved. Maintaining structure, pack in whatever you can get it--I'll ask you to adjust if I can't understand the argument. That though only happens once in over 1000 debates.
6. Counterplans--I'm old school that they give up presumption, but if you have one that is unique and can't be permed--and is air tight and you can prove that it is better than the affirmative policy advocated--go for it! Not a fan of topical counterplans, but am open enough to listen to and vote for them of they are explained properly and withstand refutation.
Structure and signposting are key to enable the judges to know what argument you are on, and voting issues are so essential for the structure of the second rebuttal speeches.
Although UNG rarely fields policy debate team, I have been involved in some form of judging policy debates since 1972. And, our service learning program involves training in and practice for policy debate as many secondary members of the UNG Debate and Speech Team judges with the Atlanta Urban Debate League.
NPDA--This event too has changed since I first got involved in fielding teams somewhere around 30 years ago, and since my then brain trust used ran an NPDA event that got up to 52 schools by the mid-1990s. After the UNG team formed a team on January 26, 2007 the then formed a team that "majored" in NPDA, and UNG was one of the founders of GPDA in 2009.
Here are some of my ideas with NPDA:
1) Points of Information--speakers should be willing to take at least two per speech, but not take them to the point that the speeches lose their structure.
2) Speed--again, when we have time limits and published debate theory begins to be quoted--and many topics are worded policy--it is inevitable. Prefer structure, however--number your points.
3) Topicality arguments, kritiks, and performance--as NPDA has evolved more to resumble CEDA/NDT debates, see how I view them in policy debates above. It is very difficult to win a debate on topicality, though maybe out of 1,000 rounds I may vote on it. In kritik and performance oriented debate, it can become a link war. Again, kritiks were round when I was last assistant professor (in 1992), and performance evolves daily.
4) Structure--love it. In Govt. rebuttal, after refuting, give me NUMBERED voters; and in Opp Rebuttal, give me ONLY numbered voters. Make it easy for me to flow.
5) Explanations and impacts are good--when presenting an argument, follow CEI--claim, evidence, and impact. In refutation, again, follow the four step refutation model as I described for policy debate.
6) "This house believes that something should happen"--regardless of the wording of this house believes, I always treat such topics as policy. Negative is silly to argue them as other than policy based on presumption, and affirmative won't get out of having to prove solvency if they argue anything other than policy. But negative, though, must point that out--as strongly as I believe this, negative still needs to make that point.
7)Points of order, which in practice were of the "new argument in rebuttal nature"--at most, limit it to one POO--mostly, trust me to discount new arguments introduced into rebuttals as if they were never said.
8)Heckling and banging on the table--How I missed those--the reactions of the room were one of the things that made NPDA so fun in its heyday. So if I'm judging you, I don't mind the occasional "here, here," "for shame", or parli language applause (rapping the table). So if you are in a room with me as the only judge, heckle and rap away! If I'm one of three judges, discernment says that the others may not remember the olden days, and may not understand or appreciate the heckling or banging.
For IPDA:
The speeches are shorter, and I view this more as a fun, recreational sort of debate. Atlhough not obsessed with delivery, as the event implies, whoever has developed a gift of gab gets more of the nod than in other formats, although the substance remains important. IPDA encourages lay and student judging, and I adapt my own judging to the philosphies of that organization when judging. Thus, a bit less technical jargon may help in this format though they are commonly practiced in NPDA, CEDA, and NDT debate.
Generally, the details of a plan are less important, though there seems to be an emphasis put on defining terms clearly in the beginning.
I do try to be especially open to arguments, but recognize that explanation in terms of what would be expected as a lay person may be considered more important than in other forms of debate.
I note a trend to avoid complex theoretical arguments here, as the speeches are much shorter.
Again, the CEI model for introducing arguments, and the four step refutation model are the fundamental building blocks to sound debating. Don't forget to address the "Why is this important?" question at the end of each and every argument--and explicitly address your impacts.
I do expect numbered voters in the last two speeches in this debate format.
Also, a little bit about the odd format that gives negative such a long rebuttal vs. two shorter affirmative rebuttals--I don't expect 2AR to refute everything--just summarizing the voters. I believe that imposing a strict subpoint by subpoint refutation requirement is very unfair to the affirmative in this format. Just get to the main issues and if neg, remember to site substantive issues only as voters--for example, "dropped arguments" is not an voting issue in this format, lest negatives win about 90 per cent of the rounds in IPDA.
Most of all, I want debaters to enjoy the rounds and hopefully learn from a wide variety of oral critiques in most formats--and written comments in IPDA though IPDA has the peculiar norm of no oral critiques after the debate.
Do realize that in whatever format, I can only give one win. At the same time, feel free to question and even challenge.
Best wishes to all at any tournament to make for good debates based on your hard work and skill. I am glad that each and every one of you is here regardless of your experience, and hope that this experience will spur you to seek out many more debate opportunities.
Tommy James (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Trace Jones - Weber
n/a
Trakevious Thompson - WmCarey
n/a
Travis Walker - Whitworth
n/a
Trey Gibson - LSUS
n/a
Trinity Baugh - LEE
n/a
Victoria Byrd - WmCarey
n/a
Ximena Bustillo - BSU
n/a
Zach Hill - BSU
n/a
Zach Sharaf - ETBU
n/a
Zavoun Watts - Jeff State
n/a
anuj dutta - Cumberland
n/a
kennedy largent - OKBU
n/a