2022 IPDA National Championship Tournament

Abilene Christian University - Apr 8-11 | Status: Completed | 4:35 PM Central

Profile Image
Tournament Time: 4:35 PM Central
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Squad Room   Postings   Ballot Review   Results

Judge Philosophies

Aaliyah Castro - LEE

n/a

Aaron Calhoun (He/Him) - BPCC

n/a

Abbey Barnes (she/her's) - USM

not as dumb as I look

Abbey Vaughn - Idaho State

n/a

Abbi Arbuckle (she/her) - ACU

n/a

Abigayle Taylor - ACU

n/a

Abraham Millan - EPCC

n/a

Adam Winningham - UTK

n/a

Adam Naiser - UAMONT

n/a

Adam Clifton - OKBU

n/a

Adeline Phillips - BPCC

n/a

Adrienne Lunceford - Jeff State

n/a

Aidan Hollister - Whitworth

Strike well.

Aiyanna Durepo - PLNU

n/a

Akshat Donti - UCSD

n/a

Alex Gibson - BPCC

n/a

Alex Tseng - PLNU

PSCFA: I'm not a communications critic. I will evaluate the debate in the most technically way possible. Debate as national circuit as possible if that matches your skillset. If you can't, I'll still do the best I can but both sides will like my decision more, the more national circuit you are.
TLDR: Read the arguments you want. I will flow and evaluate them. I will always vote on the execution of an argument rather than whether I think it is true or not. I have a slight preference for policy debates but I also like a well-executed Kritik debate. All of my preferences are just preferences and can be reversed through good debating.
Full Paradigm:
Top level things:
-As a caveat, everything in my paradigm is just my opinion and can be reversed through good debating.
-Tech>Truth.
-Nothing is at 0 or 100% risk. I evaluate debate as to which arguments have a higher risk and which ones are quantifiably bigger or implicate the debate on a deeper level.
-Debate determines risk until I'm told why it isn't.
-I don't have a problem voting for "lies" but I'd rather vote for true arguments.
-Some people whose opinions about the debate I admire are Chris Tai, Scott Wheeler, Raam Tambe, and Danish Khan.
-In my opinion, the negative does not read enough off-case positions most of the time.
-Judge instruction is underutilized but the team that uses it more will make the debate easier to decide.
Email chains are a big vibe:alexdebates109@gmail.com
My Decision Process:
Some habits in my decision process:
-I usually evaluate defense first, I usually vote for the least mitigated argument.
-I make the techiest decision, usually without explanation from the other team. I pay more attention to implications when left to my own devices.
I will do my best to actively assess who is ahead during the debate however, this does not mean an instant decision. I will try to give a timely well thought out decision as fast as I can because I believe it's the debaters job to debate their best, and the judges to be an active listener and decisionmaker which means to think critically through the debate as it goes on. The way I use this process is by assigning risk based on explanation and/or comparison of arguments. Usually, I base the way I assign risk of on dropped arguments, explanations, and comparisons between which arguments should be considered to be the nexus question of the debate and which should not. Just to be clear when I mention explanation, I don't mean explain your argument about what is but how it fits throughout the overall strategic context of the round. This means quantifying why your evidence proves that argument has a broader scope than your opponents. Absent reading evidence, I usually vote for the team that has best articulated why their argument's risk is higher or can be quantiified as much bigger. Good ev/argument comparison, framing arguments, and evidence that can be well explained in a strategic context can shift this process in your favor. The reason for my decisionmaking process is that I believe in tech over truth and I don't try to do alot of work people. Explanation is important but only in the context of me evaluating the debate in a purely technical way because I do not want to evaluate the relative truth claims of arguments as much as I can. That is not so say I am truth over tech, the process I just listed probably only applies if the debate is close. If an argument is dropped, it's dropped and I have SUPER LOW threshold for dropped arguments which I will vote on. The more you use the process above to direct my decision, the less my predispositions factor into the decision.
I believe that the evidence determines the scope of the argument. I.E if you powertag your extinction card but it only says small scenario for war, I'll probably not against a powertagged card if the other team points it out but I'll vote for lies in any other instance.
Online Specific Stuff:
-Go 85-90% of how fast you would go in an in-person round.
-I do not require you to turn your camera if you do not feel comfortable doing so.
-If you are reading blocks that are mostly analytics, slow down a bit because not all of us have the best internet connections.
Policy Paradigm:
Kritiks:
I am a mid judge for the kritik. I think that thesis claims and links are the most important part of the Kritik. Thesis level claims should forward a description of the world that filters how I evaluate the other parts of the Kritik. For example, if you read antiblackness or Psychoanalysis, you would want to win arguments such as Blackness is ontological, Psychoanalysis is true, or the state is irredeemable. Links should be about the plan, not just rant about why a certain ideology is bad. I'm probably the worst for the K on the alt. If you don't have a K that relies heavily on winning the thesis, you should focus on winning the alt the most. I don't think I'm in the automatically assuming that the alt doesn't do anything camp but I'm not deep enough into K lit to make extrapolations based on certain buzzwords or phrases. Referencing specific lines of aff evidence that show that the aff is the ideology you are Kritiking will go far. Aff teams should leverage their aff against the K way more imho. I understand Kritik's are multifaceted and have many ways to win on them, so both sides should explain why the parts of the Kritik debate they are winning matter if you decide to divert from my preferences.
T vs Policy Aff:
Plans should be topical. Painting a scary version of the topic that creates an unreasonable research burden for the negative is always a good strategy. Depicting a litany of affs that the 2N cannot prepare for is fine. If you make a ground argument, explain why the specific Affs, Disads, or Counterplans are necessary for your side to have a fair chance at winning rather than just saying we lose "x" ground without explanation as to why that ground is necessary in the first place.
T vs K aff:
I prefer that the affirmative read a topical plan but that is not a deal-breaker. I recognize that some Kritikal affirmatives have a great deal of value and are some of the best arguments in debate read by the best debaters but a lot of K affs are part of a phase that some debaters have where they want to be a "K debater" because it's fun, new, or more interesting. Rants aside, my preferences are just that; my preferences, I will ultimately vote for the team that does the better debating in the most technical way possible in every debate I judge no matter what argument the debaters read.
If you develop 1-3 pieces of good offense, I will be more inclined to vote aff. In general, the whole "we're a discussion of the resolution" argument is a decent counter-interpretation but the more aff takes the side of the discussion that affirms the action of the resolution, the more likely I'll vote aff. Redefining the words of resolution can be good too. I think that affirmatives that don't have the grammar of a plan but still affirm the action of the resolution like the "No is illegal" aff from the immigration topic are up for debate because it still gave some ground (but not enough) to the negative. Anything that goes in the direction of carte blanche rejection of the topic will be a harder sell.
If you are against a kritikal affirmative, I think that procedural fairness is the most tangible impact that my ballot has an effect over. I prefer if you read standards that engage or turn the aff's offense or demonstrate that their description of the world and debate is inaccurate or problematic. DO NOT argue racism, sexism, homophobia good, etc. but challenge the operationalization of the aff's theory in the debate by reading standards that challenge the scope of the claim that the 1AC forwards.
General Policy Stuff:
- Framing is a supplement, not a substitute for answering disads.
- Read arguments that justify the educational model of how we talk about impacts. Things "Learning about extinction is valuable" or "Extinction prediction education is bad"
-If you are reading a soft left, read arguments about extinction prediction models fail rather than some ethical orientation about immediate violence comes first.
-Debate in meta-level characterizations that tell the story of the debate. COMPARE arguments. Say things like link speaks to a broader event that the aff causes or the link evidence only describes a small event that the aff outweighs. OR "the aff's advantage is minuscule but the disad is huge because they conceded "x", "y", and "z" argument.
Counterplans:
Read them. There's not much to say here. Read a counterplan. Make sure it solves a sufficient part of the aff. Define what is a sufficient amount of the aff is solved by the counterplan and vice versa for the aff. Ideally point to lines in the evidence that identify these thresholds for solvency. Quantify counterplan solvency/solvency deficits by telling how big or a small counterplan solvency or the solvency deficit is. Solvency advocates for counterplans are helpful but not having one isn't a deal breaker.
Disads:
I evaluate them probabilistically and usually don't vote on arguments that are direct yes/no questions. Make arguments about the Aff/Disad having higher risk is the way to go for me. I care more about the impact debate than I used to but the link is still most important. Politics Disads are good and they teach valuable political forecasting skills that are extremely useful in the field of political science like making predictions about the political ramifications of political action in a probabilistic manner.
Theory:
The debate determines whether a counterplan is legitimate or not as well as any other theoretical question. All things equal, I default negative on condo, states, international counterplans, PICs, and process counterplans. If you are to go for theory, make arguments about why the negative promotes a model of debate that creates worse education or lower quality arguments rather than some claim about why it makes debate too hard for you. Counterplan theory aside, I'm agnostic. You don't have to have an interpretation but it would better if you did. Don't blaze through blocks. Do line by line.
LD paradigm:
- All of the policy stuff applies.
- I have little to no comprehension of "phil" or techy strategies germane to LD and I will evaluate "phil" like a Kritik. The closer you are to policy debate, the happier everyone will be with my decision.
- I think condo is good but I find condo bad to be more debatable in LD than in policy.
-My initial thoughts is that "Nebel" or "T: Whole Res" is a ridiculous argument. I think that it opens up the aff to all sorts of ridiculous PICs. However, I won't reject the argument on face but arguments about format distinctions between LD and Policy and justifications for why this interpretation pushes better solvency advocates will make this a more tenable argument when reading it in front of me.
Speaker Points:
I start at a 28 and work up or down from there.
27 - Still learning
28 - Alright
28.5 to 29 - You probably can break
29.5 and above - Semis/Finals

Alex Bope - UU

n/a

Alexander De Jesus-Colon - UTD

n/a

Allie Harper - ACU

n/a

Allison Hurst - BSU

n/a

Alma Ceja - BSU

n/a

Alyson Tyler - Idaho State

n/a

Amanda Kronenberger - MSU

n/a

Amari Cooper - MSU

n/a

Amaryah Gonzalez - ACU

n/a

Amorette Hinderaker - TCU

n/a

Amy Arellano - BSU

I have both competitive experience and coaching experience. When I was in college I did NPDA and IPDA. As a coach, I have successfully coached students to attain national success in NPDA, IPDA, Public Forum and NFA-LD.


Overall I feel that debate is a game, other than the obvious rules of the game (time limits, speaker order, resolution) I feel the debaters set the tone for the debate. I am a critical judge that prefers to hear K's or projects. While this is my preference, I can act as a policy maker if this is what you need me to do. Give me voters, do not make me decide what is important, it may cost you the round. Also give me structure, if you do not number your arguments separately than I am okay with your opponent collapsing your six arguments into one. Remember to signpost, it is important. Debaters should remember that I am not voting for good positions; I am voting for good arguments. A superior position is nothing if it does not take advantage of the superior arguments that make it a superior position. To win my ballot, out-impact your opponent. Impacts may be ideological or real world. It is a lack of weighing impacts that usually forces judge intervention. If you do the work for me, I won’t have to do it on my own.

I do not like to intervene as a judge; this means that it is your responsibility to give me everything I need to vote for you so that I am not forced to fill in gaps or assumptions. If you want me to vote on topicality, tell me why I should vote on topicality. If you tell me that your position has more advantages, tell me why this means you should win. If this isn’t done, I will resort to whatever decision criteria is advocated in the debate or impose one of my own if no such criteria is offered.

 

I have no problem voting on topicality or on critical arguments, but they must be structured. If your opponents are forcing either of these positions you must explain why your stance does not bite topicality or the critical argument, because it doesn’t is not sufficient argumentation. I HATE POSITIONS THAT ARE JUST TIME SKEWS. If your opponent fails to structure the topicality or critical argument, point that out, give me an RVI and move on, I will not vote on the issue if it is not structured.

The Flow: A dropped argument means nothing if you don’t tell me why it matters. Weigh it for me. I won’t vote for you just because the other team dropped arguments. Also, two or three well developed strong arguments are better than ten undeveloped arguments.

Debate as a Forum of Communication: Being rude is not acceptable; play nice or I will dock your speaker points. I am average when it comes to my acceptance threshold of speed. I have grown tired of judging debates where a team simply out spreads their opponents. Please do not use speed as a weapon within the debate space. If you are going to fast I will give you two "clear" warnings before it impacts you in round. When speed comes into conflict with clarity, I always prefer clarity.

Amy Manicom - ACU

n/a

Ana Dosianu - CCU

n/a

Anamica Khadgi - MSU

n/a

Andrew Grant - Harding

n/a

Andrew Jones - LEE

n/a

Andy Christensen - Idaho State

n/a

Angel Smith - ACU

n/a

Angelina Peruzzini - MTSU

n/a

Anna Voth - SMU

n/a

Anna Ward - UAMONT

n/a

Annah Samdi - ACU

n/a

Annalise Welsh - PLNU

n/a

Anthony Cotton - ORU

n/a

Anthony Copeland - LTU

n/a

Ashley Hale (she/her) - LTU

n/a

Ashley Sepulveda - PLNU

n/a

Athena Shead - UTK

n/a

Aurore Kamarashavu - Whitworth

n/a

Averi Berry - ACU

n/a

Avery Bosco - PLNU

n/a

Ayana Jones - NSU

n/a

Bailey McQueen (She/Her) - LSUS

n/a

Bailey Brown (She/Her) - LSUS

n/a

Balazs Turcsan - HC

n/a

Ben Krueger - Nevada

Ben Krueger (he/him/his)

University of Nevada, Reno

I competed in Parli and IEs in the early 2000s at Northern Arizona University. After many years away from competitive forensics, I returned to judging in 2016. I have been the assistant director at UNR since 2019.

General Debate Views and Preferences

1. I come from a traditional policymaking background, but I'm open to multiple frameworks and interpretations of debate. It's up to you to defend and justify your framework choices in the round.

2. I don't do well with speed. The faster you spread, the more likely it is that I'll miss arguments on the flow and make a decision you won't like.

3. Structure is good and I appreciate signposting, but remember that it's not a replacement for substantive argument. Having a catchy tagline is not the same thing as having a well-developed warrant that supports your claim.

4. Rebuttal speeches should "zoom out" and give me a big picture overview of what's going on in the round. When the rebuttal is simply a line-by-line analysis, I inevitably have to do more work to weigh the issues myself.

5. I viscerally dislike "gut check" arguments and won't vote for them. Instead, give me more specific analytic reasons why I shouldn't believe a specific claim (for example, it doesn't have a clear source, it's based on a post hoc fallacy, it's based on a faulty analogy, etc).

6. Don't be jerks. It is possible to make assertive, highly competitive arguments while still recognizing the humanity of your opponents. Hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior cheapens the pedagogical value of competitive debate and drives students away from the activity.

My views on Parli

I rarely judge Parli anymore, but in case you encounter me in a Parli round, there are a few things to be aware of about how I approach the event: (1) I hate stupid T arguments and tend to default to reasonability over competing standards unless there's something really wonky going on. (2) K's absolutely must have clear links and clear alt-solvency that I can weigh against the plan. If they don't, I will have a low threshold for accepting any plausible-sounding answer to them. (3) I will not vote for poorly-explained technical arguments just because they're on the flow if they aren't properly weighed or impacted out.

My views of IPDA

IPDA is NOT parli-lite! If you treat the round that way, I will at minimum tank your speaker points.

I believe that IPDA should be publicly accessible as a debate format, by which I mean that speeches should be delivered at at a conversational rate and and should minimize use of technical jargon as much as possible. I will still evaluate IPDA rounds from a flow-centric perspective, which means that things like top-of-case and dropped arguments still matter. Eloquent oratory or witty comebacks alone will not be enough to win my ballot if you aren't winning on flow. I tend to be disinclined to vote on framework presses beyond the level of definitions reasons to prefer a specific criterion.

Although uncommon, I find myself giving more low-point wins in IPDA than I did in Parli. If I give you a low-point win, it typically means one of two things happened: (1) you clearly won on flow, but there was a major issue with your delivery/presentation style, (2) you weren't winning on flow, but your opponent collapsed to the wrong voting issues or made some major strategic blunder in rebuttals that led me to buy your voting issues instead.

A Final Note on Recent Political Developments (6/2022)

In light of recent developments in national politics, I am choosing to disclose that I am a gay man. Please be mindful that resolutions about legal rights of specific groups (such as LGBTQ+ individuals, women, or racial minorities) can be triggering to competitors and judges when framed as a binary either/or choice between maintaining civil rights or eliminating them. In such rounds, I will grant leeway to both affirmative and negative teams to frame their arguments in ways that avoid a morally problematic division of ground. If you find yourself on the "bad" side of such a resolution, some ideas for you how might reframe include: state-level counterplans, constitutional amendments, constitutional convention, secession, Northern Ireland-style consociationalism, etc.

Ben Bies - HC

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.

Bismah Aslam - MTSU

n/a

Blake Faulkner - HC

General: I don't believe in "tabula rasa" because it is a choice to be so, and the choice isn't neutral or "blank." Technically, if I were tabula rasa, I wouldn't need to write a philosophy (so maybe I should claim such out of laziness?). That being said, I try to always defer to how debaters argue in-round, as long as you don't violate the official written rules of NPDA. I don't get to decide how the various conventions work (critiques, topicality, counterplans, disadvantages, etc.), you do, especially since they change gradually over time. Debate is about form, style, or structure of argumentation and the interrelationships of claims and evidence. It is not about content, and I don't give a damn about whether you argue something I agree or disagree with, whether it has a scary label, or a particuarly gnarly party affiliation. Anything goes in terms of content as far as I'm concerned.

I will intervene to keep the official NPDA rules should that be necessary for me to enforce, but short of that I try to give you free reign to tell me a story and define the debate. You'd best give me a standard/counter-standard by which to judge the round, else I will have to supply my own.

Speed: I can usually keep up as long as you aren't doing CEDA or NDT kind of speed. I will let you know if I need you to slow down, and you should expect me to vote elsewhere if you ignore me. Likewise, if you ignore requests to slow down from your opponent, that will not help me vote for you, though I'm open to persuasion either way at that level.

Pet peeve: NPDA is not about research primarily, so please don't make/allow the round to come down to who's "telling the truth," "correct," or "factual" unless you genuinely want the round to come down to a coin toss on my part, to say nothing of unavoidable eye-rolls. I cannot judge the round based upon something that is outside the round. More importantly, I refuse to do so.

bfaulkner@hillsdale.edu

Blakely Rudolph - Whitworth

n/a

Brandon Knight - WmCarey

Compete with dignity.

Brandon Davis - Harding

n/a

Braydan Lafleur - LTU

n/a

Breanna Prater - TCU

n/a

Breanna Box - ACU

n/a

Brennah Fohl (She/They) - LSUS

n/a

Brianna Hosmer-Laky - PLNU

n/a

Brie Ellison - BSU

n/a

Bright Ajayi (he/him) - Park

n/a

Brittany Leanne - LSUS

n/a

Brook McMillan - Jeff State

n/a

Cailah Taylor - ACU

n/a

Caitlin Hurlbut - OKBU

n/a

Caleb Conaway - DU

n/a

Caleb Starkey - UU

n/a

Cameron Jolly - ACU

n/a

Carlos Reyes - LEE

n/a

Caroline Gournay (she/her) - ACU

n/a

Carter Young - ACU

n/a

Celeste Jefferson - LEE

n/a

Charis Murrey - UU

n/a

Chloe Fresne - LSUS

n/a

Christian Nelson - EPCC

n/a

Chuck Rogers - MSU

n/a

Colby Nunez - ACU

n/a

Colby Tanner - ACU

n/a

Cole Pawlaczyk - UTK

n/a

Cooper Johnson - LSUS

n/a

Corbin Tarr - DU

n/a

Courtney Parks - TCU

n/a

Daniel Davis (He/Him) - LSUS

n/a

Danielle Popson - UU

n/a

David McDowell - LEE

n/a

David Sheilley - UU

n/a

David Cook - BHSU

n/a

Dayhath Marte-Herrera - WmCarey

n/a

Dena Counts - ACU

n/a

Derek Dismukes - MTSU

n/a

Devin Dodson - MTSU

n/a

Devin Hutchins - MSU

n/a

Don Jones - Whitworth

n/a

Dorothy Andreas - ACU

n/a

Doug Bedsaul - MSU

n/a

Dylan Pope - BSU

n/a

Dylan Clark - PLNU

n/a

Eboni Wescott - ACU

n/a

Eden Barnhouse - ACU

n/a

Edson Valdisimio - BSU

n/a

Efrain Godinez - PLNU

n/a

Elaine Csoros - UU

n/a

Elias Perry - LEE

n/a

Elijah Jarrell - UTK

n/a

Elijah Biedinger - ACU

n/a

Ellieana Camp - CCU

n/a

Elliot Certain (he/they) - MTSU

n/a

Emilie Thompson - ACU

n/a

Emily Director - Whitworth

n/a

Emily Landry - BPCC

n/a

Emily Youngblood - BPCC

n/a

Emily Bergman - CCU

n/a

Emma Jaramillo - LEE

n/a

Emma Catanese - Jeff State

n/a

Emma Garza - ACU

n/a

Emmitt Antwine - LTU

n/a

Enid Qirjari - Harding

n/a

Evan Kirksey - UCMO

n/a

Evan Smith - UF

n/a

Faith Willis - DBU

n/a

Felicia Doss-Curtis - ACU

n/a

Fernando Penate-Chavez - LPDA

n/a

Gabe Guerrero Guerrero - BSU

n/a

Gowri Tumkur - UTK

n/a

Grace VanLiere (she/her) - UU

n/a

Graham Abell - UU

n/a

Graham Christophel - MTSU

Grayson Harris - UU

n/a

Gregory Self - DBU

n/a

Grey Rodery - UCA

n/a

Gwen Skeen - Whitworth

n/a

Hannah Vancuren - UF

n/a

Hannah Freeland - UU

n/a

Hayden Cherry - MSU

n/a

Heather Johnson (she/her) - ACU

n/a

Hengel Zelaya - Harding

n/a

Hylan Durham - WmCarey

n/a

Isaac Price - Whitworth

n/a

Izzy Ceja - BSU

n/a

Jaci Sabatini (They/Them) - UARK

n/a

Jack Rogers - UCMO

n/a

Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK

n/a

Jacob Davidson - Jeff State

n/a

Jaden Hansen - OKBU

n/a

Jaiden Kerr - OKBU

n/a

Jake Saunders - OKBU

n/a

James Laky - PLNU

n/a

James McPheeters - OKBU

n/a

James Jovicich - UARK

n/a

Janine Wilkins - Park

n/a

Jasmine Brossett - NSU

n/a

Jason Gentrup - BHSU

n/a

Jaylon Florence - ACU

n/a

Jessi Boaz - ACU

n/a

Jessica Rogers - MTSU

n/a

Joe Cardot - ACU

n/a

Joey Miller - UCSD

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.

Jonathan Conway - UCF

n/a

Jonny Locke - MTSU

n/a

Jordan Sager - HPU

n/a

Joseph Maroney - CCU

n/a

Josh Vannoy - GCU

Joshua Vannoy - Grand Canyon University

 

Experience: 4 years of NPDA Debate at Concordia University Irvine. 4 years of coaching at GCU, one as ADOD and three as DOD. I competed at the NPTE and NPDA all four years of college. Kevin Calderwood, Bear Saulet, and Amanda Ozaki-Laughon have all been large influences in my debate career.

 

General:

Debate is a game. There are arguments I personally will lean towards, but ultimately you should make the argument you want to make. 

- One question should be answered during each constructive. (Flex can make this semi-optional)

- Partner to partner communication is cool, but if you (the speaker) don't say the words I won't flow it. 

- Be friendly

 

Theory:

Theory ran properly can win my ballot. I would avoid V/A/E/F specs/specs in general, unless the abuse is really clear. All interps should be read slowly twice, or I won't be able to flow it. I do not need articulated abuse. Competing interps is my go unless you have something else. I most likely will not vote for you must disclose arguments.

 

Case:

If your PMC lacks warrants/impacts the ballot should be pretty easy for the Neg. If the entire PMC is dropped, it should be a pretty easy ballot for the Aff. I will not do work for any impacts, if you just say "poverty" without terminalizing the impact, I will not terminalize it for you.

 

Performance:

So I personally enjoyed performative debate, it was fresh and interesting. If you decide to have a performance argument/framework you need a justification and a true performance. If you say performance is key in the FW and then do not "perform" anywhere else then there may be an issue. I will need performance specific Solvency/Impacts if you take this route. In your performance never do harm to yourself or another competitor.

 

The K:

All K's should have a FW, Thesis, Links, Impacts and an Alt with Solvency arguments. If one of these pieces is missing it is going to be difficult for me to evaluate the criticism. Sometimes people skip the thesis, that is ok so long as you describe the thesis somewhere else in the K (Earlier the better). The closer your K is to the topic the easier it is for me to vote for it. Reject alts are ok, but I find ivory tower arguments to be very compelling in these debates. I ran Mark/Symbolism the most but am open to any other type of K. I probably have not read your author so please be very clear on what the Thesis of your argument is; name-dropping means nothing to me unless you explain the idea.

 

Non-topical Affirmatives:

After four years of seeing many non-topical debates as a judge, I have become more open to hearing them without much justification needed to reject the topic. With that being said I am still compelled and convinced by FW if ran effectively on the negative.

 

CP Theory:

Is condo bad? Probably? Having debated under Kevin Calderwood for three years this one of the arguments that stuck with me. If a condo bad shell is run properly and executed well I will probably vote for it. Although I am open to a conditional advocacy (that means one) if you can justify it in responding to condo bad arguments (Multiple conflicting advocacies make it really easy for the aff to win the condo debate).

 

Never run delay.

 

50/States/Consult/Courts need a DA/Net Ben/Justification for doing so.

 

Pics are awesome if done well (Does not mean PICS bad is also not a good argument), and please read all CP texts (Just like All Alt/Plan texts) slowly twice. If you do not provide a written copy for me and I do not hear it well enough to write it down then what I wrote will be what I work with.

 

Permutations:

I am not a fan of the multiple perm trend, 1-2 perms should be enough, I am open to Neg multi perm theory arguments when teams run 3-8 perms. If your perm does not solve links to the DA's/Offense it would probably be better to just respond to those arguments instead of making a perm, considering a perm is just a test of competition.

 

Speaker Points:

I have found that I have a pretty routine pattern of speaker points; I generally give out 26 -29.5 depending on how well the debaters perform. With the 26-27 range being debates that usually are more learning experiences for the debaters, while the 28-29 range is usually for the debaters who do not have as much technical work and have very competitive performances. Jokes and making debate fun is always a safe way to get higher speaks in general. I also have found that the more hyper-masculine an individuals performance is, especially directed towards the other team, the lower my speaker points go for that individual.

Josh Danaher - ACU

n/a

Josh Young - BSU

n/a

Joshua Hendricks (they/them) - USM

Debate better.

Josi Revielle - UAMONT

n/a

Josiah Reed - LAC

n/a

Jovanni Arellano - LEE

n/a

Julia Mixon - WmCarey

n/a

Julio Martinez - LEE

n/a

Justin Hamilton - DBU

n/a

Kacie Hoch - BSU

n/a

Kale Rector (He/Him) - LSUS

n/a

Kaleb Gauthier - NSU

n/a

Kali Mendoza - ACU

n/a

Kareyn Hellmann - TCU

n/a

Kassie Spann - UU

n/a

Katie Shaw - ACU

n/a

Katie Howard - ACU

n/a

Katy Branch - DBU

n/a

Kayla Kenders - CCU

n/a

Kendall Woods - CCU

I have been judging and competing in speech and debate since 2014. My primary goal as a judge is to provide a respectful and fair environment, focusing on the arguments presented in the round.

I approach each debate with an open mind, putting aside my own biases. I am here to determine which debater presents the stronger case, based on the arguments and evidence provided in the round.

Its your responsibility as debaters to guide me on how to weigh the debate. I appreciate when debaters offer a clear framework to evaluate the round. If a framework isnt established, I will primarily focus on the quality and explanation of the evidence brought forward. Strong, well-explained evidence is crucial for winning my ballot.

My biggest pet peeve in debate is the misuse of the word "abusive." Unless your opponent's weighing mechanism is genuinely harmful, avoid calling it abusive. Instead, focus on showing why it's unfair or problematic without resorting to exaggeration. I value clear communication over speed. Its important that everyone in the round, including myself, can fully understand the arguments.

At the end of the round, I will weigh the arguments based on their evidence, logic, and persuasiveness. My decision will reflect the debate that happened in front of me, with respect for the rules and fairness in the round.

Kimberly Truong - LEE

n/a

Lacey Gulley - SHSU

n/a

Laeticia Woods - BHSU

n/a

Lauren Hand - WmCarey

LeTesia Mawawa - BHSU

n/a

Leah Hanna - LTU

n/a

Leia Mercier (She/Her) - LSUS

n/a

Leslie Ford - NSU

n/a

Leslie Cheng - UCSD

n/a

Lia Portillo Cantarero (She/Her) - NSU

n/a

Logan Gibbs - TCU

n/a

Logan Carey - OKBU

n/a

Lori Herrick - ACU

n/a

Luis Torres - LEE

n/a

Lynette Sharp Penya - ACU

n/a

Mackenzie Robertson - PLNU

n/a

Madison Plaisance - LTU

n/a

Madison Biggerstaff - MSU

n/a

Maggie Bridges - MSU

n/a

Maggie Cook-Allen - SMU

n/a

Maisyn Price (She/Her) - UU

n/a

Manda Hicks - BSU

n/a

Manny Reyes - UCMO

n/a

Maranatha Bruecker - CCU

n/a

Marcus Williams - MSU

n/a

Margaret Moore - UTD

n/a

Mariah Parker - DBU

n/a

Matthew Dalton - DU

n/a

Maurica Simpson - ACU

n/a

Meeyah Davis - ACU

n/a

Megan Smith* - LTU

n/a

Megan Murphy - BPCC

n/a

Megan Spence - DU

n/a

Megan Veilleux - LSUS

n/a

Meghan McGilvray - ACU

n/a

Mekaelia Morgan - UCF

n/a

Meredith Hill - ACU

n/a

Merry Ashlyn Gatewood - UU

n/a

Mikayle Scheffel - CCU

n/a

Mike Ingram - Whitworth

UNLIMITED...POWER!!!!!

Miranda Flores - DBU

n/a

Miranda Heid - HC

n/a

Misty Tanner - LAC

n/a

Mitchell Sadler - OKBU

n/a

Mya Gramm - GCU

n/a

Nate Goldstein - LTU

n/a

Nathan Mustapha - LEE

n/a

Nathan Marshall - ACU

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!

Neel Patel - LTU

n/a

Nick Truitt - UU

n/a

Nick Ged - MTSU

n/a

Noah Smith - DBU

n/a

Owen Thurber - UTK

n/a

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!!!!

Patrick McKenzie - MSU

n/a

Peyton Morel - ACU

n/a

Peyton Mansell - ACU

n/a

Philip Sharp - Nevada

Phil Sharp- University of Nevada-Reno

I have been a DOF for 15 years. I have coached national champions in a number of different formats. I really enjoy good argumentation and strong clash. A good debate will include two sides being respectful of each other and the audience while battling over the resolution provided. While your delivery and decorum are important aspects of persuasion, your arguments will be the center of my evaluation.
I like it when debaters guide me to the decision they want to read on the ballot rather than being mad that I didn't vote the way the wanted me to. Focus on the criteria dn do ballotwork in the debate, especially in the last speeches.

Phillip Parker - NSU

n/a

Phoebe Lim - LAC

n/a

Price Morgan - SMU

n/a

Priscilla Guerra - LEE

n/a

Rachel Vanpelt - UU

n/a

Rachel Brown - HC

n/a

Randy Porter - ACU

n/a

Rebekah Whitaker - UU

n/a

Rezi Manaj - Belmont

n/a

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.

Richard Bilich - WmCarey

n/a

Riley Stephens - UTD

n/a

Riyanna Kennedy - LEE

n/a

Robert Rhodes - ACU

n/a

Ruqayyah Smith - LSUS

n/a

Ryan Clark - BHSU

n/a

Ryan Jarratt - MSU

n/a

Ryan Booth - SMU

If you get called on falsifying evidence I will drop you. Call out evidence you think is suspect and make the case for it.

I try to be as Tabula Rasa. 8 Years of competitive debate experience mostly Parli and IPDA but I have some LD and Pufo experience. Run whatever arguements you want but make sure they are logically supported.

Ryan Wagy - UU

n/a

Ryder Evans - GCU

n/a

Rylee Walter - Whitworth

I don't like moths.

Sabrina Duff - LSUS

n/a

Sam Director - Whitworth

n/a

Sam Jones - PLNU

? 

Sam Chang - PLNU

"THE INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE AFFIRMATIVE MUST BE TOPICAL, THE VIOLATION IS THEY WERE NOT"

Just be respectful, be organized, don't speak TOO fast or else I might not catch everything. I treat debate as a game so whatever argument you want to run that fits in your strategy is finewith me as long as you can back it up

Samuel Peek - OKBU

n/a

Samuel Obeng (He/Him) - ORU

n/a

Sarah Partlow Lefevre - Idaho State

n/a

Scarlet Villarreal - GCU

n/a

Scot Loyd - OKBU

n/a

Scott Ludwig - BSU

n/a

Shane McShane - GCU

n/a

Shanisha Ford (She/Her) - LSUS

n/a

Sharlee Rogers - MSU

n/a

Sheila Meche - LAC

n/a

Sheila Ritchie (she/her) - ACU

n/a

Shelby Cumpton - LAC

n/a

Sheridan Brawner - ACU

n/a

Sian Fox - UCA

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

? 

Sloane Robertson - PLNU

n/a

Srijan Chakraborty - UCSD

n/a

Stassja Campbell (She/Her) - UARK

n/a

Stephanie Newberry - ACU

n/a

Steven Barhorst - MTSU

Swasti Mishra - UTK

n/a

Tabitha Keylon - UU

n/a

Thad Abner - WmCarey

n/a

Thomas Sorensen - ACU

n/a

Toni Rutledge - PLNU

n/a

Tori Hamilton - UAMONT

n/a

Toriance Fontenot - LAC

n/a

Trakevious Thompson - WmCarey

n/a

Travis Corrigan (he/him) - ACU

n/a

Ty Young - LEE

n/a

Tyler Redmon - Belmont

n/a

Tyler Welch - ACU

n/a

Uchechukwu Agbo - SMU

n/a

Vy Bui - BPCC

n/a

Will Griffin - DBU

n/a

Wyatt Whitaker - ACU

n/a

Wyatt Abrams - MTSU

n/a

Zac Maggard - BSU

n/a

Zach Britt - MSU

n/a

Zoe Dalessandri - ACU

n/a

madison peel - OKBU

n/a