Judge Philosophies
Aaron Fullman - CSULB
Abbey Vaughn - Idaho State
n/a
Adam Naiser - LEE
n/a
Adam Key - UAMONT
n/a
Alex Fingeroot - MTSU
n/a
Alex Carraway - MSU
n/a
Alex Bope - UU
n/a
Alexis Farino - DBU
n/a
Alli Koetsier - CWI
The bulk of my debate experience was in IPDA. I dont have preferences for the types of arguments you bring, just be aware of arguments you drop, I do weigh those in my decision. Please use your weighing mechanism, and if its a value resolution please make sure to incorporate your criterion into/throughout your case. I listen to voters carefully, aim to make yours wholistic and big picture, tell me why you are winning. I like cases that are clear and easy to follow, and have clarified impacts. I wont make the argument for you, state it explicitly. Finally, Please be civil. I do not reward obnoxious or rude behavior. Im not looking for you to change your debating style for me, rather I am looking for the debater that most cohesively constructs a position. Ultimately I am looking for clarity, civility, and cohesion.
Alma Ceja - BSU
n/a
Alyssa Becerra - CoSI
Hello! I am a former debate team member. Above all I value courteous debaters. As this is a communication activity, delivery (especially in IPDA), should be extemporaneous, conversational, and communicative.
In rounds where I am judging, speed, especially for the sake of "spreading," will not be valued nor will debate specific jargon. Good clash and concise, quality arguments as well as proper explanation of the impact make for great debate voters.
Above all, remember this is an educational experience. Have fun and try not to take the activity too seriously.
Amy Durham - ACU
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.
Angela Bastoparra - LSUS
n/a
Annah Samdi - ACU
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.
Anthony Copeland - LTU
n/a
Ashley Hale (she/her) - LTU
n/a
BAC Kuczynski - BAC
n/a
BAC Keller - BAC
n/a
Bethany Inman - DBU
n/a
Bob Becker - NWC
As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round. I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so. To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues. Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important. All of that said, I am not an information processor. I am a human being and so are you. If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance.
When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose. Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I dont require competing interpretations.
I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. Im fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. We dont like the resolution doesnt cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some contradictory arguments good answers.
Performance based argument need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you dont tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round.
As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says one million deaths and the other says dehume, but doesnt explain why dehume is worse than deaths, Ill vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then Ill vote for dehume. I think Im telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.
I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast. I will tell you if I can't understand you. Also, one new trend I find frustrating in LD is tag lines that are multiple sentences long. Your tag line is a claim, but make it a brief one. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. Thats why Im here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.
Braydan Lafleur - LTU
n/a
Brayden Chiatovich - CoSI
I appreciate it when both the affirmative and negation can move past definitions and framework and focus directly on clashing and analyzing the arguments brought into the round. Take time to address major issues in the round and make impactful rebuttals and arguments, I do not like it when people bring up repeated arguments or have replies that do not address the core issue of the opponents claim. Quality over quantity of arguments will always win in my book, otherwise I am open to different debate strategies and techniques.
Brian Powell - Transy
n/a
Bryce Van Order - BSU
n/a
Bryce Funkauser - Transy
n/a
CEI Knoblauch - CEI
n/a
CSI Senkbell - CoSI
n/a
CSI Akwenuke - CoSI
n/a
CSI Madrid - CoSI
n/a
CSI Christensen - CoSI
n/a
CSI Sassercollins - CoSI
n/a
CWI Guerrero - CWI
n/a
CWI Nigro - CWI
n/a
CWI Van Sickle - CWI
n/a
Caleb Starkey - UU
n/a
Caris Gray - LEE
n/a
Chadwick Pearsall - CEI
n/a
Charlize Jackson - BPCC
n/a
Christian Thomas - UTK
n/a
Cody Bijou - LEE
n/a
Cooper Johnson - LSUS
n/a
Courtenay Gulley - LEE
n/a
Cumberlands Schwaz - Cumberland
n/a
Derek Dismukes - MTSU
n/a
Diana Weilbacher - ACU
n/a
Donna Wade - BSU
n/a
Donnie Corwin - USU
n/a
Doug Moreno - LEE
n/a
Drew Waites - UTK
n/a
Edson Valdisimio - BSU
n/a
Elise Scudmore (they/them) - USM
n/a
Elizabeth Newland - CoSI
I have competed in IPDA and NPDA events in the past as well as individual events, but my passion has always been in debate. I believe the point of debate it to interact with each other in a meaningful way and to learn something along the way.
I appreciate a thought-provoking round that brings well rounded and thought-out ideas to the table, and I value respect for others in a round. Arguments should be well organized and well labeled. Clash in a round is a must and is the burden of the negative.
I do not feel that speed gives you an advantage in a round, if your judge and opponent cant understand what you are saying then it defeats the purpose of the round. The round should bring ideas that are well developed and engaging to the table. I do not vote on the number of contentions brought up, rather the quality.
I value evidence in a round, factual sources should be utilized to strengthen a case. Please avoid logical fallacies in a round, it does not provide any value to the round. I typically do not vote for Ks in a round, I feel it takes away the learning aspect in the activity.
Most importantly, have fun! Please feel free to reach out with any questions.
Elizabeth Friedman - DBU
n/a
Emily McDonald - ACU
n/a
Emma Murdock - Montana
n/a
Emma Tharp - LPDA
n/a
Emma Hoover - UJ
n/a
Emma James - BSU
n/a
Eric Landrum - BSU
n/a
Erika Hein - LCC
n/a
Ethan Fulkerson - Nevada
n/a
Ethan Schmidt (he/they) - MTSU
n/a
Evan Kirksey - UCMO
n/a
Ezekiel Nail-Clemmer - UAMONT
n/a
GCU Evans - GCU
n/a
Gaby Mars - MSU
n/a
Grace VanLiere (she/her) - UU
n/a
HPU Moss - HPU
n/a
Hannah Vancuren - UF
n/a
Hannah Tan - Cumberland
n/a
Hannah Dryer - UU
n/a
Ileana Mocciola - ACU
n/a
Jaci Sabatini (They/Them) - UARK
n/a
Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK
n/a
Jack Rogers - UCMO
n/a
Jacob Rose - MSU
n/a
Jacqueline Maldonado Martinez (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Jane Anne Carroll - ACU
n/a
Janine Wilkins - Park
n/a
Jessica Jatkowski - NWC
I have been judging debate since 2015. However, this is only my first year coaching.
The most important element for me as a judge is to be respectful.
We are all coming to debate with our own preferences for issues, but I genuinely put my feelings and thoughts aside and will look at both sides to see who is giving the best argument. It is in the general framework of debate for you to tell me as a judge what I am weighing the debate on and bring evidence to the round. If you are unable to do so, then my general stance of how I judge is on the quality of evidence that both sides are bringing to the round.
In terms of actual speeches, it is important for everyone to understand what the issues and topics are, so speed may not be a benefit if I have to tell you to slow down.
Jessica Rogers - MTSU
n/a
Jill Kirkham - CEI
My debate background started in policy. I debated policy in HS and college before switching over to Parli. I now coach IPDA. I am a professor of political science and philosophy - so don't worry about making theoretical arguments (but also don't feel pressured to do so).
I like everything to be on time including roadmaps. You should be quick to stand up for each of your speeches.
I don't love debate rounds that come down to arguments over interpretation unless you are good at making clash arguments or understand topicality theory. Be careful about claiming abuse. If I think you have ground, these arguments generally don't fly with me.
I try the best that I can to be a blank slate and will vote against my own beliefs if I feel like the better arguments were presented.
I like unique arguments. A creative argument is better than the same tired arguments.
Jim Gatfield - CWI
n/a
Jim Evans - UAMONT
n/a
Jonny Locke - MTSU
n/a
Jordan Rainbolt - BPCC
n/a
Josh Young - Transy
n/a
Julia Bennett - CWI
I come from a strong events background, with a primary emphasis in interpretation / theatre. My judging experience in debate is as an IPDA coach. I appreciate the structured focus on cogent, accessible argumentation for an educated citizen, and I lean into that as a judge.I dont respond to speed for speeds sake, I do weigh on impacts. I appreciate competitors who can articulate the logicin their case and make it legible to me.
My values:
Clarity & precision: I look for evident preparation, precision, and attention to detail. No matter your level of competitive experience, articulate your position to the best of your ability. In debate, help me to follow your line of thought - use the weighing mechanism throughout. Deliver with force, size, and precision. Show mastery and professionalism at whatever level youre at.
Connection - Make your cases and authentically communicate them with the judge. Make the line of argument clear, keep reminding me why you should take the case. Lean in, and embrace your advocacy.
Authenticity - Be in the room. Respect your peers, and be civil.
Justin Durbin - Cumberland
n/a
Kacie Hoch - BSU
n/a
Kacie Foster - Whitworth
n/a
Kaden Marchetti - Idaho State
n/a
Kaitlyn Rogers - BSU
n/a
Katelyn Ah Puck - DBU
n/a
Kathryn Wells - Whitworth
n/a
Kaylee Tegan - Nevada
DEBATE
My debate philosophy is quite simple, I prefer clear, structured arguments about the resolution. I dont enjoy spending the entire round hearing arguments about framework and definitions unless ABSOLUTELY necessary to the round. I also prefer quality arguments over a mass quantity of arguments. I prefer speeches that are slow and easy to understand rather than overloading your opponent and judge with fast arguments. I tend to not vote on dropped arguments unless it is absolutely necessary in the round. With organization, signposting contentions and on-time, brief road maps are preferred.
Most importantly, I expect all competitors to be respectful and civil when debating. I will not tolerate rude competition.
IE
For individual events and speeches, organization is very important. All parts of a speech should be easily identifiable. I am listening to the content of a speech as well as the delivery. Is there eye contact with the judge and audience? Do you know your speech well? Speeches should not be over the time limit.
Keegan Bosch - LCC
n/a
Keith Milstead - LSUS
n/a
Kevin Trombly - BSU
n/a
Kimberly Truong - LEE
n/a
Konrad Zwierzchowski - UJ
n/a
LCC Tovar - LCC
n/a
LCC Barrows - LCC
n/a
LCC Moore - LCC
n/a
Lee Ramgoolam - LEE
n/a
Lena Larson - Cumberland
n/a
Lora Cohn - Park
n/a
Lori Welch - Whitworth
n/a
Luis Toro - Oaktion Debate
n/a
Luke Yeates - CWI
I have been directly involved in the debate community for about a decade, first as a competitor and now as the director of a team. I have extensive experience both as a competitor and a judge, with my primary debate events being Parli, IPDA, Public Forum, and British Parlimentary. I have judging experience with Lincoln Douglas, but no competitive experience.
In general I respond positively to the norms that each debate style embodies. Each format brings something unique and I enjoy those differences. I like and value the evidenced rhetoric in IPDA, I like listening to debaters unpack Ks in Parli (The link story better be clear though), and I love the advocacy and philosophy that can be used in PF. A priori voting issues absolutely matter, but I dislike running theory just for the sake of it. Put another way, go for the theory argument if you genuinely belive it should be pursued, not just because you feel its the 'next step in the process'. Conditionality arguments and T shells are great examples of use/misuse here.
Some of the speed that can happen at debate specific competitions don't necessarily fit the goals of this tournament and I work to respect that, with the noted exception of LD. If thats you, go as fast as you like. If not, depth is better than breadth. I prefer to vote on case level arguments, assuming all other framework issues are settled, so be sure to connect your arguments and cross apply your rebuttals. Please clarify your impacts as well, especially if the core of your style is policy. Beyond the RA, without warranted impacts I have to vote on something else, and I would rather not have to make an arbitrary decision. Tell me where you are winning. Whip speeches and rebuttals matter. I know this sounds simple but, utilize your weighing mechanism. That particular tool is valuable to everyone in the round regardless of format.
Finally, while I wish I didnt have to include this part, Ive seen it occur as a judge a bit too often so it's important for you to know how I will react if this happens in your round. Yes, debate is a direct and blunt activity, but there is a line. If you cross that line and become rude, hostile, or personal, I will drop you on principle, even if you would have won the round on the flow. I will not reward a competitor who competes by bullying or dragging their opponent.
I don't want to end on a sour note, so to wrap it up with a more uplifting tone, if you have any questions or need any clarification please don't hesitate to ask me before we start the round. I also keep all my flows for the duration of the tournament, so if you have questions after the round is over and you see me walking around, I am more than happy to talk about it. Just please don't ask me if you won or lost.
Luke Thurmon (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
M. G. Jarzabek - LSUS
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 Mattila - NAU
Maddie Fritz (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Mallory Taylor (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Manny Reyes - UCMO
n/a
Marah Chance - MTSU
n/a
Marcy Harmer - BSU
n/a
Marissa Moreno - LEE
n/a
Mary Rose Stepnowski - BAC
n/a
Megan Smith* - LTU
n/a
Michael Isaac - UCA
n/a
Mike Ingram - Whitworth
UNLIMITED...POWER!!!!!
Montana Craig - Montana
n/a
Montana Cervantos - Montana
n/a
Mustafa Hashim - Transy
n/a
NAU Kalil - NAU
n/a
NAU Maychajlonka - NAU
n/a
NWC Bagshiyev - NWC
n/a
NWC Orazgulyyev - NWC
n/a
Nathaneal McBride - Lewis & Clark
n/a
Neel Patel - LTU
n/a
Noah Reid - UU
n/a
Oakton Jackson - Oaktion Debate
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!!!!
Payton Lo - Whitworth
n/a
Ray Eaton - UU
n/a
Reagan Dobbs - LEE
n/a
Rebecca Currie - LEE
n/a
Rebekah Whitaker - UU
n/a
Riyanna Kennedy - LEE
n/a
Ross Sloan - SMU
n/a
Rufina Gonzalez - LEE
n/a
Ruqayyah Smith - LSUS
n/a
Rylee Walter - Whitworth
I don't like moths.
Sabrina Duff - LSUS
n/a
Sam Jones - GCU
Samantha Hicks - LTU
n/a
Sarah Partlow Lefevre - Idaho State
n/a
Sarah Walker - NAU
Sarah Walker
Director of Forensics and Debate, Northern Arizona University
Altogether,
I have about 15 years of experience in a variety of debate types, as a
competitor and judge. Most of that experience has been in Parliamentary
Debate.
I have a strong
background in Rhetorical Criticism and Argumentation, so I am confident I
can grasp any K, Plan Text, CP, or perm you bring up. If your speed,
technical jargon, or volume make it difficult for me to keep up however,
I may give up flowing, and I cannot judge on what doesnâ??t make it to my
paper.
Overall, I have most appreciated debates that have been
centered on making well warranted, competing arguments. If you can
clearly refute the central arguments of the other team, you will go a
long way in creating not only a stronger debate, but also a happier
judge.
Things you should know:
1) I prefer debates with clash, where the aff plan is the central space for negative arguments. This means:
(a) Plan texts/advocacy statements are preferred over their absence.
(b) As a general rule, the efficacy of the policy/advocacy probably matters more than how one represents it.
(c)
Critiques on objectionable items in the plan are preferred. I like
specific K links. All Ks have a presumed alternative, which means the
aff can always make a permutation.
(d) I have reservations about
judging performance/personal politics debates. I likely have at least a
workable understanding of your literature, but I do prefer a debate
constructed on a rubric I am more familiar with, and I simply have less
experience with this style. I am happy to learn, and willing to judge
this type of round, but be aware that the argument does still need
warrant, and I will still need to be able to flow something. Please make
your arguments clear.
2) Miscellaneous but probably helpful items
(a)
I view debate as a professional activity. This means you should not be
acting in a way that would get you removed from a professional setting. I
understand the purpose behind profanity and the showing of pornography
or graphic images, but these should be kept to moderation, and there
should be a clear warrant for them in the round. As far as I am
concerned, there is absolutely no reason for rude, violent, or
hyper-aggressive statements in a debate round. Ad hominem is a fallacy,
not an effective debate strategy. I will dock your points for it.
(b)
When speaking, giving road maps, etc., please speak with the purpose of
making sure that the judge heard you. If I canâ??t place your arguments, I
am much less likely to flow it. Clearly signposting and providing a
roadmap is an easy way to avoid this problem.
(c) I am much more
impressed by smart arguments and good clash than I am with highly
technical debates. If you drop whole points or arguments in the flow in
favor of chasing down one argument, do not expect me to overlook those
dropped args.
(d) Evidence is
evidence, not the argument itself. Both are necessary to create a good
debate. Please remember that evidence without an argument will be hard
for me to flow, and thus vote on, and arguments without evidence are
rarely strong enough to withstand scrutiny.
(e) I donâ??t grant universal fiat.
Saying that something should be done just because you have the power to
do it is not a strong argument, nor is it likely to lead to a better
debate. Iâ??d prefer you explain WHY and HOW we should enact the plan,
rather than simply insisting that it can be done.
3) Clipping
Issues: I will stop the debate to assess the accusation and render a
decision after the review. While I understand why other people
proactively police this, I am uncomfortable doing so absent an issue of
it raised during the debate. If proof of significant (meaning more than a
few words in one piece of evidence) clipping is offered, it's an
automatic loss and zero points for the offending team and debater.
4)
Topicality debates: If
you truly believe an abuse of the resolution was levied, or if you truly
cannot work in the limitations provided, then bring up T. If not, then I
am more likely to view a T argument as a distraction tactic. You will
get farther arguing ground loss than with an arg about the
interpretations of the T.
5) Timing the debate and paperless: You should
time yourselves, but I will time to enforce efficiency. I stop flowing
when the timer goes off. Donâ??t abuse the timer.
Scot Loyd - UJ
n/a
Sergio Sarmiento - BSU
n/a
Shalee Sucher - BSU
n/a
Shamar Hunt - MSU
n/a
Shanisha Ford (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Shimi Yandell - UU
n/a
Stephen Crowley - BSU
n/a
Steven Barhorst - MTSU
Tabitha Keylon - UU
n/a
Tanner Marlow - MSU
n/a
Temi Sobukolo - LSUS
n/a
Thea Hesby - CoSI
n/a
Tim Cornell - Transy
n/a
Toriance Fontenot - LAC
n/a
Tucker Wilson - Montana
n/a
Tyler Redmon - Belmont
n/a
Tyler Tremain - LCC
n/a
UCMO Winterbower - UCMO
n/a
UCMo Wands - UCMO
n/a
UCSD MacKenzie - UCSD
n/a
UJ Foley - UJ
n/a
UJ Gallegos - UJ
n/a
UJ May - UJ
n/a
Valerie Colbert - DBU
n/a
Whitworth Osborne - Whitworth
n/a
Whitworth Skeen - Whitworth
n/a
Zac Maggard - CWI
Zach Hill - BSU
n/a