Judge Philosophies
Adrian Tam - UNT
n/a
Alexandria Ritchie - ACU
n/a
Amie Clarke - GCU
n/a
Ana Moyers - MurSta
n/a
Annah Samdi - ACU
n/a
Ashley Lynne - Idaho State
n/a
Ava Elliott - Jeff State
n/a
Caleb Spires - CSCC
n/a
Cam Moore - Denison U
n/a
Cole Butler - TCC
n/a
Cooper Johnson - LSUS
n/a
Courtnae James - LSUS
n/a
Danielle Kofink - ACU
n/a
Diana Weilbacher - ACU
n/a
Doug Fraleigh - Fresno State
JUDGING PHILOSOPHY..DOUG FRALEIGH FRESNO STATE (he/him/his)
Background
Co-Director of Forensics, Fresno State. Co-Director, Fresno State Prison Debate Program. Competed in policy debate for four years for Sacramento State and coached policy at UC Berkeley, Sacramento State, Cornell, and Fresno State. Also coached and judged NPDA, IPDA, LD, and individual events. For the past two years, the Fresno State Barking Bulldogs have competed in IPDA.
Note for SF State Tournament 2024
If this is your first tournament, I hope it is a great experience for you. Feel free to ask questions before the round if you are not sure what is going on. I am a friendly judge and my main goal is to encourage you to keep debating.
Overview about debate genres
My judging philosophy originated as a policy debate paradigm. It applies equally well to LD. Based on the NPDA rounds that I have judged post-COVID, it is my belief that NPDA has evolved into policy debate with a new topic every round. And every team had evidence, so it seems that the community has performatively overturned the "no evidence rule.
I think it would be nifty if IPDA remained an alternative for students who are new to debate or would rather debate in a format where there is less emphasis on speed and the arguments are more real world, especially given that there are plenty of policy-like options for students who would prefer that type of debate. In IPDA rounds (especially novice) I will give more weight to delivery and be less flow-centric than in other genres of debate.
What Should You Know About How I Judge?
- I am not opposed to any genre of argument. In IPDA, there is less time for constructive speeches (and only a single constructive in one-on-one debates), so arguments that require extensive development may not be the best choice. I will judge based on the arguments that are presented in the round, rather than my general familiarity with a position.
- I flow debates and the line-by-line arguments are important. However, I may not be persuaded by a very minimally developed argument (e.g. T is an RVI, fairness), even if it is dropped.
- I am not looking for speed in IPDA. It could benefit you to briefly explain the story of your argument, especially if it is a major position you plan to go for in rebuttals.
- Theory arguments are ok, but I do not look forward to them with the enthusiasm that some of my colleagues do.
What Can You Do to Earn Speaker Points?
- Clash with your opponents arguments is essential. I am very impressed when debaters make on point answers and less impressed when the round looks like competing persuasive speeches. Debaters who extend arguments (explain why their arguments prevail on contested issues) earn top-tier points.
- Although debaters are not supposed to read evidence in IPDA, paraphrased evidence from credible sources is very convincing to me.
- Organization is very important. Be very clear and signpost where you are on the flow as you move through the debate. For example, instead of just saying you are on the case or the disad and mashing all your arguments together, identify the specific argument you are rebutting or extending. If I am trying to figure out where you are, I am wasting cognitive resources that could be better spent listening to your argument.
- Good delivery is a plus. It is also a good idea to slow down a bit and emphasize the most essential arguments in final speeches, e.g. when you are advocating for how I should put the round together.
- Be enthusiastic about your arguments, but when interacting with others in the round, err on the side of chill. The chance to travel with your squad, debate with your partner (in some debate formats anyway), and compete against other colleges is a privilege; have fun and enjoy the journey.
Procedural Considerations
- Tag-team cross-x is all right. When speakers are prompted by their partner, the speaker needs to follow up by making the argument in the next speech and that is what I will flow. I listen carefully to cross-x and promise not to check real or fantasy sports scores until prep time starts.
- I do not want to adjudicate what happened before the round started.
Policy Resolutions
- For me, the round usually comes down to case vs. disads and counterplans. It is often a good negative strategy to refute case (even with analytics), rather than concede a case with massive impacts. However, I rarely give aff a 0% risk of any advantage and am unlikely to vote on presumption alone in the absence of any offense. The same principles apply to disads; it is strategic to minimize the links and impacts, but I rarely give neg 0% risk. I can be persuaded that more probable arguments, such as lives saved or human rights protected, outweigh an infinitesimal risk of nuclear war. I like the debaters to argue for how I should balance the arguments, but in the absence of such arguments (or if the explanation is very limited), then it is up to me to put the round together.
- On T, neg is most likely to win when they do a really good job explaining and defending their standards (blips not helpful here if you are seriously considering going for T in your last rebuttal) and explaining how their definitions meet the standards for T better than policy rounds.
- Counterplans can be a very good strategy, but they should be explained in the same detail as an affirmative plan. (Affirmative permutations also need the same detail, dont string together three or four permutations without analysis or explanation.) Your CP needs to be non-topical and competitive.
Fact and Value Resolutions
- The affirmative should explain why they are classifying the resolution as fact or value and advocate criteria for judging the round.
- The negative is welcome to dispute the affirmatives classification and/or criteria. My default is that non-policy resolutions which contain a subjective term like best or more important are value resolutions not fact.
- In neither side clearly wins the resolutional analysis issue, my default method for resolving the conflict is which teams vision for the round promotes a more educational and equitable debate.
Elisabeth Kiu - UNT
n/a
Erick Rivera-Miller - ACU
n/a
Gavin Michau - UARK
n/a
Greg Gorham - GCU
Haley Atchley - CSCC
n/a
Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK
n/a
Jett Smith - Idaho State
n/a
Jillian Rosa - MurSta
n/a
John Mikolajcik - TCC
n/a
Jose Rodriguez - UNT
n/a
Katie Rockhill - CSCC
n/a
Laura Carroll - ACU
n/a
Melissa Deleon - Cal State LA
Background
- she/her/hers
- I competed in parli and IPDA for 4 years at Rio Hondo College and Cal State LA.
- I currently coach debate at Cal State LA & East Los Angeles College
- I prefer specificity when asked questions like: "How do you feel about theory?" That's kind of vague, so I might not give you the answer you want. Hopefully the answers you seek are found below.
- Yes partner to partner communication is cool
- I was hesitant to write a judging philosophy because you should run your rounds as you please, not as I please. Appealing to your audience is a fundamental aspect of communication, but it can also harm the authenticity of your advocacy. This is your round, find the balance & speak your truth.
GENERAL
- Be respectful to everyone
- Be mindful of your positionality in the world as you run arguments about others
- Don't misgender others
- I'm a fan of people first language (people that are homeless, people with addiction, etc.)
- You can still be fair while being strategic
- Debate is a game
- Be persuasive
IPDA
- This event is NOT an extension of parli
- Conversational doesn't mean structure isn't important = don't make claims without backing them up
- I like voters here
PARLI
- Sure, debate is a game where we engage in a thought process of imagination, but I tend to vote on real world impacts.
- I don't like voting for nuclear war
THEORY
- Procedurals/T: necessary when the opponent is unfair/not following rules
- I'll vote for articulated abuse
- Kritik: no thank you :)
SPEED
- Since speed is so subjective, feel free to speak at the rate which is most comfortable or necessary for you, as long as your opponent has access to the words you are speaking.
- If someone is speaking too rapidly, please slow them down by saying "slow".
- If someone is speaking in a manner that their words are unintelligible, say "clear".
- Please don't use the opponents method of delivery as a reason for me to "vote them down" if you did not first attempt to demonstrate that it was problematic. Fairness goes all ways.
If there's anything else you would like to know, please don't hesitate to ask me! :)
Micah Bolden - LSUS
n/a
Michael Shirzadian - Marshall U
n/a
Morgan LeBleu - McNeese
I was primarily a NPDA debater as a competitor. IPDA is very new to me. If you know NPDA I am one of the few judges that would welcome the cross over in the event. Overall, I like a nice clean debate and don't mind a rules debate. I will listen to any arguments you want to put on the flow as long as you can back them up. I like creative and unique arguments. Have fun and don't be abusive.
Natalie Cavallero - Fresno State
IPDA judge looking for strong organization, solid delivery & kind participation. I will judge with an open mind on a blank slate, so bring your arguments and support them well! Please don't spread. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you.
Nicholas Grotberg - UNT
n/a
Nick Schott - ACU
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!!!!
Percy Blaich - UARK
n/a
Rachel Webster - TCC
n/a
Rhiannon Genilla - Fresno State
I am a forensics coach and a graduate student at Fresno State and I competed in IPDA debate.
I value critical thought, respectful competition, and logical creativity. I find value in debaters being reflexive and thinking quickly on their feet. I am more likely to be persuaded when debaters are enthusiastic about their arguments. It is important to clash with your opponent and to develop strong arguments.
Sam Mahony - ACU
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.
Sebastian Urban (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Shanisha Ford (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Shayne Coffey - UARK
n/a
Tanner Brown - LSUS
n/a
Tyler Cole - TxState
n/a
Vivian Schroeder - Tulane
n/a