Judge Philosophies
ACU-Annah Samdi - ACU
n/a
ACU-Danielle Kofink - ACU
n/a
ACU-Diana Weilbacher - ACU
n/a
ACU-Hannah Johnston - ACU
n/a
ACU-Laura Carroll - ACU
n/a
ACU-Sam Mahony - ACU
n/a
AK-Rakin Nasar - AK
I was a Policy debater at Torrey Pines HS and I debated for Wake Forest University. I graduated college in 2018, so I haven't debated in a while and I've been out of debate for most of that time.
That being said, read whatever you want. In highschool I went for policy args i.e. the politics disad, counterplans, etc. In college I've gone for the K in like 80% of my 2nrs I'm a 2N and I've been a 2N for my entire career.
I can keep up with tech, but I prefer to look at debates that are focused on central themes. I dont think cheap techy wins are good examples of that. That being said, don't be sloppy. I really appreciate spending my mental energy thinking about arguments instead of searching for them. You want me spending more time thinking about your arguments. I presume all your arguments are horrible until I get time to actually think about them.
Kritiks: Love em, they gotta be really smart though. Be especially clear about what your argument is. Earlier in college I leaned heavily on the cap k in various iterations, but i am familiar with many different types of kritiks. The more specific the kritik is to the aff, the better. Specific answers to the particular kritik/alt as well as a strong defense of the 1AC is a good way to win as aff. Please explain the alt in the 2NR. I will not drop the alt for you, if you plan on doing that please make that decision as decisive as possible in the 2NR. A lot of framework debates are silly. Justify your impacts and give me reasons why they have misrepresented their impacts. High theory, go for it, but I'll probably need some good explaining. Don't turn it into a game of who dropped what, please have a compelling and thought provoking thesis.
Conditionality is aite. ill vote either way if im convinced.
Topicality Some of my favorite debates were T debates, but since I am not familiar with the topic I don't have a good pulse of what good debates on this topic look like. I'll be more likely to take T seriously if you invest a lot of time on it in the block. Give me what debates look like in your definition of the topic. A case list and what neg ground comes with that case list are helpful for both sides to have. I don't know why certain affs are good or bad, so you have to do some more work impacting the relevance of your case list.
Theory go for it, but I will only take it seriously if you spend quality time on it. if it becomes a 2NR/2AR thing, don't just read off your pre-made block, contextualize it to the debate.
Counterplans The benchmark for a good counterplan is a good solvency advocate. I love the advantage counterplan and impact turn strategies, please do it well though. There are a lot of moving parts in those debates, so keep it well-oiled and clean. I went for sketchy PICs throughout my career, but that means I expect PICs to be extremely well executed. That being said, affs don't messit up. You just have to win a couple of arguments to beat cheating counterplans, don't feel overwhelmed. If you got the confidence to end a 2AR in 2 minutes, go for it.
Disads go ahead, read em.
Framework Ive been on both sides in my career, I read non-traditional affs and ive gone for framework. Please read whatever you want. Generic policy debate good/bad is not what anyone should be arguing. Your interpretation for framework needs to resolve some of the offense of the affirmative. Topical versions of the aff that resolve the advantages of the aff and the disads on framework are a good idea. Specificity is the most important thing in these debates.
Tell me why debating about the cases your interpretations include make us better people. You gotta show me how debates look within your case lists. I am not easily convinced with the argument that "they are so unpredictable that we don't have any specific arguments against them, and that proves offense on framework." In general, a world with only generic debates is a boring place to be. I like nuanced and well-informed debates, I think that both sides are trying to achieve that. If you think that world view is wrong, please try to change my mind in a compelling way.
Have fun, don't be rude, get lots of sleep.
If you got a specific question please feel free to ask me!
Abbi Arbuckle (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Alayna Ruiz - Weber
n/a
Alexander Carwheel - DBU
n/a
Alexandria Ritchie - ACU
n/a
Aliyah Carr - GCU
n/a
Angelina Hitson - CSCC
n/a
Anna McFetridge - WmCarey
n/a
Areeb Shaukat (he/him) - USM
n/a
Audrey Mae Taylor - UU
n/a
Austin Keefe (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Ayden Reams - PLNU
n/a
BPCC-Christian Monday - BPCC
n/a
BPCC-Danielle Sanson - BPCC
n/a
BPCC-Maddie Malbrough - BPCC
n/a
BPCC-Matthew Gedeon - BPCC
n/a
BSU-Allison Hurst - BSU
n/a
BSU-Izanna Stoddard - BSU
n/a
BSU-Josh Young - BSU
n/a
BSU-Mackenzie Mosell - BSU
n/a
Brian Culver - Cumberland
n/a
Brianna Merryfield - Cumberland
n/a
CSCC-Caleb Spires - CSCC
n/a
CSCC-Haley Atchley - CSCC
n/a
CSCC-Katie Rockhill - CSCC
n/a
CSLA-Justice Goon - Cal State LA
n/a
Carley Perry - NSU
n/a
Carson Davis - ATU
n/a
Catron Coty - McNeese
n/a
Charles Culliford - LAC
n/a
Chris Guo - SMU
n/a
Cisco Soto - UTK
n/a
DBU-Isaiah Tiemann - DBU
n/a
DBU-Layla Ned - DBU
n/a
DBU-Lyric Newkirk - DBU
n/a
DBU-Noah Hensley - DBU
n/a
DBU-Shree Brown - DBU
n/a
DBU-Waleed Nawaz - DBU
n/a
DU-Cam Moore - Denison
n/a
Daniel Davis (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Daniel Anderson - NSU
n/a
Daniela Gomez-Delgado - MTSU
n/a
David Mott - UTK
n/a
Devesh Sarda - LSUS
n/a
Diana Ramirez - NAU
n/a
Diego Moreno - LEE
n/a
Dylan Clark - PLNU
n/a
Erin Swift - NAU
n/a
Esther Rolsma - UU
n/a
Ethan White - GCU
n/a
FS-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 three years, the Fresno State Barking Bulldogs have competed in IPDA.
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 NDT/CEDA debate, but 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 (this is especially true at nationals); 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, don't 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.
FS-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.
FS-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.
Freya Steed - Lewis & Clark
n/a
GCU-Amie Clarke - GCU
n/a
GCU-Greg Gorham - GCU
Grey Chadsey - NSU
n/a
Holden Hargrave - UAMONT
n/a
ISU-Ashley Lynne - Idaho State
n/a
ISU-Jett Smith - Idaho State
n/a
Ivan Markevych - BSU
n/a
JFCC-Ava Elliott - Jeff State
n/a
Jacob Neal - MSU
n/a
Jacob Little - UU
n/a
James Wood - DBU
n/a
James Crews - USM
n/a
Jane Anne Carroll - ACU
n/a
Jared Semke - LRU
n/a
Julian Mackenzie - UCSD
Kassandra Adame - Cal State LA
n/a
Keith Milstead - SMU
Khaled Algahim - LSUS
n/a
Kimberly Truong - LEE
n/a
LCC-Ada Salazar - Lewis & Clark
n/a
LCC-Kai Solis - Lewis & Clark
n/a
LCC-Kyteo Aguon - Lewis & Clark
n/a
LCC-Rebecca Patch - Lewis & Clark
n/a
LCC_Ella Skelton - Lewis & Clark
n/a
LCU-Camille Allgood* - LAC
n/a
LCU-Noel Martin - LAC
n/a
LCU-Ruby Gross - LAC
n/a
LRU-Anthony Reel - LRU
n/a
LSUS-Chloe Fresne - LSUS
n/a
LSUS-Cooper Johnson - LSUS
n/a
LSUS-Jordan Guillot (they/them) - LSUS
n/a
LSUS-Mack Miles (They/Them) - LSUS
n/a
LSUS-Sandy Schnell - LSUS
n/a
LSUS-Shanisha Ford (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
LSUS-Tanner Brown - LSUS
n/a
LSUS-Van Denison - LSUS
n/a
LTU-Kamillyah Evans - LTU
n/a
Lakelan Hammonds - CSCC
n/a
Leah Hotze - ACU
n/a
Lee-Adamaris Tello - LEE
n/a
Lee-Advita Shinde - LEE
n/a
Lee-Aiden Barajas - LEE
n/a
Lee-Aleyna Lopez - LEE
n/a
Lee-Amanda Foster - LEE
n/a
Lee-Analeah Zamarripa - LEE
n/a
Lee-Anna Orozco - LEE
n/a
Lee-Audrey Jaime - LEE
n/a
Lee-Caleb Reyes - LEE
n/a
Lee-Cesar Rendon - LEE
n/a
Lee-Cyrus Rodriguez - LEE
n/a
Lee-Giovanni Garcia - LEE
n/a
Lee-Isabella Barny - LEE
n/a
Lee-Jarrett Hawkins - LEE
n/a
Lee-Jaylah Mosley - LEE
n/a
Lee-Jodie Hazell - LEE
n/a
Lee-Laura Wells - LEE
n/a
Lee-Pedro Herrera - LEE
n/a
Lee-Tracy Harris - LEE
n/a
Leia Smith (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Liam Boardwine - MTSU
n/a
Luke Thurmon (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Lydia Stinnett - UU
n/a
MSU-Ava Grace Noe - MSU
n/a
MSU-Dylan Branca - MSU
n/a
MSU-Eli Brown - MSU
n/a
MSU-Emma Jaramillo - MSU
n/a
MSU-Heaven Favre - MSU
n/a
MSU-Janet Bunei - MSU
n/a
MSU-Kerrick Martin - MSU
n/a
MSU-Le'Jeaha Falany - MSU
n/a
MSU-Liam Nicholason - MSU
n/a
MSU-Summer Ley - MSU
n/a
MTSU-Kameron Scott - MTSU
n/a
MTSU-LB Bourdwine (he/him) - MTSU
n/a
MTSU-Marah Chance - MTSU
n/a
MTSU-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!!!!
MTSU-Tala Abukhdair - MTSU
n/a
MU-Michael Shirzadian - Marshall U
n/a
Mack Burnett - Lewis & Clark
n/a
Madelyn Allison - Jeff State
n/a
Makayla Crownover - TCC
n/a
Mandi Hesby - Idaho State
n/a
Mary Lyle - UCA
n/a
Matthew Fraiser - Fresno State
n/a
Matthew Cook (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
McN SU-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.
Michael Thiagasingh - SJSU
This is not my preferred type of debate to judge - as such, I request that everyone participate in the DEBATE aspect of it. Besides speaking clearly and intelligibly, be sure to rebut arguments / signpost / give roadmaps prior to beginning your speech. EXTEND arguments from your first speech.
I flow pretty well and will record almost everything stated. That said, don't give long-worded contention names. Keep them short.
I vote heavily based on the last few speeches - be sure to give me strong voters / reasons to vote.
For all that is holy, DON'T SPREAD.
Michael Isaac - UCA
n/a
Mora Boyd - ATU
n/a
Murray-Ana Moyers - MurSta
n/a
Murray-Jillian Rosa - MurSta
n/a
NAU-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.
NSU-Braland White - NSU
n/a
Nathan Mustapha - LEE
n/a
Nathan Nuulimba - UU
n/a
Neil Pham - Nevada
n/a
ORU-Jacob Fryc - ORU
n/a
ORU-Karl Ashton - ORU
n/a
Olivia George - Idaho State
n/a
PLNU-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!
PLNU-Toni Rutledge - PLNU
Toni is big on sources to back up the claims made and warants offered, with current sources.
She is also big on eye contact and not just reading from notes, to help in training for real life skills.
And if she cannot hear and understant you, she cannot accurately evaluate the debate or event, and especially due to speaking too quickly. This might also extend to making technical debate philosophy points rather than focusing on the resolution.
Please avoid rudeness, disrespect of partner and or opponant, and she also values professional dress and appearance.
Speaking style and politeness are both important, as is organizational layout and formatting. Clarity is often key.
If you want to get a better idea of the resolution focus you might look to Skip Rutledges comments on the 5 core elements of debate in his judging philosophy in FTN. So strategically this might mean, arguing the resolution might be more effective than exploring issues extraneous to the core of the resolution.
Patrick Vasquez - Denison
n/a
Per Selander - CSCC
n/a
Pragati Gautam - MSU
n/a
Rodney Williams - CSCC
n/a
Ruben Capetillo - LEE
n/a
Ruby Long - CSCC
n/a
SMU-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.
SMU-Lelin Spriggs - SMU
n/a
Sam Rudderow - Lewis & Clark
n/a
Samuel Harless - MurSta
n/a
Sean Bell - LTU
n/a
Senen Perez - Cal State LA
n/a
Seth Blair - UU
n/a
Syed Raza - UTK
n/a
TCC-Cole Butler - TCC
n/a
TCC-John Mikolajcik - TCC
n/a
TCC-Kirk Brewer - TCC
n/a
TCC-Rachel Webster - TCC
n/a
TSU-Tyler Cole - TxState
n/a
Teagan Rice - TCC
n/a
Teddi Hall - Lewis & Clark
n/a
UAM-Nathaniel Deckelman - UAMONT
n/a
UArk-Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK
n/a
UArk-Joshua Tompkins - UARK
n/a
UArk-Molly Watson (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
UArk-Sebastian Urban (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
UCA-Ben Henry - UCA
n/a
UCA-Evan Thomas - UCA
n/a
UCA-Liz Roa - UCA
n/a
UCM-Darelle Wabo - UCMO
n/a
UCM-John Wallis - UCMO
n/a
UNR-Jay Villanueva - Nevada
n/a
UNT-Adrian Tam - UNT
n/a
UNT-Elisabeth Kiu - UNT
n/a
UNT-Jose Rodriguez - UNT
n/a
UNT-Nicholas Grotberg - UNT
n/a
USM-Jenna Smith (she/her) - USM
n/a
USM-Mario Speech (he\him) - USM
n/a
USM-Riad Benyamna (he/him) - USM
n/a
UTK-Athena Shead - UTK
n/a
UTK-CJ Parrish - UTK
n/a
UTK-Christina Anderson - UTK
n/a
UU-Anna La Pour - UU
n/a
UU-Izzy Mejia-Aveledo - UU
n/a
UU-Lowell Van Ness - UU
n/a
UU-Nick Bianchi - UU
n/a
UU-Philip Avery - UU
n/a
UoC-Justin Durbin - Cumberland
n/a
UoC-Samuel Price (he/him) - Cumberland
n/a
Victor Pantaleoni - Nevada
n/a
WCU-Bryan Taylor - WmCarey
n/a
WCU-Carolyna Bussie - WmCarey
n/a
WCU-Enku Getachew - WmCarey
n/a
WCU-Nathan Hetzel - WmCarey
n/a
WCU-Sabrina Bussie - WmCarey
n/a
WSU-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.
Wesley Crissey - DBU
n/a
Will Davey - USM
n/a
Zo Leatherwood - UU
n/a
ivy Ferdowsian - Lewis & Clark
n/a