Judge Philosophies
Abby Kent (Student) - SEMO
n/a
Adam Enz - IC
n/a
Aissata Kamara - Hireds
n/a
Alec Hubbard - Truman
n/a
Alexandra Walthes - McK
n/a
Alyna Mathews - UCMO
n/a
Amora Jones - Hireds
n/a
Ashley Bernaugh - Hireds
n/a
Ashley Singh - UCMO
n/a
Ashton Mullen-IPDA - Truman
n/a
Austin Sopko - Truman
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=296640
Autumn Kahn - Hireds
n/a
Ben Davis - Truman
n/a
Ben Montbriand - Mizzou
n/a
Brian Swafford - NW Mo St.
n/a
CJ Miller - UCMO
n/a
Caleb Dillon - UCMO
n/a
Catelynn Liniger - Mizzou
n/a
Chandler Hathcock - student - SBU
n/a
Clint Wooderson - SBU
n/a
Daniel Warner - Hireds
n/a
Darren Elliott - KCKCC
Darren Elliott "Chief" --Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City KS Community College
Director and Head Coach at KCKCC for the past two decades. In that time we have had multiple late elim teams at CEDA Nats, multiple teams qualified to the NDT, 2015 NPDA Parli National Champions, 2016 NFA LD National Champion, mulitple CC National Championships in all formats of Debate and some IE's as well. I appreciate the breadth the activity provides and I enjoy coaching, judging hard working students who value the activity.
*PARLI ADDITION--The Aff should have any plan texts, ROTB, ROTJ, Alts, Etc. written on paper prior to the end of the PMC. The Neg should have any counterplan texts, ROTB, ROTJ, Alts, Etc. written on paper prior to the end of the LOC. Debates are routinely spending 3-5 minutes prior to FLEX time after the first two speeches to manage these issues.
Probably the least interventionist judge you will encounter. Will listen to and fairly consider any argument presented. (Avoid obvious racist and sexist arguments and ad Homs). For an argument to be a round winner you need to win the impact the argument has in relation to the impacts your opponent might be winning and how all of those affect/are affected by the ballot or decision (think framework for the debate). No predispositions against any strategy be it a Disad/CP/Case or K or T/Framework on the Neg or a straight up policy or K Aff. Win what it is you do and win why that matters. I actually appreciate a good Disad/CP/Case Offense debate as much as anything (even though the arguments a number of recent KCKCC debaters might lead one to think otherwise). The beauty of debate is its innovation.
I appreciate in-depth arguments and hard work and reward that with speaker points. A debate that begins in the first couple of speeches at a depth that most debates aspire to be by the last two speeches is a work of art and shows dedication and foresight that should be rewarded. Cross-X as well, in this regard, that shows as good or better of an understanding of your opponents arguments as they do will also be rewarded. Cross-X is a lost art.
Most of all--Have Fun and Good Luck!!
Donnell Nylon - Hireds
n/a
Douglas Roberts - MVC
n/a
Eden Rolves - Hireds
n/a
Eduardo Magalhaes - Simpson
n/a
Egan Hofherr - Hireds
n/a
Ellie Barker - student - SBU
n/a
Eric Rotert-IPDA - Truman
n/a
Freddie Ardonne - Hireds
n/a
Garrett Dohlke - Hireds
n/a
Gina Jensen - Webster
n/a
Grace'e Carr - UCMO
n/a
Hayden Etter - UCMO
n/a
Iris Vermillion - UCMO
n/a
Jason Roach - Webster
n/a
Jessica Teska - Hireds
n/a
Jessie Paxton - Truman
n/a
Joe Blasdel - McK
Section 1: General Information
I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so ever since.
In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.
On trichotomy, I tend to think the government has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I donât see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. Iâm also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.
If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If youâre calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.
Iâm not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ânewâ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ânewâ PMR arguments.
Section 2: Specific Inquiries
Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).
Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be âcontradictoryâ? with other negative positions?
Iâm open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than your average judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, itâs important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, itâs likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.
Performance based argumentsâ?¦
Same as above.
Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?
Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position thatâs run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework â Iâm not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an âaverageâ threshold. I donât vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a âhighâ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, Iâm probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.
Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?
All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I donât have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.
In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?
All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.
How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.
Jordan Compton - UCMO
n/a
Joshua Kofahl - UCMO
n/a
June Wheatley - Mizzou
n/a
Kaeden Abraham - Mizzou
n/a
Kara Kozinski - Mizzou
n/a
Kevin Minch - Truman
Kirby Weber - Webster
n/a
Kristen StoutHart - MoState
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml
Lance Allen - Hireds
n/a
Lars Wagener - Truman
n/a
Laurel Kratz - Hireds
n/a
Lauren Miller - student - SBU
n/a
Lilly Nutter - Mizzou
n/a
Lora Cohn - Park
n/a
Maral Mahdinia - Webster
n/a
Marisa Mayo - Simpson
n/a
Meghan Franks - KCKCC
n/a
Melissa Benton - Hireds
n/a
Michelle DeClue (Student) - SEMO
n/a
Nathan Newby - KCKCC
email: newbydebate@gmail.com
last paradigm was still over 1500 words, and I feel like it said close to nothing about how to debate in front of me, let's try this again...
I am going to cut my paradigm like it's a card, if you are in a hurry, read the bold!
PROCESS OF WRITING AN RFD:
Unless if given good reasons why I shouldn't evaluate this way (! = strong conviction, and ? = soft conviction):
I view debate through procedural questions first!
then framing questions!!! these are the most important bits of judge instruction for me (esp. the ROB/ROTJ) - not sure where else I should put this, but I am tech over truth to nearly the extreme (can suspend disbelief on anything except "oppression good") That being said if an argument isn't technically proficient then I can't vote on it so it's a bit of a double edged sword! (For a clarifying example, I judged a debate where a counterplan was conceded, but there wasn't a CP text and so because it wasn't technically proficient, I couldn't evaluate it despite it being conceded.
Assuming the conclusion of the framing debate allows me to evaluate the 1AC's impacts, I ask myself what impact stories to the AFF do I have FULLY extended through EVERY speech (the 1AR gets some leeway if the 2AC extensions are really good and the 2AR fills in for the 1AR's gaps in extension)!
Then I ask myself what impacts, under that FW, do the NEG have fully extended from the 1NC into either the 2NC and/or the 1NR and then into the 2NR. I am a massive hater of 90% of new arguments in the block!!! I am totally fine with "newish" links, uniqueness, and maybe even impacts to a previously read position if it's in the 2NC? The 1AR only needs to say the word "new" for me to completely disregard them (assuming the neg doesn't make procedural claims as to why they get to make those arguments) and even if they don't, I still might not evaluate them depending on how egregious it is.
Assuming that both teams do their job and we actually have clashing impact stories then I typically prefer specificity, the more specific and contextual the scenario the better. I recently judged a finals debate where specific impact scenario solvency was conceded as well as generic solvency takeouts, I opted for the solvency for the specific case scenario because I was able to rationalize why the negative solvency takeouts could be "the rule" while the AFF solvency for their specific 2AR scenario is the exception to the rule!
I hold the line pretty hard on not doing work for whenever possible, so I end up voting on presumption a lot as a result! Really make sure you don't drop the AFF!!!
HOW I FLOW DEBATES:
I flow on my laptop which has only emboldened my HEAVY preference to judge debates that are like 1-4 off versus 5-9+ off, I will WANT to vote for condo in these debates.
If you have pretyped up analytics (specifically in fast debates), please send them... (even if you send them on a separate email chain just to me) I copy paste anything I can verify that you said directly onto my flow, so you are actively creating a flow discrepancy for yourself if you make me finger peck everything at 350 WPM. Coaches will get their hands on your 2AC analytics one way or another; all you do by sending a doc without them is make my flow of YOUR arguments worse!
Perfectly fine with speed, if I'm struggling, I'll clear and/or speed you once and if you slow down/clear up and then revert back after a while, I'll probably give you another reminder, but I won't continue to remind you if there's not a perceivable effort to adapt.
Thinking about carrying a pen on me so that I can loudly drop my pen when I'm not flowing (either because I'm just not going to buy an argument or if the argument you are responding to is so bad I'm tired of more time being dedicated to it... it's up to you to decipher which is the case lol). Key thing to note here, just because I am typing does not mean I am flowing!!!!!!I type comments and flow at the same time quite often!
Tell me where to put things on my flow!!! If you don't, I will just flow them on the bottom of the sheet that you were last on/where I think you are putting them on!
ARGUMENT PREFERENCES:
If you have any 1ACs or Negative positions that you have been sitting on because they are too silly Im definitely the judge to pull them out for! Like honestly, I would find 67 SPEC considerably less silly than someone reading Israel good.
I mainly debated T, K, and Case 1NCs when I was at my most competitive! Procedural and Critical debates are very much my strong suits both in the feedback I can give and the debates I'm the best at evaluating.
Don't really have any strong dispositions for or against any particular type of CPs. I think that the procedural debates on each of them are fun to evaluate and I'd be happy to vote on them as much as I would be willing to vote on the CP itself.
CROSS-EX/PREP OPINIONS:
I think cross is generally binding? I am also fine with open cross if everyone in the debate is okay with it (if not then its closed!)
Fine with ending prep when you are ready to send the doc but that doc needs sent out ASAP, at this point if you stop prep and are sending a doc you are getting a ton of free mental prep and so I actively encourage your opponents to steal prep and I won't stop nor dock them for doing it!
Roadmaps are off-time but they need to be short!!! Just give me the names of the different sheets of paper you will be arguing on.
Nick Pruett - Student - SBU
n/a
Noah Smentkowski - SEMO
n/a
Patrick Stack - Hireds
n/a
Peter Lundrigan - Simpson
n/a
Rachel Hopper - Webster
n/a
Rose Smoots - Webster
n/a
Sarah Palacios - Hireds
n/a
Sarah Craig - Hireds
n/a
Scott Elliott - UMKC
n/a
Scott Jensen - Webster
n/a
Shanna Carlson - ILSTU
Background: I competed in parliamentary and LD debate for Washburn University for five years (2005-2010). I freelance coached and judged for three years. I have taught high school and college debate camps for the University of Texas-Dallas, ISU, and Kyushu University in Japan. I am currently the Director of Debate at Illinois State University.
DISCLOSURE THEORY IS LAZY DEBATE AND I WILL GIVE YOU NO HIGHER THAN 15 SPEAKER POINTS IF YOU RUN THIS POSITION (this means at best you will get a low point win).
I am unable to flow too much speed due to an issue with my hand. I will give you 2 verbal "speed" warnings before I just stop flowing all together!
I believe that the debate is yours to be had, but there are a few things that you should know:
1. Blippy, warrantless debates are mind numbing. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. This usually occurs at the top of the AC/NC when you are trying to be "clever." Less "clever," more intelligent. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence.
2. I believe that the speed at which you go should be accessible to everyone in the round, this means your competitor and other judges on a panel. I am open to voting on accessibility and/or clarity kritiks. SPEED SHOULD NOT BE A TOOL OF EXCLUSION!!!!!!
3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not evaluate moral obligations in the round (if you say "Moral Obligation" in college LD Debate I stop flowing, take a selfie, and mock you on social media). This does not mean I will not vote for dehumanization is bad, but I need a warrant outside of just telling me I am morally obligated to do something. Moral obligations are lazy debate, warrant out your arguments. HIGH SCHOOL LD DEBATERS- IGNORE THIS
4. Run whatever strategy you want--I will do my best to evaluate whatever you give me in whatever frame I'm supposed to--if you don't give me the tools I default to policy maker, if it's clearly not a policy maker paradigm round for some reason I'll make something up to vote on...basically, your safest bet is to tell me where to vote.
5. If you are rude, I will not hesitate to tank your speaker points. There is a difference between confidence, snarkiness, and rudeness.
6. When running a kritik you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative text, alt solvency, and role of the ballot (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like.
7. If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow.
8. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round.
9. Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" or "And" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. It also makes it easier for me to make a decision in the end.
10. I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision.
11. If you advocate for a double win I automatically vote for the other person, issue you 1 speaker point, and leave the room. This is a debate, not a conversation. We are here to compete, so don't try to do something else.
12. Wilderson has stated that he does not want his writings used in debate by white individuals. He believes that the use of his writings is contradictory to what he overall stands for because he feels like you are using his arguments and black individuals as a tool to win (functionally monetizing black individuals). So for the love of all that is good please stop running these cards and respect the author's wishes. If you are white and you run his evidence I will not evaluate it out of respect for the author.
13. I will give you auto 30 speaker points if you read your 1AC out of an interp black book with page turns.
Really, I'm open to anything. Debate, have fun, and be engaging. Ask me any questions you may have before the start of the round so that we can all be on the same page :) I also believe this activity should be a learning experience for everyone, so if after a round you have any questions please feel free to approach me and talk to me! I truly mean this because I love talking about debate and the more each debater gains from a round will provide for better rounds in the future for me to judge. If you ever have questions about a comment or RFD please ask. My email is sjcarl3@ilstu.edu
Shawna Merrill - IC
My competitive background is mainly in parli, but I judged LD throughout the 17/18 season and am currently head coach of a program competing in NFA-LD.
Debate is ultimately a communication endeavor, and as such, it should be civil and accessible. I’m not a fan of speed. I can handle a moderate amount especially as I follow along with your docs (I want to be included on speechdrop, email chains, etc.), but at the point that you’re gasping for air, I’m over it. Using speed as a strategy to spread your opponent out of the round is not okay for me.
I’m not a big T person. While I prefer proven in-round abuse to vote on T, I will vote for competing interpretations if it’s done well. Basically, if you run T, you’d better mean it. Don’t use it as a time sink.
I will vote on Ks if they address the topic/refute the plan. I enjoy a good critical argument, but don’t assume I’m familiar with all of your literature.
My favorite types of rounds are ones that engage in direct clash and cover the flow. Attend to the link stories and connect the dots as to how we get to your impacts. I’ll vote on just about any argument as long as it’s clearly explained and defended.
Bottom line: don’t try to get too fancy. Run arguments you understand and do what you’re comfortable with.
Sonja Vrhovac - Webster
n/a
Stef Cambra - Drury
n/a
Sydney Crank - UCMO
n/a
Taylor Corlee - Crowder
n/a
Tekoa Bell - Hireds
n/a
Tiana Brownen - Simpson
n/a
Tom Serfass - Webster
n/a
Tracy Vonderhaar - Webster
n/a
Zac McGee - UCMO
n/a
Zac McGee - Hireds
n/a
Zoe Rollins - Hireds
n/a