Judge Philosophies
Adam Enz - IC
n/a
Alex Bope - UU
n/a
Andre Swai (Online) - UNL
n/a
Anja Waugh - Simpson
n/a
Ari Ziegler - Simpson
n/a
Austin Sopko - Truman
n/a
Austin Cecil - UCMO
n/a
Ava Neidt - UCMO
n/a
Ayyah Saleh (Online) - UNL
n/a
Ben Davis - Truman
n/a
Bobbi Gums - Simpson
n/a
Brandon Meador - Simpson
n/a
Breanna Drahota - Simpson
n/a
Bryan Frye - UCMO
n/a
CJ Miller - UCMO
n/a
Caleb Stubbs - UU
n/a
Caleb Starkey - UU
n/a
Cami Smith - Truman
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=26906#judging
Chanin Paxton - UCMO
n/a
Connor Bush - Mule Judges
n/a
Craig Brown - K-State
n/a
Daisy Murfey - UU
n/a
David Bailey - Mule Judges
n/a
David Dillon - ATU
n/a
Dorian Hunter - ATU
n/a
Douglas Roberts - MNSU
n/a
Dr. Gabriel Adkins - ATU
n/a
Eden Prather - UU
n/a
Ekow Kakra - MoState
My name is Ekow Kakra and I'm an international graduate student in the Missouri State University Communication Department. Prior to this season, my debate experience was limited to an audience member and subsequently a judge. I judged several NFA-LD (as well as parli and IE) rounds in the 2022 Derryberry Season Opener, and the 2022 Missouri Mule. I also judged rounds in this years MAFA tournament at Marshall.
I expect debaters will be respectful to all in the room. Given that, I will vote affirmative if the unique benefits of the affirmative plan (beyond what a CP could solve) outweigh the unique disadvantages of adopting that plan. If the negative wins that the plan doesn't meet the best (or reasonable) interpretation of the topic, or a kritik shifts the debate focus, then the ballot will reflect that instead.
Regarding counterplans, I'm comfortable with net benefits competition (CP avoids the DA and solves some of the case) - but with any other approach to competition or internal net benefits, you will need to be explained very clearly and directly why the CP alone is better than doing both.
Regarding DA's, I'm okay with any sort of DA. As an international student, I would prefer that debaters avoid jargons that are unfamiliar or peculiar to US politics. When they are used, I expect debators to offer brief explanation of the term. Explain links, internal links, impacts, and terms of art clearly and compare it assuming the aff wins a bunch of their impact.
Regarding topicality, I start with definitions/interpretation, and then move on to plan text and solvency evidence. Negative needs to clearly win the violation, but not necessarily unique abuse. Interpretation is based both on clarity of the line drawn and what it would do for both sides over a full season of debate.
Regarding kritiks, you need to clearly prove the affirmative is critically (not tangentally) dependent on the link that you critique. I'm open to the kritik framework changing the topic of the debate so long as you are clear about the alternative framework (including win conditions for both sides), starting in the constructives.
Considering my experience, I do not capture a lot of details in my flow sheet, as such I prefer that debaters avoid going top speed. I inform debaters to be attentive to my nonverbals (like raising my hand) which indicate my difficulty in hearing or speeding on their side.
A few likes and dislikes I have found over tournaments this season:
A few likes is debaters talking with confidence, being organized in terms of preparation, as well as in their delivery and argumentation, and courteousness in criticizing opponents.
A few dislikes include sarcastic and disrespectful gestures towards opponents, too much speed in delivery, and use of unfamiliar words or jargons without explaining.
Elaine Csoros - UU
n/a
Eli Taylor - Simpson
n/a
Elizabeth Feth - UCMO
n/a
Emily Joshlin - ATU
n/a
Eric Morris - MoState
n/a
Gabriel Thompson - UARK
n/a
George Torto - MoState
I am George Torto, an international Missouri State University Communication, Media, Journalism and Film Department graduate student. As a former debater back in both middle and high schools in Ghana, I would say I am quite conversant with the field. Prior to this season however, my experience with anything debate has been outside of the United States.
One cardinal thing I look out for in debate is respect and civility. These is the bedrock of debate. I expect debaters to treat each other with courtesy regardless of the differing opinions they may hold at that material moment. Assuming they are, I will vote affirmative if the unique benefits of the affirmative plan (beyond what a CP could solve) outweigh the unique disadvantages of adopting that plan. Of course, if the negative wins that the plan doesn't meet the best (or reasonable) interpretation of the topic, or a kritik shifts the debate focus, then the ballot will reflect that instead.
Regarding topicality, I start with definitions/interpretation and then move on to plan text and solvency evidence. Negative needs to clearly win the violation, but not necessarily unique abuse. Interpretation is based both on clarity of the line drawn and what it would do for both sides over a full season of debate.
Regarding kritiks, you need to clearly prove the affirmative is critically (not tangentally) dependent on the link that you critique. I'm open to the kritik framework changing the topic of the debate so long as you are clear about the alternative framework (including win conditions for both sides), starting in the constructives.
My flow sheet isn't as detailed as someone who has been doing this for a decade, and I do not recommend going top speed. If you are speaking too quickly or have clarity problems, you should be able to notice my nonverbals and correct it.
Gina Jensen - Webster
n/a
Gracie Crow - Simpson
n/a
Gracie Havard - UCMO
n/a
GrasonDavid Harris - UU
n/a
H. M. Murtuza - MoState
n/a
Hadley Adkison (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Hannah Houser - UU
n/a
Hannah Dryer - UU
n/a
Hannah Morris (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Harriet Okolo - UCMO
n/a
Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK
n/a
Jacob Causey - ATU
n/a
Jacob Little - UU
n/a
Jahnaya Thomas - UCMO
n/a
Jaina Perry - ATU
n/a
Jaina Perry - ATU
n/a
Jason Roach - Webster
n/a
Jay Self - Truman
n/a
Jennifer Lopez - UARK
n/a
Jeremy Hutchins - TxState
I’ve been involved in competitive forensics in one way or another for 30 years. I competed primarily in pre-merger CEDA and have coached CEDA/NDT, NPDA, IPDA, BP, and NFA LD at various points during that time.
I don’t think I’m absolutely ideologically opposed to any particular type or form of argument.
I’m probably a bit behind the times in terms of theory.
Topicality: I think the topic matters. I’m more open to discussions about how it matters or what role it plays in the debate but, in my opinion, the proposition is a critical stasis point that encourages argumentative clash. I don’t have a good answer for what my threshold on topicality is. I think it’s a viable check for the negative. However, if the affirmative interpretation is reasonable, I probably wouldn’t spend much time on T. If you don’t think the affirmative interpretation is reasonable, you should spend time explaining and comparing implications of the competing interpretations.
Critical Arguments: Link work is critical. I’m more flexible in terms of alternatives. Explanation is important. Don’t assume that I’m familiar with the esoteric literature base that your argument is grounded in. I’m a fan of performative consistency.
Counterplans: The opp should invest time in explaining and applying standards for competition. The gov should do the same with permutations and relevant theory. Because participants often take those theory debates for granted and make assumptions about what is known, agreed upon, and understood, I tend to prefer substantive debates on counterplans.
I also have some stylistic preferences.
I like judging debates when I can keep up and when I feel like I’m in the loop. I haven’t been in a lot of fast or highly technical debates in a while. Plus, I never had the best flow. So, you’ll probably want to slow down and give me pen time.
I enjoy debates when there is a clear and well justified framework for how arguments interact with each other and, as a result, should be evaluated. My default is to put procedural questions first, critical questions second, and policy questions third. The lines between those are sometimes blurry. Feel free to make arguments that would rearrange that hierarchy or, assuming you have an alternative, that suggest those categories are outdated, arbitrary, exclusionary, etc.
I like listening to debaters who see the big picture and are able to figure out which arguments matter and which ones don’t. Make smart choices. World building and comparison is appreciated.
I don’t have fun judging when arguments are underdeveloped or lack explanation, when you assume that I’m going to do work for you, when you assume that we’re all on the same page about some theoretical precept, when you make ten blippy claims when two or three well developed arguments will do, when you throw everything at the wall and expect me to figure out what sticks, when you continue to talk about an argument even though I’ve turned that page over and haven’t been flowing for a minute.
I don’t like watching debates where participants are smug, rude, overly aggressive, dismissive, mean, etc.
Jesse Pladsen - Simpson
n/a
Jessie Paxton - UCMO
n/a
John Carney - Truman
John Mikolajcik - TCC
n/a
John Wallis - Mizzou
n/a
Josh Kofahl - Mule Judges
n/a
Justin Kirk - UNL
Justin Kirk
Director of Debate at University of Nebraska-Lincoln
20 years judging experience @ about 40 rounds per year
"I believe I have an obligation to work as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates." Scott Harris
General philosophy Debate is primarily a communications based activity, and if you are not communicating well, your arguments are probably incoherent, and you are probably not going to win many debates in front of me. It is your responsibility to make quality arguments. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Evidence supports argumentation, it does not supplant it. However, analytic arguments and comparative claims about argument quality are essential to contextualizing your evidence and applying it to the issues developed throughout the debate. Quality arguments beat bad evidence every time.
I flow every debate and expect teams to answer arguments made by the other team. You should also flow every debate. That does not mean start flowing after the speech documents run out. Cross-examinations that consist mostly of "what cards did you read" or "what cards did you skip" are not cross examinations and do you little to no good in terms of winning the debate. If you have questions about whether or not the other team made an argument or answered a particular argument, consult your flow, not the other team. The biggest drawback to paperless debate is that people debate off speech docs and not their flows, this leads to shoddy debating and an overall decline in the quality of argumentation and refutation.
Each team has a burden of refutation, and arguing the entire debate from macro-level arguments without specifically refuting the other side's arguments will put you at a severe disadvantage in the debate. Burden of proof falls upon the team making an argument. Unwarranted, unsupported assertions are a non-starter for me. It is your responsibility is to make whole arguments and refute the arguments made by the other side. Evaluating the debate that occurred is mine. The role of my ballot is to report to the tab room who I believe won the debate.
Online Debate - everyone is adjusting to the new world of online debate and has plenty of burdens. I will be lenient when judging if you are having technical difficulties and provide ample time. You should record all of your speeches on a backup device in case of permanent technical failures. Speechdrop is the norm for sharing files. If there are bandwidth problems, I will ask everyone to mute their mics and videos unless they are talking.
Paperless Debate You should make every attempt to provide a copy of the speech documents to me and the other team before the speech. Disclosure is a norm in debate and you should endeavor to disclose any previously run arguments before the debate. Open source is not a norm, but is an absolutely preferable means of disclosure to cites only. The easiest way to resolve this is through an email thread for the debate, it saves time and the risk of viruses are decreased substantially through email. I suspect that paperless debate has also led to a substantial decrease in clarity and corresponding increases in cross-reading and clipping. I have zero tolerance for cheating in debate, and will have no qualms about voting against you, assigning zero speaker points, and speaking to your coaches about it. Clarity is a must. You will provide me speech documents to read during the debate so I may better understand the debate that is occurring in front of me. I will ask you to be clearer if you are not and if you continue to be unclear, I will stop flowing your arguments.
Topicality Is good for debate, it helps to generate clash, prevents abusive affirmatives, and generally wins against affirmatives that have little to no instrumental relation to the topic. Topicality definitions should be precise, and the reasons to prefer your topicality violation should be clear and have direct relation to your interpretation. Topicality debates are about the scope of and competition generated by the resolution. I usually default to competing interpretations, as long as both sides have clear, contextual, and well warranted interpretations. If your interpretation is missing one of these three elements, go for another argument. Reasonability is a winnable argument in front of me as long as you offer specific and warranted reasons why your interpretation is reasonable vis- -vis the negative. I vote on potential abuse and proven abuse.
Kritiks Should be based in the resolution and be well researched with specific links to the affirmative. Reading generic links to the topic is insufficient to establish a link to the affirmative. Alternatives should be well explained and evidenced with specific warrants as to the question of link solvency. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by negative teams where they have failed to explain the link debate or alternative adequately. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by affirmative teams when I am judging are ones where the affirmative failed to sufficiently argue for a permutation argument or compare the impacts of the affirmative to the impacts of the criticism sufficiently. I firmly believe that the affirmative gets to weigh the advantages of the plan against the impacts of the criticism unless the link to the criticism directly stems from the framing of the Affirmative impacts. I also believe that the affirmative can usually win solvency deficits to the alternative based upon deficits in implementation and/or instrumentalization of the alternative. Arguments that these solvency deficits do not apply because of framework, or that the affirmative has no right to solving the affirmative, are non-starters for me.
Counterplans Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans. NR counterplans are an effective means of answering new 1AR arguments and add-ons and are fair to the affirmative team if they are responses to new 1AR developments. I believe that counterplans are the most effective means of testing the affirmative's plan via competitive policy options and are an effective means of solving for large portions of the affirmative. Counterplans are usually a fair check against new affirmatives, non-intrinsic advantages, and affirmatives with bad or no solvency evidence. If you have a theoretical objection to the counterplan, make it compelling, have an interpretation, and win offense. Theoretical objections to the counterplan are fine, but I have a high threshold for these arguments unless there is a specific violation and interpretation that makes sense in the context of competitive demands in debate.
Disads Yes and yes. A likely winning strategy in front of me usually involves going for a disadvantage to the affirmative and burying the case with quality arguments and evidence. Disadvantages should have specific links to the case and a coherent internal link story. It is your job to explain the causal chain of events that leads to the disadvantage. A disadvantage with no internal links is no disad.
Case Debate - Is a lost art. Most affirmatives are a hodgepodge of thrown together internal links and old impact evidence. Affirmatives are particularly bad at extending their affirmative and answering negative arguments. Especially new affirmatives. Negative teams should spend a substantial portion of the debate arguing why the affirmative case is problematic. Fewer and fewer teams invest any time in arguing the case, at the cost of a criticism or disadvantage that usually isn't worth reading in the first place. Time trade-offs are not nearly as valuable as quality indictments of the 1AC. Spend those three minutes answering the advantages and solvency and don't read that third criticism or fourth disadvantage, it usually doesn't help you anyway. Inidict the 1AC evidence, make comparative claims about their evidence and your evidence, challenge the specificity or quality of the internal links.
Evidence - Qualifications, context, and data matter. You should answer the evidence read in the debate because I will read evidence at the end. One of the largest problems with paperless debate is the persistence of reading cards to answer cards when a simple argument about the context or quality of the evidence will do. It takes less time to answer a piece of terrible evidence with an analytic argument than it does to read a card against it. It is useless to throw good cards after bad.
Speaker Points - Are a reflection of the quality of speaking, arguments, and strategic choice made by debaters in the debate no more, no less.
One final note - I have heard and seen some despicable things in debate in the past few years. Having a platform to espouse your ideas does not give you the right to make fun of other debaters' limitations, tell them to die, blame them for other's deaths, threaten them with violence (explicitly or implicitly), or generally be a horrible person. Debate as an activity was designed to cultivate a community of burgeoning intellectuals whose purpose is the pedagogical development of college students through a competitive and repetitive engagement of complex ideas. If you think that something you are about to say might cross the line from argument into personal attack or derogatory statement do not say it. If you decide to cross that line, it is my interpretation of the event that matters and I will walk out of your debate and assign you an immediate loss.
Justin Fields - Simpson
n/a
Kaila Todd - Mule Judges
n/a
Katie Williams - UU
n/a
Kayla Wilson - LSUS
n/a
Kaylee Johnson - UU
n/a
Kevin Minch - Truman
Kristen Stout - MoState
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml
Kylee Johnson - MNSU
n/a
Laurel Kratz - Webster
n/a
Lora Cohn - Park
n/a
Luke Thurmon (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Maddie Waddingham - Simpson
n/a
Madeline Blair - UU
n/a
Maggie Fitzpatrick - Simpson
n/a
Maisyn Price - UU
n/a
Manny Reyes - MNSU
n/a
Marcel Vanderwel - UU
n/a
Mariah Gilmore - Simpson
n/a
Marisa Mayo - Simpson
n/a
Matthew Kimbel - UCMO
n/a
Maya Krump - Truman
n/a
Micah McGee - UU
n/a
Molly Watson (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Naomi Andrews - TCC
n/a
Nathan Nuulimba - UU
n/a
Nick Truitt - UU
n/a
Noah Rogers - UCMO
n/a
Olivia Shaw - UU
n/a
Rachel Garcia - Simpson
n/a
Ray Eaton - UU
n/a
Rigo Ruiz - LEE
n/a
Rose Shorts - LSUS
n/a
Ryan Wagy - UU
n/a
Ryan Corcoran - Simpson
n/a
Ryan Magalhaes - Simpson
n/a
Sam Torbett - Mule Judges
n/a
Samantha Chapel - SBU
n/a
Seth Brake - UU
n/a
Seth Blair - UU
n/a
Shanisha Ford (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
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.
Shelby Cumpton - UCMO
Love good speaking, strong argumentation, and a little humor here and there. Don't run preponderance of evidence in front of me; I care about actual argumentation, not just evidence. If you want to win my ballot, don't get caught up in the technicalities or terminology; just make a better argument.
Sophie Barrentine (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Stephanie Littlefield - ATU
n/a
Susan Keim - Park
n/a
Sydney Crank - UCMO
n/a
Sydni Powell - Simpson
n/a
Tabitha Keylon - UU
n/a
Taylor Corlee - SBU
n/a
Tempest Allred - Simpson
n/a
Tiana Brownen - Simpson
n/a
Tom Serfass - Webster
n/a
Tommy Burke - Mule Judges
n/a
Tristen Farris (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Ty Weatherby - UU
n/a
Tyler Cole - TxState
n/a
Wesley Raper - ATU
n/a
Will Wheeler - Mule Judges
n/a
Zac McGee - Mule Judges
n/a
Zach Thornhill - UNL
Find my paradigm on tabroom
Zakhary Taylor - SBU
n/a
Zo Leatherwood - UU
n/a