Judge Philosophies
Angelica Huff - Harding
n/a
Austin Sopko - Truman
n/a
Ben Davis - Truman
n/a
Brayleigh Mitchell - WU
n/a
Douglas Roberts - MoVal
On Tabroom
Dylan Hall (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Eduardo Magalhaes - Simpson
n/a
Elijah Hawk - Harding
n/a
Emily Unruh - WU
n/a
Ernest Mack - WU
n/a
Hannah Morris (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Hengel Zelaya - Harding
n/a
Jace Godfrey (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK
n/a
Jade Vasquez (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Jenna Gorton - WU
n/a
Jillian Humke - Truman
n/a
Joe Hutchins - WU
n/a
Ken Troyer - Sterling
n/a
Kevin Minch - Truman
Kevin Oleary - WU
Kevin M. O?Leary / Washburn University (KS)
MY BACKGROUND: I started debate in 1982 and was very fortunate to debate with Alan Coverstone for all four years in high school in Illinois.? After high school, I ended up at SIUC under Jeff Bile and debated in CEDA, pre merger, for four years.? I went to graduate school at SLU and started coaching CEDA.? ? I took some time off from coaching once back at SIUC (for the doctoral program) and after that I started coaching again fulltime in CEDA/NDT, post merger.? That lasted for four years.? Then in 2003, I came to Washburn as the DoF where we dabbled in policy during my first year before moving over to NFA LD as well as NPDA parliamentary debate.? For the last several years, Washburn has been exclusively focused on NPTE/NPDA parliamentary debate, which has certainly evolved to something that looks a lot more like policy debate than when it started.? That?s where we remain today.
?The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here. . .?? Too true.
?He held the keys to the Kingdom and the world couldn?t do him any harm.?? Interpret the resolution and/or activity as you wish.? Do what you want to do.? Be happy with that and care (a little) less about the win.? If you do, you have already won.? Maybe have a politics, but definitely have an ethic.? Be straightforward with your opponent in terms of what ground they have under your interpretations and doings.
Advice doesn?t get any better than Scott Deatherage?s, does it?? The key to winning a debate will always be locating and developing your relationship to the tipping point for the round (the arena of conflict that ultimately decides the round), which is always a matter of choice and highlighting on your part.? Highlight the support you have for the claims that matter the most in terms of the tipping point that you have identified.? Explain why the tipping point you have identified is the one that matters most.? Directly clash with the arguments and support from your opponent that could upset your central claims there.? Refrain from editorializing?just debate already, and debate from the position of giving your opponent?s arguments their full due.? Invest in impact comparison and calculation so I can do something with your winning arguments that decidedly favors you at the end of the debate.
I don?t wish to reconstruct the round after the fact, so I don?t anticipate calling for evidence after the round.? There will always be exceptions, I suppose.
?You?re not a punk, and I?m telling everyone.? Save your breath, I never was one.?? I have no strong leanings in terms of genres of argument.? They all have their place, and that highlights, in my opinion, a central point.? Make your arguments context specific, which requires you to think about the context or setting that we?re in, articulate a vision of that, and then make arguments for why your arguments are the most appropriate given the context or setting.? That is the key for procedurals, K?s, on down the line, and, seemingly, winning the NDT in 2013.? Hats off, Emporia!
?Are you having fun yet? Please be kind to and take care of one another as well as our host?s space and the activity.? Best of luck!
Kevin Krouse - Simpson
n/a
Logan Michael - WU
n/a
Marisa Mayo - Simpson
n/a
Paul Hood - WU
n/a
Presley Jones (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Priscilla Grace Huff - Harding
n/a
Scott Koslow - Truman
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
Steve Doubledee - WU
ADOF for Washburn University
Please treat your opponent with kindness and respect. I get it sometimes this is hard to docx can get heated at times. Just know that keeping your cool in those situations goes a long way with me. Guaranteed if youre rude speaks will suffer. If youre really rude you will get the Loss!
Quality of evidence matters. Credential comparisons are important example- Your opponents evidence is from a blog vs your evidence is from a specialist in the field of the debate---you should point that out! Currency comparisons are important example- Your opponents impact card from 2014 is based off a very different world than what we exist in now---you should point that out. Last thing hereOver-tagged / under highlighted cards do not impress me. Good rule of thumbif your card tag is longer than what you have highlighted I will consider that pretty shady.
Speed vs Delivery- What impresses medebaters that can deliver their evidence efficiently & persuasively. Some can do this a little quicker than others and that is okay. On the flip side for you slower debaters the great balancer is I prefer quality evidence / arguments and will always privilege 1 solid argument over 5 kind-of-argumentsyou just have to point that out. Cross-applications / impact filter cards are your friend.
I prefer you embrace the resolution- What does this mean exactly? No plan text Affirmatives = 90% chance you will lose to T. If you could write an advocacy statement you probably could have written/found a TVA. What about the other 10%? Well, if your opponent does not run or collapse to T-USFG / does not put any offense on your performative method then you will probably get my ballot.
Theory/procedurals- Aff & Neg if youre not making theory args offensive then dont bother reading them. Negs that like to run 4 theory/procedural args in the 1NC and collapse to the one least coveredI will vote on RVIsThis means when kicking out, if an RVI is on that theory sheet you better take the time to answer it. I view RVIs as the great strategic balancer to this approach.
Case debate-Case debate is important. Key areas of case that should be addressed: Plan text (plan flaw), circumvention, direct solvency turns / defense, impact filters / framing, rolb claims.
Counterplan/disad combo - If I had to choose what debate island I would have to live on for the rest of my life-- I would choose this one. I like generic process cp/da combos just as much as hyper specific PICs/with a small net-benefit. CP text is important. Your CP text should be textually & functionally competitive. CP theory debates can be interesting. I will give all cp theory arguments consideration if framed as an offensive reason to do so. The only CP theory I will not listen to is PICs bad (never). Both aff/neg should be framing the rebuttal as Judge we have the world of the cp vs the plan here is why my world (the cp or plan) is better.
K debates - I am a great believer in topic specific critical lit The more specific your link cards the better. If your only link is "you function through the state" dont run it or do some research and find some specific links. I expect K Alts to have the following: 1. Clear alt text 2. Carded alt solvency that isolates the method being used 3. Tell me what the post alt world looks like. If your K happens to be a floating PIC that is fine with me but I will consider theoretical argument in opposition as wellYes, I will listen to a Floating PIC good/bad debate.
Last thought: Doing your own research + Cutting your own evidence = more knowledge gained by you.
Chance favors a prepared mind Louis Pasteur
Terri Magalhaes - Simpson
n/a
Tiana Brownen - Simpson
n/a