Judge Philosophies
Adam Blood - UNL
n/a
Anthony Cavaiani - William Woods
<p>First, I need to hear you make a clear and concise resolutional analysis. I find that when debaters cut this short and move onto their plan and advantages that arguments get misunderstood by all parties involved (competitors, judges, observers). So, lay it out clear and don’t rush through it.</p> <p>Next, your contentions should be clear and not contain a ton of wordiness. Link your contentions back to your criterion and explain the significance of your arguments. There isn’t anything that I consider to be “out of bounds” in a round. I’ll listen to any argument you want to make, but if it isn’t clearly articulated I will throw it out. I also don’t have much patience for circular logic or reasoning—so use examples and don’t over explain things just to sound intelligent.</p> <p>I’ll listen to your counterplans as long as it is mutually exclusive from the GOVs plan. I don’t care for counterplans that extend the original plan to solve for a bunch of other stuff that isn’t relevant to the round. However, if you run a counterplan I need to hear you, first, refute why the original plan is not beneficial rather than just ignoring everything the GOV has said to get to your CP. I prefer direct refutation to many CPs.</p> <p>I do make my voting decisions from the flow but if you can crystallize the issues to a few voters during your rebuttal than you really get my attention. Basically, don’t assume that just because you flowed everything over that you’ll get my vote. That is necessary but I also want to hear you explain to me why the plan should/should not be adopted according to your criterion.</p> <p>Fourth, if you run topicality don’t argue that the educational value of debate is decreased because your opponent wasn’t topical. I consider that side-stepping the issue and I will drop you because of it. Make a cogent argument for why T is appropriate and make the violation clear. I don’t consider a lack of educational value a violation. When you run T you are being forced to make a larger argument about the plan and its practicality.</p> <p>Finally, I began my forensics career as an IE judge and competitor. I don’t mind if you spread, but I do vote on delivery and presentation. I value delivery and its role in competitive debate. So, if you are rushed, have a lack of eye contact, don’t address the room, and just do not care about your audience I will probably not vote for you.</p> <p>I am always learning about the nuances of debate. I respect and delight in the pedagogy of debate. So, if you have any questions before the round feel free to ask. J</p>
Brent Nicholson - McKendree
<p>This philosophy should give you a look into the way I think, but I believe that it will be totally sufficient given my outlook on debate. In the past, I’ve tried to be comprehensive, but I think that that lead to folks misinterpreting my thoughts on debate. Do not take my brevity to mean that I don’t have thoughts about debate, but rather that I think my own opinions ought not matter to you as a debater – this is, after all, your activity.</p> <p>My goal as a judge is to adapt to the round that the debaters have. This may seem to be empty to y’all, and that’s fine, but my goal as a coach and judge is to facilitate debate rounds that debaters want to have. I feel capable of judging any debate and would encourage you to do you when I am your judge.</p> <p>With that said, you’ll probably want a few things that I start off with to keep in mind.</p> <p>- I assume all negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise.</p> <p>- I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts.</p> <p>- Give your opponents’ arguments the benefit of the doubt. They’re probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning.</p> <p>- Role of the ballot arguments do not make sense to me: if you have to win that the aff/neg does something good to meet the role of the ballot, it seems like you’ve already won the regular-old impact debate. Keep trying! But be aware that I was probably already voting for you if you won an impact.</p>
Brent Mitchell - UCMO
n/a
Chris Outzen - Truman
<p>Judging Philosophy: NFA-LD I take the position that any form of public communication, including debate, is an audience-centric endeavor. The role of each debater is not to convince each other of their rightness in an isolated box at the front of the room; it is to convince the judge that they are the more right debater in that round. To that end, adaptation of strategy and delivery of argument necessitates consideration of both your opponent AND the experience of the judge. To that end, the following are some of my expectations and constraints as a judge. Judge’s General Debate Experience: I am the primary IE coach at my program and this is my 2nd year judging LD regularly. I have 1-semester college policy experience from and undergraduate class, so you can expect that I will understand most debate terminology but that my flowing and listening speed will not be up to par with those who have been in the debate community consistently for years. Speaker Speed: I believe that LD inhabits a unique position where both argumentation and strong speaking skills can be valued. However, I have noticed with the advent of digital files and including judges in sharing chains that these are treated as permission to spread, even in front of judges without years of spreading/flowing experince. At this point, we reduce debate to a comparison of evidence, not a speaking and oral argument exercise. Therefore, I am fine with a faster than conversational rate of speaking but I have no tolerance for true spreading you might see in NDT/CEDA or some parli formats. If you are looking for a brightline, consider the climax of a Poetry Interpretation. A little faster than that would be fine, but not much more. If agreed to by both debaters, I’m willing to alert you in-round if you are going too fast for my comprehension. Argument Explanation: You are welcome to run any arguments you wish in front of me in varying levels of complexity. However, remember the audience-centric principle. Your audience/judge may not be familiar with every aspect of this topic. Thus, your debate is not just debating; it is a teachable moment where you can give information about the topic in order to justify your win. This means you should be practicing breaking down complex concepts and providing strong links between the different pieces of your argument. Ethical Speaking: Engaging in unethical or obfuscating behavior, including misleading card cutting, deliberate spreading against judge preference, ignoring the audience as consumers of your message, or styling your arguments deliberately to be overly complex/dense, are not acceptable as a speaker. You are also expected to grant your opponent the same ground/courtesy as you expect. Example: If you cut off their answers in CX to move on to your next question, do not talk over/ignore them when they do the same thing in their CX. Topicality-I’m open to T arguments. Proven abuse is the best course to win a T argument, but I’m willing to consider potential abuse if the possible abuse is of a significant magnitude. Kritiks-I’m open to K debate. However, I expect K-affs to pass the test of Topicality; make sure you can explain how it links to the resolution. Additionally, do keep in mind that K debate is still a growing area of argumentation in the LD community, so please consider the principles laid out above with regard to Argument Explanation if you run a K on either side of the debate. To summarize, I'm open to all forms of argumentation on the premise that a) They are understandable and follow basic ethical guidelines; and b) They are justified by you as fitting in the round and resolution.</p>
Craig Hennigan - Truman
<p>Most of this is copy/pasted from my CEDA paradigm. A speaker point scale will be forthcoming when my adjustments to NFA-LD speaker point ranges get normalized.<br /> <br /> I debated high school policy in the early 90’s and then college policy in 1994. I debated NFA-LD from 1995-2000. I then coached at Utica High School and West Bloomfield High school in Michigan for their policy programs for an additional 8 years. I coached NDT/CEDA at Wayne State University for 5 years. This is my 1st year coaching at Truman State.<br /> <br /> I think of myself as adhering to my flow. Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat, and bonus if it’s a messy round and you are able to clean up my flow for me. Saying this, it’s a good idea for debaters to have clear tags on their cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence. If it blends together, I do not do well. <br /> <br /> With regard to specific arguments – I will vote seldom on theory arguments that do not show significant in-round abuse. Potential abuse is a non-starter for me, and time skew to me is a legit strategy unless it’s really really bad. My threshold for theory then is pretty high if you cannot show a decent abuse story. If it is dropped though, I will most likely drop the argument before the team. Reminders in round about my disposition toward theory is persuasive such as "You don't want to pull the trigger on condo bad," or "I know you don't care for theory, here is why this is a uniquely bad situation where I don't get X link and why that is critical to this debate."<br /> <br /> I don’t like round bullys. Especially ones that run a very obscure K philosophy and expect everyone in the room to know who/what it is saying. It is the duty of those that want to run the K to be a ‘good’ person who wants to enhance the education of all present, rather than roll eyes because the opponents may not be versed in every 19th century philosopher from the highlands of Luxumbourg. I have voted for a lot of K's though this season so it's not like I'm opposed to them. K alternatives should be able to be explained well in the cross-x. Repeating jargon of the card is a poor strategy, if you can explain what the world looks like post alternative, that's awesome.<br /> <br /> I will vote on T. I typically don't vote on T arguments about capital letters or periods. Again, there should be an in-round abuse story to garner a ballot for T. This naturally would reinforce the previous statement under theory that says potential abuse is a non-starter for me.<br /> <br /> Anything that you intend to win on, it's best to spend more than 15 seconds on it. I won't vote for a blip that isn't properly impacted. Rebuttals should consist of focusing on the arguments that will win you the round. It should reflect some heavy lifting and doing some real work on the part of the debater. It should not be a laundry list of answers without a comparative analysis of why one argument is clearly superior and a round winner.<br /> <br /> Performance: Give me a reason to vote. And make sure to adequately respond to your opponents arguments with the performance. I do not see that many of those rounds in the first place. If you win a framework debate, you're more than halfway there to a win. I think there are ways that framework can be run that isn't inherently exclusive to debate styles. However I think there are framework arguments that are exclusive too, which isn't very cool. The main issues that I voted on in those rounds were dropped arguments. If a team running an alternative style aff/K is able to show that the other team is dropping arguments then that is just as valid as the traditional style making claims that arguments are dropped and should be weighed accordingly. </p>
David Bailey - SBU
n/a
Gina Jensen - Webster
n/a
Jack Rogers - UCMO
Jason Roach - Webster
n/a
Jason Edgar - MoWestern
<p><strong>Background:</strong> Professor of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making at Missouri Western State University. For 20 years I have competed, coached, and judged Cross Examination Debate, Public Forum, NFA Lincoln Douglas, Traditional Parliamentary Debate and NPTE circuit Parliamentary Debate. This year I have judged about 30 rounds of intercollegiate debate.</p> <p><strong>Approach of the Critic to Decision Making: </strong> When I competed in high school and college, Comparative Advantage was the most prevalent criterion. Thus, I understand and enjoy those types of rounds the most (ex. Ads, Disads, CPs). Having said that, I am open to critical arguments on both the Aff and Neg side as long as there is a clear framework and impacts. I don't really buy role of the ballot arguments unless you say the role is to circle a winner and award speaker points. Topicality is a voting issue and I'll listen if there is clear abuse in round. </p> <p><strong>Relevant Importance of Presentation/Communication Skills: </strong>I'd prefer that you make cogent arguments as opposed to a speaking race, but other than that I am fine with speed and you won't lose me. If you aren't comfortable with speed but you attempt it anyways, or you cannot stop buffering, it typically irritates me. Debate isn't a race, it's a search for truth. </p> <p><strong>Relevant Importance of On-Case Argumentation to the Critic in Decision Making: </strong>In order to make an effective argument and for me to make a critical decision at the tournament, a case will need to have (at least) inherency, significance(harms), and solvency. Prima Facie is a voting issue. So if the negative can prove that the current system can solve the problem, or proves that the harms are insignificant, or the plan cannot solve, then I can definitely see myself voting neg. If Aff can defend those stock issues without causing massive impacts, then they win. </p> <p><strong>Preferences on Procedural Arguments, Counterplans, and Kritiks: </strong>As mentioned above Topicality is a voting issue but should only be ran if there is clear abuse in round. When people asks for my "threshold" I usually just tell them that it depends on the round. I love counterplans because it allows the negative to not have to support current system (Trump). As for Kritiks, they are the only arguments that I didn't myself run or run into when I was a competitor, so don't expect a thoughtful disclosure if you go all in on the K. That being said, "non-uniqueness doesn't stop the pain" and I'll definitely listen as long as you provide clarity. </p> <p><strong>Preferences on Points of Order: </strong>I don't think there is much of a community issue with an overabundance of Point of Orders, so feel free to use them if there is a clearly a new argument or abuse in round. </p> <p><strong>Closing Thoughts: </strong>I'd like you to do whatever you want in the round. Sure, I have my preferences, but I want the debaters to feel most comfortable. I do love my career, so running arguments that view debate in a negative light, I probably won't vote for. In round, it would be in your best interest to not be rude. JE</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Jeff May - UCMO
n/a
Joe Blasdel - McKendree
<p>Joe Blasdel</p> <p>McKendree University</p> <p>Section 1: General Information</p> <p>1. I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After a three year hiatus studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so since 2003.</p> <p>2. In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am very unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.</p> <p>3. 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 they are topical. While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debate, I am open to people choosing to do so. I’m 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.</p> <p>4. 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 you’re calling multiple POOs, I will probably not be pleased.</p> <p>5. I do not think the rules permit splitting the block. Any responses in the LOR to MG arguments that were dropped by the MO will be considered new. Additionally, it is rare that I will vote on MO arguments that are not extended in the LOR.</p> <p>6. I’m not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ‘new’ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ‘new’ PMR arguments.</p> <p>Section 2: Specific Inquiries</p> <p>1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).</p> <p>Typically, my range of speaker points is 26-30, with an average of 28.</p> <p>2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?</p> <p>I’m open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for competition and alt solvency than most judges. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, I have a very low threshold for voting on topicality/framework. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.</p> <p>3. Performance based arguments…</p> <p>Same as above. I’d be hesitant to run them with me as your critic if they are not topical/competitive.</p> <p>4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?</p> <p>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 that’s 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 – I’m not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an ‘average’ threshold. I don’t vote on RVIs.</p> <p>On spec, I have a ‘high’ threshold. Unless there is in-round ground abuse, I’m probably not going to vote on spec. I would only run spec arguments in front of me if you’re using it as link insurance for another position and the affirmative refuses to answer your questions.</p> <p>5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?</p> <p>All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay), but am growing more frustrated with tiny PICs and other arguably abusive CPs – so this trend may change. I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.</p> <p>6. 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?)?</p> <p>All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.</p> <p>7. 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")?</p> <p>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.</p>
Jordan Compton - SBU
n/a
Justin Stanley - JCCC
n/a
Kaila Todd - UCMO
n/a
Kristen Stout - Crowder
<p>Head Coach Crowder College</p> <p>4 years debating and 3 years judging in NDT/CEDA</p> <p>I generally think debate is a communication activity. However, I think communication happens a lot of ways, potentially at different speeds. As long as you are coherent I can probably follow along. That being said, persuasion is still important and it is worth your time to emphasize important arguments/frame the debate in ways that make it easy for me to evaluate the debate.</p> <p>Topicality: You should defend some interpretation of the topic and prove why the resolution is a good idea. I also think topicality is a viable strategy against affirmatives if you can win that your interpretation is best. A debater need not prove “in round” abuse. They just have to win their interpretation is better for debate and creates a better, more fair topic. If all things are equal I probably default to reasonability because I was a 2a but things have to be really equal, which they rarely are. Reverse voting issues are not a thing. It shouldn’t be that hard to prove your aff is T. </p> <p>Kritiks and CP’s: I am fine with these arguments but the must be competitive and relevant. I have noticed in these debates that people like to throw around a lot of jargon. This is very frustrating to me. Please don’t assume that because you say a few debate words you have made substantive answers to the argument. This doesn’t mean you should avoid theory arguments if relevant. Just only say the things you need. I would be weary of assuming that I think those words mean the same thing as you. </p> <p>Less is more. Please don’t make arguments that are not related to your overall strategy just to make them. This is especially true of SPEC ARGUMENTS. Unless they are relevant to your overall strategy (competition for a CP) or the team has done something egregious I mostly find them a waste of time. I don’t understand trying to go for so many arguments in your last speeches that you are basically just asserting things. Less, well warranted and debated arguments, do much more for me than more arguments that are barely discussed.</p> <p>Don’t steal prep. If you are writing, looking at your papers, organizing, or really anything that is not speaking that’s prep. I SEE YOU PREP STEALERS. QUIT.</p> <p>It is your responsibility to provide a viewing computer or printed copy of the evidence to the other team. No exceptions. If they have a computer you need a flash drive. I have very little tolerance for not making debate accessible for people. I also think flashing your speech before you start is best practice but I understand there is some contention about this part of NFA LD.</p> <p>Disclosure is good. You should do it. </p>
Lance Allen - McKendree
<p>I competed in Parli and IE’s for 4 years at Mckendree and have now coached for 4 years. That means I have a diverse background and have seen a large variety of positions. As a coach, I have watched rounds at traditional tournaments in parli to LD out rounds at nationals. While I am competent in a K debate, I am most comfortable in the case/DA/CP debates. This means that the K needs to be well explained, whether a critical Neg or Aff. For me, in-round abuse is not necessary on T. All CP types are fine, just beat the procedural. I evaluate procedurals first and then move to rest. I tend to weigh the magnitude and probability first in impact calc. You should feel comfortable running most any position in front of me as long as it is well explained and defended. </p>
Libby Denny - MoWestern
Marty Feeney - Simpson College
Meg Burns - SBU
n/a
Nik Fischer - McKendree
Nikki Freeman - UCMO
Sarah Muir - Truman
Savannah Whipple - Evangel
n/a
Scott Jensen - Webster
n/a
Spencer Waugh - Simpson College
Steve Hagan - McKendree
Tabi Secor - JCCC
n/a
Tom Serfass - Webster
n/a
Zac McGee - UCMO
n/a