Alex Rivera - WKY

n/a

---

Alexis Vega - Utah

n/a

---

Andrew Moffitt - KWU

n/a

---

Anthony Survance - WKY

n/a

---

Aubrey Weber - Simpson

n/a

---

Austin Sopko - TOUR

n/a

---

Autumn Zimmerman - KWU

n/a

---

Averie Vockel - Utah

I am of the position that it is your debate, and you should do with it what you want. I do not automatically reject arguments based on the type of argument. There are a couple of things that are important to me as a critic that you should know...

DON'T use speed to exclude your opponent. If you need to go fast, do so. BUT no one (including me) should have to ask you to slow you multiple times. Also of note, slow and clear mean different things so make sure you are clearly expressing your needs.

DON'T be rude.

DON'T assume that I will fill in holes for you. It is your job to give me complete arguments with reasons why they win the round.

DO start flex when the speech ends. Flex doesn't start after you have asked for texts of CPs, plans, etc.

DO provide terminalized impacts and weigh them.

DO be clear on how you would like me to evaluate the round. This means you should compare your arguments to your opponents and tell me why I should vote for you.

DO give me proven abuse on T. I like T, but not if it is incomplete. I like T, I think it's useful. BUT you need to make sure the pieces are present and explained.

DO tell me how you want me to evaluate T against other arguments.

DO engage with the topic in some way. If you are rejecting, I need you to be clear on why that is fair to your opponent. There are many ways to affirm, and I am interested in all ways. If it is LD, I expect the aff to affirm.

---

Brian Lain - UNT

---

Bryce Fletcher - TOUR

n/a

---

Cassity Morlan - UCMO

n/a

---

Chad Meadows - WKY

n/a

---

Charlotte Yates - TOUR

n/a

---

Chris Langone - Oaktion Debate

n/a

---

Christina Kearns - Cap

I have been involved in debate for about 15 years. I debated for 2 years and have been a coach/judge for about 13 years. When I judge a round, I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I tend to view the round as a court, where I am an actual judge, and the affirmative and negative are presenting me with a case. It is my job to judge the evidence and arguments as they are presented in the round. I am to assume no outside opinions or evidence which is not presented in the round. Under this theory, any argument can win. I will listen to and vote for any argument in the round, provided that it is well-evidenced and argued. Also, I tend to be a very standard judge, your average judge will probably vote the same way I do. The only thing you need to win is good evidence and impact calculus.

I feel as though debate rules are more like guidelines than a list set in stone. Proper debaters should strive to meet the rules or guidelines in front of them. However, unless there is a clear argument in the debate that the other team is violating important rules, I will not vote a team down for it. I believe it is up to the debaters to point out those rules and explain their importance in the debate. I will vote on properly laid arguments for or against the rules based on how the debaters handle these issues.

I will vote for any argument that a debater places in the debate, if Iâm given a good reason to do so. Also, although I do like Topicality, it is a harder argument to win. The negative must really go for it and prove their violations, standards, and the impact it has on the round. Also I donât like it when someone makes a bunch of Topicality arguments and then drops them with no given reason. Try to use Topicality strategically, and if it needs dropped, explain why and what that means for the round.

In the rebuttals, I expect debaters to give me clear voters and tell me why I vote on these issues. When a person does not give me clear voters, it is up to me to interpret the round and I donât like doing that. I prefer clear cut reasons to vote for each side. If one person has clear voters and the other does not; the person with the clear voters and impact stories will usually win.

---

Claire Rung - Lafayette

n/a

---

Coby Berg - Simpson

n/a

---

Craig Hennigan - Truman

TL/DR - I'm fine on the K. Need in round abuse for T. I'm fine with speed. K Alts that do something more than naval-gazing is preferred. Avoid running away from arguments.

I debated high school policy in the early 90âs and then college policy in 1994. I also competed in NFA-LD for 4 or 5 years, I don't recall, I know my last season was 1999? 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 for 5 years at Wayne State University. Now I am the Assistant Director of Forensics at Truman State University in my 5th year running the debate part of the program.

Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. This being said, I have been more truth over tech lately. Some arguments are so bad I'm inclined to do work against it. If its cold conceded I will go with it, but if its a truly bad interpretation/argument, it won't take a lot to mitigate risk of it happening. I have responded well to sensible 'gut check' arguments before.

I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat. You need to have clear tags on your cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence. If it blends together, I do not do well flowing your argument.

With regard to specific arguments â 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 itâs really really bad. My threshold for theory then is pretty high if you cannot show a decent abuse story. Showing an abuse story should come well before the last rebuttal. 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." Intrinsic and severance perms I think are bad if you can show why they are intrinsic or severance. Again, I'd drop argument before team.

I donât like round bullys. If you run an obscure K philosophy don't 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 âgoodâ person who wants to enhance the education of all present. I have voted for a lot of K's though so it's not like I'm opposed to them. K alternatives should be able to be explained well in the cross-x. I will have a preference for K alts that actually "do" something. The influence of my ballot on the discourse of the world at large is default minimal, on the debate community default is probably even less than minimal. Repeating jargon of the card is a poor strategy, if you can explain what the world looks like post alternative, that's awesome. I have found clarity to be a premium need in LD debate since there is much less time to develop a K. Failing to explain what the K does in the 1AC/NC then revealing it in the 1AR/NR is bad. If the K alt mutates into something else in the NR, this is a pretty compelling reason to vote Aff. (Or in the opposite of the person running the K for that matter).

Never run from a debate. I'll respect someone that goes all-in for the heg good/heg bad argument and gets into a debate more than someone who attempts to be incredibly tricksy in case/plan writing or C-X in order to avoid potential arguments. Ideal C-X would be:

"Does your case increase spending?"

"Damn right, what you gon' do about it? Catch me outside."

I will vote on T. 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. Developing T as an impact based argument rather than a rules based argument is more persuasive. As potential abuse is not typically a voter for me and I'll strike down speaker points toward RVI's based on bad theory. Regarding K's of T, there are better ways to garner offense, like say... your case.

Anything that you intend to win on I need to have more than 15 seconds spent 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. Kevin Ambrose said during one of my decisions that the ability to encapsulate the round in the last 15-20 seconds of your speech is a lost art. I agree.


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 lots of 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. I am seldom compelled that my ballot changes anything outside the debate community or outside the room. If you have specific evidence to why it does, then I have voted on those arguments (Think Giroux type evidence on pedagogy). Most of the time though, the idea that my ballot changes anything places too much importance on me. I'm just a poor debate coach. However if there's things in the room that are going on that can be remedied by my ballot, I'm definitely listening.

Speaker Points -

Upon entering the LD community, I was informed that my previous speaker point distribution was akin to Santa Claus on a meth binge. It has now been revised.

Floor- 25 - you might have said something offensive about the other team or my family. I may have had to think about whether or not to stop the round. You didn't complete a speech and conceded. You were racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic and unapologetic. Or you didn't complete speeches.

26-26.5 - You made me feel like a qualified judge. (There were noticable and glaring flaws in your strategy. You went for Condo Bad without a unique reason why I should vote and there was only 1 K and 1 CP in the round. You have problems with fundamentals of making arguments)

26.5-27 - I had to think and do work, but also had to send you a message that I'm not a good judge. (You made some tactical errors that I noticed perhaps went for the wrong NR, or you asked a bunch of questions in C-X that never came up in the speech. Or you lacked confidence, you looked like you were behind. You dropped a lot on the flow.)

27-27.5 - Meh. Middle of the road.

28 - You made me pay attention to my flowing. At one point I was hoping you would not go for the PIC because I had no idea what was happening on that flow. (Odds are you made the correct strategic decisions, outcarded your opponents or did not drop round-winning arguments and tooks advantage of your opponents dropped arguments. You should get a low speaker award)

28.5-29.5 - I would give you a cigarette after the round if asked if I still smoked. (You have noticed a double turn or a speech act by your opponent that is a round winner. You also have reminded me of items in my paradigm for why you are going for the items that you are. You should be top 10 to top 5 speaker.)

29.5-30 - Would you like to do my oral defense for me? (I could not find a flaw in your performance to incredibly minor flaws that there is little way to realize that they even happened)

Small note: If you're totally outmatching your opponent, you're going to earn speaker points not by smashing your opponent, but rather through making debate a welcoming and educational experience for everyone.

Card Clipping addendum:

Don't cheat. I typically ask to be included on email chains so that I can try to follow along at certain points of the speech to ensure that there isn't card clipping, however if you bring it up I in round I will also listen. You probably ought to record the part with clipping if I don't bring it up myself. Also, if I catch clipping (and if I catch it, it's blatant) then that's it, round over, other team doesn't have to bring it up if I noticed it.

---

David Bailey - SBU

---

Derek Pritchett - TOUR

n/a

---

Drayton Willey - TOUR

n/a

---

Eduardo Magalhaes - Simpson

n/a

---

Eric Morris - MoState

Eric Morris, DoF - Missouri State â 29th Year Judging 

++++ NFA-LD Version ++++ 

You can see NDT version, which is different, here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6383

I primarily judge in NDTCEDA (which I enjoy), but operate under different assumptions when judging in NFA-LD (if you want to read my NDT CEDA philosophy to understand how I think, it can be found here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_account_id=6383).

I like NFA-LD because it is more novice-friendly, and most of the community prefers DA-case debate. I don't dislike CP's (or K's that refute the plan) outside of the novice division, but direct refutation is refreshing to me.

I tend to prioritize probability (strength of link and internal link) when two impacts have a large magnitude. Uniqueness is rarely 100% either direction (although it can be). 

Explicitly non-topical affs or K's which refuse the topic entirely have a huge presumption to overcome. 

I have a presumption for NFA-LD rules, but you need to apply the specific rule. There is often room for counter-interpretations (including mine). Use them to help you refute arguments instead of making a bunch of independent voters. Thus, stock issues may be a place for debate more than "voting" issues - since negative often minimizes them instead of completely refuting them. 

I like that NFA-LD is not as fast as NDT (for access reasons), but the line of "how much is too much" is hard for me to judge. I want debaters to negotiate this before the round - the round should be no faster than the preferences of either participant (including others judges on a panel). 

Although I lean negative on many T questions relative to the NDT community, I'm not a hardliner on effects T. I think the literature base is relevant to how much is "too much" on extra T. I think T arguments should be grounded in clear definitions/interpretations, and I lean aff when there is uncertainty about the violation. I think spec arguments are best handled as CX questions, and generally have a strong presumption against theory voting issues - reject the argument not the is my leaning. 

If you share evidence via email chain (the best method), my gmail is ermocito. Given quick decision times, I prefer to get a copy of all speeches in real time (even if by flash drive) so I can double check things during prep time and CX. 

 

I will flow closely but often my RFD for the opponent could be reversed with better application of your argument to theirs, or better readings of their evidence to support your argument. Those things are excellent debating. 

---

Gina Jensen - Webster

n/a

---

Ian Mikkelsen - WU

---

Jackson Slechta - UNL

---

Jacob Stutzman - WU

---

James Hilbert - Lafayette

n/a

---

Jarrod Best - TOUR

n/a

---

Jason Roach - Webster

n/a

---

Jeff May - TOUR

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.

---

Jessica Dolan - TOUR

n/a

---

Jim Evans - WU

Background

CEDA late 80's early 90's.

Basic philosophy

Run whatever, win the biggest impacts on the flow.

Impacts = time frame/probability/magnitude.

Preferences

I prefer debates about the topic.

Im not a fan of topicality for topicalitys sake.

I am a fan of topicality for abusive affirmatives.

I like good CPs. Im not a fan of delay or consult.

Topic specific Ks preferred.

Theory-Do what you can justify.

PICs bad.

Be polite to each other.

Bottom line

Run it, win the argument

---

John Boyer - Lafayette

n/a

---

John Parker - TOUR

n/a

---

Jordan Compton - SBU

I competed in NPDA and IDPA for four years.  I've coached NPDA, IPDA, and PF for 10+ years.  

I'm a communication guy.  That will never change.  I'm much more of an IE coach/judge than a debate coach/judge but I should be able to follow along with most anything.

I loathe speed.  See the line above.  I'm a communication guy.  

I try to be a flow judge as much as possible.  It's your job to tell me where to flow your argument.  If you organize for me and tell me what to do, I'm going to do it and I'll probably like you more for doing that.  

I will not do the work for you.  You need to explain your argument super clearly.  And like I said above, you need to tell me where to put that argument on the flow.  

If you give me a criterion that's what I'm going to use to help guide my decision.  If you give me a criterion and then fail to use it throughout the debate, you're probably going to lose.  (If you say we're doing CBA and then don't give me any costs/benefits, what's the point of the CBA criterion?)

NPDA/LD

Not a huge fan of Ks but I'll listen.  Remember everything I said above about being clear and organized.  That goes triple here.  

I like case debate.  

I'll listen to a good CP.  

I'll vote on T if abuse is articulated well.  

In Parli, I will not flow any argument from a partner who speaks when it's not their turn to speak.  I kind of hate when this happens.  

I'm happy to answer specific questions before a round, but I probably won't go into great detail.  My usual response when asked what I like to hear in debate is, "Don't suck."  

---

Joseph Packer - CMU

n/a

---

Joshua Stegall - MoState

---

Juliana Ness - Webster

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 Stanley - JCCC

n/a

---

Katie Baldwin - TOUR

n/a

---

Keegan Bosch - CMU

n/a

---

Kensey Dressler - Utah

n/a

---

Kiefer Storrer - KWU

Iâm back. 

Competitive history; 4 years KS High School Policy, 4 years College Parli. Some IPDA and LD tournaments sprinkled in there. Entering my 8th year coaching Parli/LD/IEs. 

I like clash. I donât want to work when judging debate. Super down for Kâs especially if they are implicative of the debate community itself. But I can get down with some regular old net beneficial debate too. Really just like, respect each other, have fun. 

I can flow speed but the technological limitations of online tournaments might make this something you should think about more in depth than usual. 

Anything else, just ask. 

---

Kinny Torre - UNT

Hi Everyone!

I'm Kinny, I'm a Chamoru from Guam, my pronouns are He/Him, and I'm a new graduate assistant at the University of North Texas.

My background is in NPDA debate in college at Western Washington University and policy debate in high school. My competitive career in college mostly involved going for the K or T but please don't let that inhibit you from your ideal strat. I've coached at WWU for 4 years as well as directed high school debate programs. With my students, I've helped coach national champions in a variety of styles and I've judge deep outrounds at most of the tournaments that I've attended so I'd like to think that I can hang with the new debate generation. Feel free to debate in whatever style that you feel is ethical and useful--like all things in debate, it's up for the debaters to justify. To that end, I'll do my best to adapt to you and I expect you to make the same effort. I will say that I won't tolerate someone being an asshole in a debate; depending on the context, that can result in low speaks or an auto-loss. Also, I've only judged one College LD tournament since joining the Mean Green in the Fall of 2020 so do with that what you will.

Below is some of my thoughts about debate when I was a coach at Western Washington University in their Parli program:

TL;DR Do your shit but not at the expense of excluding your opponents*   Hello!   Background Info: been doing this for too long I debated for 3 years doing policy in Washington State (lol) and 4 years of parli at Western. Im starting my 3rd year of coaching at Western but Ive coached policy, LD, and PF.   

*Ill start of by saying that I stayed in this activity because I found this activity to be both fun and educational. Its therefore important to recognize find that diversity can be dangerous if it allows for people to advance an agenda that hurts marginalized individuals. Like obvi you shouldnt be a nazi but its more than just that; speed and frivolous theory should not be a weapon used against novices because of its exclusionary nature. You dont need to go to many tournaments to understand that this format is dying so perhaps we should take measures to prevent its death. 

Beyond that, run whatever argument you want at whatever speed or method you wish. The only exception is that there must be a winner/loser at the end of the debate AND the debate must follow speech times and order. Ill do my best to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible. This means that Ill entertain framework arguments against nontopical affs. Delays CPs with tix DAs are cool. Same with floating PICs and Consult nature CPs.  Please run all of the weird and untraditional arguments as well as the Heg DA in front of meI just want a good debate!!! The important part is that you tell me what the key issues are and how to I prioritize them.   Some random particularism: 

¢ Its probably not a good idea to run frivolous theory shells in front of me. Especially MG theory since I dont understand how to judge a theory shell that always gets golden responses. Since the MO needs to deploy offense against the interp or at the very least a net-benefit to their own, then the PMR would always win with the impact-turn. Like I get why MG theory is strategically viable and even a necessity sometimes; however, the more silly or ubiquitous the shell(s) become, the higher a chance that Ill default Neg. 

¢ Dont start at your full speed. I know that youre fast and that you want to awe your judge and overwhelm your opponents with your sicknasty blocks but you should give me like 10 seconds to adjust your voice.

¢ Repeat interp texts twice or pass a text to your opponents. 

¢ Give a perm text.  Perm Do Both on rejection alts as well as all noncompetitive parts of the alternative ARE NOT PERM TEXTS.

¢ Dont Point of Order more than 3 times; I promise I'm flowing and is usually unnecessary. 

---

Lora Cohn - Park

n/a

---

Louis Cohn - Park

n/a

---

Madison Ward - TOUR

n/a

---

Maple Adkins-Threats - Truman

---

Marcus Schultz-Bergin - WU

---

Margaret Michels - PSU

     I competed in policy debate many years ago and this is my second- year coaching and judging Lincoln Douglas debate.   As an argumentation instructor, I value the quality of evidence and so will examine it in the roundbest say what you claim it says.    I also want to hear warranted arguments, not labels i.e. just saying education on topicality is not a sufficient argumentative claim.  I will vote on stock issues so long as the debater justifies doing so.

    I, to the best of my ability, adopt the perspective of tabula rasa and will listen to any argument presented in the debate EXCEPT I still retain common sense.  If you tell me the sky is green with orange polka dots, I wont buy it.

    As mentioned, any types of arguments (Ks, counter plans, topicality, etc.) are accepted and can win you the debate, if you convince me why your position is best. I expect to hear an explanation for why you have won the debate in your final rebuttal.  Or in other words, I dislike having to pull out and weigh the arguments on my own.

      I agree with the spirit of the LD rules.  If invoked by debaters, they become part of the debate.  I believe speed should not be used as a tool. I get annoyed when a debater talks very rapidly and then has time remaining in the speech.   I also frown upon a debater who attempts to spread out the opposition and then concedes many arguments in the rebuttal.     In addition, speed can disadvantage the inclusion of international students.  I do not mean to suggest by this comment that I per se dislike speed.   I will listen and flow and let you know if I cant follow you.    Be smart, be civil, have fun.

 

---

Mariah Gilmore - TOUR

n/a

---

Marisa Mayo - UCMO

n/a

---

Mark Turner - KWU

---

Matthew Briggs - TOUR

n/a

---

Matthew Moore - UCO

n/a

---

Melanie Hutchinson - TOUR

n/a

---

Miguel Porfirio - TxState

n/a

---

Mikayla Throne - SBU

---

Noah Hirshorn - CC

n/a

---

Noelle Batchelder - MoState

---

Phil Samuels - WU

---

Quinlan Pulleyking - MoState

---

Ryan Louis - Ottawa

n/a

---

Sam Begley-May - TOUR

n/a

---

Samantha Callaway - TOUR

n/a

---

Sarah Muir - Truman

---

Sarah Hinkle - CC

I mostly live in the world of IEs (read: 20 years of either competing or coaching) but have moderate experience training in Worlds and IPDA-style debate.

 

I like speakers who are fair and balanced: Ethics, Argumentation, Strategy, and Style.

Construct your case carefully with well-developed arguments. Build a foundation with clean definitions. Create values/criteria so I know how to weigh out the evidence. Provide Impacts and explain how you get there. I want a lively debate with good clash.  Be well-versed in the topic while implementing high quality and recent research. Respect each other.

By the end of the debate, I should be able to clearly understand the significance of your position to the resolution.

I tend to prefer argumentation to be grounded somewhat in the real world and prefer depth rather than rattling off a list of contentions. Tell me a story. Paint a picture. Speakers who effectively demonstrate why an issue is significant and/or relevant are building strong ethos. I want to be as involved as possible.

Have fun and ignore my non-verbals! I tend to look surly but that's just my face. J

 

---

Scott Jensen - Webster

n/a

---

Shane Brewer - TU

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

---

Shaun Sletten - MoState

---

Spencer Waugh - Simpson

n/a

---

Stacy Bernaugh - Webster

n/a

---

Steve Doubledee - WU

---

Steven Gill (Online) - Simpson

n/a

---

Sydney Crank - UCMO

n/a

---

Taylor Corlee - MoState

---

Terri Magalhaes - Simpson

n/a

---

Tiana Brownen - SBU

---

Tim Overton - MNSU

n/a

---

Tom Serfass - Webster

n/a

---

Tyler Behymer - UNL

Hello friends!

Experience: I debated for 3 years of policy in high school, and did 4 years of NFA-LD in college. I am now an assistant coach at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. In my experience as a debater, I primarily focused on policy arguments but did some K debate as well.

Speed: Speed is fine with me, but please be clear, and please respect the wishes of your opponent. I won't drop you for continuing to spread if your opponent asks you to stop, but I will dock your speaks.

Evidence: Obviously skipping in between lines when highlighting is fine, but if you change the intent of the author, or highlight the evidence in such a way that ignores grammar (incomplete or incoherent sentences, subject-verb disagreement, generating entirely new significations, etc.) I won't be happy. Changing the intent of the author is cheating and is sufficient ground to drop you if pointed out by your opponent, and poor-highlighting practices make me inclined to ignore that piece of evidence, or listen to theory about how your evidence practices are abusive/anti-educational.

Framework: Stock Issues don't matter much to me. I evaluate the debate through an offense-defense paradigm unless you tell me otherwise. I'm very open to you changing the frame of the debate, so don't hesitate to do so.

Impact Framing: Please do. If you don't, I will intervene and evaluate the round in terms of the relative probabilities of 'something bad' happening, so it comes down to the risk of the aff solving something bad vs. it creating something bad. If you don't do impact framing, and I 'intervene' in a way that you disagree with, that's your fault.

K: K's are persuasive to me. Please read framework in the 1NC if you wish to change the frame of the debate (ROB, ROJ, etc.). I'm generally comfortable with K lit, but there are definitely some lit bases that I'm less familiar with, so be sure to ask me before round if you have any questions regarding my expertise or whatever. Alt debate is important, and you should probably spend a fair amount of time here, but its not necessary. If you kick the alt but win the framework and link debate you can still get my ballot. The perm is a test of competition, but you can talk about the perm in terms of an 'advocacy' in order to stress test the links. In other words, talk about the perm as if it 'goes into effect' in order to imagine if the perm resolves the links. If there are conceded links to the aff, its much harder to vote on the perm, but I could still do so if it sufficiently resolves the links.

CP: Cool with me. The CP just needs to be a competitive option of action compared to the aff. The perm is a test of competition.

T: T is persuasive to me, especially toward the beginning of the season. You don't need in-round abuse for me to vote for you, but I do find it persuasive, and you need to internal link potential abuse arguments out to your voters. I probably default to viewing the T debate through competing interps, but I will vote on reasonability if you win the framing question. On reasonability, note that I view it operating in conjecture with the counter-interp. Reasonability means that if the aff provides a 'reasonable' counter-interpretation, and meets it, then I don't drop the aff on T. Reasonability does not mean 'I reasonably meet my opponents interp,' so don't frame it this way.

Theory: T is more or less persuasive to me, depending on the abuse/fairness/education story. If an argument is clearly abusive, or operating on sketchy ground theoretically, then make a theory argument. Here's some specifics:

Condo: If the opponent reads 2+ conditional advocacies, condo is more persuasive to me than if they just read one.

PICS Bad: Not overly persuasive unless the PIC is uniquely abusive, but I'll always listen to it.

Vagueness: Probably the least persuasive to me. The plan/cp/alt has got to be really vague for me to vote here. Once again, I'll always listen to it.

Intl Fiat/States Fiat: I will definitely listen to theory args here. I don't think that either type of fiat is inherently abusive, but they have the potential to be.

Do nots: Don't be racist/sexist/transphobic/etc. Don't tell your opponent to harm themselves. Don't flagrantly insult your opponent. I'll drop you.

---

Vani Balram - WU

---

Warren Eidson - NWACC

n/a

---

Will Seiler - Simpson

n/a

---

Will Wheeler - SBU

---

Zac McGee - TOUR

n/a

---

Zach Hadenfeldt - UNL

---

Zach Thornhill - UNL

Find my paradigm on tabroom

---