FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Abi Richardson - MoWestern

Adam Blood - UCM

Ailey Pope - Wiley

n/a

Brian Swafford - Northwest MO

n/a

Brin Walters - UNL

n/a

Brittney Means - NECC

n/a

Brock Ingmire - Kansas State

n/a

Bryan Brooks - Hillsdale

n/a

Carli Wrisinger - Truman

n/a

Chad Meadows - WKU

Debate should reward hard work. Your strategies and in round execution should reflect intensive research and thought about the topic/your opponents arguments. My speaker points AND ballot will be used to reinforce a curriculum that normalizes debate practices I believe are needed for the overall health of the community. 1 -Evidence Debate should be a referendum on the quality and quantity of research done first, and then a matter of execution later. I will reward debaters who do excellent and thorough research over debaters who have “slick tricks” to win debates. I think evidence is VERY important, its quality and qualifications should be debated. I will usually prefer excellent evidence to spin. When comparing a good card which was not well explained/had no spin vs. no card or a bad card with excellent spin I will typically prefer the good card. I will call for cards after the debate. I will generally only call for evidence which is referenced in the final two rebuttals. Refer to evidence by last name and date after it has been cited in the first instance. If you do not READILY share citations and evidence with your opponent in the round - I WILL be cranky, probably vote against you, or at the very least give you TERRIBLE speaker points. 2 - Speed/Flowing If speaking at a more rapid rate is used to advance more scholarship in the round, I encourage debaters to speak quickly. If speaking quickly devolves into assaulting the round with a barrage of bad arguments in the hope that your opponent will not clash with them all, my ballot and speaker points will not encourage this practice. I keep an excellent and detailed flow. However, winning for me is more about establishing a coherent and researched explanation of the world rather than extending a specific argument. An argument is not “true” because it is extended on one sheet of paper if it is logically answered by evidence on another sheet of paper or later on the line by line. You can check your rhetorical bullying at the door. Posturing, repeating yourself (even loudly), insulting your opponents (except during cross-x), or insisting that I will "ALWAYS vote here" are probably a waste of your time. 3 - Argument Selection Any argument that advances argument on the desirability of the resolution through valid decision making is persuasive. The source of argumentation should be left up to the debaters. I am very unlikely to be persuaded that the source of evidence justifies its exclusion. In particular I am unconvinced the methodology, epistemology, ontology, and other indicts pertaining to the foundation of the affirmative are unjustified avenues of research to explore in debate. Above all else, the content of your argument should not be used to duck clash. Specific Issues: 1 - Topicality is a voter and not a reverse voter. "Proving abuse" is irrelevant, well explained standards are not. 2 – The affirmative does not have to specify more than is required to affirm the resolution. I encourage Affirmatives to dismiss specs/vagueness and other procedurals without implications for the topicality of the affirmative with absolute disregard. 3 – Conditionality is logical, restraints on logical decision making are only justified in extreme circumstances.  4 – There is nothing implied in the plan. Consult, process, and other counterplans which include the entirety of the plan text are not competitive. 5 – I will decide if the counterplan is competitive by evaluating if the permutation is better than the counterplan alone or if the plan is better than counterplan. Ideological, philosophical, and redudancy standards for competiton are not persuasive and not useful for making decisions. 6 – I mediate my preferences for arguably silly counterplans like agent, international, and PICS/PECS primarily based upon the quality of the counterplan solvency evidence. 7 – Direction/Strength of link evidence is more important than “controlling uniqueness” This is PARTICULARLY true when BOTH sides have compelling and recent uniqueness evidence. Uniqueness is a strong factor in the relative probability of the direction of the link, if you don't have uniqueness evidence you are behind.  8 - I do not have a "threshold" on topicality. A vote for T is just as internally valid as a vote for a DA. I prefer topicality arguments with topic specific interpretation and violation evidence. I will CLOSELY evaluate your explanation on the link and impact of your standards. 9 - I am very unlikely to make a decision primarily based upon defensive arguments. <a href="mailto:chadwickmeadows@gmail.com">chadwickmeadows@gmail.com</a>

Clara Adkins - Marshall

n/a

Daniel Hogan - Sterling

Danny Ray - Marshall

n/a

Darrell Farmer - UNL

n/a

David Bailey - SBU

n/a

Deion Hawkins - Marshall

n/a

Gary Jackson - Webster

n/a

Gary Harmon - KWU

I have coached a long time.  I am familiar with theory and practice.  I believe argumentation is a search for the probable truth and not game playing.  I believe arguments should be prima facie when presented.  I don't hear as well as I used to.  It does affect my ability to listen to speed.  If you are clear, I can handle a pretty fast rate.  However, use speed only when you have so much to say that you need it to meet time restraints.  Speed plus poor use of time is not good.  Procedurals should only be used when there is abuse. I enjoy good argumentation.

Glenn Prince - ISU

Background: I competed in policy debate for most of my career before transitioning to college parliamentary debate and LD. I cleared at CEDA Nationals, have a national championship in parliamentary debate, and currently coach LD. I am currently the Director of Debate at Illinois State University. I've been competing or coaching debate for 18 years. While they may make me seem like a dinosaur, I keep up with what goes on in debate and attempt to judge the debate based on the parameters provided by the debaters. I default to a policy making paradigm. I will default to humanistic impacts if given no other options in the debate. I tend to think all arguments are conditional. SPECIFIC ISSUES: TOPICALITY: I vote on topicality more than most people, but that doesn't really mean much because most debates don't come down to T. I am willing to vote against the affirmative because it just isn't an example of the resolution, but will default to whatever evaluative framework you decide in the debate. DISADVANTAGES: 1. Uniqueness debates often decide these questions. 2. A good link turn is always better than a generic impact turn. 3. Clearly explained/evidenced internal link claims are key to winning a substantial impact. 4. Equal scrutiny is given to the internals of disadvantages and affirmative advantages. 5. Impact evidence needs to actually provide an impact: far too many stop at a descriptive, internal linkish sounding argument. COUNTERPLANS: 1. I like all kinds of them: delay, multiple, unconditional, conditional, whatever. 2. I tend to view theory debates on counterplans as reason to reject the argument, not the team. 3. Solvency arguments on counterplans should open to the same consideration as affirmative solvency claims. 4. Permutations are only a test of competitiveness. KRITIKS: 1. Specificity of the link is key--generic link debates are just that: generic. 2. I prefer alternatives that move past rejection and into something more pragmatic. 3. Topic specific criticisms are a lot more interesting/compelling to me. 4. Seeking out specific links found in the 1AC are key to solidifying the debate. OTHER STUFF: 1. I love debate. You should too. I will do my best to evaluate the debate in the fairest, most equitable way possible. 2. Be kind to each other. I love a good snarky cross-x, but have fun doing it and don't make people miserable or feel bad about themselves. Debate should be a space of fun, engaged disagreement, but there's no need to be a jerk. 3. My speaker points range 26-30. A 30 happens once every other year or so. A 29 is really good from me. 4. Paperless debate is great, but be proficient in how to use it and efficient in executing it during the round. It shouldn't add 20 minutes to the debate. 5. I'm happy to answer any specific questions you have before the debate about me and after the debate about my decision in your round.

Gregory Owen - CMU

n/a

Jane Munkgaard - Wiley

n/a

Jeff Moscaritolo - Doane College

n/a

Jennifer Torres - Doane College

n/a

Jeremy Hutchins - Tx State

n/a

Jessica Furgerson - WKU

John Stanley - North Central

John Spears - North Central

Johnny Boyer - Crowder

n/a

Jon Carter - UNL

n/a

Jordan Johnson - Kansas State

n/a

Jory Baker - Northwest MO

n/a

Josh Ritchey - Webster

n/a

Julian Plaza - CC

Ken Corbit -

Kiefer Storrer - KWU

I like to listen to good arguments.  Do not assert if you do not also give support (evidence in LD) for what you assert.  I debated 4 years in high school and four years in college. I understand debate theory, but do not enjoy debates that venture from the directives of the resolution.  Use theory only to lead you to arguments or to stem abuse. I don't enjoy speed for speed purposes.

Libby Rayment - Marshall

n/a

Mark Turner - KWU

I have judged for a long time.  My children debated in high school, and I have judged since.  I mainly judge individual events. I look for the message being sent by the performer and look for consistancy and support.  I expect normal presentation skills.  I like to be entertained as well.

Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale

n/a

Nick Prephan - Marshall

n/a

Nodira Berdieva - North Central

Rayla Crawford - Wiley

n/a

Rebecca Godsey - SBU

n/a

Robert Krzyzanowski - North Central

Russ Luce - Truman

n/a

Ryan Greenawalt - Belmont

n/a

Sarah Hinkle - CC

Scott Jensen - Webster

n/a

Sean Allen - Wiley

Shanna Carlson - ISU

Background: I competed in parliamentary and LD debate for Washburn University for five years. I am currently the assistant debate coach at Illinois State University. 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 don't really care about speed--go as fast as you want as long as you are clear and warranted. I will give you two verbal "clears" if you are going too fast or I cannot understand you. After that I quit flowing and if I do not flow it I do not evaluate it. 3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not like moral obligations as I do not believe that they are usually warranted and I caution you in running these in front of me. I do not believe that all impacts have to go to extinction or nuclear war, but that they should be quantifiable in some manner. 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 and rudeness. 6. I am not the best with kritiks. I will vote on them, but you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative, and alt solvency (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 and how my ballot functions to get us there. 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" 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. 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. 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 :)

Shea Holland - UCM

Sohail Jouya - MoWestern

Overview of my philosophy: Over my short, fickle debate experience I have adopted some general concepts of how I view debate rounds. These are ever-evolving notions that debaters have the ability to change. I feel like I’m quite open to a lot. 1. I default to a policy-making paradigm. This is not rigid and I am very open to alterative frameworks of debate although I do believe you should justify your methodology. I have always been very fond of kritikal debate and appreciate the challenging of norms that can make our activity a home for so many. Regardless, I tend to view things in an offense/defense lens.       NOTE - Please don't take this to mean I'm keen on obfuscating resolutions into different tiers of methodology for argumentation. My thoughts on trichot are that resolutions are propositions of policy - this encapsulates plan, value, and facts. If you want to engage in value debate, try a kritikal approach. If you want the round to be evaluated in the lens of fact debate - I must admit that this isn't a concept I like; it leads to bad debate and abusive theory assumptions.  2. TRUTH > Tech This implicates how I view rounds in a number of ways: -I do believe there are evaluative assertions on certain arguments or positions. This probably means I won’t be as keen on morally abhorrent positions like “Racism/genocide good” whereas a more tabula rasa critic would be convinced. (Malthus/Wipeout is fine, but why would you want to?) -Also, I believe that this means you might have to work harder with more generic positions. A lazy Relations or Politics DA that has an underwhelming link or something of that sort probably has a very low threshold to be beaten, and I’ll also allow smart, true analytics to be weighed equally against a card. -This probably means I take "prior question" issues more seriously than many critics. -Don’t be too confused by this; I don’t believe there is an absolute tension between truth and tech – in fact I think true tech is great. Furthermore, a dropped argument in my eyes is a conceded claim that requires a debater’s “spin” in order to make it meaningful in the round. If there is a lack of analysis/impact on any argument (dropped or otherwise) you’re essentially requiring me to independently assess its validity/meaning.   -I feel that debate organically started as a role-playing concept but the evolution of the activity into a game of sorts that values technique. I am fine with this evolution but I do believe there are times where the more sophisticated tactics usurps inclusion and at those points I keep an open mind to a variety of styles. I am of the Ryan Wash camp in that debate should be a home for it’s competitors and if personal advocacies are part of that approach, great. 3. Speed is fine. It would probably be in your interest to slow down a bit on tags or distinctively intricate warrants. If clarity becomes an issue I will indicate so once. If I feel like I need to do it more than once I will probably just stop flowing. I must say that speed for the sake of talking fast and to sound “circuit-y” isn’t as effective as using speed as a tool to capitalize on word economy. Spreading’s true measure is contingent on the amount of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team. That being said my experiences with the activity have shaped me to believe that the game should be played in a certain way, though I am very receptive to criticism about the game itself. I like and appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable or feel obligated to compete in a manner that you are so unfamiliar with that it inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. Chuck D said it best: "Do you" and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has be to believe the following: T/Procedurals/Theory: Don’t need articulated abuse, it’s what you justify not necessarily what you do - but of course in-round abuse makes your argument stronger. Activism is underutilized as a voter; I believe that is an incredibly important value that operates as a massive impact (maybe event the most important) in theory discussions. I believe it’s your job to tell me WHY I should value competing interpretations/reasonability. The same is true with the voters as well, rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a counter-voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact. I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. I view theory to be the floodgates that grant access to fiated implications. That being said, I’m not totally sold on a lot of specification stuff. Consider specification if it’s an absolutely abhorrent plan text or if you need it to prove an air-tight link into some other offcase. Like I said, be tactical. If you’re running 6 minutes of spec that’s probably less strategy and more desperation. Disads: These are fine and I enjoy a good, true disad that spells out a good story that’s rooted in good lit. I've been pretty geeked out on teams that display mastery of DA stories. Politics is fine if you’re playing the policy-making game, but I find them to be pretty useless if there’s an Aff with a kritikal component to it unless you deal with some framing issues first. Kritiks: I know enough to understand that kritiks are not monolithic. I am very partial to topic-grounded kritiks - in all reality, I find them to be part of a policy-making calculus. I especially like kritiks that deal with the root cause of harms brought up in the 1AC and that functionally turn case. (I ran Orientalism a lot). I am very interested in critical race theory and I’m open to Race K’s of just about any variety. Post-modern genres of kritiks that rely on cutting-edge philosophical concepts are still fine by me, but I’m sure you’ll hear this in most philosophies: ensure that your thesis is digestible to me. Philosophy was one of my majors in undergrad so I feel like I have a decent understanding of Foucault, Nietzsche, some Heidegger and continental philosophy, Jabermas, and a few others. Not too familiar with Baudrillard or D&G tho. This isn’t really post-modern, but I hate Objectivism to the point where I’ve deleted it from my team’s backfiles. I am working on the dissonance I have about K’s needing alternatives, but as of now I’m not entirely certain that they need them. That could be because I haven’t thought critically enough about Neg fiat. (But yes, "Reject the Aff" is an advocacy and does do something) In our small, local regional circuits a few teams have attempted to take advantage of my affinity for K’s by reading generic stock stuff and even doing a poor job on the link level. I’ve voted several of these teams down not because they were looking for a cheap win but because they had serious issues addressing the framework of the K they were running in comparison to the Aff. Don’t make the same mistake. CPs: I’m fine with them. They don’t need to be untopical. PICs are fine. Consult/Delay probably isn’t. Please keep in mind that CPs need to be competitive. Many CP debates for me come down to weighing the Aff solvency versus the deficet with the potential of evaluating any net-benefits as well. Perms: Severance is bad. Intrinsic is probably bad. Timeframe perms are usually bad. I probably differ from a lot of judges because I do not believe that perms can “solve” for anything. They are tests of competition only and that is litmus for linkage/exclusivity rather than a question of solvency. Nontraditional debate: Definition of "project" ::::: "A project is a temporary endeavor with a defined beginning and end (usually time-constrained, and often constrained by funding or deliverables), undertaken to meet unique goals and objectives, typically to bring about beneficial change or added value."  Based on this definition every 1AC is a project. In addition, not all performance teams are the same. Some kritik debate itself. Others kritik the resolution, some kritik the USFG, while others have a plan text or advocacy statement that is a policy implementation, the performance is just the method in which debaters make their arguments. I've had a good amount of kritikal debate experience, I’m very much interested in them and I’m fascinated by what they bring to the table. Every speech is an act of politics (personal or otherwise) and thus, a performance. Discourse matters and so does shaping our social construct in a positive/inclusive manner. Disagree? Fine...but don't try to sell me on "real world" on framework to give your DA with the high magnitude impacts more weight. I have coached an Urban Debate League program for three years and that has very much help shape my beliefs on what inclusivitiy in debate should mean. Thoughts on Framework: I had a lot of dissonance about this position. A lot of people who are far more well-versed in debate and who are much smarter than me find framework to be unjustifiable and incredibly offensive. I understand those concerns but I have come to the belief that Framework is a winnable argument that’s the equivalent to procedurals/theory. Justifying an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by more kritikal teams. It is worth mentioning that I would rather teams engage with kritikal approaches and maybe take up a discussion about methodology but the round is yours, not mine. On the flippity-flip: I won't hesitate to pull the trigger on turns onto Framework. Worth noting: - I believe condo is good. Of course, if you say it’s bad and it’s unrefuted you’re probably in good shape. Just know that “condo bad” doesn’t take a lot for me to err Neg. - If you try to perm anything without an alt text, I won't like that. Test of intrinsicness are not the same thing as permutations. - I believe the Neg gets to challenge the Aff in mutliple, unlimited fronts. So yeah, I don't really buy RVIs and I typically don't default to voting down the Neg on Perf Cons arguments. - Over the years the Aff has tried to seize presumption from the Negative and I’m not sure how I feel about it. Hearing “Risk of solvency” in the 2AR/PMR really makes me cringe but I have reluctantly voted on it when the Neg doesn’t win a big enough risk of offense. I do believe in terminal defense so if the Neg has no offense it’s simply Try or Die. -I prefer numbered signposting/referencing to “next/and”. I have been known to give great speaks to 2ACs that do this and 2NCs that do things like “In response to 2AC-3 where they say "x", we have 2 responses. First, "y". Second, "z"” -Open CX is fine so long as everyone’s cool with it. <s>-Don’t steal prep. I might call you out on it if it keeps happening. *</s> Not Parli specific -I don’t feel comfortable injecting in CX in order to clarify anything. I know several critics who do this and I understand the motivation but I don’t feel like that’s my place. - I won't vote for warrentless arguments or even arguments where I don't know the warrant. Don't be a PMR that extends an incredibly blippy non-unique from the MG because you said it was dropped in the block. I'm not sure if this is a tactic nowadays but what I've noticed is that debaters will extend their partner's arguments that have been uncontested not because they're good arguments, but rather because no one is certain what was said or why it matters. -2A/NRs/PMRs should essentially be what you want my RFD to be. Tell me where and how to vote, keep me out of it as much as possible. A significant amount to time should dedicated to impact calc.  On Speaker Points: I've been coaching more national circuit/urban debate league policy at the high school level and those norms have shaped by range: 25-30, usually with decimals to indicate specific levels of mastery. NOTE - I take my team to local regional tournaments where many critics believe a 20 is "a lot". If that's the case I will be forced to arbitrarily adopt a similar standard to protect my debaters. If I give a floor of 25 and I'm the only judge in the pool to do that, I should probably adopt the local community standard (whatever that means).  Want good speaks? Be a solid, clear MG that properly signposts or a PMR that gives great impact calc with a solid narrative of why I should vote for you. Or conversely, a 1NC that smartly puts a cohesive strategy. I like clever neg strats so long as they aren't abusive. LORs, don't just repeat what the MOC says, give impact calc. Quick worthwhile tidbit: I often take my team to local circuits that openly embrace what is often considered the "origins" of Parliamentary debate and some of those mannerisms are on full display. I actually debated at the Oxford Union and let me tell you: no one wastes their speech time thanking everyone in the room. You don't need to either, especially if you're wasting time to thank me just for the capacity to breathe. Also, please don't knock. I find it annoying and distracting. If it's the first time I've judged you, I'll let that stuff slide. If I judge you again and it's problematic or time-consuming, I will dock your speaks. (Does that grate against my attempts to be inclusive to all styles? Maybe. But I don't like tension with my ability to evaluate the round in a timely fashion,) I'm a big fan of debaters with swag (not to be confused with rudeness/arrogance) and I will reward it with higher speaks.  Don't know what I mean? Then you probably ain't got it...

2013 Missouri Mule