Alexis Franco - Hired IV

n/a

---

Amanda Pettigrew - MVCC

n/a

---

Amani Wazwaz - Hired IV

n/a

---

Angelica Weaver - Hired IV

n/a

---

Bill Lucio - Harper College

---

Bonnie Gabel - McHenry

Don't be technical, be structured, and ask questions that challenge. I expect the debate to have civil discourse but passionate convictions can be present. Using jargon will count against you, using language creatively (analogies/metaphors) will count in your favor.

---

Brandon Wood - COD

Did you persuade me with complete arguments? Did you make this seem like a general audience could follow and enjoy? Did you treat your opponent with respect? Did you speak passionately and compellingly? Did you not talk about the value of education? If you answer yes to all of these then you have mastered my criteria.

It is highly, highly appreciated if opponents greet each other by first or last names and I will only mark refutation on my flow if a specific name is attached to it during the constructive. Personally, I don't respond well to rhetorically being told what I have to do as a judge. This likely isn't an LD round where I'm not being shown a document of cut research that compels me have to vote for someone because of decades of debate theory. Whether it's parli or IPDA you should avoid words like, "you must", "you should strike this", "you have to vote for our side because we did this/they didn't do this", or "here is why we won". Every time I deduct 3 speaker points and will likely be unable to pay attention for approximately 30 seconds of your speech because I will be writing what I've already written here, and therefore, will not be flowing. Don't meet competitor hostility with hostility unless you want to assure a hostile ballot.

For me, arguing that something is or is not"educational" and therefore must be rejected is ultimately a weird form of hyperbole that has infected debate. Experiencing something that is unfair, like circular arguments or bad definitions, is educational. This activity makes it almost impossible to not engage in an educational experience, in the worldly sense. While I won't buy the education-has-been-removed-from-this-debate-round argument, I absolutely will accept issues regarding abusive definitions, incomplete argumentation, denial of ground, moving goal posts etc...

FAQ: Speed? = me not flowing. Jargon? = To me it creates assumed enthymemes and sloppy debate (usually). Technical elements? = will accept them as needed (in Parli). Partner communication during constructives? = Really, really dislike it now that flex time exists because it just decimates your percieved credibility in my eyes ( your ethos is the unspoken contract to accepting information at face value). Role of the judge? = Parli- Tabula Rasa , except when it comes to trichotomy. Lingusitically, resolutions come with burdens that most often are objectively implied ("should" is policy for example) as policy, value, or fact. I flow the entirety of the constructives and dropped arguments are a big deal. IPDA - I am a general audience member and enter each round with my complete knowledge as a human. I approach the resolution with an open mind and a desire to be persuaded but factual errors, fallacious argumentation, and hostile debate styles will not be flowed. I take notes that summarize the debates progress rather than the technical flow I would use for Parli/LD/CEDA.

---

Brenna Bretzinger - NIU

n/a

---

Brett Krivich - Hired IV

n/a

---

Brian Schanen - UW-W

n/a

---

Christy Carter - OCC

n/a

---

Damian Samsonowicz - MVCC

I am primarly an IE coach, but I know IPDA very well

I want good argumentation that is clear, focused, and slow. I do not want fast delivery and an overabundance of information. Keep it topical

---

David DePino - Noctrl

n/a

---

David Nadolski - OCC

First of all, I am not a fan of speed. I feel it kills the spirit of debate, has no real world practical purpose, and only exists as a form of gamesmanship. I don't like it.

First of all, I am not a fan of speed. I feel it kills the spirit of debate, has no real world practical purpose, and only exists as a form of gamesmanship. I don't like it.

Also, topicality. I don't love topicality rounds but if it is warranted go all in on it. If it is whining and excessive, you're probably not going to get my ballot. I believe in clash. I believe in being polite and practicing your ability to disagree agreeably.

I expect all competitors to keep track of their own time even though I will be mostly keeping track as well. I just like to be on the same page.

I expect all competitors to keep track of their own time even though I will be mostly keeping track as well. I just like to be on the same page.

Finally, I am absolutely not a fan of critiques. I feel like they are lazy and self absorbed. Thank feel like it goes against clash and the general spirit of debate. So if you run one, expect to not get my ballot but you never know. You'll just have to be really really making a compelling argument.

---

Diego Mateo - Noctrl

n/a

---

Eli Ballowe - Hired IV

n/a

---

Emily Leong - UW-W

n/a

---

Genco Akacik - Highland

n/a

---

Gina Jensen - Webster

n/a

---

Haley Carrero - Hired IV

n/a

---

Harry Bodell - Highland

Experience/Background: I competed for four years in Individual Events (Primarily LP and PA with an ill-fated foray or two into interp) and Parliamentary Debate, and I competed in IPDA toward the end of my college career as it was starting to catch on in Illinois. I have since coached IE, Parli and IPDA for eight years between North Central College, Northern Illinois University and Highland Community College. I have also judged Lincoln-Douglas and can get through a round, but probably won't be able to handle speed as well as more seasoned LD judges and coaches.

General Individual Events Philosophy:In general, I want you to have fun and commit to your performance in any IE -- you only get so many chances in life to perform for a "captive" audience! As long as you have fun and use your 7-10 minutes effectively, you have a shot on my ballot. That said, my general preferences (which evolve and should not be taken as gospel) by event category are:

• Interp: In Prose, I'm looking for engaging storytelling with emotional levels, narrative flow, clear cutting, etc.; In DI, I'm looking for thoughtful character development (vocal and non-verbal characterization, emotional depth) and establishment of space/scene; In Poetry, I'm looking for powerful use of physical movement and vocal rhythm to enhance the power of the language; In POI, I am looking for a strong and thoughtful argument explored through a unique combination of perspectives of stylistic difference (and clarity in blocking, characterization, cutting, etc.); In DUO, I care most about chemistry and (depending on the lit) blocking/use of space.
• Public Address:In general, I value the content of speeches over the delivery of speeches, but both are naturally important (in other words, in a tie-breaker I will default to the content/messaging). Don't sacrifice in-the-moment connectiveness for the sake of "polish". Really communicate with the audience as opposed to "at" the audience. A few event-specific notes: I'm not crazy about hand-out's in PER/STE -- feel free to use them, but they won't impact my rank; In CA, I really value the crafting of a RQ that leaves room for generalizable rhetorical conclusions and analyses that illuminate how an artifact communicates rather than whether an artifact "checks boxes A, B and C"; In STE, don't be afraid to dive into a comedic persona -- try not to sound the same tonally as you would in an Info round :)
• Limited Prep: In both LP events, I generally value analysis above all else. A well-delivered Extemp that doesn't dig far beyond the surface will not rank as highly as a "shaky" speech with really interesting/in-depth analysis. I will always prefer the impromptu speaker who makes me think about something in a new light over the speaker who takes a very common approach to an interpretation (not every prompt is about success, growth, etc.). That isn't to say that delivery isn't important -- it is, and confidence/willingness to engage/entertain in an LP event is often the difference in a tough round.

General Debate Philosophy: While I do not believe it is realistic for any judge to be truly tabula rasa (a "blank slate" as a judge), I do my best to filter my own beliefs out of debate rounds. I try to focus only on what is on the flow to the best of my ability. That said, the flow isn't the end-all-be-all in a debate. I won't give more weight to a dropped-but-inconsequential argument than I would to a strong-yet-well-refuted argument, for example. Likewise, I'm not going to give an argument that is just blatantly untrue the same weight as a well-researched/supported argument just because it is on the flow.

In general, I judge primarily on quality of argumentation and clear impacts. I will always refer to impacts to Weighing Mechanism (even in IPDA) and general impact calculus unless told to judge otherwise. If you want me to weigh the round in a particular way, tell me that and justify it to me. Always hold my hand through your impacts and explain clearly why any given argument should win you the round. Don't trust me to make connections for you.

Speed/Jargon: While I can follow speed, I don't love speed -- I think that speed-and-spread tactics are detrimental to the accessibility and growth of the activity. That won't factor into my decision if you do speed, but don't assume that I'll keep up with everything. Your first priority should be to have a good debate, not to win the debate, and a good debate requires clear communication between debaters. If your opponent is going too quickly for you to follow the debate, don't be afraid to yell "clear". If your opponent yells "clear", you should try to slow down and risk a dock on speaker points if you refuse to adapt.

As for jargon, I'm familiar with pretty much any debate terminology you may use and can probably follow along just fine (that goes for both Parli and IPDA -- see below).

Differences Between Parli and IPDA:While I recognize that IPDA emphasizes delivery as a tie-breaking factor (or, in some cases, a primary deciding factor), I frankly don't care how "well" you speak in debate as long as you make good arguments and I can follow them clearly (no need for extra flowery language, emotional delivery, introduction/conclusion, etc.). I vote on line-by-line argumentation in either style. I generally reject the "de-debatification" of IPDA. In my mind, debate is NOT just discussion - they're fundamentally different, and the event is not called International Public Discussion. I'm perfectly fine with procedural arguments (topicalities need to be run in IPDA sometimes!) and prefer to see prima facie issues established in an affirmative policy case. Don't limit the tools in your toolbox.

That said, please be respectful of different debating paradigms and styles. There is no one "right" approach to either Parli or IPDA. If you run into a clash of styles (ex: one debater believes you should use plan texts in policy IPDA rounds while the other debater believes that IPDA places less emphasis on resolution "types" and that a policy round should simply focus on clashing contentions), simply justify the value of your approach and its logical application toward enhancing the debate.

Cross-Talk in Parli:Flex time allows you to collaborate with your partner between speeches for a reason. Please don't talk to your partner or obnoxiously wave notes -- let your partner do the debating when they are the one speaking. Even novice debaters need to be able to learn to get through a speech without mid-speech guidance. As such, I will not flow any arguments that are directly provided vocally or via note by a partner who does not have the floor.

Questions and Cross-Ex:First of all, please be polite when asking questions. There's no need to get personal or confrontational. At the same time, please don't try to use questions to "suck time" from your opponent. More debating is better than less debating.

In Parli, please don't arbitrarily limit the number of questions that your opponent can ask ("I'll allow your first of two questions"). Simply adapt as necessary. If you honestly don't have time for a fourth question, politely say that and move on. (That said, you should generally have time for three questions if you manage time effectively). In Parli Flex Time, I prefer that questions asked focus on clarification ("can you repeat your tag for contention 1b?") rather than argumentative cross-examinatio questions so as to protect the right of debaters to ask questions during constructive speeches (I'm not okay with debaters saying "ask that during flex time" when a question was legally allowed to be asked during the speech).

In IPDA, I encourage debaters to use all cross-examination time and keep questions challenging-yet-polite.

Kritiks:While I understand the value in some K arguments, I generally find most K's to be pre-constructed distractions from the actual debate at hand. In other words, I'm probably not the judge to use a K with unless you have a really good justification for doing so and can articulate that justification clearly. While I recognize the need for pre-debate argumentation (topicality, etc.) in most cases, I generally want to listen to a debate about the actual topic at hand.

Roadmaps:Always on time. If you try to roadmap off time, I'll just start my timer and stop flowing once you hit your time limit.

Precision of Language: I flow and judge based on what you say, not what I think you meant to say. Be clear and accurate with language. If you say something that inadvertently supports your opponent, that's how I'll flow it!

Decorum Notes: First of all, be friendly -- let's have fun and avoid getting too heated over an educational activity. I appreciate thank you's at the start of speeches and don't consider them wastes of time. Along those lines, I value the depersonalization of argumentation. In other words, I prefer that you do not refer to opponents by name but rather by speaker position (AFF, NEG, PM, LO, etc.). While that may seem to some to strip debaters of their individual identities, I find that it actually keeps the debate focused on arguments and keeps us out of ad hominem territory (not to mention you would never see one lawyer refer to another lawyer by name in a courtroom trial -- they'd refer to "the defense" and "the prosecution", etc.). It also helps to prevent mis-gendering with inaccurate pronouns ("he/she says" assumes too much about your opponent's gender identity, "Aff/Neg says" is always acceptable). Likewise, whenever possible, please direct eye contact at the judge rather than your opponent.

Debate Pet Peeve!: Few things in debate bother me more than "You will vote X" language ("Judge, you will be voting AFF"; "Judge, you'll be voting on this point"). That just isn't a good practice inside or outside of debate (when would you ever tell a teacher/employer/etc. "you will do ____"?). It's just as easy to say, "Judge, youshould vote X". While it won't ever impact my decision, this may impact speaker points.

---

Heather Rhoades - UW-W

n/a

---

Jackson Miller - Linfield

n/a

---

Jazlyn Khan - BU

n/a

---

Jeff Stein - Hired IV

n/a

---

Jeff Przybylo - Harper College

---

Jennifer Gutierrez - Hired IV

n/a

---

Jenny Billman (She/Her) - SIC

I competed in LD and parli debate. I have coached LD, parli, and IPDA. I believe it's important to use time wisely and be respectful. I'll listen to debates on anything else.

I don't time roadmaps unless they are excessively long.

---

Jim Yeager - Hired IV

n/a

---

Jocelyn Billheimer - Hired IV

n/a

---

John Wallis - Mizzou

n/a

---

John Stanley - Noctrl

---

Joshua Green - Prairie State

In terms of debate I'm looking for well evidenced argumentation. Clearly defined adherence to structure and flow. Reasoned logical argumentation. Civility in terms of tone and delivery.

---

Joshua Kofahl - SFCC

n/a

---

Judy Santacaterina - NIU

n/a

---

Kacy Stevens - COD

I will listen to every argument a debater presents. However, as much as I try, I do find it difficult to divorce myself from my knowledge of fallacious argumentation. Thus, I tend to focus on logical links and how they tie back to the weighing mechanism of the round. If there are links to nuclear war or other hyperbolicscenariosthatare easily broken, I am unlikely to vote on such unrealistic impacts, especially if they have been delinked.

IPDA should be dramatically different than parli. When a debater turns an IPDA round into a parli round, I am likely to vote for the OTHER debater in the round. Delivery, organization, and ethos matter significantly more in IPDA than in parli.

I highly value courteous and respectful debate in both parli and IPDA. I believe strongly in the idea that one of the major distinctions between debate argumentation and "verbal fighting" is the high degree of respect debaters show each other in and out of rounds. Ethos has its place in debate and respect to others does impact ethos. I strongly believe in the distinction between fact, value, and policy resolutions. The burdens for each are vastly different and require teams to focus the debate in drastically different ways. I hold true to the idea that setting up a case using the correct resolutional type is a burden of the government team.

In voting in parli, I equally weigh prima facia issues and the weighing mechanism of the round. I expect debaters to impact their arguments directly to the weighing mechanism established in the round. IMPACT, IMPACT, IMPACT

In parli, speed sometimes occurs, but should not be relied upon. I will make it clear when the speed becomes so quick that I can no longer flow the debate by simply putting my pen down. It should be a clear nonverbal indicator to every debater that I am no longer flowing the debate because of speed, and therefore will not vote on the arguments that are not on my flow. However, I will pick back up my pen and continue flowing when the speaking rate becomes reasonable enough to flow.I also believe that speed impacts credibility. While debate relies heavily upon logos, ethos and pathos should not be ignored. Beyond speed, I also highly encourage debaters to use strong organization including, taglines, roman numerals, capital letters, etc. Labeling and numbering arguments is one of the easiest ways to ensure that both teams and the judge(s) are on the same page. Jargon alone does not make an argument; a debater's explanation of the jargon makes an argument. Jargon alone will never be voted on by me. I expect debaters to explain why the jargon is significant to the round and how it should impact my voting. Technicalities can matter but only if the debater(s) impact out why the technical elements have a bearing on the round itself. Procedural arguments are a part of debate for a reason but should not be relied upon solely to win rounds. If procedurals are present, debaters should feel free to run them and IMPACT them, but not force them to work.

---

Kevyn Sutter - Highland

I look for the following in IE: clear, concise speech, believable and natural speaking pattern, and a variety of emotion. In IPDA, I look for logical arguments delivered in respectful and courteous manners.

---

Kirsten Baity - Hired IV

n/a

---

Krischan Heitz - Highland

n/a

---

Krista Appelquist - MVCC

I am mainly an Individual Events coach but I have coached and judged parliamentary and IPDA debate in the past. I teach an argumentation course. As a debate judge, these are my values, in order of importance: CLASH, LOGIC, ORGANIZATION, and DELIVERY. I prefer the debate not get bogged down in procedural issues but if you need to call something out that's fine, let me note it, and try to run a good debate regardless.

---

Lauren Skluzacek - NIU

n/a

---

Laurie Cicotello - Hired IV

n/a

---

Liz Fritz - COD

The biggest things I look for in any type of debate:

1. Logic that is clearly linked and supported by evidence (note: evidence, not just sources).

2. Arguments that are impacted back to the resolution/weighing mechanism.

3. Direct clash/direct responses to opponents arguments.

4. Respect to each other and the round.

Things that do not bode well with me:

1. Hostility towards opponent(s). Yes, even if they started it. If you respond to hostility with hostility, then you will receive a hostile ballot.

2. Telling me I have to do something (That is why AFF wins/that is why you should vote for AFF - fine; that is why you must vote for AFF/why NEG must lose - nope)

3. Trying to use what are courtesies, not rules, as reasons why your opponent should lose.

4. Lying about facts/statistics/evidence. I wont always know if you are lying, but you dont know when I know you are. So dont.

I will gladly consider all arguments brought to the flow in both IPDA and parli, but they must have a reason for being there. If you do not explain the reason for an argument and why it matters to the debate (top of case issues, non-unique, etc. ESPECIALLY) then it is like they do not exist.

Ultimately, this is your debate. I want to give both sides the room to be able to create argumentation unique to the topic and round. Just keep it civil, logical, and on topic.

---

Lydia Garcia - MVCC

n/a

---

Mandela Okere - DePaul

Mandela Okere

IPDA Judging Philosophy

• IPDA debaters should prioritize dialogue and contextual responses over confusing their opponent with word games in a round and expecting to win on a technicality. Dialogue here means you may never fully agree with your opponent, but you can understand and explain how their position is less preferable than yours.
• Though the IPDA Constitution and Bylaws do not explicitly require the use of sources, I believe that good arguments are supported by some kind of evidence; empirical, conceptual, or researched evidence is all acceptable.
• The wording of the resolution is important to the way the debate turns out and its important that your advocacy or negation considers the resolution and how your opponent is interacting with the resolution. Make sure that your advocacy is in line with the wording of the resolution
• Please treat your opponent with the utmost respect. I basically want the opposite of a policy debate round, so please leave the crushing desire to obliterate your opponents every word at the door. This activity is hard and were doing as much as we can to improve every round.

---

Margaret Bilos - Harper College

---

Matt DuPuis - NIU

n/a

---

Mia Poston - COD

n/a

---

Missee Foster - Hired IV

n/a

---

Natalie Jurcik - MVCC

I competed in Interp and have judged Limited Prep. So, for IPDA, I'm looking for clear, organized, cited, and intentional arguments/points. I want to see how each point reflects or supports your answer to the question. Be concise and clear. Please do not use debate jargon or tell me who should win the round. I don't appreciate being petty, rude, or condescending. However, I enjoy when competitors have fun, are passionate, speak clearly, and have well thought our arguments.

---

Panshula Ganeshan - Hired IV

n/a

---

Rachel Parish (She/Her) - SIC

I approach IPDA from the perspective of a non-debate judge. I believe the event should be able to call without the knowledge of jargon or formal debate mechanics. The best argument will win every time and I do not reward technicalities.

---

Rizamae Enriques - Hired IV

n/a

---

Sarah Metivier Schadt - McHenry

Be CLEAR and ORGANIZED. Don't just throw a jumble of arguments and facts at me and expect me to sort it out. Be systematic and intentional about how you lay out your case. Talk to me like a human being. Jargon is a big minus.

---

Sarah Nail - SFCC

n/a

---

Stefani Epifanio - CLC

n/a

---

Stephanie McFann - Hired IV

n/a

---

Steve Robertson - Contra Costa

Steve Robertson

Contra Costa College, Director of Forensics

Years competed:1 yr LD (high school), 4.5 years NDT/CEDA (college)

Years coaching: 25+ years (middle school, high school, college - LD, parli, NDT/CEDA, IPDA)

Philosophy - The round is for you to convince me why your side should win the debate. try to be as non-interventionist as I can be. I work off the flow, focusing on your claims, warrants, and evidence. Believability is also a factor. I find it very difficult to vote for arguments that I don't understand how they work or function. So be sure to explain why things are the way they are. Compare impacts, and explain why your impacts/argument outweigh or should be viewed as more important than theirs. The main point is that you need to justify your position to me: what is your argument, why is it legitimate, and why does that matter in light of the other side's arguments. If you can adequately answer those three questions better than the other side, you should win the argument.

I punish non-responsiveness - meaning that if you drop or undercover arguments, they suddenly get much more weight in the round (especially if exploited by the other team). However, if you under-develop your arguments (such as blipping out theory pre-empts without justifying them), it doesn't take much to respond to these arguments.

I also communicate through nonverbals. If you see me nodding, then that means I understand your position (not necessarily agree with it, but I get what you're saying). If you see me cocking my head to the side or scrunching up my face, it means I don't get what you're saying or I don't understand your argument or I don't see why it's relevant. If you see that face, you should either give more explanation (until you see a head nod) or cut your losses and move onto another argument. If you see my hands in the air, that means I don't know where you are on the flow. You should give me a signpost, because I'm currently not flowing you.

Here are some event-specific concerns:

Parli- Debate starts at the highest point of conflict. I will listen to arguments of trichot/type of resolution, though if the tournament identifies it as a particular type of resolution this becomes a bit more difficult.

I don't care about partner to partner communication. However, if it's done during the other team's speech, then mute yourselves from this 8x8 (e.g., chat privately, mute yourselves and talk in another venue, etc.). Don't disrupt the other speaker.

If you want to give your partner advice or arguments, that's fine as well. There are 2 things to be aware of: First, I only listen to what the speaker says. So if you tell your partner something, it doesn't reach my flow until the current speaker says it. Saying "yeah, what she said" will get onto my flow as "yeah, what she said" - not the actual argument. Second, the more you parrot or puppet your partner, the lower your speaker points will become. This is purely subjective on my part, so use at your own peril.

Finally, parli has the Point of Order. I will not protect against new arguments or other rules violations (unless specified to do so in the tournament rules). Use this if applicable. Frivolous use of it, however, will desensitize me to it.

LD- You have the obligation to provide evidence in this debate. Please do so. Referencing evidence that has not been read in the debate will carry the same weight as an assertion for me.

For me, reading the source (publication title and/or authors' last names) and date is sufficient for citations, provided that all additional information is provided on the card's citation itself. If you want to run an official rules violation on this in front of me, I will entertain it, but realize I am disinclined to vote evidence or a debater down if that information is available on the card. Doesn't mean you can't win it, just that it'll be an uphill battle.

Realize that while underlining and highlighting are acceptable ways of modifying evidence for a round, ellipses, unreadable font size, or gaps in text are unacceptable.

IPDA- IPDA is more of a communication event than a debate for me. It is NOT treated the same as parli. I do not flow, but take a very limited amount of notes. Eloquence factors into the decision for me. I think of this as a townhall meeting, closer to interactive persuasion than debate. Avoid debate jargon, extensive line by line analysis, and other more traditional debate tactics. This is about persuasion, not strict argumentation. Think of debating in front of your grandmother, not a debate judge.

Bottom line - make good arguments, offer clash, give impact calculus/comparison, and be civil to one another. Oh...and have fun! :)

---

Taure Shimp - MJC

ALL DEBATE EVENTS

Everyone in the room is here to learn, develop skills, and have a good time. Treating one another with a sense of humanity is really important to me as a coach, judge, and audience member. Debate is invigorating and educational, but I only enjoy it when a positive communication climate between participants is the foundation.

IPDA

I hope to see clear contentions that include cited evidence and well-developed warrants. Debaters should utilize ethos/pathos/logos appeals throughout to demonstrate well-rounded speaking abilities. I expect IPDA debates to be accessible to lay audiences. This means maintaining a conversational rate of speech, avoiding unnecessary jargon, and presenting arguments that engage in a clear way with the resolution.

PARLI

Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. Things I value in this event include courteous treatment of all participants, conversational rate of speech, and sign-posting on all arguments. Do your best to make the impact calculus really clear throughout but especially rebuttals. Of course I'll do my best to consider whatever arguments you choose to present in the round, but if you have any pity in your heart please don't run Kritiks. Feel free to communicate with your partner, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says during their allotted time.

LD

Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. It's important to me that rate of speech remain more conversational. I want to understand and consider the arguments you present to the full extent possible and this is hard for me when the rounds get fast. I usually appreciate being able to view debaters' evidence on something like Speech Drop, but please don't expect that I am reading along word for word with you. Otherwise, I appreciate courtesy between opponents; clear sign-posting; and impact analysis that makes my job as easy as possible.

Thanks and I'm looking forward to seeing you all in-round!

---

Taylor Corlee - SBU

n/a

---

Tim Anderson - ECC

I am not a debate judge, and when I do judge debate, it is usually IPDA. Because IPDA is "public debate", someone with no debate experience should be able to take part and someone with no judging experience should be able to decide the winner.

IPDA debaters in my rounds should approach the debate as a conversation. Eliminate definition of things that don't really need them (like, we all know what "the Oscar's" are or what a "hamburger" is, so you don't need to define it).

I believe that the use of jargon and debate procedurals should be non-existent. While I have limited debate experience from my time competing and coaching, trying to win a round by trying to prove "my opponent didn't do blah blah so I win" won't win me over. I don't flow your arguments...if they are clear, I should be able to follow. Overall, I view IPDA as the kind of debate I would see in a classroom setting. As opposed to one side trying to prove why the other chose the wrong weighing mechanism, an incorrect definition, etc. just talk like two students in a classroom debate would. Think about it: if you were in a classroom debate and started all in on weighing mechanisms, defining everything, and downing your opponent, you'd be the jerk in class no one wants to work with. Also, don't tell me how I need to vote a round (i.e., "my opponent didn't do x, so you HAVE TO give the round to the affirmative"...No...I don't. The final choice is mine to make, so present your best cases and let me make the final ballot.

I also find IPDA to be more fun and enjoyable when sides actually refute the other and stay "on case" the entire time. Otherwise, it's just two ships passing in the night.

Also, I don't like thank you's at the beginning of rounds. They end up sounding sarcastic. And, don't refer to your opponent as "my opponent". They have a name that is part of their identity...call them that.

I take these same ideas with me when judging any form of debate.

---

Tom Tinman - Hired IV

n/a

---

Tom Serfass - Webster

n/a

---

Vance Pierce - UIC

n/a

---

Zakhary Taylor - SBU

n/a

---

kate Knuth - Hired IV

n/a

---