FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

zz-bye

n/a

zz-bye

n/a

zz-bye

n/a

Aaron Trembath - Purdue

Adam Blood - UCM

Adam Olds - Boise State

Ali Small - Ottawa

n/a

Allan Axibal-Cordero - Chapman

n/a

Amanda Lovelace -

Speak clearly and if you argue topicality...do so and then move on. Use stock issues as core arguments but also be able to expound. Be respectful and have fun.

Amanda (Ataiyan) Stauder - McKendree

Section 1: General Information I debated policy and public forum in high school for four years, debated four years for McKendree doing Parli and some LD. I coached at McKendree for three years before beginning coaching at a local high school last year. Speed –I am competent at flowing debates but admit that I am a little less in the know about current issues and slower in terms of speed than I was when I was still debating. If I can’t understand you or you’re going too fast I will let you know. If I’m confused about a position I will look confused. On critical arguments go slower. I generally protect the PMR but just in case I miss something you should call points of order if you think the argument will matter in the decision for the round. Points of order and of inquiry are not your speech time and not a time to make an argument-- they are for question asking or to challenge whether an argument is new. If someone says no to a question do not just talk loudly over them and ask anyway/comment on the round. Disadvantages- do the impact calculus work in the rebuttals and make sure that the rebuttals include explicit extensions of the position you want me to vote on. Politics- I do not follow domestic politics closely if at all. I do not know which senator is from where and what they think. I did debate in college and have a political science degree so you don’t have to dumb things down, just make sure to clearly explain your story and why points matter on politics disadvantages. Section 2: Specific Inquiries Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? I try to give the median of speaker points. Higher if you really impress me, lower if you are really offensive or particularly bad at speaking. Stuttering, disorganization, and a lack of understanding about how positions interact will also not be good for your speaker points. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I didn’t read critiques when I debated but I think I am more critical argument friendly than I was a few years ago, though they are not my favorite. I do not understand nor do I have a background in post-modern literature and the jargon does not make sense to me. Say critical things and use regular words and I should be more than able to follow along. Explain a voting rational for critical arguments over the others in the debate to help me construct a decision for one. Critical affirmatives I like less- I think you should affirm the resolution. I am likely to not vote for performance affs and really critical affirmatives- it will be an uphill battle for you and probably not bode well for your speaker points. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I view topicality in terms of competing interpretations- standards claims with impacts to education or ground I find much more compelling that abuse claims and reverse voters, though I’m sure most people feel this way. In-round abuse not necessary but you do need to articulate what, as the negative, what you do not get access to in the world of your interpretation and then why I should care (ie how it affects debate, education, ground, etc). For affs, you have to have a clear and supported counter interp and your own counterstandards if you want me to not vote negative. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms – textual competition ok? functional competition? PICS are okay, specify the status of the CP so we’re all on the same page from the beginning, not voting for the CP means just that- I can still vote negative on other arguments in the debate. Reading CP with K’s is okay but you should not go for a combination of those. You can run a K and a CP but you need to pick one in the MO and adequately kick the other which means you have to answer the offense first of course. CP theory I understand but am not particularly opinionated about. Keeping theory arguments to a minimum is probably best thought sometimes they are warranted when you’re caught off guard or the CP is actually really abusive. Theory arguments are okay but I am more reluctant to vote on them. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? Topicality is first, then kritiks, then CP/DA/Aff. The order of priority is also up for debate. Framework arguments indicate how to evaluate the kritik verses the aff. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? When not explicitly weighted by the debaters- people dying outweighs human rights abuses. Human rights abuses are the “root to all violence ever” without examples and as a blanketed claim will not get you far with me. Concrete impacts are preferable but some topics lend themselves more readily to arguments about human rights. Which is more important is up for debate and dependent on the context, and resolution, those arguments are made in.

Amorette Hinderaker - UK

n/a

Andrea Carlile - SDSU

n/a

Andrew Moffitt - Lower Columbia

Andy Rapp - Northwood

n/a

Andy Luster - McNeese State

n/a

Anthony Wachs - Northern

n/a

April Rives -

Speak ckearly and if argue topicality...do so and then move on. Use stock issues as core arguments but also be able to expound. Be respectful and have fun.

Art Rennels - UCM

Barbara Harmon - KWU

I have judged individual events and debate for a long time.  I still consider myself as a novice judge in that I am not an expert on the language and theory involved.  I have heard a lot of excellent presentations in every event and and have a good idea of what a good presentation should sound like.  I enjoy this activity.

Ben Larsen - Boise State

Beth Hewes - CSI

n/a

Brea Morris - SBU

n/a

Breana Fausett - USU

n/a

Brian Swafford - Northwest MO

n/a

Brian Powell - Transy

n/a

Cale Andrews - FC

n/a

Cami Sanderson - FSU

n/a

Caroline Atkins -

Cary Chavis - Wiley

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>

Chad Rogers - William Carey

n/a

Chatinoda Tinago - William Carey

n/a

Chiwoneso Tinago - William Carey

n/a

Chris Medina - Wiley

Chris Leland - CCU

Debate has always been and always will be an academic lab for the articulation of good argumentation.  I have competed, judged and coached programs at the university level in IE, CEDA, NDT and Parli.  As such I am not a novice to debate, but I am relatively new to some forms of theoretical arguments and especially the more recent lingo that surrounds them.  I have been out of coaching for 14 years, but have been putting into practice the debate skills in the public forum against philosophers, theolgians, cultural critics, politicians, free thinkers, etc.  So I have seen what debate does in the "real world."  As such I am not yet convinced that some of the culture of debate doesn't force us into a box that is really pretty particular to our little world.  I say that to say,  I am not opposed to T or "Kritique" (which I guess is the hip postmodern spelling) or any other theoretical arguments but I can say I would much rather see clearly articulated and communicated arguments that are well constructed and well thought out.  It is fair to say I have a much higher threshold for those types of arguments.  Debate, I recognize, is also about strategy, but not at the expense of solid argumentation.  Having coached CEDA and NDT and now Parli for the last couple of years, I can flow.  Have to use my glasses to see what I wrote, which is different from the good ol' days, but ...  I will say that the thing that has shocked me the most this year is the casual way in which language is thrown around.  I fully don't expect it at this tournament, but there is no room in academic debate (even with the idea of free speech in  mind) for foul language.  It is unprofessional and rude.  Might be considered cool for some, but it is not accepted in any of the professions for which we are training up this group to move onto in the future.  Otherwise, I am excited to be back in the debate realm the last couple of years.   Chris Leland, Ph.D. Asst. VP for Academic Affairs, Professor of Communication & Director of Debate Colorado Christian University

Christi Siver - CSBSJU

n/a

Christopher Hunt - SDSU

n/a

Christy Bowman - Boise State

Chuck Rogers - William Carey

n/a

Clara Adkins - Marshall

n/a

Clayton Dodds - OU

n/a

Clint Jones - Transy

n/a

Crystal Coel Coleman -

Dan West - Ohio U

n/a

Dan Higgins - Heidelberg

n/a

Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia

Dr. Dan Schabot Lower Columbia College Years Debating: 5 total (1 years NFL LD; 4 years CEDA/NDT ) Years Coaching/Judging: 15 Total (2 years CEDA/NDT; 13 Years NPDA)   General Philosophy: Each team should make good (well supported and well-reasoned) arguments and clash with each other. I prefer 2 or 3 in depth positions to 5 or 6 blipped positions.   Specifics: Affirmative teams:  At this point in my judging life I am no longer interested in listening to debates that do not at least make an attempt to address the topic in the resolution.  You can run any position you want as long as you explain why what you are arguing deals with the topic.   Negative Teams:  I also feel that negative teams have the responsibility to address affirmative arguments as well as presenting their own.  Positions just run for the sake of filling time (such as generic T) have little weight with me.  Each position should be part of a coherent strategy to win.   Speed and Presentation:  If you feel the need to go fast that is fine.  However, running a bunch of positions just so you can go fast is useless.  Speed as a strategy (in and of itself) will not be rewarded.     RFD:  My preferences are listed above.  I have and will vote for just about any argument type. A team must clearly explain why their advocacy is superior to other team’s advocacy to win a round.

Danny Ray - Marshall

n/a

Darrell Farmer - UNL

n/a

Darren Valenta - Linfield

n/a

Dave Smith -

David Bailey - SBU

n/a

David Brennan - Wartburg

n/a

David Childers - MHCC

David Trumble - St. Anselm

n/a

Deanna Graves - William Carey

n/a

Deion Hawkins - Marshall

n/a

Dennis Waller - NNU

n/a

Derrick Reed - Morehouse

n/a

Destiny Moore - UNG

n/a

Doni Dilworth - Hillsdale

n/a

Dylan Clark - Truman

Ed Hinck - CMU

n/a

Ed Hoff - U of Houston

n/a

Eli Brennan - TCC

n/a

Frankie Glennis - Southern Miss

n/a

Garret Castleberry - OU

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.

Geoff Klinger - DePauw

n/a

Gregory Owen - CMU

n/a

Hannah Durbin -

Hope Morris - William Carey

n/a

Jackson Miller - Linfield

n/a

Jacob Stutzman - OKCU

22 years in debate, HS policy, NFA-LD, but mostly NPDA (judging for the last 14 years).  This year I’ve been in tab a lot, so I haven’t judged many rounds. I want the debaters to decide the form and substance of the round.  I’m not opposed to any particular argument or strategy that you feel fits the purpose of the debate. Framework debates are good, but rarely dispositive. Absent a specified framework for viewing the round, I default to whatever makes it easiest for me to render a decision. I get very frustrated by debaters who do not think their way through the round. This shows up when debaters don’t make connections between positions or go after obvious deficits in the other team’s arguments. If you can’t compare solvency of the plan vs. the CP or give me specific link analysis on the K, then something is wrong. On the flip side, debaters who do those things usually make it easy for me to vote for them. Smart debaters are the ones who take the easy ways out of the round. I’d like a copy of plan and CP/alt text. Perm text too, if possible. I tend to prioritize probability in impacts, so tell the better story on your positions. Regardless of how fast you’re going, I’ll let you know if you’re not clear. Please take into consideration the size and shape of the room and any other atmospheric factors that may complicate my hearing you. I prefer that you only call points of order on arguments that are likely to be very important to my decision. Calling points simply to disrupt the speaker or to contest minor arguments will be given very little leeway before I start docking speaker points. Absent punishment for that sort of stuff, exclusive language, or otherwise improper behavior toward your opponents, speaker points are usually 25-29, very rarely above that, and are decided based on the amount of enjoyment I get out of your participation in the debate round. Make smart choices and explain those choices to me well, and you’ll come in at the top of that scale. Don’t assume I know your lit on the K. Explain the warrants to me and make the links very explicit.

Jacqueline Bavier - Bloomsburg

n/a

Jamie Moshin - Marietta

n/a

Janis Crawford - Butler

n/a

Jason Edgar - Crowder

n/a

Jeanna Graves - William Carey

n/a

Jeff Stoppenhagen - Boise State

Jenna Currie-Mueller - NDSU

n/a

Jennifer Talbert - William Carey

n/a

Jennifer Ell - Northern

n/a

Jeremy Hutchins - Tx State

n/a

Jim Poston - CWI

Jim Evans - UAM

n/a

Joel Anguiano - EPCC

n/a

John Schultz - Purdue

John Stanley - North Central

John Boyer - Lafayette

n/a

John Spears - North Central

John Hansen - EWC

Debate / Judging Philosophy - John A. Hansen My philosophy of debate is constantly evolving or devolving depending upon your locus of control within the continuum.  Philosophically I think in order to understand my orientation you have to understand my background of debate and experience.  I’ve been associated with debate for nearly 20-years; I started as an old school Lincoln Douglas debater (value / criteria) from there I transitioned to CEDA and NDT, and now coach NPDA and IPDA. Each format has revealed nuances about argumentation and theory and allowed me to refine my views on what ‘debate is.’ The overarching ‘rule’ I ascribe to debate, is the notion of reciprocity meaning that if neg wishes to disco, dispo, challenge on multiple levels, etc. Aff is also able to engage within the same constructs to challenge the negatives suppositions.  Inherently debate introduces strategy into a normative oppositional framework; hence, I am open to speed, jurisdiction, the K, framework conditionality / dispositionality, etc.  Each strategy bends the goal of communication and have their own inherent strengths and weaknesses and just because I am o.k. with the bleeding edge of speed doesn’t mean that I am not sympathetic to a critique of said strategy.  This dichotomy is emblematic of my views on debate, I think its important to try new forms of argument/strategy but be mindful of how such constructs are impacted by reciprocity. My debate philosophy has transitioned beyond the tabula rasa judge because (literally not all arguments are equal {‘racism good’ never a ‘good idea’} and I am incapable of subjugating all past experiences) into viewing the communication medium as Habermas does- one whereby individuals evaluate their motives amongst the technical, the practical, and the emancipatory.  Each of these categories demarcate debate theory and communicative action and provide a scaffold for understanding our own constructions. Please impact your arguments, weigh the round, provide judging / evaluative standards and be respectful of one another. Regards, Hansen

John Mikolajcik - MCC - LV

n/a

John Price - Truman

n/a

Johnny Rowing - CWI

General Comments - Across Styles I will generally prefer Aff framework. I believe they have the peragotive to frame the round. They must do so fairly and in a predictable fashion. Signpost your argumentation. Help me to flow by telling me what you are entering/answering. Listen. I want you to honor your opponent by giving ear to their thoughts and arguments. On a related note, I do not like it when your arguments are mischaracterized (straw man).  Please sum up the round for me in 3-4 big picture/summation voters. I will do my level best to vote based solely upon what the summation speeches tell me to vote on.   IPDA I appreciate creative opens/salutations and courtesy. Be kind and considerate to one another. Unless the aff framework is wanky . . . I expect us to debate under their framework. It bothers me when we don't. I don't like C/Ps. If we are running a policy resolution . . . I prefer Harms Plan Solvency Advantages as the stock issues framework. I don't understand Uniqueness - Link - Impact as acceptable framework for a policy res. Please make sure that you define and describe your weighing mechanism (WM) for the round and . . . please frame your argumentation around that WM. Don't tell me this is the WM and then never mention it again until your final speech.    NPDA Open - Junior If you are a junior and/or open level NPDA debater . . . I doubt that you will like me.  I am more of a Comms judge. I do not like excessive speed. I do not like K's. I really dislike Affirmative K's. I don't like unnecessary Topicality, etc. I really prefer for issues to be explored rather than generic philosophical questions or debating about debate styles. T - I won't vote on potential abuse. I need to see actual in round ground loss.  So - if you draw me - I expect less speed (I drop my pen when you are too fast). I expect the issues to be described. I expect jargon to be defined. Novice Novice level NPDA debaters may find me as a more satisfactory judge. I don't believe K's should be ran at the Novice level. I can usually help novice debaters improve through comments on structure and the implications of D/As to case - presumption - solvency attacks - etc.    BP I will most likely be in the wing, if I am a BP judge. I have very little experience in this style. But, we now have 2 teams competing in this style and I would love to serve on a panel. Big picture - I prefer for this style to be considerate and I put an emphasis on unique contributions to the round both in the manner in which points are rebutted and the manner in which unique positive argumentation is offered.

Jordan Compton - Ohio U

n/a

Jorji Jarzbek - William Carey

n/a

Jory Baker - Northwest MO

n/a

Joseph LeJuine - McNeese State

n/a

Judy Santacaterina - NIU

n/a

Justin Rudnick - Ohio U

n/a

Kaleb Jessee - WKU

Kat Sillonis - IDAHO

Keith Bistodeau - NDSU

n/a

Keith Milstead - UAM

n/a

Kelsey Hockenberger - West Chester

n/a

Ken Newby - Morehouse

n/a

Kevin Doss - Lamar - Orange

n/a

Kim Runnion - Lafayette

n/a

Kim Bridges -

Konye Ori - IUPUI

Kory Anderson - Truman

n/a

Kris Stroup - Wiley

n/a

Lauren Lupkowski - Butler

n/a

Leah Frey - Ottawa

n/a

Leah Smith -

Lee Nave - Ottawa

n/a

Letha Quinn - NNU

n/a

Lisa Roth - NIU

n/a

Lisa Stoppenhagen - Boise State

Liz Kinnaman - MHCC

Mae Pierce - Butler

n/a

Maria Mangus - CWI

Mark Hickman - West Chester

n/a

Mark Dorrough - Chapman

n/a

Mark Fokken - SMSU

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.

Marshall Most - Boise State

Matt Prihoda - Ottawa

n/a

Matt Johnson - FC

n/a

Matt Lenell - CCU

I’m a recent graduate serving as an assistant coach, with 5 years competition experience in high school and collegiate debate. As with anyone recently changing sides at a tournament, I understand the difficulty arising from the vast differences in judging paradigms. I’ll listen to any reasonably sound arguments you want to make, but I do judge through the lens of logic.   Don’t make up facts; I’ll probably know…   I tend to be mostly flow based and tabula rasa when I can stifle my personal opinion. Sarcasm is acceptable, and persuasion is a must. I will vote on whatever criteria and voters you offer within reason. Whatever you do, don’t run a procedural half-heartedly. Example: NEG offers T and claims education as a standard/ voter, NEG then proceeds to adapt DA’s to apply to on case; BAD IDEA, you just delinked your own T. Debate lingo is fine. Spread debating is not. I’m looking for quality ideas. Adding metaphors to explain link stories is also a plus.   Any other paradigm Q’s may be asked in round.   ML

Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale

n/a

Matthew Warner - Hillsdale

n/a

Matthew Compton - IDAHO

Meredith Peters - Hillsdale

n/a

Michael Brooks - UTEP

I believe debate can most effectively be thought of as a communication event; as such, ideas and arguments in a debate round become most accessible and finally, most persuasive,  if stated clearly, utilizing a comprehensible rate of speed  and without undue dependence on jargon.  Clear signposting and effective organization throughout the debate enhances the clarity of argument.  Consistent signposting creates a clean flow, with major arguments prominent in the mind of your judges.  I tend to vote on the flow.  I’m open to any strategy as long as it is explained well, organized clearly and makes sense.  I use a tabula rasa approach as a judge, so don’t worry about what I may or may not believe in re whatever proposition is being debated, or what rhetorical strategies and/or debate conventions you choose to utilize.   I enjoy a well-crafted and intellectually satisfying argument on any topic, from any viewpoint.  Clash is the heart of debate, so keep on point.   Please remember the value of transitions reinforcing the organization you’ve established throughout the round, and don’t forget to spend appropriate time on summary, most specifically in rebuttals.  A strong rebuttal traces the evolution of the most important arguments used in the debate, showing how and why your version of the proposition should prevail.  I do caution you against the use of offensive language or actual rudeness toward your opponents.  NPDA debate should be an exercise not only in communication, but in the practice of good ethics in this formalized and rather ritualistic exchange of ideas.  Wit and humor are appreciated, if you have the occasion to use such strategies.

Michael Marse - CBU

I am a traditional debate theorist.  I have coached and competed in Parli, NFA L/D, and CEDA for more than fifteen years.  I have been a DoF and taught Argumentation full time for 10 years. What I do not like: Kritiks - I have never voted for a K, because nearly every one I have ever heard is a non-unique DA dressed up in the shabby clothes of an intellectual argument.   Topical Counterplans - I have a resolutional focus, not a plan focus.  If the neg. goes for a topical counterplan, I vote in affirmation of the resolution regardless of who "wins" the debate. Speed - Going faster than quick conversational rate robs the activity of many of its educational outcomes, though not all.  It is good for winning in some instances, bad for education in many others.  Therefore I will allow you to go as fast as you would like, but I will vote quickly on any claim of abuse on speed.  Asking a question in the round like, "Do you mind speed?" in such a way as to really ask, "Are you going to be a stupid judge?" is going to annoy me.  The emperor has no clothes, many debaters are afraid to say anything for fear of looking stupid in rounds.  Same goes for most judges who are proud of their ability to flow quickly.  The best you can do if you spread in a round is to win with very low points. What I do like: Topicality Arguments - The deeper into linguistic philosophy, the better.  Have bright lines, don't kick-out of T without demonstrating how they have truly clarified their position since the 1st Aff. speech.  Otherwise, it is a timesuck and I will vote on abuse in those instances.  My opinion on T comes from my resolutional focus.  I don't believe it is good debate theory to argue that the affirmative plan replaces the resolution, since that would lead to more pre-written cases and a devaluing of the breadth of knowledge required to be an excellent citizen after graduation. Negative going for a win on stock issues - If it's a policy round and the negative wins (not mitigates, but wins outright) any stock issue, they win. Collegiality - I believe in debate as a tool of clarity and invitational rhetoric.  If you are mean, or deliberately use a strategy to confuse, you will lose.  Common examples are affirmatives not taking any questions to clarify on plan text in Parli, using unnecessarily academic terms without given adequate synonyms, etc.  If you win on the flow, but demonstrate unethical practices, you lose in life and on my ballot. To conclude: The proper metaphor for debate is not "a game", but is instead "a laboratory".  The laboratory is looking to achieve truth, and have proven methods for getting there.  We should be experimenting, and in some cases pushing boundaries.  We must also be able to deal with the failures that sometime come with those experiments.  The point of debate is not to win rounds, but to produce good people who know how to think and speak effectively after they graduate. Please feel free to ask and question to clarify these statement, or anything I might have missed.

Michael Tweedy - Northwest MO

n/a

Michelle Bennett - CWI

Mike Fain - U of Houston

n/a

Nancy Jackson - Marshall

n/a

Natalie Ellis -

Natalie Reeves - MCC - LV

n/a

Nathan Ross - SBU

n/a

Neil Strine - Bloomsburg

n/a

Nicci Knouse - Elgin

n/a

Nick Prephan - Marshall

n/a

Nick Kwolek - Purdue

Nicole Autry - NIU

n/a

Nigel Haarstad - UK

n/a

Norell Conroy - Boise State

I've been involved in forensics/parli for five years. I prefer real-world probability over magnitude in impact calculus, even when faced with systemic v. hypothetical if the arguments are well-warrented.  I think the k debate can be super interesting.  I will probably only vote on t if you demonstrate actual in-round abuse--most t debates are less interesting/important than others. Call points of order. Speed is fine, but to a point.  If I can't understand you, I will make it clear.  At that point, if you do not slow down so I can understand you, that is bad for you because I vote based on what is on my flow.  Also, if you don't say something, I won't write it for you--that is, I will (to the best of my ability) not intervene--however, I will hold you accountable if you make offensive claims for the sake of winning (i.e. anything advocating for things like genocide, rape, etc. because you think such an argument functions in a compelling way--in front of me, it doesn't)   Courtesy and civility are vital to this activity. You will lose if you are outwardly rude or uncivil.  Sass and humor are swell, being purposefully mean-spirited is not.

Patrick Richey - MTSU

n/a

Paul Hale - KWU

Paul Wesley Alday - BGSU

n/a

Penni Pier - Wartburg

n/a

Raven Mineo - Transy

n/a

Rebecca Godsey - SBU

n/a

Robert Markstrom - McNeese State

n/a

Ron Bronson - EWC

Background: I competed in parliamentary debate at Washington University in St. Louis and revived the debate programs at Monmouth College & Knox College in Illinois. I competed at NPDA nationals twice and organized the first midwest tour of the Oxford Debate Union, also competing against the English during that time. I co-founded the Central Debate Conference, a former confederation of liberal arts college programs throughout the midwest. I'm in my 2nd year coaching parli at Eastern Wyoming College, though my day job is actually as the college's digital strategist. You'd be safer thinking of me as a lay judge with insider knowledge into the activity than a formal debate judge. Approach to judging: I tend to view debate as a game and enjoy fun debates where teams are matching wits up against a topic. The key is people actually knowing what they’re talking about or sounding like it. Nothing frustrates me more than hearing people spew on misrepresenting an issue wildly for 45 minutes.  That being said, it’s your round. Impacts are fine, but I like things to be weighed. My opinion shouldn’t matter as much as your arguments and I don’t make a habit of inserting myself into rounds. I want debate with warrants and substance and strongly prefer debate that’s clear and persuasive over speedy drivel, but will vote for the latter so long as it gets the job done.   Counterplans are fine and DAs are super so long as each one of them doesn’t result in nuclear war. I’ve got a strong public policy background and so, it’s often hard to be tabula rasa when people get up and say wildly ridiculous things (though I’ll vote for it if the other team leaves it on the flow untouched.) Long story short is: Know what you’re talking about. I don’t expect you to speak with the breadth of a Ph.D., but I do expect both teams to understand the case they’re running at some base level.    Splitting the block is cool with me. I abhor tricotomy, run it at your own risk.

Ron Price - IDAHO

Background: Did policy and LD in high school. Debated for Boise State. Have been the assistant coach for C of I for the past 8 yrs. Have been involved with this activity for the past 15 yrs or so. Please make your arguments logical and cohesive. Ok with speed, but if you are not organized or clear then your arguments may get “lost” somewhere and it’s up to you to “find” them again. Will vote on Topicality; include standards, voters, etc. Ok with critical arguments but make sure your advocacy doesn’t contradict itself. Make sure your links story is solid. A to B to C works, but A to B to Z is a no go.  Have a plausible link/ impact story (not everything has to lead to or end in nuke war and extinction). Also not a huge fan of morally repugnant arguments (i.e. all gays will psychologically damage their children when raising them) so don’t make them.   Hmmm, so basically I will vote on the most convincing and logical arguments you present in the round so make smart choices and arguments, have fun and we’ll see what happens on the flow.

Russ Luce - Truman

n/a

Ryan Louis - Ottawa

n/a

Ryan Clark - BHSU

n/a

Sabrina Wittekind - Marietta

n/a

Sam Pagano - Boise State

Samantha Timbrook - Crowder

n/a

Sarah Collins - Cameron

n/a

Scott Thomson - Ithaca

n/a

Scott Wells - SCSU

n/a

Sean Allen - Wiley

Shandra Naegle - Boise State

Shawnee' Biggerstaff - CSUSB

n/a

Shea Holland - UCM

Spencer Waugh - Simpson College

Stephen Rhinehart - CWI

Steve Hagan - McKendree

Susan Miskelly - Bridgewater

n/a

T. J. Lakin - FSU

n/a

Tabitha Miller - IDAHO

Experience: Current: Interim DOF at The College of Idaho Former: Director of High School Forensics, Skyview & Nampa High Schools, ID (4 years) Assistant Director at The College of Idaho (4 years) Competed in Collegiate Parliamentary Debate and in IEs for The College of Idaho and the College of Southern Idaho   Information: I am open to all arguments as long as they are justified, warranted and sufficiently impacted. I have no preconceived notions that certain “types” of arguments are illegitimate in a debate round.   In my opinion, impact calculus should include sufficient analysis of the links and probability as well as magnitude of the impact. I am disinclined to believe an argument which claims, “you have to vote for us if you believe that there is even a .00000000000001 chance of our impact occurring”. Spend your time making sure your links and internal links are specific to the case/kritik and offer as much analysis as possible.

Terrence Muse - Wiley

n/a

Terry Nelson - NECC

n/a

Thomas Holt - Hillsdale

n/a

Thomas Duke - William Carey

n/a

Thomas Chacon - CSUSB

n/a

Tiffany Tucker - UAM

n/a

Tim Anderson - Elgin

n/a

Timothy Bill - UK

Timothy Vaughan - St. Anselm

n/a

Todd Rainey - Wiley

Tom Preston - UNG

n/a

Tom Worthen - USU

n/a

Tomeka Robinson - Marietta

n/a

Trenton Garber - Ottawa

n/a

Veronica Fischer - SMSU

n/a

Vicki Crooks - Ohio U

n/a

Victor Muse - TCC

n/a

Wayne Kraemer - Tx State

n/a

Zack Locke - McNeese State

n/a

Zehner Evans - West Chester

n/a

adolfo garnica - CSUSB

n/a

jay bourne - cumberlands

Background of the critic: Debated policy 2 years in high school, CEDA and NFA LD in college, coached at Asbury College for 8 years, where we competed in IE, NFA LD, and Parli, and coached past 9 years at University of the Cumberlands, where we do mainly parli,  IPDA and IE's Rounds judged this year- 50 + Judging/ Coaching - 20+ years (CEDA 2 years, NFA LD 6 years, 15 years NPDA) Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I am a flow judge. I don't subscribe to the tabula rasa approach- I think that everyone has preferences and biases, overt or latent. However, I attempt to remove any of my personal beliefs from the debate round (try to have metaphorical horse blinders) and let the debate be what the teams construct during the round . Personally, I fit best with a gaming paradigm, where everything is pretty much fair within the basic debate framework and guidelines. I do believe that there are other formats to debate than just policy, so yes, I am open to the trichotomy. For me, resolutions of fact are a legitimate form of debate- although I prefer a detailed level of analysis more than an example war with that approach.. If teams want to take a resolution of fact with a policy res, and the other team clashes, then that is fine with me. Since I also have a background in CEDA, value debate is legitimate also. Policy is what I judge most often in rounds, and I am very comfortable with that format. Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making : Minimal in decision of win loss. Does factor into speaker points. I dislike cursing. Speed is not a factor for me with CEDA background, but I don't believe parli was a format meant to be done at CEDA speed- that it should be at least a bit slower. Ideally, parli can cover a variety of issues at a good clip and throw in a good joke or two whereby a general audience could understand most of what was said, save for procedural jargon.   Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: whatever provides clash is fine with me. Ideally, opp will have a lot of on case argumentation in their speeches, but sometimes gov frames the debate poorly, so the round makes more sense and can be more organized off case. I prefer it when gov teams don't ignore their entire case argumentation after the PMC. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: Kritiks are fine with viable alternative frameworks provided. I have voted on them a few times, but to be honest, it seems they often were run as a time suck or an attempt to snow the other team with debate jargon. I guess I am old school.   I really don't go for performance styles, or using debate as a platform to discuss an issue that may be of great importance to you personally but does not fit into the framework of the resolution. Any additional comments: <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:24.1pt; margin-left:.25in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 0in left .25in; text-autospace:ideograph-numeric"> 1.I prefer NOT to intervene- make my decision for me. Tell me how to vote. <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:24.1pt; margin-left:.25in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 0in left .25in; text-autospace:ideograph-numeric"> 2.If I nod my head during the debate, it means "I got it"- so if you want to move on fine- if not, fine also. Nodding my head does not mean I buy your position, just that I understand your argument. <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:24.1pt; margin-left:.25in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 0in left .25in; text-autospace:ideograph-numeric"> 3.I prefer nontopical counterplans 4.One of my majors in college was philosophy, so I prefer in depth argumentation. Give warrants, don't just blip responses 100% of speaking time. Tell me why your argument is better, impact it out.   5. Regarding POI's, I will give everyone plenty of time to make the arguments they wish, don't interrupt each other here.  Usually you will do best in defending yourself by exactly pointing out on flow where you think you addressed the issue or where you are cross applying previous comments made.

2013 Pi Kappa Delta Nationals

Judge Philosophies

zz-bye

zz-bye

zz-bye

Aaron Trembath - Purdue

Adam Blood - UCM

Adam Olds - Boise State

Ali Small - Ottawa

Allan Axibal-Cordero - Chapman

Amanda Lovelace -

Amanda (Ataiyan) Stauder - McKendree

Amorette Hinderaker - UK

Andrea Carlile - SDSU

Andrew Moffitt - Lower Columbia

Andy Rapp - Northwood

Andy Luster - McNeese State

Anthony Wachs - Northern

April Rives -

Art Rennels - UCM

Barbara Harmon - KWU

Ben Larsen - Boise State

Beth Hewes - CSI

Brea Morris - SBU

Breana Fausett - USU

Brian Swafford - Northwest MO

Brian Powell - Transy

Cale Andrews - FC

Cami Sanderson - FSU

Caroline Atkins -

Cary Chavis - Wiley

Chad Meadows - WKU

Chad Rogers - William Carey

Chatinoda Tinago - William Carey

Chiwoneso Tinago - William Carey

Chris Medina - Wiley

Chris Leland - CCU

Christi Siver - CSBSJU

Christopher Hunt - SDSU

Christy Bowman - Boise State

Chuck Rogers - William Carey

Clara Adkins - Marshall

Clayton Dodds - OU

Clint Jones - Transy

Crystal Coel Coleman -

Dan West - Ohio U

Dan Higgins - Heidelberg

Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia

Danny Ray - Marshall

Darrell Farmer - UNL

Darren Valenta - Linfield

Dave Smith -

David Bailey - SBU

David Brennan - Wartburg

David Childers - MHCC

David Trumble - St. Anselm

Deanna Graves - William Carey

Deion Hawkins - Marshall

Dennis Waller - NNU

Derrick Reed - Morehouse

Destiny Moore - UNG

Doni Dilworth - Hillsdale

Dylan Clark - Truman

Ed Hinck - CMU

Ed Hoff - U of Houston

Eli Brennan - TCC

Frankie Glennis - Southern Miss

Garret Castleberry - OU

Gary Harmon - KWU

Geoff Klinger - DePauw

Gregory Owen - CMU

Hannah Durbin -

Hope Morris - William Carey

Jackson Miller - Linfield

Jacob Stutzman - OKCU

Jacqueline Bavier - Bloomsburg

Jamie Moshin - Marietta

Janis Crawford - Butler

Jason Edgar - Crowder

Jeanna Graves - William Carey