Judge Philosophies
Aaron Dicker - Morehouse
n/a
Abel Rodriguez III - UK
<p>First and foremost, I consider myself a tab judge within reason. This means that I won’t offer you the benefits of a tab paradigm if you say something that I believe to be patently false within the common realm of knowledge of the debate community. Otherwise, I am tab.</p> <p>On kritiks: I subscribe to the games player philosophy and thus, I am very receptive to critical debate. More specifically, I like discursive kritiks. In policy rounds, I largely see non-discursive kritiks used as a method to circumvent the judging philosophy that impacts must be measurable. I do not buy into the materialist paradigm for impacts, so any ethical implications that fall within the resolution or plan can be argued as disadvantages for me. This is to say even though I’ll entertain and am willing to vote on K, I generally thing K is most useful as a tool to debate about the activity.</p> <p>On Topicality: I love a good T debate, but only when it isn’t frivolous or a marginal competition of terms. If the gov/aff runs a case with a reasonable definition which can be expected of the resolution, then I’m not likely to be persuaded to buy a T shell that argues that the opp/neg’s interpretation is better. Additionally, I won’t vote on T if the T shell is missing any vital components, i.e. violation, standard, alternative, impact. I do not, however, require impact to be demonstrable lost ground, at least on the part of the team running T. If the opp/neg can show that ground would be lost to an average team, while at the same time putting up a good debate, this does not delegitimize the T argument. To say it does would be to penalize good debaters when they are disadvantaged by a restrictive interpretation.</p> <p>On speaking: Personally, I hate speed, but mostly insofar as it disenfranchises a lot of debaters. If, however, all debaters in the round are cool with it, then go for it, I’ll flow. As for decorum, please be nice to each other. In the case one team is particularly rude, I invite critical argument over the decorum during constructive speeches and for you to present decorum as a voting issue for me. Lastly, regarding cross-examination, it is not a good idea with me as your judge for you to refuse to take questions during your unprotected time (applying only to parli). If you find yourself mid-point when the opposing term rises for a question, you should finish that point and even if the person has sat down, re-invite their question. As for cross examination in other forms of debate, I like it to generally be cordial but I am also mindful of the fact that a person must control their cross-examination, so I don’t consider it rude for a debater to restrict responses to condensed versions for the sake of time.</p> <p>If you have any questions about my paradigm and want me to clarify or cover something not included here, feel free to ask me! I’d be happy to help.</p>
Adriena Young - APU
n/a
Alex Brehm - Lower Columbia
n/a
Alexandra Meregaglia - Hillsdale
n/a
Alyson Foster - Boise State
Amber Benning - KWU
n/a
Amorette Hinderaker - TCU
n/a
Andy Christensen - ISU
n/a
Anna Zimmerman - Marian Univ
n/a
Anna McDermott - Simpson College
April Griffin - Cerritos College
Autumn Kersey - Boise State
Autumn Brackley - CWI
Barbara Harmon - KWU
<p>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.</p>
Beau Woodward - UP
<p>I am ok with meta debate arguments (Topicality, Ks, etc.) as long as they are called for. </p> <p>In NPDA, I don't mind speed, as long as it is understandable. We don't pass cards so please be clear. In IPDA, speed is not encouraged because the format encourages the public to attend and judge. </p> <p>I really like structure and clear links. I am not going to do work for you, so make sure you are laying out a link story that is rational. </p> <p>Impacts are necessary for me to judge the round, so give them to me. I love values and critiria, and I will use any resolutional analysis you give me. </p> <p>Please try to act like your opponents are people, with valid opinions and points of view. </p>
Ben Swenson-Weiner - Tx State
n/a
Ben Larsen - Boise State
Ben Wassink - UW Bothell
<p>I have an argumentation theory and speech background. I'm learning the jargon. I try to keep up with world news. I greatly appreciate clear structure, sighposts, summaries, and connecting evidence to points. Speed is acceptable, but if you decide to use speed, be sure to speak clearly. Lastly, humor is totally acceptable, but don't be rude. We should all have fun and learn something here. </p>
Ben Powell - USU
n/a
Bert Glandon - CWI
Beth Hewes - CSI
n/a
Bobby Ellis - William Carey
n/a
Brandon Johnson - Hofstra
n/a
Brent Brossmann - JCU
Note: For those who’ve known me as a judge previously, things have changed. I have been in debate continuously since 1976. I am a policy maker. I believe in the value of policy debate. The organization specifies that it embraces policy debate. I will make my decisions on policy. Thus, there are two ways you can win my ballot: 1. Have the best policy. 2. Prove that your opponent’s practice is so egregious that I need to vote against them regardless of the policy. That could be for offensive discourse or a theory violation. If you want to make that “three reasons,†go ahead. Topicality is a voting issue. It is not a reverse voting issue. The negative doesn’t actually win topicality without demonstrating in-round abuse. In-round abuse can be proven by demonstrating that arguments to which you should have access were denied to you by the affirmative’s plan. You don’t actually have to run and lose the arguments, but you do need to win that these were arguments you should have had access to, that they were important and that the plan denied you access. Counterplans need to be competitive. The counterplan must be better than the combination of the plan and counterplan (net benefits) or better than the plan alone IF the policies are mutually exclusive. As a policy maker, risk is important. Please use impact comparisons to weigh rounds for me. Probability, magnitude, risk and time frame are arguments that both debaters should use in rebuttals to weigh the round for me. Prioritize those that help you win and explain why they are more important. Some kritiks are legitimate arguments in policy debate. Others are not. If the kritik impacts the round at a policy level, it is clearly legitimate. Some of the philosophical or discourse assumptions behind a policy or its presentation need to be challenged with respect to the policy itself. Some kritiks may identify particularly nasty things your opponent has done in a round. These kritiks are legitimate. The rest should not be run in front of me. I’ll be happy to explain if you ask. The bottom line is that debaters need to respond to each other’s arguments in meaningful ways. However, there is a strong presumption against any argument which does not directly relate to the policy being discussed in the round, unless it is a compelling argument as to why your opponent is abusive either in theory (not playing fairly) or in discourse (is actually offensive). I will continue to defend the value of policy debate. To help the tournament run on time, I’ll submit a ballot before I comment. After that, I’ll be happy to disclose. The best education in debate happens in the post-round discussion and the more quickly that follows the end of the round, the more relevant the information is. I don’t care about speed, per se. I do care about clarity. I know that some debaters care about speed. My policy is that the person who wants it to be slower “wins†that issue. So, if someone is too fast, simply say “slower please.†If someone says that to you, slow down. Have fun. Be kind. Learn a lot. Don’t forget to smile or laugh. Remember, your opponents are here because they share your love of the event. We all dedicate huge amounts of time and passion. Respect that and them. (And, the last name is pronounced with a long O, like a bro.)
Brian Powell - Transy
n/a
Brian Swafford - Northwest MO
n/a
Brock Sondrup - ISU
n/a
Brooke Adamson - NNU
n/a
CJ Hunt - McNeese State
n/a
Casey McManus - Boise State
Cassie Craft - Marian Univ
n/a
Charity Strong - Boise State
Charity Strong - Boise State
Chelsee Boehm - Boise State
Chip Hall - CNU
n/a
Chris Harper - TCU
n/a
Chris Leland - CCU
<p> </p> <p>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.</p> <p> </p> <p>Chris Leland, Ph.D.</p> <p>Asst. VP for Academic Affairs,</p> <p>Professor of Communication & Director of Debate</p> <p>Colorado Christian University</p>
Chris Medina - Wiley
Chris Shandera - Boise State
Christina Ivey - Boise State
Christina Marquez - EPCC
n/a
Christine Moore - Boise State
Cody Shaw - MHCC
Cody Campbell - Glendale CC
Corban Hickman - Ottawa
n/a
Courtney Santillan - CWI
n/a
Cyndi Kerr - Boise State
Cynthia Nicole - Boise State
Dan West - Ohio U
n/a
Dan Broyles - Pacific
n/a
David Bailey - SBU
n/a
David Airne - U of M
<p>4 years HS Policy; NDT 3 years and 1 year LD in college</p> <p>Coached HS Policy, HS LD, HS PF NDT/CEDA, LD, IPDA and Parli for +10 years. </p> <p>Upadated: January 2018 and also on Tabroom.com</p> <p>The quick overview to my judging is really simple. I judge things on what happens in the context of the round and it is up to those in the round to write that ballot for me. If you do not write it for me then you leave it up to me and I do not really want to intervene in the round, so write the ballot for me. So use the rebuttals to write my ballot. Asking me what arguments I like is silly, run what you want and if you are winning it then I vote on it. If you run things I happen to not like that just means you might have a higher threshold needed to win it, but if you are winning it then I vote for it. I typically default into a policy maker, but I am happy to vote wherever the round takes me. Finally, I will openly admit I do not give the highest of speaker points when compared to others (26-28 is pretty typical) but good debate warrants higher speaks when it occurs. Any specific issues you want to know about continue reading or just ask me since I am happy to tell you.</p> <p><strong>However,</strong> note I teach, research, and publish in political communication (campaigning) and gender (masculinties, in particular). Those issues are difficult, at times, for me to step away from and while you are not debating against me as the juege, it can make it more difficult for me to evaluate the argument because it those issues are ingrained in my head and I see them in different ways that you may be arguing those issues (especially in Parli since we do not have access to evidence, but in evidence based forms that is different). That does not mean that you cannot run those certain positions, but they get a differnet listen than other arguments due to my work in the area.</p> <p>Framework: If you have a framework be sure you explain how it functions for me in the round. Remember, I tend to default to policy maker so without a clear explanation of it I will use that lens in the framework. So you have to tell me how the AFF/NEG views compete with each other.</p> <p>Critical Stuff: Never have had any problem with it other than I do not like them run poorly and I am not a fan of running them in the 1NC with other contradictory positions so that you can pick which arguments are your winners. It does need to be well developed and explained, especially in forms of debate where there is no evidence that I get to read after the round. Otherwise, feel free to run whatever critical arguments you want but be sure you explain how it compares to the AFF or NEG so I see how it operates in the world. Doing those things make critical arguments always great to hear.</p> <p>Traditional Policy Arguments: All are fair game. Be sure that you give me some way to evaluate the impact and show me how it relates to the AFF/NEG. However things like "RVI", or "T is a voter for fairness and education" do need some form of explanation. Your unsubstantiated claims are not going to work so well against one that is supported and explained.</p> <p>Parli specific notes--Points of order: You are welcome to call them, but just know that they are all under consideration and that is how I will answer to all of them. I tend to feel that me ruling on them has to potential to provide some unfair advantage for the team and it feels like a form of intervention since now you know how I "feel" about an argument so I just default to the under consideration answer to avoid that perception/advantage one side might get from the argument.</p> <p>Any specific questions you have please feel free to ask and I am more than happy to answer.</p>
Dawn Lowry - Wiley
n/a
Debra Groberg - Boise State
Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell
<p> </p> <p>General information:</p> <p>I did LD in High School, CEDA in College and now coach NPDA. I have been coaching for 8 years and have been involved in the activity for many more. I don't keep track of the specific number of rounds I have judged this year. More than 40. I am open to a variety of forms of debate. Each round should take on its own form. Any form or strategy is fine as long as everyone is the room can communicate. I attempt to bring as little to the debate as possible although no judge can be totally tabla rosa.<br /> Arguments matter to me more than style. </p> <p>I judge in a clear order. Kritik (if they are in the round) then procedurals (again, if they are present in the round) then case (government must prove that it is worth attempting plan) then weighing advantages against disadvantages. <br /> Specific information:<br /> <br /> Topicality: I appreciate strategic interpretations of resolutions and will give a fair amount of room for the government to interpret the resolution. They key is that everyone has some ground and some ability to debate. I will also give a fair amount of room for novices to work on format and learn the rules. </p> <p>Counterplans: CPs are great. Condo is ok if well argued. Disclose condo or no condo in the first speech. My strong feeling is that it should not be about tricking the other team but going after a higher level of argumentation. I am not a huge fan of PICs. I would be open to argumentation on the issue.</p> <p>Points of Order are fine.</p> <p>The kritik: Kritiks are great--aff or neg. Make a good, well-reasoned argument and have a reason for the K. Then make sure to engage. </p> <p>Theory: Great. Go nuts.<br /> <br /> Disads: Cool. Link them.</p>
Derrick Reed - Morehouse
n/a
Devon Downey - Boise State
Donna Landon - TCC
n/a
Doug Rapley - CWI
n/a
Elsie Praeger - MHCC
Fendrich Clark - Southeastern
n/a
Fernanda De La O - APU
n/a
Fred Swanstrum - Boise State
Gary Jackson - Webster
n/a
Gemma Buckley - Wiley
n/a
George Fitzpatrick - Tx State
n/a
Gina McCullough - Ohio U
n/a
Gina Jensen - Webster
n/a
Haylee Hunsaker - USU
n/a
Heather Nichelle - MHCC
n/a
Heather Skovgard - NNU
n/a
Heather White - NNU
n/a
Heidi Novich - Boise State
Holly Watters - NNU
n/a
Howie Long - CWI
Jackson Miller - Linfield
n/a
Jana Hall - CNU
n/a
Jana McCurdy - CWI
n/a
Jason Roach - Webster
n/a
Jaylen Eashmond - William Carey
n/a
Jenica Draney - CWI
n/a
Jennifer Conner - Pacific
n/a
Jennifer Talbert - William Carey
n/a
Jennifer Johnson - Boise State
Jennifer Betty Cooper - Boise State
Jeremy Johnson - Penn State
n/a
Jessica Brayton - Sterling
Jessica Furgerson - WKU
Jessica Roberts - Boise State
Jim Gatfield - CWI
<p>I am a Comms judge.</p> <p>Make it your goal to teach me and your opponent something. This is a chief aim of debate.</p> <p>Approach debate as a conversation . . . not an opportunity to overwhelm your opponent.</p> <p>I prefer eloquence over speed. </p> <p>Respect your opponent . . . respect the event . . . show me that you want to be here. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>NPDA Debate</strong></p> <p>I don't like K's. I don't vote on them. I view them as too generic and think they largely avoid an opportunity to explore a specific issue. </p>
Joel Anguiano - EPCC
n/a
John Nelson - ISU
n/a
Johnny Rowing - CWI
<p><strong>General Comments - Across Styles</strong></p> <p>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.</p> <p>Signpost your argumentation. Help me to flow by telling me what you are entering/answering.</p> <p>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). </p> <p>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.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>IPDA</strong></p> <p>I appreciate creative opens/salutations and courtesy.</p> <p>Be kind and considerate to one another.</p> <p>Unless the aff framework is wanky . . . I expect us to debate under their framework. It bothers me when we don't.</p> <p>I don't like C/Ps.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>NPDA</strong></p> <p><em>Open - Junior</em></p> <p>If you are a junior and/or open level NPDA debater . . . I doubt that you will like me. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>T - I won't vote on potential abuse. I need to see actual in round ground loss. </p> <p>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.</p> <p><em>Novice</em></p> <p>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. </p> <p> </p> <p>BP</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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. </p>
Jon Agnew - Boise State
<p><strong>Saved Philosophy:</strong></p> <p>Last updated: 24-March-2018</p> <p>I have been involved in competitive forensics for 13 years. I am cool with speed as long as tags for claims are not cumbersome and difficult to flow. I’m cool with just about any argument as long as it is well warranted. I won’t want to hear “genocide good” “rape good” or similar arguments. Moreover, I’m not sure of all the preconceived biases I have about judging debate. I know I am more inclined to prefer probability and timeframe arguments over magnitude. But overall, the game of debate is however you want to play it. Just play it well and play it by the rules. Last thing, as a critic at the end of the round I prioritize arguments that have been denoted in the debate via jargon or argumentation as most important. I always try and work through these arguments before working through the rest of the debate. What I mean by this is questions of: a priori, decision rule, RVI, framework, role of the ballot, role of the critic, theory sheets….I try and resolve these kinds of questions before resolving other substantive issues in the debate.</p> <p><br /> <strong>Question 1 : What is your judging philosophy?</strong></p> <p><strong>Background</strong>: I debated 4 years in at Hillcrest High School in IF, Idaho. I did 3 years of LD, 1 Year of CX/PF, and speech. I debated Parli/IPDA for 4 years at Boise State and I.E.s. I have been an assistant coach at Boise State since 2013. And this will be my 13th year involved in competitive forensics.</p> <p><strong>Other Background:</strong></p> <ul> <li>I will default Net-Benefits/Policymaker unless told otherwise.</li> <li>I try to be as Tabula Rasa as possible. I don’t want to involve myself in your debate. I don’t have any preconceived biases about what arguments or strategies should or should not be deployed in any given round.</li> <li>I will vote for arguments I do not ideologically agree with every time <strong>IF</strong> they are won in the round. </li> <li>I am relatively okay with speed. I have difficulty flowing overly cumbersome or wordy taglines. Plan texts, Interpretations, CP Texts, K alts, perms, T vios need to be read slowly twice <strong>OR</strong> I/your opponents need to be given a copy. I find it difficult to judge textual questions in a debate round when I don’t have the text proper written down word for word.</li> <li>I am lenient to “no warrant” or “gut check” arguments. I don’t want to do the work in your round. I do not want to fill in the blanks for your scenarios. In saying such I will always evaluate a developed warranted impact scenario over a generic one, <strong>IF </strong>the arguments are won in the round.</li> <li>I think offense and defense are necessary to win debate rounds. I am also relatively lenient on terminal defense. If you win the argument that there is absolutely no risk of a link or impact I will evaluate it strongly. I want to hear intelligent, sound, strategic arguments in every debate round. The aforementioned claim <strong>strongly</strong> influences my speaker points.</li> <li>My high school coach used to always say “debate is a game you play with your friends”. I identify strongly with the statement. In saying such, please do not put me in the situation where debate is not fun, where any individual (partner, opponents, myself) feels berated, and please do not deploy obscene/vulgar arguments.</li> <li>POO’s: please call them. I usually reply “under consideration”. I’m not lenient on new argumentation in the rebuttals. Honestly, I feel this is important. I tend to flow everything in the debate round. Even if the argument is new in the rebuttal. I feel it is important to call these arguments. I don’t know how well my paradigm works with multiple judges. But ya, POO are ok and encouraged to call.</li> <li>POI’s: please do not get excessive. Teams should probably always answer a question or two. I will give weight to in-round argumentation regarding “you should have taken a question” on any sheet of paper.</li> <li>Speaker points: I tend to give between 26-29.5 at tournaments. 30s definitely occur. So do speaker points below 26. I tend to evaluate these via sound, strategic, intelligent arguments. Delivery/style is not the most important factor for speaker points. I have never looked but I feel like I give higher speaker points than most.</li> </ul> <p> </p> <p><strong>Case:</strong> I’m cool with any type of affirmative strategy (mini-affs, K affs, performance, comp-ad). However, I want to know how your case functions in the round. Framework/RAs are very important. Advantages must have uniqueness, link and an impact. Aff’s should solve for something. Plan texts should be read twice or I/opponents should be given a copy. If you are running performance or a critical affirmative I need to know how it engages the round and resolution. For example, if you are criticizing—topicality, language, semiotics—I need to know how to evaluate these arguments with your opponents. I find these types of debate engaging/fun to judge, but I have often been put into a position where I do not have a clean and accessible framework to evaluate the rhetoric and argumentation in round. Additionally, I have always felt somewhat icky inside when my personal identity or the competitors has been attached to the ballot. If this is important to the round. Framework is everyone’s friend. I want to be as much as a blank slate as possible.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>T/Procedurals:</strong> I ran a lot of procedurals arguments in college. I feel in order for me to vote on this position I need a clear interpretation explaining how the debate should occur, a violation explaining specifically why your opponents do not meet your interpretation, I need standard(s) to detailing why your interpretation is good and/or why your opponents do not garner/violate them, and a voter(s) demonstrating why I should vote for the argument. Again, please read your interpretation/violation slowly twice or give myself/opponents a copy. I really really enjoy watching good T debate. And vote on T relatively often.</p> <p><strong>Kritiks: </strong>my partner and I ran a lot of kritiks in college. I need a clear and accessible thesis. Arguments that tend to be stuffed into kritiks (no value to life, K Alt solves aff, X is root cause of violence) should be well developed. Please engage these arguments on the case debate as well. I am familiar with a lot of the K literature (POMO, Frankfurt School, Lacan). However, I’M NOT AN EXPERT. I think a kritik needs a framework, link, implications, alternative. I am a fan of good kritik debate. I am persuaded by well warranted impact turns to K’s or compelling arguments regarding how the K engages the assumptions that inform the PMC. Please do not prove the “K’s are for cheaters” club by deploying confusing/absurd, and blippy arguments.</p> <p><strong>CP’s</strong>: I am not very familiar with the ins and outs of CP’s. Functional CP vs. textual CP debates are usually educational for me. I say that because, I again, am not nearly as familiar with CP debates then K debates. I am not biased on any type of CP theory. I will listen to all types of CPs (consult, agent, delay, multi-actor, multiple, PICS). In saying such, some of these types of CPs are subject to very compelling theoretical arguments about their fairness and educational merit. I think solvency is very important for CP vs Case debates. I like to hear arguments regarding how the CP/Case solves or does not solve each advantage or net/benefit debate. Therefore, if the debate comes down to case vs. CP/NB/DA…solvency is very important for weighing impacts.</p> <p><strong>DA’s: </strong>need uniqueness, link, impact to be evaluated. Please explain why the status quo changes post the affirmative plan. I enjoy listening to strategic DA debates. Well-developed impact and link turn arguments make for lovely debate rounds. Defense and offense is usually important to deploy in any DA debates. I find the interaction of these arguments critical in deciding the round. Please explain these relationships in regards to impact calculus. Like I said earlier I tend to evaluate probable scenarios over their magnitude. Politics debates are fun to listen to. I like well warranted scenarios. Additionally, I’m not a fan of perceptual IR DAs (they tend to be under-developed and lack warrants) but nevertheless I will definitely listen to them.</p> <p>If you have any other questions please ask. My email is jonagnew@u.boisestate.edu</p> <p> </p>
Jon Snively - CWI
n/a
Jonathan Conway - UCF
n/a
Jordan Compton - SBU
n/a
Joseph Packer - CMU
<p> </p> <p>I competed and coached in policy debate for 11 years and coached LD for 3.</p> <p>Things to know</p> <p>1. Reject the argument not the team is my default on theory issues. This means that absent a clearly articulated reason as to why a team should lose the debate I will not vote on theory. (Note: Yes this means even if the other team drops a random voting issue I will not vote against them if you do not provide clear warrants as to why they should lose the debate).</p> <p>2. Winning topicality or any other theory issue requires more work than winning on a substantive issue. This is to say, if both teams go for substance I have to pick a winner, but if one team goes for theory I can assess that they have not surpassed the burden required to reject the other team. This does not mean that T and theory are unwinnable arguments in front of me. I think I am much more inclined to vote on T than the average LD judge I have encountered. In order to win you should clearly explain your interpretation, explain how the other team has violated it, explain why your interpretation makes for good debates, explain what the opponent does or justifies, and explain why that is bad for debate.</p> <p>3. Negatives need to make choices in their second speech. I frequently find myself voting against negatives that should be ahead in the debate because they extend too much. This holds especially true when negatives go for a combination of theory and substance. To a lesser extend this is true for affirmatives as well.</p> <p>4. Presumption goes to the status quo, which means that ties go to the negative (in the world of a counterproposal I lean aff on presumption, but the question is up for debate).</p> <p>5. Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards by making smart, warranted, analytical arguments.</p> <p>6. I lean affirmative on most counterproposal theory questions (conditionality, PICs, topical counterplans). The chances of me voting on a consultation counterplan are extremely low. Any counterplan or kritik that can result in the affirmative’s plan is highly suspect.</p> <p>7. I don’t find many of the kritiks run in LD to be persuasive, but I think this is a function of not adapting to the time constraints and speech times of the activity. If you do read a kritik you should apply it to the affirmative’s case starting in the first speech. If you are only talking about your kritik and not how it interacts with the specifics of the affirmative case, you are unlikely to get my ballot. The more specific the kritik is to the topic or plan the better.</p> <p>8. Be respectful to the other team.</p>
Josh Smith - Wiley
n/a
Josh Watkins - Boise State
Justin Raymundo - Webster
n/a
Justin Vance - CWI
n/a
Justin Jerez - USU
n/a
Kate Agenbroad - Boise State
Katie Brunner - Simpson College
KayCee Babb - Boise State
Kayla Griffin - Boise State
Keith Townsend - EPCC
n/a
Kelsey Dillon - CWI
Ken Troyer - Sterling
Ken Newby - Morehouse
n/a
Kevin Ambrose - Hillsdale
n/a
Kevin Bryant - Southern Miss
Khalil Waddell - Morehouse
n/a
Kiefer Storrer - Glendale CC
<p>4 years Policy (HS) 4 years Parli (College) In my fourth year of coaching, familiar with LD, Public Forum, Worlds, etc, and high flow Parli. I love, love, love, pragmatic, policy discussion, but I also don't want to disenfranchise voices, so K's, Projects, other experimental positions are fine by me. I appreciate in round, articulated abuse for procedural arguments. For Ks/Projects, I'd like debate community implications but also recognize policy ontological impacts because of our epistemological views. Overall, SUPER open to answering questions pre-round, and discussing rounds in depth post round, via social media, etc.</p>
Kim Johanek - CWI
Krista Simonis - UP
Kristi Scholten - FSU
n/a
Kristin Sepeda - NNU
n/a
Kristy McManus - WWCC
<p>I have been coaching since 2010. I competed for two years at the college level. I took a long break from forensics but returned when working on my second Master’s Degree in Communication. I am currently the DOF at Western Wyoming Community College.</p> <p>I try to remain as tab as possible. It is your responsibility to dictate what the round will look like.</p> <p>I put a lot of weight on the flow. I will not “do the work for you”.</p> <p>CP’s, DA’s, K’s – sure! Strategy is key for me but all must be done well and show understanding through warranted argumentation.</p> <p>Tell me what to do. This is your debate. Where should I look and how should I vote. Impact calk is a must.</p> <p>T’s are there for a reason – if you need to use them – you MUST. Otherwise, they are a waste of my time.</p> <p>Be civil – if you are rude, I stop listening.</p>
Kyle Kellam - Marian Univ
n/a
Lana McDonnell - TAMUK
n/a
Lauren Bramwell - Boise State
Lee Nave - Ottawa
n/a
Leigh Cummings - Ottawa
n/a
Letha Quinn - NNU
n/a
Liisa Smith - USU
n/a
Lisa Webb - CWI
Liz Sills - Northern
n/a
Liz Kinnaman - Clark CC
n/a
Loren Schwarzwalter - Glendale CC
Mack Sermon - CWI
<p>Mack Sermon –College of Western Idaho</p> <p>I have 35 years experience in competition, judging and coaching, mostly in the Great Northwest. I have heavy experience with IEs, NDT, CEDA, NPDA, IPDA and NFC-LD. </p> <p>Debates should focus on Aristotle’s big 3: ethos, pathos and logos- and keeping it fun and educational.</p> <p>-Your character, ethos, is established in and out of the debate by your behavior with opponents, teammates and me. Be on your best behavior and treat everyone with respect.</p> <p>-Emotion, or pathos, is demonstrated by the conviction and selection of your arguments, fairness to your opponents. Your delivery should make me believe that you really care about the issue.</p> <p>-To me, logos is most important. A case must be logical. This requires that you make a claim, provide proof of some sort, develop a warrant, then pull it all together for a case. Please, please, do not simply make claims and expect me to accept them as truth.</p> <p>-Speed: Sure I could talk as fast as any of them, but I think the most educational pace is only modestly faster than conversational but definitely not spewing- I will give one warning.</p> <p><strong>Novelties:</strong> I’m fine with <strong>counterplans </strong>if you admit and meet the requirements of a counterplan—but I’m bored by agent change, study, delay counterplans. I will listen to <strong>Topicality </strong>or structured definition arguments but since you are basically accusing your opponents of cheating, presumption is with the AFF. I’m not opposed to the concept of the <strong>Kritik </strong>but I only voted for them about 25% in true policy-- Far, far less in NPDA and IPDA. There just isn’t enough time in the shorter forms, without substantial evidence, to perform the type of dialectic discussion that Aristotle advocates, so a Kritik is just too complex to work.</p>
Maria Mangus - CWI
Marisa HIll - Boise State
Mark Turner - KWU
<p>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.</p>
Mark Hickman - West Chester
n/a
Mark Marciniak - Northwood
n/a
Mark Galaviz - Boise State
Marty Feeney - Simpson College
Matt Mudd - CWI
<p>I did 3 years of Policy Debate in high school as well as 4 years of Parli in College, both for the College of Western Idaho and Boise State University. To make my judging philosophy very easy for you, I think the are two major priorities of debate are, 1.)Education and 2.) making a safe space for students to have a voice. That being said, I know a lot of judges say this, but I will too. I will listen to any type of argument, but you must show me why it is educational or important, preferably both. It really is that easy. I will break it down for you though.<p> <p>Speed: Obviously its fine. But, I think it stands to logic that if I can not understand what you’re saying it makes it hard for me to judge you. So you can be quick. But be articulate. Slow down on your tags if you need to. If you are not good at speed, don’t try, run less. Its ok.<p> <p>Ks: I enjoy the K debate. I think it is an effective way to clash with the affirmative. I do not however enjoy Ks that are designed to confuse everyone. What I mean by this, is if you come into the round and read a K, that you can not explain to me effectively, my likelihood to vote for it is very low. I want your framework and thesis as well as your Role of the Ballot argument (where applicable) to be very clear I will listen to anything, but make sure it makes sense to you before you read the argument. I am also very particular about alternatives. I think 90% of them are absolutely useless. If you are going to read this type of argument in front of me, make sure you do adequate work on the alternative and make it something that is viable.<p> <p>K-affs: I really like critical affirmatives as well as critical advantages and disads under a policy framework. But, do not reject the resolution just to reject the resolution. That is annoying. Though there are many resolutions that need to be rejected. If we come across one of those and you do not do that though, be prepared for me to ask you why.<p> <p>Warrants: Use them. Please. Your examples are what makes your argument an argument. This is not CEDA don’t come in and spew tags at me.<p> <p>Framework: I think framework is important on both sides of the debate. I think your framework needs to be carefully crafted. From what I have seen, as time goes on it is becoming a more important part of the debate. If I am voting on framework though, (which should be rare) I will advise you to strengthen the framework. Its job isn’t to be a major piece of offense in my opinion. It should be, like it sounds, there to frame the debate and tell me how to vote.<p> <p>Counterplans: I love the CP debate. I am open to all types of CPs as long as you aren’t being abusive. I also want counterplans to be specific and detailed. You need to show me that you have a solid alternative to the Aff. If done right, CPs and DAs make the best clash for Affs in my opinion.<p> <p>Theory/Topicality/Procedurals: Use them if necessary. That’s what they are there for. However, I am not the kind of judge you want to run these arguments as a waste of time in front of. I understand from a strategic standpoint winning some sort of time tradeoff can be effective. But, if you come in with a pre-prepped T-shell that you slightly taylor to the Aff in 2 minutes, the Aff will have a pretty easy time convincing me to disregard it. I think largely these types of arguments are misused and my likelihood to vote on them is pretty small. However, if you do run one. You must show me some sort of In Round Abuse that has taken place.<p> <p>Speaker Points: I think they are mostly arbitrary. But, they have their uses. I start every debater in the round at 28 speaker points. From there you can gain or lose 2 of them. I only increase your speaks if you say something that just blows my mind or if you educate me and I leave the round having learned something from you. You will only lose points if you are disrespectful to me or your opponents.<p> <p>Be creative, have fun, I’m pretty laid back and very Tabs oriented. I do my best to not intervene. This is about persuasion, not me coming in and shoving my agenda or opinions on anyone. So ultimately the round belongs to the debaters not to me. Just do your best to make sure everyone gets something out of it besides a W or an L next to their name, you only have so much time in this activity, make the most of it.<p>
Matt Williams - Boise State
Matt Isbell - Boise State
Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale
n/a
Matthew Warner - Hillsdale
n/a
Matthew Minnich - UTEP
n/a
Meg Burns - SBU
n/a
Megan Boatman - Boise State
Melinda Schulz - Boise State
Michael Brooks - UTEP
<p>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 <em>re</em> 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.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Michael Marse - CBU
<p>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.</p> <p>What I do not like:</p> <p>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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>What I do like:</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>To conclude:</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Please feel free to ask and question to clarify these statement, or anything I might have missed.</p>
Michael Chancellor - William Carey
n/a
Michael Baumann - Marian Univ
n/a
Michelle Bennett - CWI
Michelle Mahoney - CWI
Michelle Fellows - CWI
Mike Eaves - VSU
<p>I am a tabula rasa judge. I debated CEDA for 4 years82-87. Was asst coach for CEDA at FSU for 4 years 89-93, national runnerups in CEDA nats, 1991 Coached CEDA for 7 years 93-2000 at vsu and NPDA since 2000 at vsu. I reward creative interp and good arguments. If you have questions, just ask.</p> <p>I flow specs, procedurals, and other traditional off case args. Aff case must provide equal ground so T checks back abuse. Counterplans are fine...inc PICS and other lesser know CPS incl delay, study, etc.</p> <p>I love political, econ DA..know your story and analysis.</p> <p> </p> <p> I debated policy in high school and in college.</p> <p>While I coach parli now, I still judge h.s. policy rounds.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Specifics</strong></p> <ol> <li>Speaker points <ol> <li>25-29 usually.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Critical Arguments <ol> <li>I am open to procedurals, and critiques in the round. </li> <li>Framework and criteria will be key.</li> <li>I am open to performance and counter-performance. Debate is a game. Play it well. </li> </ol> </li> <li>Topicality. <ol> <li>I tend to be equal on T. Since there is no resolutions in advance, negative must have T as a check against abusive aff positions. I will vote on RVIs unlike some judges. I have no artificial thresholds on T or procedures.</li> </ol> </li> <li>I am a tabula rasa judge but can default to a policy maker if I am put in that position. <ol> <li> The last two rebuttals are key in parli debate. Please go only for the arguments you are winning, especially when on the negative.</li> </ol> </li> <li> <ol> <li>Speed is great if clear. I will tell you if you need to slow or get clearer. If you ignore me, then I wont get your argument.</li> </ol> </li> </ol> <p>I love to think outside the box. Feel free to run postmodernism, CLS, or any philosophical position. I do not have artificial thresholds on procedurals or critiques.</p>
Mike Robinson - CWI
n/a
Miles Stirewalt - Boise State
Misty Gatfield - CWI
Moriah Murray - Boise State
Nate Graves - ISU
n/a
Nathaneal McBride - CWI
Nick Matthews - Cerritos College
<p>Hello! I am a full-time coach at Cerritos College. I debated in both high school and college for eight years, and I have been coaching at the college level for the past five years. Here are a few important things to know when I am judging you:</p> <p>1) I am partly deaf and wear hearing aids, so I will probably sit towards the front of the room. Please speak up a bit and speak at a conversational pace of speed. Otherwise, I may not be able to flow all of your arguments.</p> <p>2) I am fine with all types of arguments—DAs, CPs, Ks, procedurals, etc.—as long as they are well-executed and well-explained. The caveat: if your argument is particularly novel or if I have never heard it before, I will be less confident in my understanding and evaluation of it. This goes for both kritiks and obscure politics disads. "You haven't explained _______ well enough" is a line that frequently appears in my RFDs. </p> <p>3) I like to read about what's happening in the world. Since knowledge is subjective, I try to minimize the influence of my reading on my evaluation of your arguments, but I definitely have a bias against arguments which rely on faulty factual premises.</p> <p>4) An argument consists of three parts: a claim, support, and an implication. The last of these is very important. Why does your argument matter? What is the impact? How does it relate to other arguments? How should it influence my evaluation of the debate? Debaters who directly answer these questions are far more likely to win. Don't leave them up to me to resolve. </p> <p>5) Similarly, you should focus on comparative evaluations of arguments in your rebuttals. It is insufficient to win that an argument is valid; you also have to prove that it is preferable in some way to what your opponent argued. Focus on argumentative depth over breadth. Narrowing the debate down to a few key issues and kicking out of less important arguments is always a smart play.</p> <p>6) I am nonverbally expressive as a judge, so pay attention to me. If you see me nodding, you're probably saying something smart and you should emphasize it. If I look skeptical about your argument, I probably am. Use this information appropriately. </p> <p>If you have more specific questions, I am always happy to answer them before the round. Good luck, and don't forget to have fun!</p>
Nicolas Leland - CCU
n/a
Niki Alderson - TCC
n/a
Norell Conroy - Boise State
<p>I've been involved in forensics/parli for five years.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Call points of order.</p> <p>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) </p> <p>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.</p>
Patrick Tanner - CWI
n/a
Patt Ellison Bowers - Boise State
Phillip Voight - Gustavus
n/a
Qiang Zhen - Linfield
n/a
Rachel Garnett - Hofstra
n/a
Rachel Pollock - Muskingum
n/a
Raven Webster - Transy
n/a
Rebecca Godsey - SBU
n/a
Rebekah Watson Gaidis - UIndy
n/a
Reggie Holmquist - Boise State
Rob Perruca - Boise State
Rob Harbaugh - CWI
Robert Markstrom - McNeese State
n/a
Robin Christensen - Boise State
Rochelle Cunningham - Boise State
Roger Johnston - CWI
Rory Doehring - Hofstra
n/a
Ryan Louis - Ottawa
n/a
Ryan Clark - BHSU
n/a
Sarah Collins - Cameron
n/a
Savannah Sanburg - Ohio U
n/a
Scott Jensen - Webster
n/a
Scott Thomson - Ithaca
n/a
Scott Wells - SCSU
n/a
Sean Allen - TSU
n/a
Sean Kenney - CWI
n/a
Shannon Valdivia - MHCC
Sharon Brown - Boise State
Spencer Waugh - Simpson College
Stephanie Winkler - UK
Stephanie Saracco - OSU
n/a
Steve Steading - Boise State
Stuart Craig - CWI
n/a
Sue Peterson - Chico
<p>I primarily participated in CEDA/NDT debate as a competitor and coach for the last 20 years. We made the move to NFA-LD four years ago and I haven’t looked back. I consider myself to be open to most decision-making criteria, but I default to an offense/defense, cost-benefit calculus minus further instructions. </p> <p>I do not enjoy adjudicating performance debate. I like for affirmatives to have a plan text that clearly identifies the government action that is being advocated and then solvency advocates for that government action. </p> <p>I like when the debaters clearly identify the key voting issues from their perspective and do impact analysis in those areas. Simply said, I like for the rebuttals to “write my ballot” for me. </p> <p>The best rounds are those with good evidence AND good analysis. The worst rounds are those with neither of those things. I love a good topicality debate that gets to the heart of predictable, educational and fair ground on the topic. I also like good counterplan/disad debates that clearly identify the competitive points and focus the debate on that competition. I am okay with theory debates, but I think they need to have a real purpose in the round (read – I don’t like cheap shot theory arguments as voting issues) and they need to have clear warrants for why I should vote on the them other than “It’s abusive”. I have no problem with criticisms, but I feel like the limited speech time and having only two speeches usually results in an underdeveloped argument. So, if you run one, be sure to consider that and try to develop it as an argument, not just repeat taglines. </p> <p>Overall, be nice to one another, have fun, but most important, be smart!</p> <p>Because NFA-LD has an actual “rule” relating to speed of delivery, we should at least give that rule a “nod” in rounds. So, just because I am fine with you talking fast in a debate, if your opponent or other judges on a panel feel that speed is a hindrance to their performance and states that out loud before the round, we should honor it. My least favorite thing is listening to speed critiques or requests for others to slow down from someone who is talking relatively quickly – don’t be hypocritical. I also think that clarity is a key component in these discussions. Some people can talk fast and be totally understandable. Others, not so much.</p> <p><strong>Arguments that probably won't go well for you in front of me: </strong>Performance, debate bad arguments and reverse voting issues on topicality. Underdeveloped theory arguments. Critiques that are contradicted by other arguments you are making in the round without some justification for that contradiction. </p>
Susan Millsap - Otterbein
n/a
Susan Miskelly - Bridgewater
n/a
Susan Aydelotte - CWI
n/a
Taylor Wessel - Hillsdale
n/a
Taylor Ashe - Boise State
Taylor Bruun - Boise State
Thomas Williams - William Carey
n/a
Tia Brown - William Carey
n/a
Tiffany Seeley-Case - Boise State
Timothy Bill - UK
Todd Norton - Boise State
Tom Serfass - Webster
n/a
Tom Preston - UNG
n/a
Tomeka Robinson - Hofstra
n/a
Tony Rogers - CWI
Victor Akioyame - CBU
n/a
Whitney Runyan - NNU
n/a
Zack Brown - Simpson College
jay bourne - cumberlands
katie detherage - cumberlands
n/a