2026 Phi Rho Pi | Region 1 Prolegomenon

College of Southern Idaho - Mar 20-22 | Status: Completed | 3:18 AM Mountain

Profile Image
Tournament Time: 3:18 AM Mountain
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Headquarters   Postings   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

Adah Moore - LCC

n/a

Alex Brehm - LCC

Bio: I have been the Director of Forensics at Lower Columbia College since 2016. I coach a little bit of everything, but prioritize IPDA, Platform, and Limited Prep.

IPDA: I coach and judge a lot of IPDA. I love this event. Some preferences that I have in this event include:

  • IPDA debaters should prioritize effective communication. Keep the pace reasonable and limit your use of jargon. I'm generally not receptive to Ks in IPDA.
  • Though the IPDA Constitution and Bylaws do not explicitly require the use of sources, I believe that good arguments are supported by evidence.
  • I'm a sucker for thorough framework. Leave no ambiguity about how the resolution is being interpreted and what each debater needs to do in order to win.
  • The wording of the resolution is important, and the way that the debaters agree to interpret it is important. Expect me to revisit the res and framework for the round after the debate has finished. I will make my decision after carefully considering which side has better upheld their burden. Be sure to read the resolution carefully and make sure that your advocacy is in line with what the resolution is asking of you.
  • Treat your opponent with respect - they are a human person and this activity is hard.

Other forms of debate (Parli, BP, LD): I don't coach a lot of debate outside of IPDA, but still enjoy when I have the opportunity to judge other formats. Some common thoughts that apply across any non-IPDA format:

  • At the end of the day, I'm an IPDA judge - I prefer style and language that is approachable. But I'm also not going to tell you to reinvent your style on my behalf. I'll engage with any style of debating as long as it flies in your format and your opponents find it accessible.
  • The farther I get from my comfort zone, the more I appreciate clean framework and clear signposting. You're helping me out a lot if you give me clear verbal cues about your organization. The better I understand your arguments, the more likely you are to get my ballot.
  • Otherwise, my judging philosophy for other formats of debate is largely in line with my IPDA philosophy.

Limited Prep: I coach and judge a lot of limited prep. Some preferences I have in these categories include:

  • The spirit of these events is that they are delivered with limited preparation and limited notes. When making a close decision, I will prioritize competitors whose examples and attention grabbers do not seem canned or over-rehearsed. Keep your notes to a single notecard in open divisions.
  • In extemporaneous, please be careful to answer the full question. Your question is not a general prompt, but rather a specific inquiry that you are asked to respond to. Answer the question, cite good sources, and structure your speech well... you'll end up near the top of my rankings.
  • In impromptu, it is important that your interpretation of the prompt is not too much of a stretch, and your examples are reasonably in line with your interpretation. Reusing examples is fine, but fully memorized content does not belong in this category.
  • When the tournament allows it, I prefer to give impromptu speakers 15 seconds of reading time before the "official" seven minutes begins. If you start writing during this time, I will end it and start the seven-minute timer.
  • I'm happy to give whatever time signals you want - just ask before the speech :)

Platform: I coach and judge a lot of platform speeches. These were my favorite categories to compete in. Some preferences here include:

  • Across all platform categories, I'm interested in evidence. Cite lots of credible sources.
  • I'm interested in actionable solutions and smart implications. I've been known to bump a speaker up in my rankings if I'm particularly moved by solutions/implications.
  • Time matters... but it's not everything. If your speech goes over time, I'm probably breaking ties in your opponent's favor... but I'm not automatically dropping you to the bottom of the round.
  • I will always consider evidence, structure, argument, and delivery when making my ranking decisions. In a competitive round, I will additionally consider originality of topic, scope of impact, and creativity when making tough choices between well-matched competitors.

Interpretation: I don't coach much interp, but I do judge it somewhat often. Some philosophies include:

  • I don't need to see trauma to give you my 1. Please care for your mental health while engaging with raw, emotional topics.
  • Authenticity matters. I want to believe your character(s), and I want to believe the connection that you have to your performance.
  • Good interp makes an argument. I don't need you to solve world hunger in your interpretation, but I still want to hear some advocacy.

Andy Orr - CoSI

As a communication instructor, I believe the purpose of this activity is to prepare students to critically think and engage others in a meaningful way. Ergo, students should deliver arguments clearly with emphasis on effective communication. I am convinced that a few well-developed arguments can prove to be more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.

For constructive speeches, try to address arguments individually. However, grouping is absolutely fine too. With the final rebuttal speech, avoid line-by-line and instead provide a summary of voting area that address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches.

On Policy & Fact Debate:

For organization, sign post your tag lines, and give your citation clearly. Let us know when you have finished quoting material before your own analysis.

Avoid oral prompting or interrupting your partner as much as possible. I consider it to be rude and disrespectful toward your partner. Additionally, part of this activity is learning to work as a team and depending on another person for your success. This is an essential skill in life and you would never use verbal prompting in a business meeting, sales pitch, or political speech. Therefore, it really has no place in an activity designed to create in students those skills.

On Value Debate:

Value debate is by definition, a meta analysis of a topic. The first level of that debate is the overarching value. Students should present and defend a value that has been carefully chosen to have a non-absurd and debatable counter value e.g. capitalism vs. socialism and not freedom vs slavery (forces the opponent to be morally repugnant).

Wonderful debates can occur on by debating value level, but they rarely will win the debate because people (smarter than us) have discussed philosophers, implications, etc. and we still have no concrete answers.

Criteria are the next level of the meta debate. Again we could have a wonderful discussion on the merits of act utilitarianism vs. the categorical imperative, but it would not settle the issue, nor would it persuade the judge on either side of the resolution (although you can win a round by default if your opponent is not able to effectively articulate their value or criterion). Criterions are most useful if treated separately as a test of your contentions rather than a policy-type mechanism for achieving a value.

Your contentions are the real heart of the debate and should be the main focus. Claim, warrant, and conclusion are essential to every argument and can be contested on each or every one of those tenants. The key in value debate is to provide context after giving your argument as to how it affects the criterion and proves your case & value.

On Debate Theory

I have no preference in terms of philosophical, theoretical, or empirical arguments as long as they contain the three parts to make them an argument. Be sure that each part is present: claim, grounds, and warrant. Use this strategy: a. I say.....(claim) b. because......(grounds & warrant) c. and this means.....(impact)

I would find it difficult to vote for a kritik in general, and it would be extremely unlikely in a value round. First, there is already so much to cover in a limited amount of time; I dont think one can do the kritik justice (in other words, I am not often convinced of their educational/rhetorical value because we simply do not have enough time to reach that goal). That being said, if there is an in-round instance prompting a performative kritik, I think there can be a direct link made to education and the ballot being used as a tool.

Second, these arguments by their nature avoid the proposed topic. Thus, they skew preparation time when run by the affirmative and are seemingly a method of last resort when put forward by the negative. Moreover, in a value debate, a kritik provides no ground (or morally reprehensible ground) on which to make a counter case. Thus, the only way to rebuttal is to argue against the philosophical grounding (which leads to a muddled debate at best) or the alternatives which makes it a de-facto policy debate (and is contrary to the purpose of value debate).

The only stock issue that is a default voter is inherency. If the status quo is already addressing the problem, then there is no reason to prefer the plan. Harms and significance are at best mitigations. If you win those arguments, there still is no reason not to do the plan. Solvency and advantages must be turned to become voters. You'll need to prove the plan causes the opposite effect. However if you mitigate either of these, you'll need to pair it with a disadvantage or counter plan to give me a reason not to try the plan.

Each off case position must have a good structure and be complete in its construction (I wont fill in the blanks for you). Additionally any off case argument needs a clear under-view when it is presented (not just in the rebuttals) indicating how it fits into the round, and how I should consider it in my vote.

I prefer debate theory responses to be the first counter/refutation against an argument. In essence, they are a reverse voting issue, and do not easily fit into a line-by-line. Take a few moments and tell me the theory story, then (just in case I don't buy it) get into actually refuting the opponent's arguments.

Anne Canavan - SLCC

n/a

Ashley Schulz - LCCC

n/a

Bob Becker - NWC

As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round. I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so. To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues. Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important. All of that said, I am not an information processor. I am a human being and so are you. If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance.

When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose. Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I dont require competing interpretations.

I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. I'm fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. We dont like the resolution doesnt cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some contradictory arguments good answers.

Performance based argument need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you dont tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round.

As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says one million deaths and the other says dehume, but doesnt explain why dehume is worse than deaths, Ill vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then Ill vote for dehume. I think Im telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.

I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast. I will tell you if I can't understand you. Also, one new trend I find frustrating in LD is tag lines that are multiple sentences long. Your tag line is a claim, but make it a brief one. Also, I won't read your case with you on Speech Drop or anywhere else. I will look at those documents after the round if I want to check something, or the content of a card becomes an issue. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. Thats why I'm here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.

Chris Blankenship - SLCC

n/a

Glenn John Cervantes - LCC

n/a

Jaida Barrows - LCC

n/a

Jessica Jatkowski - NWC

I have been judging debate since 2015. However, this is only my first year coaching.

The most important element for me as a judge is to be respectful.

We are all coming to debate with our own preferences for issues, but I genuinely put my feelings and thoughts aside and will look at both sides to see who is giving the best argument. It is in the general framework of debate for you to tell me as a judge what I am weighing the debate on and bring evidence to the round. If you are unable to do so, then my general stance of how I judge is on the quality of evidence that both sides are bringing to the round.

In terms of actual speeches, it is important for everyone to understand what the issues and topics are, so speed may not be a benefit if I have to tell you to slow down.

Johnny Rowing - CWI

n/a

Julia Mitchell - LCC

BIO:
  • I competed in IPDA, limited prep, and platform events. I am a frequent judge in the Northwest circuit, and do a little bit of coaching, particularly in the above mentioned areas. I also judge quite a bit of Interp. Everything that follows are my general preferences within each respective category. If you have further questions, I am open to answering them before a round starts. Ultimately, my goal is to adjust my judging to fit you and the diversity within any given round over asking you all to accommodate me. All of the following preferences, I think, are general expectations everyone can agree makes for a more educational and fun experience.
DEBATE
  • IPDA/Parli/LD I am primarily an IPDA judge, but really enjoy engaging with other debate styles whenever possible! Here are some general preferences that should be widely applicable, but with some specific to each format:
    • I am not open to the term abusive unless it is truly impossible for you to win the round under the given framework. Ground skew, uneven ground, and unfair framework all effectively communicate that framing isnt appropriate and needs reconsidered by the judge. Abusive should be reserved for truly egregious circumstances as it spikes the communication climate and harms the civility in the rest of the round, generally.
    • I am okay with spreading if what you are saying is intelligible and your opponent can clearly understand you. I will set my pen down if you are talking too fast to flow.
    • I like a fair and clear framework. Clean top of case makes for a more educational round for everyone. Definitions, round type, weighing mech, and burdens are all appreciated. YOU should tell me how I should pick a winner rather than me being left up to my own devices. Nobody wants that.
    • Please dont be petty. I am fine with some more assertive (sometimes aggressive) debate styles, but I really do not enjoy pettiness. Do not misrepresent your opponent's arguments or make them seem stupid. Honor them and the best of their case within your refutation. (Straw man arguments are silly).
    • Evidence is not required in IPDA or Parli, but it sure makes you seem more knowledgeable and credible. I tend to favor contentions with clear, reputable support.
    • For LD, framework and clear articulation become even more important for my judging. I am not an excellent multitasker, so I wont be accessing your SpeechDrop because I prioritize flowing. Arguments need to be fully articulated for me to track them.
Platform:
  • Good evidence is appreciated. Obviously, you are not going to be including more than you have at this point, but make sure your verbal citations are clear and well enunciated.
  • Going overtime is not the end of the world to me, within reason. If you are more than ten seconds over, I am inclined to rank you lower than a near competitor in a very close round.
  • Nonverbals are huge in Platform speaking. If your body language is stiff and robotic, I am likely to be distracted and not hear all the smart things you are saying.
Limited Prep:
  • In EXT, I value answering the actual question you are given fully and specifically. Also, please have evidence; the more, the merrier. I would love to see 6+ sources in your speech. I will offer time signals.
  • In IMP, pacing, creativity, and cohesion are most important to me. Time allotments between points can easily get askew, and it causes thorough analysis to be cut short. Next, Impromptu is supposed to have an element of originality and spontaneity to it. I do not mind repeated examples (NOT scripted), but try and tell me something new every time about those examples. Finally, make it make sense. If your interpretation is miles away from the actual quotation, I am not inclined to buy your argument and supporting examples as much. I will offer time signals.
Interpretation:
  • Interp can be a lot. Regardless of the nature of your piece, the energy it can take to perform it well can be really draining. Try your best, but care for yourself. Ultimately, I want to see your connection to your work really shine through, whatever that looks like.

Julia Bennett - CWI

come from a strong events background, with a primary emphasis in interpretation / theatre. My judging experience in debate is as an IPDA coach. I appreciate the structured focus on cogent, accessible argumentation for an educated citizen, and I lean into that as a judge.I don't respond to speed for speed's sake, I don't mind jargon if it's used to advance the debate, I do weigh on impacts and clear linking. I appreciate competitors who can articulate the logic in their case and make that clear to me. Finally, close your argument well. Articulate what you've proven / what's been dropped or refuted. Don't repeat your case; refine.

My values:

Clarity: No matter your level of competitive experience, articulate your position to the best of your ability. In debate, help me to follow your line of thought - return the weighing mechanism throughout. Deliver with persuasive appeal. Show professionalism at whatever level youre at.

Connection - Make your case and authentically communicate that to the judge. Build a clear, precise framework, but don't get caught up in arguing RA unless it's warranted. Then make your case and move on. Make the line of argument clear, keep reminding me why you should take the case. Lean in, and embrace your advocacy.

Respect - Above all, show respect to your peers and be civil. I'm here for discourse and the educational value. Nothing beats being in the room with bright minds advocating ideas skillfully. Let's make these minutes count.

Justin Wiley - Mt. Hood CC

n/a

Kaden Senkbeil - CoSI

n/a

Kaylee Tegan - CoSI

DEBATE

My debate philosophy is quite simple, I prefer clear, structured arguments about the resolution. I dont enjoy spending the entire round hearing arguments about framework and definitions unless ABSOLUTELY necessary to the round. I also prefer quality arguments over a mass quantity of arguments. I prefer speeches that are slow and easy to understand rather than overloading your opponent and judge with fast arguments. I tend to not vote on dropped arguments unless it is absolutely necessary in the round. With organization, signposting contentions and on-time, brief road maps are preferred.

Most importantly, I expect all competitors to be respectful and civil when debating. I will not tolerate rude competition.

IE

For individual events and speeches, organization is very important. All parts of a speech should be easily identifiable. I am listening to the content of a speech as well as the delivery. Is there eye contact with the judge and audience? Do you know your speech well? Speeches should not be over the time limit.

Kevin Trombly - CWI

n/a

Manuel Hernandez - CoSI

n/a

Maria Ceballos Paz - NWC

n/a

Mikey Mace - LCC

n/a

Nathaneal McBride - CWI

I have been a member of the Forensics community for over a decade. First as a competitor and for the past several years as a coach and judge. I have experience in all individual events and IPDA debate. I am familiar with all other styles of debate and their formats. Despite their differences, I believe that all forms of debate can be judged on these basic guidelines:

  • Debaters should prioritize effective communication, especially in IPDA. Reasonable pacing and articulation are preferred. If a style utilizes speed, it still needs to be easy to follow. Jargon should not be used to obscure arguments.
  • Arguments should be supported by evidence. Evidence is not an argument in of itself, it needs to be impacted.
  • Framework should be well executed. A solid framework clearly interprets the resolution. A good framework guides me in my voting process.
  • Weighing mechanisms are important. They should be utilized throughout all arguments, not as a throwaway in the resolutional analysis.
  • Everyone should be treated with respect. I do not respond well to ad hominem and curt behavior. Be excellent to each other.

Rebecca Pickner - LCC

Bio
I competed in collegiate forensics from 20162017, where I participated in debate, limited prep, plaftorm, and interp. Since my time as a competitor, I have remained actively involved with my former team as a judge and supportive role model and mentor. My academic journey has been focused in Psychology and the Art of Teaching. My background in both forensics and education informs my judging philosophy, with an emphasis on clarity, growth, and meaningful communication.

Debate (IPDA / Parli / LD)
I value the educational opportunities that stem from debate above all else. I prioritize rounds where I can clearly follow the argumentation and walk away with a deeper understanding of the topic.

What I look for in a successful debater:

  • Clear flow and organization: Roadmaps, taglines, and signposting are essential. I should always know where you are in your argument.

  • Evidence-based claims: Logic is important, but claims supported by clear, relevant evidence are significantly more persuasive.

  • Clarity over jargon: Given my strong IPDA background, I prefer arguments that are clearly explained without excessive jargon. Your goal should be to communicate effectively, not to overwhelm.

Ultimately, I reward debaters who engage directly with their opponents, explain their arguments thoroughly, and prioritize accessibility and education in the round.

Platform Events
Delivery and intentionality are key in platform speaking. While your speech may not have extreme peaks and valleys, strong vocal enunciation and clarity go a long way.

What I value:

  • Purposeful gestures and movement: Walking points and gestures should feel natural and enhance your message.

  • Intentional use of visual aids: If you include a visual element, it should clearly add to your speech rather than distract from it.

  • Time usage: I would rather see a speech go 510 seconds over time than fall significantly short of the expected length.

  • Substantive solvency: If your speech proposes solutions, I want to see realistic, well-developed impacts rather than surface-level ideas.

Limited Preparation Events (Impromptu / Extemp)
In limited prep events, organization and balance are essential.

My expectations:

  • Answer the prompt fully: Stay focused and ensure your response directly addresses the question.

  • Clear structure: A roadmap is important so I can easily follow your points.

  • Balanced development: Spend a relatively equal amount of time on each main point.

  • Fresh examples: If I have judged you before, I expect to hear new or expanded support. Recycling is acceptable, but growth is expected.

Interpretation Events
I appreciate performances that are intentional, dynamic, and thoughtfully constructed.

What I look for:

  • Strong attention grabber: Your introduction sets the toneuse it intentionally and make it count.

  • Purposeful use of research: Any research included should clearly support the thesis of your piece.

  • Emotional and tonal variation: Your performance should have peaks and valleys. I am not a fan of one-note pieces.

  • Content awareness: I believe trigger warnings are important and should be used thoughtfully. If you are unsure whether your piece requires one, consult a coach to ensure the audience and judges are properly prepared.

Thea Hesby - CoSI

n/a