FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Abigail Rine - George Fox

n/a

Adam Henze - UIndy

n/a

Adam Browning - ACU

Aimee Jokerst - Webster

n/a

Alana Martin - EPCC

n/a

Ali Small - Ottawa

n/a

Amorette Hinderaker - NDSU

n/a

Andrew Jones - Hillsdale

n/a

Andy Rapp - Northwood

n/a

Andy Luster - McNeese State

n/a

Angela Alavardo - Lower Columbia

Ashley Cosby - Lane

n/a

Audrey Cunningham - UIndy

n/a

Autumn Brackley - CWI

BRIAN CAFARELLI - Parkland

n/a

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 Bishop - CWI

Bert Glandon - CWI

Beth Hewes - CSI

n/a

Biff Griffith - Carroll

n/a

Bob Schabot - Cameron

n/a

Bohn Lattin - UP

Brian Swafford - Boise State

Brian Simmons - UP

I consider my role as the judge in a debate round as being similar to that of a U.S. Supreme Court judge. Such a judge not only assess "who won" arguments between debaters, such a judge also assess the quality of arguments made "to the judge" simply becasue the arguments were brought into the round. That said, I strongly believe in the necessity for debaters to honor their opponent's arguments by directly clashing with them. I am impressed by debaters that demonstrate critical thinking--questioning assumptions, pointing out contradictions, showing how contentions don't meet stated values or criteria. I believe IPDA ought to be a highly communicative event filled with what Qunitillian might call "good people speaking well." That doesn't mean you have to talk to me like I am Forrest Gump, but it does mean that style matters. Finally, I believe there is a proper decorum and courtesy in any forensic context; be nice to each other!  FYI: My background: I was a policy debater in high school, a CEDA debater at Oklahoma Christian University, a CEDA graduate assistant at Pepeprdine University and now I coach IPDA at University of Portland where we previously competed in and I coached BP and NPDA.

Brooke Adamson - NNU

n/a

Cami Sanderson - FSU

n/a

Caress Russell - Wiley

n/a

Chad Judy - Boise State

Charles Thomas Preston, Jr. - GSC

n/a

Chatinoda Tinago - William Carey

n/a

Cheryl Wright - CWI

Chris Hinshaw - Sterling

Chris Fenner - FSC

n/a

Chris Richter - Seattle

n/a

Chris Harper -

Chris Michaels - Ottawa

n/a

Christi Siver - CSB/SJU

n/a

Christy Bowman - Boise State

Clint Jones - Transy

n/a

Dan West - Ohio U

n/a

Dan Higgins - Heidelberg

n/a

Daniel Schabot - Cameron

n/a

Daniel O'Neil - U of Houston

n/a

Darin Harnois - SFCC

n/a

Darrell Farmer - UNL

n/a

Dave Kosloski - Clark CC

David Maile - Pacific

n/a

David Bailey - SBU

n/a

David Trumble - St. Anselm

n/a

Deanna Beaton - Webster

n/a

Dena Counts - ACU

I am the DOF at ACU.  I have been coaching Parli for the last 7 years.  For those last 7 years, I have judged on average 65 rounds per year.  This year I have been judging less but still should be able to keep up with you.   I vote with the better quality of argument. When I say better quality, I am looking for depth of arguments and warrants behind your claim. I attempt to remove my individual biases from the round and make debaters tell me where and why to vote. I understand that biases do seep into my judgments, but I do feel that I should make decisions based upon your argumentation – not my worldview. Probably, I’m more of a game player when it comes to a decision maker.  Love new and unique strategies. I really think almost anything goes in this thing called debate. I say "anything" as I don't like cursing, nakedness, or slurs, but strategy wise, you can do what you need to do to win. Know that I’m very expressive in my nonverbals. If I am getting your argument, you’ll know. If you’ve lost me, you should know from my nonverbals. I have only been coaching for five years, so there are times that super speed (not typically speed) can lose me. Again watch my nonverbals, and I’ll let you know. I flow, judge on the flow, and don’t do the work for you.  Use your rebuttal to tell me why you win and where on the flow your arguments overwhelm the teams.     Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.   1.     Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?  25 to 30 25 to 27 means you need work 28 to 30 means you are pretty awesome   2.     How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   Kritiks are great from both Aff and Neg. Explain your framework, impacts and give me a realistic alternative.  I do think you need an alternative and it shouldn't bite your story.  No I don’t think when you run other negative arguments they should contradict other neg positions unless through the running of those positions you are trying to make a point.     3.     Performance based arguments…  Great.  Just tell me how I should interpret them, how they function in the round.     4.     Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?   I will vote on T but would rather vote elsewhere. To pull that trigger in -round abuse is typically necessary. Also, competing interp is necessary.     5.     Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?  CP’s are fine. PICS are fine. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t run argumentation of why PICS are bad though. Yes, ID the status of the CP. PERM the CP every which way you can. If you can think of a new way to PERM that would be super fun.   6.     Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)  Yes that’s fine.     7.     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 I look to Criteria or Framework to tell me where to go.  Usually it is impacts or turns on case.  I REALLY like rebuttals that tell me where to vote and WHY to vote.     8.     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")? If you don’t tell me WHY your impact outweighs their impacts on timeline, magnitude or probability, you are gambling on my choice or priority.  I would probably go with concrete impacts over abstract ones.

Denee Janda - WNCC

n/a

Denise Vaughan - Bellevue

General information: I did LD in High School, CEDA in College and now coach NPDA.  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. Specific information: 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.   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. 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.  Theory: Great.  Go nuts. Disads: Cool.  Link them.

Dennis Waller - NNU

n/a

Donna Robinson - CWI

Dustin Schneider - U of M

n/a

Ed Hinck - CMU

n/a

Eric Peatross - USU

n/a

Eric Long - Kishwaukee

n/a

Eric Sanders - Lane

n/a

Eric Chambers - UP

Erik Sande - Boise State

Ernest Dunlap - Boise State

Forest Ledbetter - OSU

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.

Gary Gillespie - NU

n/a

Gina Jensen - Webster

n/a

Greg Young - Humboldt

n/a

Heather Hayes - West Chester

n/a

Heather Schoenherr - CWI

Hilda Fyock - CWI

Hiliary Burns - Wartburg

n/a

Jackson Miller - Linfield

n/a

Jaime Thompson-Bott - Boise State

Jamie Summerfield - IDAHO

Janet Eaton - Wiley

n/a

Jared Cooke - Boise State

Jason Edwards - GCC

n/a

Jason Ames - Chabot

I believe it is up to you to make strategic decisions on how you perform in round. Thus, you tell me what I’m supposed to judge on.  I believe the round is yours to define and I’ll vote on any argument (T’s, K’s, CP’s, whatever) that is reasoned out, impacted, and persuasive.  If you blip it, I won’t buy it just because it’s on the flow.  Argumentation should be organized to enable me to flow your arguments better. Other things: I prefer that students adhere to the topic given, but I am also open and able to judge critical arguments from both sides of the resolution if applicable and necessary. I’m not a huge fan of speed in either NFA or Parli. I do try to adapt as best as possible, however, but I also don’t want to be a “flow machine”. I want to be able to hear and process your arguments so that I can make a good decision. Hit your tags, explain your analysis and we’ll be all good. If you’re going too fast for me, I’ll clear you and if you do that we’ll all be happy at the end of the round. In NFA, I believe that spreading is antithetical to the event. However, I don’t believe you need to be “conversational speed” either. Feel free to talk a bit quickly (as us debaters do). Hit your tags, explain your analysis and we’ll be all good. If you’re going too fast for me, I’ll clear you and if you do that we’ll all be happy at the end of the round. If you don’t, you’ll probably be unhappy. Also in NFA, if at least the tags and sources of your 1AC are not in a public space that is available to all debaters after round 2 of the tournament, I will become more prone to buy predictability arguments from the Negative side and more willing to vote on T in favor of the Neg. (FYI Neg, this doesn’t mean it’s a lock for you if they don’t … but the odds are ever in your favor). Here is the website for you to post your case: <a href="http://nfaldfilesharing.wikispaces.com/">http://nfaldfilesharing.wikispaces.com/</a> Your rebuttals should be a time for you to advocate your positions.  Enjoy!

Jason Montgomery - Boise State

Jeff Stoppenhagen - Boise State

Jennifer Andersen - Lane

n/a

Jennifer Talbert - William Carey

n/a

Jennifer Page - MHCC

Jeremy Hutchins - Tx State

n/a

Jessica Moretti - Boise State

Jessie Fast (wing judge) - NU

n/a

Jim Evans - UAM

n/a

Joel Hefling - SD State

n/a

John Jablonski - Clark CC

John Boyer - Lafayette

n/a

John Price - CMU

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 - SBU

n/a

Jorji Jarzbek - William Carey

n/a

Judith Orwig - CWI

Justin Daigle - McNeese State

n/a

Kaelynn Van Buren - Hillsdale

n/a

Kate Martin - Hillsdale

n/a

Kathleen Bruce - SJDC

Background: I have been involved with Debate for ten years as both a competitor and a coach.  I competed from 2003-2007.  I coached at University of the Pacific for two years and have been coaching at San Joaquin Delta College for the past 2.5 years. Overall Philosophy: Debate is a game, in my view.  Debating about AWB leading to nuclear war is not realistic, therefore debate is not realistic.  I look at debate as a chess game where every type of argument is a piece on the board and used to take down the "king."  Meaning I will listen to anything and will vote on anything as long as it is warranted within the debate round.  With that said, every judge has preferences. Here are my preferences: Procedurals: Competing interpretations doesn't make sense to be ran as a priori, but if you have warrants as to why it is a priori, Im all ears. Also, education as a standard or a voter cannot be quantified in a logical way to render my ballot.  As far as my  voting behavior I have a low threshold on Topicality, but high threshold on new procedurals ran in MGC (only because this allows PMR to make a lot of new arguments without a response for the neg).  I really like procedural debates when done well.   Kritiks: I love critic debates. I hate bad ones. I weigh the framework heavily when evaluating the arguments on the K.  I am not a fan of Reject the Aff Alternative, but I have voted for it.  The alt, should framed as counterplan or a clear way to adopt an ideology. Impacts: I prefer probability and timeframe over scope and magnitude. Speed: I can keep up as long as the taglines are clear, you slow down during a plan or counterplan text (so, i can get every word), numbering is consistently clear, and the rebuttals don't sound like another constructive.

Kelly Larson - MOSO

n/a

Kelly Welch - Portland State

n/a

Ken Troyer - Sterling

Kerrie Hughes - CCC

n/a

Kevin Doss - Lamar - Orange

n/a

Kevin Murphy - CMU

n/a

Kristina Campos - ACU

I was a CX debater in high school (in the Dallas, TX circuit), and NDT/CEDA debater at ACU in college (we broke at CEDA nats several years), and now I coach Parli and Worlds at ACU. I have been away from the debate world for the last 12 years while pursuing a Ph.D. and starting out as a professor. So, I understand the basics of all the arguments you will make, however, I might not always know the latest name for it. So, make sure you explain to me what it is instead of assuming I know.   --Speed is fine. If I can't understand you, I will let you know.  --T debates are fine.  --Theory debates are fine. --Critiques are fine. I used to run them all the time and enjoy a good critique debate --Framework debates are fine.  --Normal policy debates are fine. --I'm iffy on performance debates, probably not a good idea with me. I prefer a strong overview and/or impact analysis in the PMR and LOR.  My default judging paradigm is utilitarian, but I will let you put me in a different paradigm if the argument is good.  I am still getting reacquainted with the nuances of arguments that are popular now. So, you probably will want to ask me some more specific questions before the round starts.   After reading through other judging philosophies, I realized I have to tell you that I won't vote for teams that are rude or actually abusive to their opponents. (what?!?, how is this not common sense). Please use courtesy and be nice to each other, you can be assertive and make good arguments without being a jerk.  I am not impressed by big egos or people who need to make themselves feel stronger by being ugly/rude/offensive to others.  That is a good way to lose my ballot.

Kyleigh Murphy - IDAHO

Lacey Rammell-O'Brien - Boise State

Leigh Cummings - Ottawa

n/a

Leigh Ann Jordan - Transy

n/a

Letha Quinn - NNU

n/a

Liz Kinnaman - MHCC

Mack Sermon - IDAHO

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.

Mark Porrovecchio - OSU

n/a

Mark Hickman - West Chester

n/a

Marshall Most - Boise State

Matt Grisat - Chapman

n/a

Matt Delzer - SD State

n/a

Matt Woods -

Matthew Warner - Hillsdale

n/a

Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale

n/a

Megan Chibanga - Webster

n/a

Megan Hudson - CWI

Melissa Brown - MHCC

Melissa Franke - PacificLutheran

n/a

Michael Bartanen - PacificLutheran

n/a

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.

Michelle Bennett - CWI

n/a

Mike Fain - U of Houston

n/a

Mike Dugaw - Lower Columbia

n/a

Morgan Chinn - NU

n/a

Neil Strine - Bloomsburg

n/a

Nigel Haarstad - NDSU

n/a

Nik Vaughn - Clark CC

Patrick Lairson - CCC

n/a

Paul Janda - WNCC

n/a

Penni Pier - Wartburg

n/a

Peter Kaufman - SD State

n/a

Phil Tschirhart - CMU

n/a

Pierre Liburd - Cameron

n/a

Rachel Pollock - Muskingum

n/a

Rachel Wheatley - Boise State

Reggie Jayne - CWI

Richard Paine - North Central

Debate Philosophy:      (1) CLASH.  Don't let the debate turn into two ships passing in the night.  Be sure you respond to what your opponents say.  Carry through your own ideas (story) but also be sure you respond in detail to their story.  In terms of the sheer amount of time spent on the stories, I prefer that the debate preference Gov. ground - Opp ground should clearly be an analysis of what the Gov. position is.  Go line-by-line, be direct, be complete.  Pull through dropped arguments.      (2) STRUCTURE.  I want to see it.  I want to hear numbers/letters AND precise tags.  If I don't know where you are, I can't flow it effectively.      (3) SUPPORT your claims/assertions with specific concrete data whenever possible.        (4) TAKE QUESTIONS.  This is my pet peeve.  If someone rises to ask a question, take it, and take it quickly.  Statements like "I don't have time right now" or "I'll answer it at the end of the position" are a sure way to press all the wrong buttons with me.  Questions are crucial to debate and must be honored.  How many?  Three allowed per speech sounds about right to me.      (5) NEGATIVE RESPONSE OPTIONS.  I am not a fan of Counterplans, and I am not a fan of Kritiks.  If you choose to run them, I will of course listen to them and evaluate them - but I am not naturally inclined to embrace them.      (6) DISADVANTAGES.  I am not a fan of unrealistic high-impact disads ("Increasing grade school funding will lead to nuclear war").  Realistic and believable real-world consequences are more likely to carry weight with me.  Disadvantages must be evaluated in terms of both their impact AND by how likely they are to occur.      (7) SPEED.  It should be easily comprehensible.         (8) DEBATE JARGON.  I want to hear the whole argument convincingly.  Don't just toss out the lingo ("Turn!  Perm!") and assume that's enough.  You will have to explain the process by which the lingo applies.      (9) SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.  Partners should not talk to each other during their speeches or "cover mistakes" when the debater speaking starts to waver.      (10)  PLANS.  In policy rounds, the plan should be fully provided in the PMC.  It is not sufficient to say "any questions?  No?  Well, you had your chance."  The burden is on the Gov. to provide a complete plan without prompting in the PMC.  If that doesn't happen, I consider myself free (and likely) to vote on the basis of missing Plan planks.      (11)  OTHER THINGS?  Please ask!  I welcome all questions!      (12)  Have fun.  Enjoy it.  It's just a game!

Robby Perucca - Boise State

Robert Markstrom - McNeese State

n/a

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.

Russell Taylor - Baker

n/a

Ryan Louis - Ottawa

n/a

Sandy Alspach - FSU

n/a

Sara Seyller - Clark CC

I have enjoyed participating in the collegiate debate community since 2007. I have participated in, coached, and judged NPDA, IPDA, and BP debate. I think any form of debate is both fun and educational!! While I enjoy sharp, pointed styles I am averse to disrespectful treatment of competitors, and find that it detracts from the whole of the debate.   Overall, in each form of debate I am well versed in rules and expectations and hold firm to them.  They are there for a reason and ought to be respected.  This does not mean I lack flexibility, but it does mean that outright violations will be noted in nowhere else but in speaker point awards. In many ways I consider myself a hybrid, I am a flow judge with a speed govern of just short of ludicrous speed (IE spittle running down face as they gasp for air every few minutes), but I also appreciate arguments that use persuasive rhetoric and style rather than reliance on an excess of words to win solely by tabulating dropped arguments. As far as Procedurals, liked or otherwise, is becoming an important if not critical component to debating in NPDA.  As such, I am open to all forms of arguments so long as they are connected to the case, it doesn’t take much to make it applicable.  I am not a big fan of winning on dropped arguments alone unless the drop so large that the gaping hole left is enough to sink the case.  I leave it up to the competitors to set the rounds as they see fit.  In IPDA and BP there is a heavier reliance on style and persuasion rather than procedurals.  As such, I tend to be less about detailed flows and more attentive to the connections made both within the cases and through clash provided connected to the opponents case.  In these rounds, the devil is in the details.  I am most appreciative of competitors that can connect to the people in the room by explaining how it might impact us, why it matters to us, or the harms and benefits we would be exposed to should something occur.  Ivory tower syndrome, arguing so far up in the building that it become abstract concepts of competing theory, is extraordinarily hard to do given the time frame and is more often isolates competitors and judges from the argument rather than including them.

Sara DeCorsey - Lane

n/a

Scott Jensen - Webster

n/a

Sean Lynn - Webster

n/a

Shannon Valdivia - MHCC

Shawnee' Biggerstaff - CSUSB

n/a

Shayna O'Dea - Portland State

n/a

Shelly Hinck - UM

n/a

Skyler Gregory - Lower Columbia

Stephanie Hofelich - West Chester

n/a

Stephanie Stanley - Portland State

n/a

Steve Robertson - Chapman

n/a

Steven Jones - GCC

n/a

Steven Graham - SJDC

Steven Lack - Hillsdale

n/a

Susan Miskelly - Bridgewater

n/a

T. J. Lakin - FSU

n/a

Tammy Larson - MOSO

n/a

Teresa Parvin - NWMOST

n/a

Tom Serfass - Webster

n/a

Tom Hyatt - Bellevue

Tomeka Robinson Parks - Wiley

n/a

Warren Koshak - U of Houston

n/a

Wayne Kraemer - Tx State

n/a

Willow Moline - SFCC

n/a

Zubin Bagai - UP

christine warda - Chabot

n/a

ghassan shalabi - CSUSB

n/a

jay bourne - cumberlands

n/a

2011 Pi Kappa Delta National Tournament and Convention