FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Blood - UCMO

Adam Harvey - William Carey

n/a

Alex Lacamu - Houston

n/a

Allison Bailey - UNG

n/a

Amanda (Ataiyan) Stauder - McKendree

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

Amber Holt - Cameron

n/a

Amorette Hinderaker - TCU

n/a

Amy Bopp - SBU

n/a

Andrea Carlile - SDSU

n/a

Andrew Harvey - GCC

n/a

Andy Rapp - Northwood

n/a

Andy Luster - PVAMU

n/a

Anthony Wachs - Northern

n/a

Ashanti Wilson -

Ashley Coker - Ball State

n/a

Audrey Cunningham - UIndy

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.

Beau Woodward - UP

I am ok with meta debate arguments (Topicality, Ks, etc.) as long as they are called for.  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.  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.  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.  Please try to act like your opponents are people, with valid opinions and points of view.

Billy Wooten - Berea College

n/a

Bob Glenn - Owensboro

n/a

Bohn Lattin - UP

Brandon Bumstead - WSU

n/a

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.

Brian Swafford - Northwest MO

n/a

Brian Powell - Transy

n/a

CJ Hunt - McNeese State

n/a

Cade Hamilton - LRU

My debate background is in policy. I debated in Dallas/Fort Worth for three years in high school and debated for the University of North Texas for two years. Since competing, I have been coaching for a number of years now - one year at the University of Central Oklahoma, two years at Wichita State University, one year at Johnson County Community College, three years at Kansas State University, and now this is my second year with Lenoir-Rhyne doing parliamentary debate - primarily NPDA and IPDA.  Evaluating debate is much more about the participants establishing the preferred parameters than my own predispositions. I would like to consider myself "tabula rasa," or at least as much as I can consciously make myself. My inherent predispositions are towards technical argumentation and clash. Most debaters would be well received by doing impact analysis that utilizes the internal components of the debate and contextualizing those arguments through the "agreed upon," or rather debated, means for how I as the critic should evaluate this specific debate. I think cross-examination and points of information should be used more for strategic purposes than clarification. I think credibility matters, but believe the debaters should tell me how and what credibility means in a given context. I think civil, level headedness is valuable, but I would gladly listen to arguments to the contrary. Humor is always a good thing for me, but be good at it. Display confidence and find your voice. Beyond that, please feel comfortable to ask me more specific questions.

Caleb Rawson - CCU

"My background is that I competed in parli for multiple years in college and now do some assistant coaching on the weekends while I get my PhD in Business. I’ve been told I am a very expressive judge so feel free to utilize that to your advantage. I hold to a very ideological view of debate, especially that access to debate (both as a competitor and as an audience member) should be open and non-discriminatory. This manifests itself in some of the following points.   -Courtesy. Both teams need to not only be polite with their words, but also with their nonverbal signals. If an opponent asks a question (and they should ask, and you should answer) be polite with your answer. Dramatic sighs or eye rolling will result in a significant drop in speaker points.   -Speed. Having debated I know that a fast speaking speed can be beneficial. However, your speed must be at an understandable pace for everyone in the room (including audience members). I will not flow anything I cannot understand and I will not call “clear” or tell you to slow down. If you talk fast you must pay attention to my nonverbals (i.e. do not read directly from a page at a fast pace and expect me to flow everything). -Probable Cause. Impacts, K’s, and abuse must be probable, not just possible. -Generic Politics Argument and Resolutional K’s. See above point. I don’t care if you “feel” the resolution is discriminatory or unfair, you must prove that it is. -Use rebuttals to actually refute your opponents and show why you win instead of using them like a constructive speech. That’s why debate has rebuttals in the first place…. I like to have fun as a judge and I like my competitors to have fun."

Cami Smith - Boise State

Cary Chavis - Wiley

n/a

Charles Bailey - UNG

n/a

Chatinoda Tinago - William Carey

n/a

Chip Hall - CNU

n/a

Chris Leland - CCU

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

Chris Medina - Wiley

Clara Adkins - Marshall

n/a

Clint Jones - Transy

n/a

Cody Follis - North Central

Cory Paul Harrison - Ohio U

n/a

Dan West - Ohio U

n/a

Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia

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

Danny Ray - Marshall

n/a

Darrian O'Neal - William Carey

n/a

Dave Smith -

David Martin - Ball State

n/a

David Bailey - SBU

n/a

David Brennan - Wartburg

n/a

Deanna Beaton - Webster

n/a

Deano Pape - Ripon

n/a

Deion Hawkins - Marshall

n/a

Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell

General information: 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. Arguments matter to me more than style.  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.  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. I am not a huge fan of PICs. I would be open to argumentation on the issue. Points of Order are fine. 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.

Denzil Gelly - UNG

n/a

Derrick Reed - Morehouse

n/a

Destin Morris - William Carey

n/a

Doug Pruim - Purdue

Dr. Karen Hill-Johnson - WKCTC

n/a

Eli Brennan - TCC

n/a

Eric Roesch - Ball State

n/a

Erik Sande - Boise State

Frankie Glennis - Southern Miss

n/a

Garret Castleberry - OU

n/a

Gary Harmon - KWU

I have coached a long time.  I am familiar with theory and practice.  I believe argumentation is a search for the probable truth and not game playing.  I believe arguments should be prima facie when presented.  I don't hear as well as I used to.  It does affect my ability to listen to speed.  If you are clear, I can handle a pretty fast rate.  However, use speed only when you have so much to say that you need it to meet time restraints.  Speed plus poor use of time is not good.  Procedurals should only be used when there is abuse. I enjoy good argumentation.

George LaMaster - Marian Univ

n/a

Gina Jensen - Webster

n/a

Glenn Prince - ISU

Background: I competed in policy debate for most of my career before transitioning to college parliamentary debate and LD. I cleared at CEDA Nationals, have a national championship in parliamentary debate, and currently coach LD. I am currently the Director of Debate at Illinois State University. I've been competing or coaching debate for 18 years. While they may make me seem like a dinosaur, I keep up with what goes on in debate and attempt to judge the debate based on the parameters provided by the debaters. I default to a policy making paradigm. I will default to humanistic impacts if given no other options in the debate. I tend to think all arguments are conditional. SPECIFIC ISSUES: TOPICALITY: I vote on topicality more than most people, but that doesn't really mean much because most debates don't come down to T. I am willing to vote against the affirmative because it just isn't an example of the resolution, but will default to whatever evaluative framework you decide in the debate. DISADVANTAGES: 1. Uniqueness debates often decide these questions. 2. A good link turn is always better than a generic impact turn. 3. Clearly explained/evidenced internal link claims are key to winning a substantial impact. 4. Equal scrutiny is given to the internals of disadvantages and affirmative advantages. 5. Impact evidence needs to actually provide an impact: far too many stop at a descriptive, internal linkish sounding argument. COUNTERPLANS: 1. I like all kinds of them: delay, multiple, unconditional, conditional, whatever. 2. I tend to view theory debates on counterplans as reason to reject the argument, not the team. 3. Solvency arguments on counterplans should open to the same consideration as affirmative solvency claims. 4. Permutations are only a test of competitiveness. KRITIKS: 1. Specificity of the link is key--generic link debates are just that: generic. 2. I prefer alternatives that move past rejection and into something more pragmatic. 3. Topic specific criticisms are a lot more interesting/compelling to me. 4. Seeking out specific links found in the 1AC are key to solidifying the debate. OTHER STUFF: 1. I love debate. You should too. I will do my best to evaluate the debate in the fairest, most equitable way possible. 2. Be kind to each other. I love a good snarky cross-x, but have fun doing it and don't make people miserable or feel bad about themselves. Debate should be a space of fun, engaged disagreement, but there's no need to be a jerk. 3. My speaker points range 26-30. A 30 happens once every other year or so. A 29 is really good from me. 4. Paperless debate is great, but be proficient in how to use it and efficient in executing it during the round. It shouldn't add 20 minutes to the debate. 5. I'm happy to answer any specific questions you have before the debate about me and after the debate about my decision in your round.

Gus Foote - Ohio U

n/a

Heather Chaulk - Ball State

n/a

Howie Long - Boise State

Ian Smith - Transy

n/a

Jana Hall - CNU

n/a

Janis Crawford - Butler

n/a

Jason Roach - Webster

n/a

Jason Edwards - GCC

n/a

Jeff Przybylo - Harper

Jeff Stoppenhagen - Boise State

Jennifer Ell - Northern

n/a

Jennifer Talbert - William Carey

n/a

Jennifer Keating - North Central

Jeremy Hutchins - Tx State

n/a

Jessica Hunt - McNeese State

n/a

Jim Gatfield - CWI

I am a Comms judge. Make it your goal to teach me and your opponent something. This is a chief aim of debate. Approach debate as a conversation . . . not an opportunity to overwhelm your opponent. I prefer eloquence over speed.  Respect your opponent . . . respect the event . . . show me that you want to be here.    NPDA Debate 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.

Jim Disrude - UW-Whitewater

n/a

John Schultz - Purdue

John Boyer - Lafayette

n/a

John DeBerry - GCTC

In NPDA I don't have a philosophical bias towards any issue on face.  Run what you think gives you the best opportunity to win.  However, please tell me why it’s a voting issue.  If you don't then you leave it up to me to decide why it’s important and you might not like my decision.  I don't have a problem with Topicality when warranted, but "stupid T" really annoys me.   Don't run topicality just to run topicality because you've been taught to always run topicality.  Remember topicality is essentially arguing that your opponents have broken the rules and you should not make that claim unless it’s warranted.  I will vote on RVI's on topicality if I think the t argument is stupid.  Finally, while I don't have any issues with the standard voting issues (i.e. Topicality, Solvency, Harms, etc.), I warn you again running some type of performativity case with me as your judge.  While I believe some of them have merit in their intent, most of the ones I have seen are simply attempts to skew the round to the point that there is no way for your opponent to win, or to make your opponent have to argue a very morally reprehensible position.  I have seen what the proliferation of these type of cases has done in CEDA and do not wish to see the same craziness come to NPDA.

John Stanley - North Central

Johnny Rowing - CWI

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

Jordan Compton - Ohio U

n/a

Jordan Hart - SBU

n/a

Jory Baker - Northwest MO

n/a

Joseph Packer - CMU

I competed and coached in policy debate for 11 years and coached LD for 3. Things to know 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). 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. 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. 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). 5. Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards by making smart, warranted, analytical arguments. 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. 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. 8. Be respectful to the other team.

Josh Sunderbruch - Harper

Josh Sunderbruch I am a former debater (many styles) who dislikes the lack of impact and analysis in policy debate.  I dislike watching students run cases, strategies, and ideas that are not their own and that they do not understand. Please keep this in mind.  I look for clash and dislike teams that try to win on technicalities or procedurals (T, K, RVI, etc).  Ultimately, I see debate as an event about logic, flexibility, and adaptability.  Still, I will vote for topicality if there is cause, not just if there is insufficient ground (I will also vote for a well-argued RVI on T, though, etc.). As a former debater tired of lay judges, my biggest pet peeve is misrepresentation of the flow—don’t tell me that the rival team said something they didn’t (or vice versa); it’s the easiest way to lose my ballot (if I know I can’t trust you on one issue, why would I trust you about the rest?). Recently, I have developed an equal dislike for debaters who try to sneak new arguments into rebuttals or who insist that because of a magical rule that they really don’t understand, themselves, they should win. If you are going to tap into debate theory, make sure you understand it. Debate the issues, demonstrate the links in the arguments, and have fun up there.  Savor debate for what it is—don’t turn it into something else. I like debate styles that encourages analysis and comm<a name="_GoBack"></a>unication skills as well as debate strategy. I like all forms of resolutions, and I flatly reject the notion that all resolutions are best served as policy arguments. Research is less impressive to me than the mind behind it.  The more traditional/philosophical approaches are the most likely to influence me.  I probably vote for three counter-plans a year, and most of those are Plan Exclusive/Counter Resolutional. You will not be saved by a ‘card.’ Don’t invent rules that really don’t exist. I will enforce the pleasant delivery standard of NFA-LD, and if you turn an argument into an auction I’ll just stop flowing you. Speed isn’t a strategy; it’s a sign you don’t trust your actual arguments to win, head-to-head. Please feel free to ask for clarification in person.

Julie Peters - ICC

n/a

Justin Wessels - SBU

n/a

Kate Roesch - Ball State

n/a

Kathleen Trigg - FC

n/a

Kathy Denker - Ball State

n/a

Katie Rasmussen - William Carey

n/a

Ken Newby - Morehouse

n/a

Kendall Harris -

Kiefer Storrer - KWU

I like to listen to good arguments.  Do not assert if you do not also give support (evidence in LD) for what you assert.  I debated 4 years in high school and four years in college. I understand debate theory, but do not enjoy debates that venture from the directives of the resolution.  Use theory only to lead you to arguments or to stem abuse. I don't enjoy speed for speed purposes.

Kiera Wilson - Ottawa

n/a

Kim Runnion - Lafayette

n/a

Kyle Kellam - Marian Univ

n/a

Kyle Dahlin - Purdue

Lauren Lupkowski - Butler

n/a

Lauren Morgan - COD

I coach parliamentary debate at a community college on a circuit that emphasizes clear communication (no speed and spread), use of general knowledge, and persuasiveness. My teams do not debate on NPDA or IPDA circuits, so I am not used to hearing speed and spread; it is difficult for me to follow.  I appreciate debaters who are able to adjust their speaking style.  I stress use of the weigining mechanism; if it is the criteria by which debaters ask me to judge the debate, I expect debaters to make use of the weighing mechanism throughout the debate.   I am also not impressed by "preponderance of evidence," especially if it is simply meant to overwhelm the other team.  I expect strong argumentation (reasoning and evidnece), but teams may utilize different types of evidence (i.e. reasoning by sign).  Avoidance of logical fallacies is paramount.  Topicality arguments are okay, but a team must have very strong, clear reasoning to call T.  If teams are condescending or overly aggressive in their communication style, that is cause for me to stop listening and may cost you the debate.

Leah Smith -

Leah Moore - Lower Columbia

Leigh Cummings - Ottawa

n/a

Lilllian Otieno - UNG

n/a

Lisa Roth - NIU

n/a

Liz Kinnaman - MHCC

Lyndsey Christoffersen - Chapman

n/a

Mark Dorrough - Chapman

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 Marciniak - Northwood

n/a

Marty Feeney - Simpson College

Mary Moore - Ball State

n/a

Matt Lenell - CCU

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

Matt Johnson - FC

n/a

Matt Delzer - Ripon

n/a

Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale

n/a

Meg Moshe - Ball State

n/a

Megan Chibanga - Webster

n/a

Michael Bartanen - PacificLutheran

n/a

Michael Chancellor - William Carey

n/a

Michelle Colpean - Ball State

n/a

Mike Storr - William Carey

n/a

Misty Gatfield - CWI

Nancy Jackson - Marshall

n/a

Niccole Fortunato - Ball State

n/a

Nick Kwolek - Purdue

Nick Prephan - Marshall

n/a

Nigel Haarstad - UK

n/a

Norell Conroy - Boise State

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

Paul Wesley Alday - BGSU

n/a

Raven Mineo - Transy

n/a

Rayla Crawford - Wiley

n/a

Rebecca Godsey - SBU

n/a

Rebekah Dunlap - William Carey

n/a

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!

Richie Laursen - MHCC

Robert Markstrom - McNeese State

n/a

Ryan Rigda - CMU

Ryan Louis - Ottawa

n/a

Sabrina Wittekind - Marietta

n/a

Sarah Collins - Cameron

n/a

Sarah Hinkle - CC

Scott Jensen - Webster

n/a

Scott Wells - SCSU

n/a

Sean Allen - Wiley

Shandra Naegle - Boise State

Shawnee' Biggerstaff - CSUSB

n/a

Shea Holland - UCMO

Spencer Waugh - Simpson College

Stephanie Fenner - UWF

n/a

Stephanie Wideman - WSU

n/a

Steve Hagan - McKendree

Steven Gill - CSUSB

n/a

Stormy Trotter-Lloyd - BGSU

n/a

Susan Miskelly - Bridgewater

n/a

T. J. Lakin - FSU

n/a

Thomas Holt - Hillsdale

n/a

Timothy Bill - UK

Tom Serfass - Webster

n/a

Tom Preston - UNG

n/a

Tom Pinney - Northwest MO

n/a

Tomeka Robinson - Marietta

n/a

Tyler Griffin - Bellevue

Vanessa Condon - SDSU

n/a

Victor Muse - TCC

n/a

Whitnie Tipton - UWF

n/a

Yanelly Villegas - NIU

n/a

2014 Pi Kappa Delta National Comprehensive Tournament