FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

- ISU

n/a

Aaron Dicker - Morehouse

n/a

Abby Escatel - North Central

Adam Jacobi - Ripon

n/a

Ai Lambogo - NIU

n/a

Alex Aebly - NIU

n/a

Alexa Kyros - Tallahassee

n/a

Amanda Donato - Hofstra

n/a

Amanda Lovelace -

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

Amorette Hinderaker - TCU

n/a

Andrew Harvey - GCC

n/a

Andrew Barrett - Wiley

n/a

Anna Zimmerman - Marian Univ

n/a

Anthony Wachs - Northern

n/a

Ashlee Freeman - Wiley

n/a

Ashley Coker - Ball State

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.

Berkley Conner - Ball State

n/a

Bettye Kash - TTU

n/a

Bob Glenn - Owensboro

n/a

Bobby Ellis - William Carey

n/a

Brent Brossmann - JCU

Note: For those whoâ€™ve known me as a judge previously, things have changed. I have been in debate continuously since 1976. I am a policy maker. I believe in the value of policy debate. The organization specifies that it embraces policy debate. I will make my decisions on policy. Thus, there are two ways you can win my ballot: 1. Have the best policy. 2. Prove that your opponentâ€™s practice is so egregious that I need to vote against them regardless of the policy. That could be for offensive discourse or a theory violation. If you want to make that â€œthree reasons,â€ go ahead. Topicality is a voting issue. It is not a reverse voting issue. The negative doesnâ€™t actually win topicality without demonstrating in-round abuse. In-round abuse can be proven by demonstrating that arguments to which you should have access were denied to you by the affirmativeâ€™s plan. You donâ€™t actually have to run and lose the arguments, but you do need to win that these were arguments you should have had access to, that they were important and that the plan denied you access. Counterplans need to be competitive. The counterplan must be better than the combination of the plan and counterplan (net benefits) or better than the plan alone IF the policies are mutually exclusive. As a policy maker, risk is important. Please use impact comparisons to weigh rounds for me. Probability, magnitude, risk and time frame are arguments that both debaters should use in rebuttals to weigh the round for me. Prioritize those that help you win and explain why they are more important. Some kritiks are legitimate arguments in policy debate. Others are not. If the kritik impacts the round at a policy level, it is clearly legitimate. Some of the philosophical or discourse assumptions behind a policy or its presentation need to be challenged with respect to the policy itself. Some kritiks may identify particularly nasty things your opponent has done in a round. These kritiks are legitimate. The rest should not be run in front of me. Iâ€™ll be happy to explain if you ask. The bottom line is that debaters need to respond to each otherâ€™s arguments in meaningful ways. However, there is a strong presumption against any argument which does not directly relate to the policy being discussed in the round, unless it is a compelling argument as to why your opponent is abusive either in theory (not playing fairly) or in discourse (is actually offensive). I will continue to defend the value of policy debate. To help the tournament run on time, Iâ€™ll submit a ballot before I comment. After that, Iâ€™ll be happy to disclose. The best education in debate happens in the post-round discussion and the more quickly that follows the end of the round, the more relevant the information is. I donâ€™t care about speed, per se. I do care about clarity. I know that some debaters care about speed. My policy is that the person who wants it to be slower â€œwinsâ€ that issue. So, if someone is too fast, simply say â€œslower please.â€ If someone says that to you, slow down. Have fun. Be kind. Learn a lot. Donâ€™t forget to smile or laugh. Remember, your opponents are here because they share your love of the event. We all dedicate huge amounts of time and passion. Respect that and them. (And, the last name is pronounced with a long O, like a bro.)

Brian Schanen - UW-Whitewater

n/a

Brian Swafford - Northwest MO

n/a

Brianne Giese - Aurora Unv

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."

Carlos Tarin - UTEP

I consider myself to be fairly straightforward in my approach to debate.  I think the best debates happen when teams actually engage the issues invoked by the resolution, rather than getting bogged down in pointless meta-theoretical exercises.  I am open to a variety of perspectives, but will generally default to a policy-making paradigm that evaluates net benefits unless I am given a reason to do otherwise.  If you want to run more creative positions (critical or otherwise) I’m okay with that as long as I am given a rationale that substantively articulates the importance or worth of those arguments.  Basically, don’t play games with the round for the sake of playing games; warrant your positions and give me a clear way of evaluating the claims you are making.  I am okay with some speed, but generally don’t appreciate spreading (and, in all fairness, I probably won’t catch everything if you’re going crazy fast).  I try to stick to the flow as much as possible, but if you arguments aren’t clearly labeled or are rushed, I’ll eventually give up trying to follow along.  Tell me where to go on the flow and where I should be (cross)applying arguments if necessary.  Things I generally don’t like: unnecessary topicality (usually won't vote for this unless there is demonstrable abuse happening in round), convoluted theory arguments (of the debate variety; I dig philosophical arguments), time sucks, rudeness. Your chances of winning my ballot will be greatly improved if you: clearly give me reasons why I should vote for you in rebuttals, weigh impacts, provide actual clash, win frameworks.  Miscellaneous: I’m usually pretty nice with speaker points (just don’t be a jerk).  Points of order are fine (I won't consider new arguments in rebuttals, but you might be hearing things differently -- so feel free to call them), but don't go overboard with them -- if a team is making lots of new arguments, I won't flow them.

Cary Chavis - William Carey

n/a

Cassie Craft - Marian Univ

n/a

Chad Meadows - WKU

Debate should reward hard work. Your strategies and in round execution should reflect intensive research and thought about the topic/your opponents arguments. My speaker points AND ballot will be used to reinforce a curriculum that normalizes debate practices I believe are needed for the overall health of the community. 1 -Evidence Debate should be a referendum on the quality and quantity of research done first, and then a matter of execution later. I will reward debaters who do excellent and thorough research over debaters who have “slick tricks” to win debates. I think evidence is VERY important, its quality and qualifications should be debated. I will usually prefer excellent evidence to spin. When comparing a good card which was not well explained/had no spin vs. no card or a bad card with excellent spin I will typically prefer the good card. I will call for cards after the debate. I will generally only call for evidence which is referenced in the final two rebuttals. Refer to evidence by last name and date after it has been cited in the first instance. If you do not READILY share citations and evidence with your opponent in the round - I WILL be cranky, probably vote against you, or at the very least give you TERRIBLE speaker points. 2 - Speed/Flowing If speaking at a more rapid rate is used to advance more scholarship in the round, I encourage debaters to speak quickly. If speaking quickly devolves into assaulting the round with a barrage of bad arguments in the hope that your opponent will not clash with them all, my ballot and speaker points will not encourage this practice. I keep an excellent and detailed flow. However, winning for me is more about establishing a coherent and researched explanation of the world rather than extending a specific argument. An argument is not “true” because it is extended on one sheet of paper if it is logically answered by evidence on another sheet of paper or later on the line by line. You can check your rhetorical bullying at the door. Posturing, repeating yourself (even loudly), insulting your opponents (except during cross-x), or insisting that I will "ALWAYS vote here" are probably a waste of your time. 3 - Argument Selection Any argument that advances argument on the desirability of the resolution through valid decision making is persuasive. The source of argumentation should be left up to the debaters. I am very unlikely to be persuaded that the source of evidence justifies its exclusion. In particular I am unconvinced the methodology, epistemology, ontology, and other indicts pertaining to the foundation of the affirmative are unjustified avenues of research to explore in debate. Above all else, the content of your argument should not be used to duck clash. Specific Issues: 1 - Topicality is a voter and not a reverse voter. "Proving abuse" is irrelevant, well explained standards are not. 2 – The affirmative does not have to specify more than is required to affirm the resolution. I encourage Affirmatives to dismiss specs/vagueness and other procedurals without implications for the topicality of the affirmative with absolute disregard. 3 – Conditionality is logical, restraints on logical decision making are only justified in extreme circumstances.  4 – There is nothing implied in the plan. Consult, process, and other counterplans which include the entirety of the plan text are not competitive. 5 – I will decide if the counterplan is competitive by evaluating if the permutation is better than the counterplan alone or if the plan is better than counterplan. Ideological, philosophical, and redudancy standards for competiton are not persuasive and not useful for making decisions. 6 – I mediate my preferences for arguably silly counterplans like agent, international, and PICS/PECS primarily based upon the quality of the counterplan solvency evidence. 7 – Direction/Strength of link evidence is more important than “controlling uniqueness” This is PARTICULARLY true when BOTH sides have compelling and recent uniqueness evidence. Uniqueness is a strong factor in the relative probability of the direction of the link, if you don't have uniqueness evidence you are behind.  8 - I do not have a "threshold" on topicality. A vote for T is just as internally valid as a vote for a DA. I prefer topicality arguments with topic specific interpretation and violation evidence. I will CLOSELY evaluate your explanation on the link and impact of your standards. 9 - I am very unlikely to make a decision primarily based upon defensive arguments. <a href="mailto:chadwickmeadows@gmail.com">chadwickmeadows@gmail.com</a>

Charles McBurney - LRU

This is my second year judging parli. I tend to be the type of judge that could be classified as tabula rasa, but I do tend to err towards creating a debate space that is built around respect and inclusion. I am receptive to procedural arguments, critiques, and counter plans. I would ask that you clarify technical jargon and make the debate about your vision.

Chase Budziak - Kishwaukee

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

Cody Clemens - BGSU

n/a

Cody Follis - North Central

Connor Goodwin - Owensboro

n/a

Danny Province - CMU

My “paradigm” is that I am interpreting the quality of argumentation on both sides through a stock issues and net benefits framework (side without presumption must win both). I consider both the AFF and NEG to be giving me an advocacy, and therefore must be consistent (no performative contradictions) in their position. I assume both sides must prove any position they articulate (procedurals, case, disads, critiques) for me to vote on them at the end of the round. I evaluate impact calculus as [probability x (magnitude - timeframe) = impact]. This means that magnitude is limited by how likely the scenario seems and how soon. A low probability, high body-count scenario will not count for very much compared to a high probability impact with a smaller body count. Additionally, I assume the further away in time the impact is, the less likely the scenario will hold true, so timeframe can further mitigate magnitude. AKA: I prefer high probability and sooner impacts over unlikely high magnitude impacts. I will entertain any analytics so long as good warrants are given. I am flowing, but am not 100% obligated to vote on the flow as it is not specified in the rules of LD to do so. If both competitors prefer speed debate, then I will tolerate it. My only concern from speed is preventing spread debate. The rules say I am not to “encourage” spread which I interpret to mean I will not award it the ballot. AKA, if you run 6 procedurals only to try to spread your opponent and just focus on drops, I will intervene and ignore the dropped positions and only pay attention to where there was clash. I interpret an exclusionary use of speed the same way; I will intervene by only listening to clash. I am not the judge to go for spread debate in front of.  Please no Obama is a time traveler white supremacist or equivalent weird arguments. If your evidence is from a spiritualist/unqualified source making a ridiculous claim, I may not even flow it.  I view judge intervention as a necessary tool of an educator. I am comfortable intervening, but will do so sparingly and only when I believe someone has gone outside the bounds of good argumentation.

David Bailey - SBU

n/a

David Nadolski - OCC

n/a

David Garcia - Ripon

n/a

Dawn Lowry - Wiley

n/a

Derrick Reed - Morehouse

n/a

Diane Badzinkski - CCU

n/a

Eddie Gamboa - Northwestern

n/a

Elliott Fischer - Oshkosh

n/a

Emily Graham - KWU

n/a

Eowyn Powell - William Carey

n/a

Fernanda De La O - CBU

Ganer Newman - WKU

Garrett Walker - Marshall

n/a

Gemma Buckley - Wiley

n/a

George LaMaster - Marian Univ

n/a

Gianna Jenkins - William Carey

n/a

Gina McCullough - Ohio U

n/a

Gina Jensen - Webster

n/a

Graham Kash - TTU

n/a

Gregory Tillman - Lane

n/a

Hailey Lawson - MTSU

n/a

Hawley Williams - CWI

Helene Kreigh - Northwest MO

n/a

Howie Long - Boise State

Huy Pham - Ball State

n/a

Ian Smith - Transy

n/a

Jacob Metz - TTU

n/a

Jade Metzger - WSU

n/a

Jalencia Barr -

Janis Crawford - Butler

n/a

Jason Roach - Webster

n/a

Jason Edwards - GCC

n/a

Jason Phillips - Lane

n/a

Jason Stahl - Belmont

n/a

Jaysin Spradley - Hofstra

n/a

Jd Smith - TSU

n/a

Jeff Przybylo - Harper

Jennifer Talbert - William Carey

n/a

Jeremy Frazer - WKU

Jeremy Johnson - Penn State

n/a

Jessica Furgerson - WKU

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

Jim Lyle - Clarion

I have been a debater/coach in the policy format for the last 27 years.  If you are interested in reading my full philosophy that I use for policy it can be found here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=lyle. I lieu of that, I will say the following as it concerns LD: 1. I like rules. 2. I evaluate the debate as a policymaker meaning I will evaluate plan vs status quo or competitive policy alternative. 3. T is a voter.  I think a good T debate in many ways looks like a DA debate when considering links/impacts.   4. CX is underutilized.  I flow CX. 5. I want the debaters to write the ballot for me in the final speeches.  Explain why you win even if the other team is right.  I try not to read cards unless the debaters have given me direction to.  6. My teams are generally paperless.  I don't count flashing/emailing docs as prep unless warranted (which will trigger a head's up before it occurs). Got questions, ask.

Joe Blasdel - McKendree

Joe Blasdel McKendree University Section 1: General Information 1. I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University.  After a three year hiatus studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so since 2003. 2. In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues).  I am very unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments. 3. On 'trichotomy,' I tend to think the government has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that they are topical.  While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debate, I am open to people choosing to do so.  I’m also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality. 4. If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised.  The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion.  If you’re calling multiple POOs, I will probably not be pleased. 5. I do not think the rules permit splitting the block.  Any responses in the LOR to MG arguments that were dropped by the MO will be considered new.  Additionally, it is rare that I will vote on MO arguments that are not extended in the LOR. 6. I’m not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then warranting them in the MO/PMR.  I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ‘new’ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ‘new’ PMR arguments. Section 2: Specific Inquiries 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given). Typically, my range of speaker points is 26-30, with an average of 28. 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I’m open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for competition and alt solvency than most judges.  I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical.  If they are not topical, I have a very low threshold for voting on topicality/framework. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K. 3. Performance based arguments… Same as above.  I’d be hesitant to run them with me as your critic if they are not topical/competitive. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary.  A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position that’s run – it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground.  I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework – I’m not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an ‘average’ threshold.  I don’t vote on RVIs. On spec, I have a ‘high’ threshold.  Unless there is in-round ground abuse, I’m probably not going to vote on spec.  I would only run spec arguments in front of me if you’re using it as link insurance for another position and the affirmative refuses to answer your questions. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition? All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay), but am growing more frustrated with tiny PICs and other arguably abusive CPs – so this trend may change.  I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized. 6. 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?)? All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework. 7. 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")? I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise.  If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.

Joel Anguiano - EPCC

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 Boyer - Lafayette

n/a

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 - 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.

Kacy Abeln - Kishwaukee

n/a

Katherine Alanis-Ramirez - UTEP

Katie Brunner - Simpson College

Ken Newby - Morehouse

n/a

Keven Rudrow - VSU

.

Kevin Bryant - Southern Miss

Khalil Waddell - Morehouse

n/a

Kim Runnion - Lafayette

n/a

Kris Stroup - Cyfair

n/a

Krista Simonis - UP

Kristi Scholten - FSU

n/a

Kyle Kellam - Marian Univ

n/a

Lance Allen - McKendree

I competed in Parli and IE’s for 4 years at Mckendree and have now coached for 4 years. That means I have a diverse background and have seen a large variety of positions.  As a coach, I have watched rounds at traditional tournaments in parli to LD out rounds at nationals. While I am competent in a K debate, I am most comfortable in the case/DA/CP debates. This means that the K needs to be well explained, whether a critical Neg or Aff. For me, in-round abuse is not necessary on T. All CP types are fine, just beat the procedural. I evaluate procedurals first and then move to rest. I tend to weigh the magnitude and probability first in impact calc. You should feel comfortable running most any position in front of me as long as it is well explained and defended.

Lauren Bramwell - Boise State

Leah Frey - Ottawa

n/a

Leigh Cummings - Ottawa

n/a

Lisa Roth - NIU

n/a

Mack Sermon - CWI

Mack Sermon –College of Western Idaho I have 35 years experience in competition, judging and coaching, mostly in the Great Northwest. I have heavy experience with IEs, NDT, CEDA, NPDA, IPDA and NFC-LD.  Debates should focus on Aristotle’s big 3: ethos, pathos and logos- and keeping it fun and educational. -Your character, ethos, is established in and out of the debate by your behavior with opponents, teammates and me. Be on your best behavior and treat everyone with respect. -Emotion, or pathos, is demonstrated by the conviction and selection of your arguments, fairness to your opponents. Your delivery should make me believe that you really care about the issue. -To me, logos is most important. A case must be logical. This requires that you make a claim, provide proof of some sort, develop a warrant, then pull it all together for a case. Please, please, do not simply make claims and expect me to accept them as truth. -Speed: Sure I could talk as fast as any of them, but I think the most educational pace is only modestly faster than conversational but definitely not spewing- I will give one warning. Novelties: I’m fine with counterplans if you admit and meet the requirements of a counterplan—but I’m bored by agent change, study, delay counterplans. I will listen to Topicality or structured definition arguments but since you are basically accusing your opponents of cheating, presumption is with the AFF. I’m not opposed to the concept of the Kritik but I only voted for them about 25% in true policy-- Far, far less in NPDA and IPDA. There just isn’t enough time in the shorter forms, without substantial evidence, to perform the type of dialectic discussion that Aristotle advocates, so a Kritik is just too complex to work.

Manda Hicks - Boise State

Marci Nimick - Walters State

n/a

Marge Rios - TTU

n/a

Mark Marciniak - Northwood

n/a

Mark Galaviz - Boise State

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.

Marty Feeney - Simpson College

Mary Zellar - North Central

Masey Hammons - ULL

n/a

Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale

n/a

Matthew Warner - Hillsdale

n/a

Matthew Gilmore - ISU

General – I expect civil, friendly debates. Rudeness will result in a reduction of speaker points. In partner debate, please do not consistently talk over/answer every question for your partner. Avoid “next” as the beginning part of a tag. Instead, use “first, second…” or “sub point a, sub point b…” Topicality – I vote on the best interpretation for debate. With that said, I typically find reasonability claims on topicality compelling. If a negative wins my ballot on topicality, it is most likely through the question of limits. Not a fan of potential abuse claims. Theory – Not the best way to access my ballot. I do not automatically dislike theory debates, but I think they lend themselves to debate with little clash or critical thinking. What do I mean by this? If someone runs a plan inclusive counterplan against you, please do not run 2 minutes of PIC’s bad and then skip over the line-by-line of the counterplan. Furthermore, avoid the temptation to speed read buzzwords in hopes that an opponent drops the “argument.” The best theory positions are 1) slow, 2) well warranted, and 3) are not the only “out.” Kritiks/Criticisms/Performative debate – I am not opposed, but do not assume I have read all of your author’s work prior to entering the round. This requirement is difficult to navigate around (in NFA-LD) due to time restrictions. However, if you feel comfortable with explaining the criticism in a way for everyone in the room (opponent included) to participate, then go for the position. If you run a critical AFF, I prefer a plan (not a requirement though).  Everything else – Run it. I think debate should be fun, creative, and meaningful. If you enjoy a particular position, I will typically share that enthusiasm. I prefer debates to be creative in their construction (namely prior to round) and then watch as both teams try to engage that position without defaulting to theory.

Matthew Cockrell - William Carey

n/a

McKenzie Terwillegar - Northwood

n/a

Meg Burns - SBU

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.

Michael Baumann - Marian Univ

n/a

Michelle Bennett - CWI

Mike Eaves - VSU

I am a tabula rasa judge. I debated CEDA for 4 years82-87. Was asst coach for CEDA at FSU for 4 years 89-93, national runnerups in CEDA nats, 1991 Coached CEDA for 7 years 93-2000 at vsu and NPDA since 2000 at vsu. I reward creative interp and good arguments. If you have questions, just ask. I flow specs, procedurals, and other traditional off case args. Aff case must provide equal ground so T checks back abuse. Counterplans are fine...inc PICS and other lesser know CPS incl delay, study, etc. I love political, econ DA..know your story and analysis.    I debated policy in high school and in college. While I coach parli now, I still judge h.s. policy rounds.   Specifics <ol> <li>Speaker points <ol> <li>25-29 usually.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Critical Arguments <ol> <li>I am open to procedurals, and critiques in the round. </li> <li>Framework and criteria will be key.</li> <li>I am open to performance and counter-performance. Debate is a game. Play it well. </li> </ol> </li> <li>Topicality. <ol> <li>I tend to be equal on T. Since there is no resolutions in advance, negative must have T as a check against abusive aff positions. I will vote on RVIs unlike some judges. I have no artificial thresholds on T or procedures.</li> </ol> </li> <li>I am a tabula rasa judge but can default to a policy maker if I am put in that position. <ol> <li> The last two rebuttals are key in parli debate. Please go only for the arguments you are winning, especially when on the negative.</li> </ol> </li> <li> <ol> <li>Speed is great if clear. I will tell you if you need to slow or get clearer. If you ignore me, then I wont get your argument.</li> </ol> </li> </ol> I love to think outside the box. Feel free to run postmodernism, CLS, or any philosophical position. I do not have artificial thresholds on procedurals or critiques.

Mike Storr - Ball State

n/a

Mike Beckham -

Najla Amundson - NDSU

n/a

Nancy Jackson - Marshall

n/a

Nathaneal McBride - CWI

Nick Prephan - WSU

n/a

Nick Pasternak - Cameron

n/a

Nik Fischer - McKendree

Niki Alderson - TCC

n/a

Noel Massarelli - JCU

My debate history is policy debate for four years in high school and three years in college. I did college LD debate for one semester. Ultimately I think the debaters are in charge of their own destiny and I’ll vote wherever/however you tell me I should. I like offense. I am willing to vote on defense, but unhappy about it. Good line by line argumentation is always awesome. Good analysis will beat just reading a card (a good card PLUS good analysis is even better). I prefer not to read cards after a round unless there is contention on what that cards actually says. I tend to have an expressive face, not much I can do to stop that. Use this flaw to your advantage! For example if I look baffled, then your argument makes no sense to me.   My policy experience makes me very comfortable with speed. That being said, PLEASE only speak quickly if your words are clear. Speak as fast as you are capable of, not as fast as you potentially could. Slow down during analytical argumentation, I find debaters speed through them and the details become muddled. My policy experience makes me very comfortable with speed. That being said, PLEASE only speak quickly if your words are clear. Speak as fast as you are capable of, not as fast as you potentially could. Slow down during analytical argumentation, I find debaters speed through them and the details become muddled. There are not many arguments that I do not like hearing. I like to think I would vote for anything. That being said, I’m a T hack. But don’t think that means I vote on T left and right. Don’t be afraid to run it if they aren’t topical, but poorly thought out T arguments won’t get you anywhere and might hurt your speaks.   The Kritik is a special animal, in my opinion. If you run the K like the NDT/CEDA people do I think you’re doing it wrong.  Keep your implications tied to policy and try to avoid flowery and long tags on evidence.  Be kind to each other. Ultimately this whole thing is a game and we’re here to have fun. Feel free to ask me any questions you like both before and after the round.

Paige Russell - NIU

n/a

Patrick Richey - MTSU

n/a

Paul Strait - Southern Miss

Paul Wesley Alday - BGSU

n/a

Phillip Voight - Gustavus

n/a

Rachel Pollock - Muskingum

n/a

Raven Mineo - Transy

n/a

Rebecca Godsey - SBU

n/a

Reggie Chapman - William Carey

n/a

Renard Elliott - 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!

Rob Pratt - Walters State

n/a

Ryan Lauth - Northwestern

n/a

Ryan Clark - BHSU

n/a

Ryan Louis - Ottawa

n/a

Ryan Dowell - MTSU

n/a

Ryan Greenawalt - Belmont

n/a

Sara Gronstal - EIU

n/a

Sarah Collins - Cameron

n/a

Scott Jensen - Webster

n/a

Scott Wells - SCSU

n/a

Scott Chappuis - BGSU

n/a

Sean Allen - Hofstra

n/a

Seth Fendley - Southern Miss

Debate Experience: 1 year Parli/1 year IPDA at Arkansas Tech University Judging Experience: 5 years Policy/Parli/LD/IPDA in both high school and college Education: B.A. Speech Communication/Public Relations (ATU)/ M.A.Communication Studies at ASU (ADOF)/ 1st year PhD at University of Southern Mississippi (Volunteer Coach/Judge) IPDA Debate Resolutional Analysis: The Affirmative has the right to define, but to do so fairly. Also, disclosure is traditionally encouraged in IPDA. What this means is that since the AFF has the right to define if they are going to define the round outside of a straight forward understanding they should consisder disclosing. HOWEVER, I personally believe that disclosure in a way undermines some of the original concepts of limited prep debate. In this sense as one of my students asked last year in CX "as college debaters are we not trained to debate on our feet?" Abuse: What this means is that I don't want to hear an abuse debate unless it is warranted. The IPDA rules give debaters access to a lot of grounds which should not lead to abuse in round. Additionally I operate from the concept that you had 5 resolutions. You had the opportunity to strike the resolution, don't regret it in round and run abuse. Speech Construction: IPDA is structured towards the Public, it's in the name. In this manner speed does not exist in an IPDA round. Additionally, due to the Aff burden in IPDA Trichot really has no weight in the round, while it is frustrating that the Aff may define should as "a good idea" it is the Aff's burden and does fit within the resolution. The 1AR can be tricky in only 3 minutes, either articulate which points still matter or clearly tell us what points you'll extend in the 2AR that you may not be able to hit in the 1AR.  Neg Case: Running a CP in IPDA is a great negative strategy however, the Neg needs to be prepared to show how it is A. mutually exclusive and B. how a CP is better than just running disads that could superseed the CP.  Parli Debate Overall Philosophy: I typically vote on the line by line. That being said if you read below you will find when I vote based on other issues and my overall decision process. I Will Not vote based off evidence not presented in round. It’s unfair to you as the debater and the overall educational experience. Speaker Points: I start out in the middle. If you provide a flawless speech you will receive perfect speaks. That being said a bad round will not mean you receive low speaks. I typically only drop below 50% on speaks for people who forfeit speeches, don’t make arguments, don't make time, or are otherwise jerks in round. Rate of Speech: I would prefer to experience a traditional Parli round. This seems to be an unrealistic expectation. I need to be able to flow your case in order to completely judge your round. I can tolerate a decent paced speech but if I cannot write down your entire argument then I’m unable to offer a cohesive decision. In this manner ensure that you clearly signpost and tag your points. Doing this will generate positive speaker points and can result in a ballot in your favor. Argument Structure: Please ensure that all arguments are informed and based. In this manner there should be clear links, brinks, and impacts for each point. If an argument does not have an impact then I have no way to determine if the argument is warranted and thus will be unsure how to vote. T-Case: I do not appreciate teams that always run T as the OPP. T is meant for teams who have been completely defined out of a round and have no ground for debate. I should be able to clearly see that a T-Case is needed for me to see it as a valid issue. K-Case: I prefer that K-cases have a direct correlation to the resolution. Both the government and opposition teams can run a K-Case. However, the K should be warranted and clearly explained in order to be considered on the ballot. CPs: Counter plans are not needed for the OPP to win. Counter plans are a great opportunity for the OPP to show that the status quo should be changed. Counter plans should be unique and completely explained why they are more beneficial in order to be warranted a win and not be permed by the government team. Perms: If a counter plan is non-unique then it should be permed. The government should be careful to explain why the plan is not competing in order to successfully perm a case. As the opposition adequately show how the counter plan is unique in order to avoid the perm. Performance Debates: In over 200+ debates given and judged competitively I am yet to experience a performance round. Running a performance round can be effective. Explain the concept and it will be considered on the ballot based on the performance and understanding of the argument presented. Overall Decision: I vote Topicality -> Solvency -> Kritik -> Harms. Solvency and Kritiks are interchangeable depending on where they are placed in the case. If a case is ran straight up I will vote based off the arguments presented in the case. In the event that none of the above mentioned things happen then I will vote for the opposition based on presumption.

Shanna Carlson - ISU

Background: I competed in parliamentary and LD debate for Washburn University for five years. I am currently the assistant debate coach at Illinois State University. I believe that the debate is yours to be had, but there are a few things that you should know: 1. Blippy, warrantless debates are mind numbing. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. This usually occurs at the top of the AC/NC when you are trying to be "clever." Less "clever," more intelligent. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence. 2. I don't really care about speed--go as fast as you want as long as you are clear and warranted. I will give you two verbal "clears" if you are going too fast or I cannot understand you. After that I quit flowing and if I do not flow it I do not evaluate it. 3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not like moral obligations as I do not believe that they are usually warranted and I caution you in running these in front of me. I do not believe that all impacts have to go to extinction or nuclear war, but that they should be quantifiable in some manner. 4. Run whatever strategy you want--I will do my best to evaluate whatever you give me in whatever frame I'm supposed to--if you don't give me the tools...I default to policy maker, if it's clearly not a policy maker paradigm round for some reason I'll make something up to vote on...basically, your safest bet is to tell me where to vote. 5. If you are rude, I will not hesitate to tank your speaker points. There is a difference between confidence and rudeness. 6. I am not the best with kritiks. I will vote on them, but you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative, and alt solvency (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like and how my ballot functions to get us there. 7. If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow. 8. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round. 9. Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. 10. I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision. Really, I'm open to anything. Debate, have fun, and be engaging. Ask me any questions you may have before the start of the round so that we can all be on the same page :)

Shawn Anaya - North Central

Sonny DeGuzman - UW-Whitewater

n/a

Spencer Coile - Ball State

n/a

Spencer Waugh - Simpson College

Spencer Orlowski - WKU

I view much of policy debate as a question of net- benefits which I do not believe is mutually exclusive with the stock issues. More specifically… I dislike solvency defense masked as a procedural. This doesn’t mean I will not vote on contrived procedurals, but it does mean I am likely to be persuaded by arguments focused on why they are not a logical reason to reject the affirmative.  It is important to note that standards are impacts to interpretations and abuse is just a standard, albeit a persuasive one.  Inherency should be on case by the way. Topicality is a voting issue, not because the rules say so, but because a non-topical affirmative is not a reason to vote for the resolution. As the negative read a definition or I will not be persuaded. Ks are great, just be familiar with the literature and be able to explain your alt and role of the ballot Please be nice. We are all here to learn. Solvency defense isn’t a voting issue unless you tell me why. Impact calculus is super important, do it, tell a story, tell me what to write on my ballot. Speaker points are arbitrary but generally based on strategic choices.  See Chad Meadows paradigm for further questions or just ask me in the round.

Stephanie Fenner - UWF

n/a

Stephen Koch - Capital

n/a

Steve Hagan - McKendree

Steven Pointer - UNT

Susan Millsap - Otterbein

n/a

Thomas Williams - William Carey

n/a

Thomas Duke - William Carey

n/a

Thomas Zellar - North Central

Tia Brown - William Carey

n/a

Tim Overton - Simpson College

I'm comfortable with speed, but DO NOT forget proper speech technique. I'm generally a Games Player, I will vote on K, T, theory or anything that has been properly established and carried through the round. No clash on the flow might mean a conceded win, either way.

Timothy Bill - UK

Tom Tracy - Harper

n/a

Tom Pinney - Northwest MO

n/a

Tom Serfass - Webster

n/a

Tom Preston - UNG

n/a

Tomeka Robinson - Hofstra

n/a

Trent Webb - Nassau

n/a

Trenton Garber - Ottawa

n/a

Zach Brennan - Belmont

n/a

2016 Pi Kappa Delta National Comprehensive Tournament