Judge Philosophies
Alex Pabon - Noctrl
Amanda Pettigrew - MVCC
I have been teaching public speaking for over ten years and involved in speech and debate for over 20 years. Debate is persuasion in action allowing students to use the basic principles of argumentation to sway the audience's point of view.
IPDA: This form of debate should sound more like stimulating conversation, allowing someone with no debate experience to evaluate the effectiveness of each student's message. So, avoid debate terminology, jargon, etc., however DO properly cite your sources, there must be evidence to support your point of view.
Ultimately I will judge using Aristotle's means of persuasion; logos, ethos and pathos. My judging criteria in order of importance; LOGIC (evidence & reasoning), ORGANIZATION, CONNECTION with AUDIENCE and DELIVERY.
Please ask for clarification on anything at the start of the round, thank you and good luck!
Andrew Kirk - SRC
n/a
Bonnie Gabel - McHenry
Don't be technical, be structured, and ask questions that challenge. I expect the debate to have civil discourse but passionate convictions can be present. Using jargon will count against you, using language creatively (analogies/metaphors) will count in your favor.
Brandon Wood - COD
Did you persuade me with complete arguments? Did you make this seem like a general audience could follow and enjoy? Did you treat your opponent with respect? Did you speak passionately and compellingly? Did you not talk about the value of education? If you answer yes to all of these then you have mastered my criteria.
It is highly, highly appreciated if opponents greet each other by first or last names and I will only mark refutation on my flow if a specific name is attached to it during the constructive. Personally, I don't respond well to rhetorically being told what I have to do as a judge. This likely isn't an LD round where I'm not being shown a document of cut research that compels me have to vote for someone because of decades of debate theory. Whether it's parli or IPDA you should avoid words like, "you must", "you should strike this", "you have to vote for our side because we did this/they didn't do this", or "here is why we won". Every time I deduct 3 speaker points and will likely be unable to pay attention for approximately 30 seconds of your speech because I will be writing what I've already written here, and therefore, will not be flowing. Don't meet competitor hostility with hostility unless you want to assure a hostile ballot.
For me, arguing that something is or is not"educational" and therefore must be rejected is ultimately a weird form of hyperbole that has infected debate. Experiencing something that is unfair, like circular arguments or bad definitions, is educational. This activity makes it almost impossible to not engage in an educational experience, in the worldly sense. While I won't buy the education-has-been-removed-from-this-debate-round argument, I absolutely will accept issues regarding abusive definitions, incomplete argumentation, denial of ground, moving goal posts etc...
FAQ: Speed? = me not flowing. Jargon? = To me it creates assumed enthymemes and sloppy debate (usually). Technical elements? = will accept them as needed (in Parli). Partner communication during constructives? = Really, really dislike it now that flex time exists because it just decimates your percieved credibility in my eyes ( your ethos is the unspoken contract to accepting information at face value). Role of the judge? = Parli- Tabula Rasa , except when it comes to trichotomy. Lingusitically, resolutions come with burdens that most often are objectively implied ("should" is policy for example) as policy, value, or fact. I flow the entirety of the constructives and dropped arguments are a big deal. IPDA - I am a general audience member and enter each round with my complete knowledge as a human. I approach the resolution with an open mind and a desire to be persuaded but factual errors, fallacious argumentation, and hostile debate styles will not be flowed. I take notes that summarize the debates progress rather than the technical flow I would use for Parli/LD/CEDA.
Cheryl Golemo - HiredRAFL
n/a
Dana Trunnell - Prairie State
In competitive debate, I am looking for well-argued and evidenced constructive cases that are strongly upheld through fallacy-free argumentation in rebuttal. The presentation of the top of the case should clearly identify a weighing mechanism for the round, which need not be value-based, especially when a policy or fact resolution is selected.
In each debate, clash should be evident. The AFF/Government should not run cases that prevent the NEG/Opposition from developing its case. Any unfair top-of-the-case definitions or abusive development of constructive cases by the AFF/Government will be frowned upon.
Other factors that are important to my decision:
1. As this is a communication activity, delivery (especially in IPDA), should be extemporaneous, conversational, and communicative. In rounds where I am judging, speed, especially for the sake of "spreading," will not be valued.
2. Being able to talk about controversial topics in a civil and productive manner is a skill that will be upheld in my rounds. Please be courteous to your opponent(s). Any rude behavior or comments are negative points for me.
3. I am okay with counter plans and topicality arguments if good justification can be made for using them. I am more likely to value counter plans in a policy debate.
4. I'd like to think that I am an intelligent coach/judge who writes thoughtful critiques that consider the myriad skills a good debater possesses. When proposing voters, it's okay to ask me to consider argumentation or lack thereof in my decision, but please do not tell me what I can or cannot uphold.
5. The educational pursuit of an eager debater is important to me and I will go out of my way to ensure I am contributing my part to a debater's success. I value debates where all debaters in the round seem passionate about becoming better at argumentation and conversation. In other words, each debater should want to be in the room where it happens, so to speak.
Ethan Gallant - HiredRAFL
n/a
Hannah Eaton - HiredRAFL
n/a
Harry Bodell - Highland
Experience/Background: I competed for four years in Individual Events (Primarily LP and PA with an ill-fated foray or two into interp) and Parliamentary Debate, and I competed in IPDA toward the end of my college career as it was starting to catch on in Illinois. I have since coached IE, Parli and IPDA for eight years between North Central College, Northern Illinois University and Highland Community College. I have also judged Lincoln-Douglas and can get through a round, but probably won't be able to handle speed as well as more seasoned LD judges and coaches.
General Individual Events Philosophy:In general, I want you to have fun and commit to your performance in any IE -- you only get so many chances in life to perform for a "captive" audience! As long as you have fun and use your 7-10 minutes effectively, you have a shot on my ballot. That said, my general preferences (which evolve and should not be taken as gospel) by event category are:
- Interp: In Prose, I'm looking for engaging storytelling with emotional levels, narrative flow, clear cutting, etc.; In DI, I'm looking for thoughtful character development (vocal and non-verbal characterization, emotional depth) and establishment of space/scene; In Poetry, I'm looking for powerful use of physical movement and vocal rhythm to enhance the power of the language; In POI, I am looking for a strong and thoughtful argument explored through a unique combination of perspectives of stylistic difference (and clarity in blocking, characterization, cutting, etc.); In DUO, I care most about chemistry and (depending on the lit) blocking/use of space.
- Public Address:In general, I value the content of speeches over the delivery of speeches, but both are naturally important (in other words, in a tie-breaker I will default to the content/messaging). Don't sacrifice in-the-moment connectiveness for the sake of "polish". Really communicate with the audience as opposed to "at" the audience. A few event-specific notes: I'm not crazy about hand-out's in PER/STE -- feel free to use them, but they won't impact my rank; In CA, I really value the crafting of a RQ that leaves room for generalizable rhetorical conclusions and analyses that illuminate how an artifact communicates rather than whether an artifact "checks boxes A, B and C"; In STE, don't be afraid to dive into a comedic persona -- try not to sound the same tonally as you would in an Info round :)
- Limited Prep: In both LP events, I generally value analysis above all else. A well-delivered Extemp that doesn't dig far beyond the surface will not rank as highly as a "shaky" speech with really interesting/in-depth analysis. I will always prefer the impromptu speaker who makes me think about something in a new light over the speaker who takes a very common approach to an interpretation (not every prompt is about success, growth, etc.). That isn't to say that delivery isn't important -- it is, and confidence/willingness to engage/entertain in an LP event is often the difference in a tough round.
General Debate Philosophy: While I do not believe it is realistic for any judge to be truly tabula rasa (a "blank slate" as a judge), I do my best to filter my own beliefs out of debate rounds. I try to focus only on what is on the flow to the best of my ability. That said, the flow isn't the end-all-be-all in a debate. I won't give more weight to a dropped-but-inconsequential argument than I would to a strong-yet-well-refuted argument, for example. Likewise, I'm not going to give an argument that is just blatantly untrue the same weight as a well-researched/supported argument just because it is on the flow.
In general, I judge primarily on quality of argumentation and clear impacts. I will always refer to impacts to Weighing Mechanism (even in IPDA) and general impact calculus unless told to judge otherwise. If you want me to weigh the round in a particular way, tell me that and justify it to me. Always hold my hand through your impacts and explain clearly why any given argument should win you the round. Don't trust me to make connections for you.
Speed/Jargon: While I can follow speed, I don't love speed -- I think that speed-and-spread tactics are detrimental to the accessibility and growth of the activity. That won't factor into my decision if you do speed, but don't assume that I'll keep up with everything. Your first priority should be to have a good debate, not to win the debate, and a good debate requires clear communication between debaters. If your opponent is going too quickly for you to follow the debate, don't be afraid to yell "clear". If your opponent yells "clear", you should try to slow down and risk a dock on speaker points if you refuse to adapt.
As for jargon, I'm familiar with pretty much any debate terminology you may use and can probably follow along just fine (that goes for both Parli and IPDA -- see below).
Differences Between Parli and IPDA:While I recognize that IPDA emphasizes delivery as a tie-breaking factor (or, in some cases, a primary deciding factor), I frankly don't care how "well" you speak in debate as long as you make good arguments and I can follow them clearly (no need for extra flowery language, emotional delivery, introduction/conclusion, etc.). I vote on line-by-line argumentation in either style. I generally reject the "de-debatification" of IPDA. In my mind, debate is NOT just discussion - they're fundamentally different, and the event is not called International Public Discussion. I'm perfectly fine with procedural arguments (topicalities need to be run in IPDA sometimes!) and prefer to see prima facie issues established in an affirmative policy case. Don't limit the tools in your toolbox.
That said, please be respectful of different debating paradigms and styles. There is no one "right" approach to either Parli or IPDA. If you run into a clash of styles (ex: one debater believes you should use plan texts in policy IPDA rounds while the other debater believes that IPDA places less emphasis on resolution "types" and that a policy round should simply focus on clashing contentions), simply justify the value of your approach and its logical application toward enhancing the debate.
Cross-Talk in Parli:Flex time allows you to collaborate with your partner between speeches for a reason. Please don't talk to your partner or obnoxiously wave notes -- let your partner do the debating when they are the one speaking. Even novice debaters need to be able to learn to get through a speech without mid-speech guidance. As such, I will not flow any arguments that are directly provided vocally or via note by a partner who does not have the floor.
Questions and Cross-Ex:First of all, please be polite when asking questions. There's no need to get personal or confrontational. At the same time, please don't try to use questions to "suck time" from your opponent. More debating is better than less debating.
In Parli, please don't arbitrarily limit the number of questions that your opponent can ask ("I'll allow your first of two questions"). Simply adapt as necessary. If you honestly don't have time for a fourth question, politely say that and move on. (That said, you should generally have time for three questions if you manage time effectively). In Parli Flex Time, I prefer that questions asked focus on clarification ("can you repeat your tag for contention 1b?") rather than argumentative cross-examinatio questions so as to protect the right of debaters to ask questions during constructive speeches (I'm not okay with debaters saying "ask that during flex time" when a question was legally allowed to be asked during the speech).
In IPDA, I encourage debaters to use all cross-examination time and keep questions challenging-yet-polite.
Kritiks:While I understand the value in some K arguments, I generally find most K's to be pre-constructed distractions from the actual debate at hand. In other words, I'm probably not the judge to use a K with unless you have a really good justification for doing so and can articulate that justification clearly. While I recognize the need for pre-debate argumentation (topicality, etc.) in most cases, I generally want to listen to a debate about the actual topic at hand.
Roadmaps:Always on time. If you try to roadmap off time, I'll just start my timer and stop flowing once you hit your time limit.
Precision of Language: I flow and judge based on what you say, not what I think you meant to say. Be clear and accurate with language. If you say something that inadvertently supports your opponent, that's how I'll flow it!
Decorum Notes: First of all, be friendly -- let's have fun and avoid getting too heated over an educational activity. I appreciate thank you's at the start of speeches and don't consider them wastes of time. Along those lines, I value the depersonalization of argumentation. In other words, I prefer that you do not refer to opponents by name but rather by speaker position (AFF, NEG, PM, LO, etc.). While that may seem to some to strip debaters of their individual identities, I find that it actually keeps the debate focused on arguments and keeps us out of ad hominem territory (not to mention you would never see one lawyer refer to another lawyer by name in a courtroom trial -- they'd refer to "the defense" and "the prosecution", etc.). It also helps to prevent mis-gendering with inaccurate pronouns ("he/she says" assumes too much about your opponent's gender identity, "Aff/Neg says" is always acceptable). Likewise, whenever possible, please direct eye contact at the judge rather than your opponent.
Debate Pet Peeve!: Few things in debate bother me more than "You will vote X" language ("Judge, you will be voting AFF"; "Judge, you'll be voting on this point"). That just isn't a good practice inside or outside of debate (when would you ever tell a teacher/employer/etc. "you will do ____"?). It's just as easy to say, "Judge, youshould vote X". While it won't ever impact my decision, this may impact speaker points.
Jackie Baum - HiredRAFL
n/a
Jamie Oliger - HiredRAFL
n/a
Jeff Rieck - MVCC
IPDA should be accessible to anyone watching with no prior knowledge.
Public Debate privileges the use of lay judges, accessibility to all, and real-world application. In other words, the goal should be an intelligent argument that everyone can understand.
Given these statements, please do not:
- use parli terminology, lingo or semantics
- use spread for your information
- run a pre-prepped case
- run single-person parli
Please keep this a civil conversation between participants.
Limited Prep Events:
I listen for a well-organized message, supported claims and strong delivery. Any format or approach you use is acceptable. Be clear with your argument and ensure what you are doing makes sense. Please never give a canned speech. Failing to speak directly to the specific question or quotation is unacceptable.
Jeff Przybylo - Harper College
Jenna Steele - ECC
Jennifer Gutierrez - HiredRAFL
n/a
Jim Snyder - COD
n/a
Jim Dittus - HiredRAFL
n/a
John Nash - MVCC
I typically do not judge NFA-LD or Parli, however, I do teach debate so I know the terminology. Please do not spread any information. I should be able to flow the round easily. Please speak for an audience not a debate judge. I would like any new audience member to clearly understand your flow. I prefer you do not debate word semantics.
IPDA: Just make sure this is not single person parli. Make sure you are not running a pre-prepped case. Make sure you are not using any debate lingo. This should be like two people sitting at a table over a family holiday discussing different sides of an issue. I typically judge on ethos, pathos and logos.
Salutations and previews of ideas (roadmaps) would be timed.
John Stanley - Noctrl
Joshua Green - Prairie State
In terms of debate I'm looking for well evidenced argumentation. Clearly defined adherence to structure and flow. Reasoned logical argumentation. Civility in terms of tone and delivery.
Joshua DuBois - HiredRAFL
n/a
Kevyn Sutter - Highland
I look for the following in IE: clear, concise speech, believable and natural speaking pattern, and a variety of emotion. In IPDA, I look for logical arguments delivered in respectful and courteous manners.
Kirsten Baity - HiredRAFL
n/a
Krishna Desai - HiredRAFL
n/a
Krista Appelquist - MVCC
I am mainly an Individual Events coach but I have coached and judged parliamentary and IPDA debate in the past. I teach an argumentation course. As a debate judge, these are my values, in order of importance: CLASH, LOGIC, ORGANIZATION, and DELIVERY. I prefer the debate not get bogged down in procedural issues but if you need to call something out that's fine, let me note it, and try to run a good debate regardless.
Laurie Cicotello - HiredRAFL
n/a
Leslie Nuñez - Noctrl
Liz Fritz - HiredRAFL
n/a
Matt DuPuis - NIU
n/a
Mylo Caluza - HiredRAFL
n/a
Neal Heatherly - HiredRAFL
n/a
Richard Paine - Noctrl
As a competitor, I used the NDT style. As a coach, I have coached NDT-CEDA (for about 10 years), LD (for about 7 years), IPDA (for about 7 years), and Parli (for about 15 years). My philosophy obviously has to shift in various ways depending on the type of debate I'm judging, but here are a few key points that generally apply:
(1) Seek clash. Don't let the debate become two ships passing in the night. If your opponent makes an argument, don't drop it - respond to it directly, and show me why your position directly clashes with and takes out theirs. If your opponent drops an argument of yours, make sure you pull it across and tell me why it matters.
(2) Be organized. Regardless of the format, I want to hear numbers/letters and clear tags that are maintained throughout the debate. Don't just speak in uninterrupted sentences. Give me numbers and tags if you want me to flow the arguments.
(3) Topicality matters to me. The affirmative/government has the initial right to define the terms, but they must be reasonable. Any challenges coming from the other side must be premised on the question of reasonability.
(4) I don't like counterplans. If you feel that you absolutely must run one, you should know that I feel counterplans must be NON-topical.
(5) I'm also not a fan of kritiks. They seldom strike me as the best way to go.
(6) In a policy round, I am a "stock issues" judge.
(7) Don't just make claims. Be sure you support those claims with both logic and concrete evidence whenever possible. Seek to demonstrate the impact of any given argument.
(8) Affirmative plans should be fully developed. It is the initial responsibility of the affirmative to provide all plan components - it is not the responsibility of the negative to seek them through cross-ex.
(9) Cross-ex questions are binding. In formats that allow questions to be asked during speech time, the speaker should take questions QUICKLY. No "I don't have time" or "I'll take it at the end of this (endless) position." If you ignore legal questions for more than a short time, I quit flowing your speech.
(10) Speed should be easily comprehensible and flowable. If I can't get your arguments written down, then I can't base my judgment on them.
(11) Be cordial and polite to your opponents. I appreciate intensity and assertiveness - but please don't cross the line into downright rudeness.
(12) I do not believe that debate is a "tag-team" sport. Thus, debaters should not interrupt their partners' speeches to add information, clarify statements, tell them what to talk about next, answer questions for them, or whatever. Only the person whose official speech time we are in should be talking for your team.
(12) If you have other specific questions, please ask them just before we start debating the round.
(13) Have fun! The whole point of this is to enjoy it as we develop our skills together. Trophies aren't the point - greater skills are.
Ryan Newquist - HiredRAFL
n/a
Sarah Metivier Schadt - McHenry
Be CLEAR and ORGANIZED. Don't just throw a jumble of arguments and facts at me and expect me to sort it out. Be systematic and intentional about how you lay out your case. Talk to me like a human being. Jargon is a big minus.
Sean Colbert - HiredRAFL
n/a
Starr Lee - NIU
n/a
Thea Klinker - HiredRAFL
n/a
Tim Anderson - ECC
I am not a debate judge, and when I do judge debate, it is usually IPDA. Because IPDA is "public debate", someone with no debate experience should be able to take part and someone with no judging experience should be able to decide the winner.
IPDA debaters in my rounds should approach the debate as a conversation. Eliminate definition of things that don't really need them (like, we all know what "the Oscar's" are or what a "hamburger" is, so you don't need to define it).
I believe that the use of jargon and debate procedurals should be non-existent. While I have limited debate experience from my time competing and coaching, trying to win a round by trying to prove "my opponent didn't do blah blah so I win" won't win me over. I don't flow your arguments...if they are clear, I should be able to follow. Overall, I view IPDA as the kind of debate I would see in a classroom setting. As opposed to one side trying to prove why the other chose the wrong weighing mechanism, an incorrect definition, etc. just talk like two students in a classroom debate would. Think about it: if you were in a classroom debate and started all in on weighing mechanisms, defining everything, and downing your opponent, you'd be the jerk in class no one wants to work with. Also, don't tell me how I need to vote a round (i.e., "my opponent didn't do x, so you HAVE TO give the round to the affirmative"...No...I don't. The final choice is mine to make, so present your best cases and let me make the final ballot.
I also find IPDA to be more fun and enjoyable when sides actually refute the other and stay "on case" the entire time. Otherwise, it's just two ships passing in the night.
Also, I don't like thank you's at the beginning of rounds. They end up sounding sarcastic. And, don't refer to your opponent as "my opponent". They have a name that is part of their identity...call them that.
I take these same ideas with me when judging any form of debate.
Tom Tracy - HiredRAFL
n/a