Judge Philosophies
Abbi Jose - LSUS
n/a
Alex Fingeroot - MTSU
n/a
Alexandria Ritchie - ACU
n/a
Andy Orr - CoSI
As a communication instructor, I believe the purpose of this activity is to prepare students to critically think and engage others in a meaningful way. Ergo, students should deliver arguments clearly with emphasis on effective communication. I am convinced that a few well-developed arguments can prove to be more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.
For constructive speeches, try to address arguments individually. However, grouping is absolutely fine too. With the final rebuttal speech, avoid line-by-line and instead provide a summary of voting area that address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches.
On Policy & Fact Debate:
For organization, sign post your tag lines, and give your citation clearly. Let us know when you have finished quoting material before your own analysis.
Avoid oral prompting or interrupting your partner as much as possible. I consider it to be rude and disrespectful toward your partner. Additionally, part of this activity is learning to work as a team and depending on another person for your success. This is an essential skill in life and you would never use verbal prompting in a business meeting, sales pitch, or political speech. Therefore, it really has no place in an activity designed to create in students those skills.
On Value Debate:
Value debate is by definition, a meta analysis of a topic. The first level of that debate is the overarching value. Students should present and defend a value that has been carefully chosen to have a non-absurd and debatable counter value e.g. capitalism vs. socialism and not freedom vs slavery (forces the opponent to be morally repugnant).
Wonderful debates can occur on by debating value level, but they rarely will win the debate because people (smarter than us) have discussed philosophers, implications, etc. and we still have no concrete answers.
Criteria are the next level of the meta debate. Again we could have a wonderful discussion on the merits of act utilitarianism vs. the categorical imperative, but it would not settle the issue, nor would it persuade the judge on either side of the resolution (although you can win a round by default if your opponent is not able to effectively articulate their value or criterion). Criterions are most useful if treated separately as a test of your contentions rather than a policy-type mechanism for achieving a value.
Your contentions are the real heart of the debate and should be the main focus. Claim, warrant, and conclusion are essential to every argument and can be contested on each or every one of those tenants. The key in value debate is to provide context after giving your argument as to how it affects the criterion and proves your case & value.
On Debate Theory
I have no preference in terms of philosophical, theoretical, or empirical arguments as long as they contain the three parts to make them an argument. Be sure that each part is present: claim, grounds, and warrant. Use this strategy: a. I say.....(claim) b. because......(grounds & warrant) c. and this means.....(impact)
I would find it difficult to vote for a kritik in general, and it would be extremely unlikely in a value round. First, there is already so much to cover in a limited amount of time; I dont think one can do the kritik justice (in other words, I am not often convinced of their educational/rhetorical value because we simply do not have enough time to reach that goal). That being said, if there is an in-round instance prompting a performative kritik, I think there can be a direct link made to education and the ballot being used as a tool.
Second, these arguments by their nature avoid the proposed topic. Thus, they skew preparation time when run by the affirmative and are seemingly a method of last resort when put forward by the negative. Moreover, in a value debate, a kritik provides no ground (or morally reprehensible ground) on which to make a counter case. Thus, the only way to rebuttal is to argue against the philosophical grounding (which leads to a muddled debate at best) or the alternatives which makes it a de-facto policy debate (and is contrary to the purpose of value debate).
The only stock issue that is a default voter is inherency. If the status quo is already addressing the problem, then there is no reason to prefer the plan. Harms and significance are at best mitigations. If you win those arguments, there still is no reason not to do the plan. Solvency and advantages must be turned to become voters. You'll need to prove the plan causes the opposite effect. However if you mitigate either of these, you'll need to pair it with a disadvantage or counter plan to give me a reason not to try the plan.
Each off case position must have a good structure and be complete in its construction (I wont fill in the blanks for you). Additionally any off case argument needs a clear under-view when it is presented (not just in the rebuttals) indicating how it fits into the round, and how I should consider it in my vote.
I prefer debate theory responses to be the first counter/refutation against an argument. In essence, they are a reverse voting issue, and do not easily fit into a line-by-line. Take a few moments and tell me the theory story, then (just in case I don't buy it) get into actually refuting the opponent's arguments.
Andy Kyle - PLNU
Annalise Welsh - PLNU
n/a
Anthony McMullen (he/him) - UCA
Experience: Competed for the University of Arkansas (2000-05); Coach at the University of Central Arkansas (2007-present). Most of that experience is in IPDA. While I appreciate and am happy to participate in other forms of debate, I'm an IPDA purist at heart and that governs my philosophy. I'm also a licensed attorney and spent seven years working for the Arkansas Court of Appeals. My job involved reading arguments with real world consequences. As such, while I am willing to vote for any well-reasoned argument, I'm a policymaker judge more than anything.
Delivery: I'm not a fan of speed. If I am judging a form of debate where that is the norm, I'll accept the burden of listen to rapid-fire delivery. Otherwise, don't do it. I often listen to podcasts at 1.5x speed. That's fine. Because it is a debate, I can probably listen to you at 2x speed and be fine. Anything faster, and you risk losing me. I find spreading unethical. Don't do it.
Speaker Points: Pretty arbitrary, especially if the ballot does not contain a rubric. If it is an IPDA round, I will have traditional criteria in mind: delivery, courtesy, organization, tone, logic, support, CX, refutation. In each category, you start with a 3 in each category. An average debater will receive a 4, a good debater will receive a 5. I won't go less than 3 in a category unless you "earn" it. Low point wins are a thing.
Case: The affirmative has the burden of proof, and the negative has the burden of clash. Failing to meet those burdens is an automatic L before we reach the rebuttals.
As a policymaker judge, I would prefer to give a win or loss based on the merits/demerits of the resolution itself, especially if it is form of debate where you get to choose the topic. I'll vote on topicality, but if it is close, I'll give the affirmative the benefit of the doubt. (If you are going to run T, I'm big on framer's intent.) I'm willing to vote on a K, but again, I would rather vote on the merits of the resolution itself. Like topicality, the affirmative will get the benefit of the doubt if it is close.
I flow the round. By the time we get to rebuttals, tell me why you won. Put out any fires created by your opponent's previous speech if necessary, but please don't go line by line. I'm very big on impact calculus, especially if the criterion is cost-benefit analysis, comparative advantage, or something similar.
Evidence: First, quality over quantity. Better evidence will always beat more evidence. Explain why your evidence supports your case. I do not enjoy rounds where debaters dump numbers and stats without context. Second, source presses are a waste of time unless (1) your opponent makes a spurious claim or (2) you have evidence that contradicts your opponents. If the only argument you have against an argument is that no source was provided, you will lose that argument unless you tell me why the lack of source is important.
Topic Disclosure: I'm not a fan of it, but I recognize that I'm in the minority. If the resolution is fairly straightforward and affirmative's interpretation is in line, I will not entertain an argument that the debate was unfair due to a lack of disclosure. If the resolution is metaphorical or otherwise vague, you should probably disclose.
While I will not punish a debate who does not disclose, I will DQ a debater who gives a false or misleading disclosure. At the same time, I believe that the affirmative is entitled to use the prep time as they see fit. If you plan takes you in a different direction, you are entitled to change your mind (especially if the negative pressed you for disclosure before you started prepping your case). But be reasonable. Doing so with twenty minutes of prep left is okay. Doing so with ten minutes left isn't.
NPDA debaters: I miss points of information. Please use them.
Ashley Hale (she/her) - LTU
n/a
Ben Voth - SMU
Treat your opponents with affirming respect. Pursue the educational value of debate as an ethic. I have judged debates for over 30 years in various formats. I look forward to hearing your voice on this matter. I like good research and good delivery.
Bob Glenn - Owensboro
n/a
Brad Phelps - Owensboro
n/a
Collin Staten - MSU
n/a
Diego Moreno - LEE
n/a
Greg Foster - FSU
n/a
Hansen Penya (he/him) - ACU
n/a
Heather Harrison - MSU
n/a
Isabelle Marshall - UTK
n/a
Jaime Christly - UU
n/a
Janine Wilkins - MNU
n/a
Jeffrey Hobbs - ACU
n/a
Joe Ganakos - LEE
n/a
Kale Rector (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Kaylee Tegan - CoSI
DEBATE
My debate philosophy is quite simple, I prefer clear, structured arguments about the resolution. I dont enjoy spending the entire round hearing arguments about framework and definitions unless ABSOLUTELY necessary to the round. I also prefer quality arguments over a mass quantity of arguments. I prefer speeches that are slow and easy to understand rather than overloading your opponent and judge with fast arguments. I tend to not vote on dropped arguments unless it is absolutely necessary in the round. With organization, signposting contentions and on-time, brief road maps are preferred.
Most importantly, I expect all competitors to be respectful and civil when debating. I will not tolerate rude competition.
IE
For individual events and speeches, organization is very important. All parts of a speech should be easily identifiable. I am listening to the content of a speech as well as the delivery. Is there eye contact with the judge and audience? Do you know your speech well? Speeches should not be over the time limit.
Keely Vaughn - UU
n/a
Leia Smith (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Leslie Alexander - BPCC
n/a
Maggie Cook-Allen - SMU
n/a
Matt Ritchie - ACU
n/a
Matthew Gedeon (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Michael Gray - A-State
This part pertains mostly to
Parli, BUT you should probably read it since it represents what I believe about debate in general. See below for IPDA.
Me: Debated for A-State from
2007-2011; mostly Parli, but some IPDA and Worlds. Assistant coach for A-State
from 2011-2013 and Director of Debate for A-State from 2016-present.
In General: I'll listen to anything,
but I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants or logical impact
scenarios.
Speaker Points: These
exist to reward good speakers. What is a good speaker? For me, a good speaker
has little to do with who won the round. Speed doesn't make you a good speaker. Knowing
lots of stuff doesn't make you a good speaker. Winning an argument doesn't make you a good speaker. It's that other thing that makes you good. Do that. Make sense?
Case: By default, my stance is that the Aff has the
burden of proof & the burden of rejoinder. It is your job to fairly limit
the round and present a clear case that upholds the resolution. If you can
convince me otherwise, do it.
I'll gladly vote on an aff
K if it makes sense and wins. But listen... it is better when your opponent can
engage. So, make your aff K clear and accessible. Save the ninja stuff for neg.
T: I love a well-run
topicality argument. Or 2. Or 3. I am completely okay with collapsing to T. I
actually think teams should do it more often. It's a lost art.
Spec/Vagueness: Yes. But be reasonable with it. And don't take my use of the work "reasonable" as an indication that it's the only counter-standard you ned (aff).
K: Yes, please. Avoid
any blatant mis-readings and misapplications (please listen to this...
please). You will have a difficult time winning my ballot if you're
(intentionally or not) misrepresenting the nature of another
person's rhetoric or using well-established theory in a way that it was
not intended. If you need to make an argument that you cannot find written in a tome somewhere, make the argument from your own brain... don't try to shove a square author into a round round.
DA/CP/Condi: structure,
structure, structure.
My default stance is that all Neg arguments are conditional. If, however, the debate turns to theory, Aff can win condi-bad. I'll listen. I need clear articulation of theory arguments, not just blippy responses that require me to intervene to fill in the blanks.
Speed and Speed K: I
prefer upbeat debate and a good pace. If you've clocked yourself, I am totally comfortable
with a clear rate of speech around 275-325wmp. I've rarely seen a need for
anyone to argue that fast. In all honesty, parli is at its best when
highly-trained, charismatic debaters engage in argumentation at about
200-250wpm. Anything faster and you're probably repeating yourself, skipping
syllables, and missing good arguments for the sake saying more words. That
said, if you're one of those super-clear talkers (you know who you are), I
might be willing to tolerate your top speed for part of the debate. <--- maybe 1% to 5% of the field in parli can really do this well. Chances are, you are not in that 1% to 5%. In competition, go as fast as you need to go and can go without losing clarity... and go no faster. Please.
If I or your opponent
calls clear and you do not respond appropriately, you will receive the lowest
speaker points you've ever gotten. I promise. You may well win the round, but
you will have done so unethically and I cannot award high speaks to unethical
debaters who intentionally ignore a legit request for access. I really don't care how you feel about this. I will
vote on a speed K... IF it is run correctly, makes sense, and defended
appropriately. I will not vote on "they talk fast and it's not fair."
Rebuttals: By the time
we get to the rebuttals, I've heard enough line-by-line. I'd appreciate a
bit more here, but if your rebuttal sounds exactly like your previous speech
(pay attention, Neg), I'm already bored. Come on, this is your chance to really
secure those speaker points. Show me that you can tend to the line-by-line and
cover the flow and still give me a clear summarization of advocacy and impact
analysis at the bottom.
Time, Timers, &
Beeps: Thanks and roadmaps off time; quickly. I prefer you time one another. If
you are unable, I'll start my timer when you start debating. When my timer
beeps, you get maybe 10 words before I stop flowing. I've had more sentence
fragments at the bottom of a flow than I can count. Look... just time your
arguments. It's not difficult to just be done talking 1 second before the timer
goes... it's impressive and judges notice it. Be impressive.
At the end of the day, I
believe that debate is an educational game and that education does not have to
be at odds with gameplay. It's both, so do both. Make it interesting and
competitive, play fair, and you'll receive what you earn.
Anyway, unlike some other judges, I will offer you the respect of listening very closely to well-structured, well-thought-out articulations of abuse; I'll listen to vagueness presses; I'll listen to articulations of abuse at the level of definitions, as well as criteria/framing. If your opponent really has skewed ground in the round, then you have 6 minutes to really, really, really dig into the implications of that and convince me that it is a voting issue (HINT: USE THE CONSTITUTION).
Nathaniel Hosmer - PLNU
I've been debating and coaching for about 10 years (NPDA, IPDA, BP, and LD). You can run any argument you want in front of me provided you give a good justification to do so and explain it well. In general, I prefer debate on the rez, if you run a K it had better be a well-structured one or I will likely vote it down. Tell me why you won and give me impacts!
Natonya Listach - MTSU
Nick Grunig - Idaho State
n/a
Nick Ged - MTSU
n/a
Patrick Richey (he/him/Dr.) - MTSU
Meh. I've judged a few rounds. I hate rudeness and disrespect in rounds. Keep it nice and cordial. Don't BS me. I like cats!!!!
Rebecca Currie - LEE
n/a
Regan Hardeman - ACU
n/a
Sheila Ritchie (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Sierra Boudreaux - LAC
n/a
Stephen Hosmer - PLNU
?
Tommy James (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a