Judge Philosophies
Adam Knowlton - Midland
n/a
Adriana Arismendi - Community
n/a
Alexis Vega - Utah
n/a
Amber Benning - KWU
n/a
Amy McKinney - Community
n/a
Anne Custard - Community
n/a
Averie Vockel - Utah
I am of the position that it is your debate, and you should do with it what you want. I do not automatically reject arguments based on the type of argument. There are a couple of things that are important to me as a critic that you should know...
DON'T use speed to exclude your opponent. If you need to go fast, do so. BUT no one (including me) should have to ask you to slow you multiple times. Also of note, slow and clear mean different things so make sure you are clearly expressing your needs.
DON'T be rude.
DON'T assume that I will fill in holes for you. It is your job to give me complete arguments with reasons why they win the round.
DO start flex when the speech ends. Flex doesn't start after you have asked for texts of CPs, plans, etc.
DO provide terminalized impacts and weigh them.
DO be clear on how you would like me to evaluate the round. This means you should compare your arguments to your opponents and tell me why I should vote for you.
DO give me proven abuse on T. I like T, but not if it is incomplete. I like T, I think it's useful. BUT you need to make sure the pieces are present and explained.
DO tell me how you want me to evaluate T against other arguments.
DO engage with the topic in some way. If you are rejecting, I need you to be clear on why that is fair to your opponent. There are many ways to affirm, and I am interested in all ways. If it is LD, I expect the aff to affirm.
Billy Guenther - Community
n/a
Bob Carney - Community
n/a
Cameron Carlson - Community
n/a
Carter Reed - Community
n/a
Charlie Cordova - Community
n/a
Christi Greaham - Community
n/a
Christina Mendoza - Community
n/a
Cole Brown - CCU
IPDA is supposed to be a common-sense, rhetoric-based event. Please refrain from using overly technical language, speed, policy tactics, or anything else that would not be persuasive to the average person off of the street. The point of debate is to make us better at discussing issues with real people, and IPDA is trying to achieve this goal. Also, please be courteous and kind to your opponent.
Connor Hunt - Community
n/a
Dave Airne - Community
n/a
Donna Schuette - Community
n/a
Doug Hall - Casper College
IPDA: The intent of this event is to be accessbile to the layperson. This is 100% how I look at and judge this event. Detailed procedural arguments have no place in this event. I will not vote on kritik and will likely reject a debater attempting these positions. If the procedural argument is accessbile and well linked, I may consider the reasoning. Other than that, I am looking for fluency of speech, sound logic, good argumentation and research, and an appropriate CX. As for rate, my rule in IPDA is if I can't flow it, I won't. Don't rush! I also, always, look for mutual respect between debaters. Treat each other with kindness.
LD/Parli: I will vote on procedural arguments IF they are well linked and make logical sense. If procedural arguments are being run as a strategy, and do not link well to the resolution in question, I'm not likely to consider it; this especially applies to Kritik positions. Linking a Kritik and offering an alt are critical. Without those two things, I will not vote for K. While I don't necessarily like or respect spreading, I will flow what I can.
Dustin Hamilton - Community
n/a
Emma Ashlock - NELB
n/a
Ethan Fife - Casper College
Debates don't happen on paper. They happen in real life, in the round, between the speakers. For that reason, I rarely judge a debate solely on the flow. I focus on base contentions, and the evidence used to support those claims. Debates are won or lost on how well speakers can articulate an idea and argue in a clear, concise, logical, and respectful manner for their argument and against that of their opponent. I am rarely swayed by rules lawyering, though I obviously take into account blatantly abusive definitions/scope/etc. That said, this is your round. It is the responsibility of the speakers in that round to make sure those issues are elevated to my attention. Marrying those two ideas (rules lawyering vs. lodging grievance) means that I encourage competitors to identify unfair debate behavior if it truly exists, but you best not miss on your persuasive explanation of why we are seeing abuse and why it matters for your ability to debate. At all times, be kind, be smart, and be clear.
Gina Iberri-Shea - USAFA
Jason Jordan - Utah
*I have fairly significant hearing loss. This is almost never a problem when judging debates. This also doesn't mean you should yell at me during your speech, that won't help. If I can't understand the words you're saying, I will give a clear verbal prompt to let you know what you need to change for me to understand you (ex: 'clear,' 'louder,' 'slow down,' or 'hey aff stop talking so loud so that I can hear the MO please'). If I don't prompt you to the contrary, I can understand the words you're saying just fine.
*make arguments, tell me how to evaluate these arguments, and compare these arguments to the other teams arguments and methods of evaluating arguments. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to place me within. I have very few, if any, normative beliefs about what debate should look like and/or be.
Jessica Jatkowski - Community
n/a
Jim Swanson - Community
n/a
Kevin Kuenn - Community
n/a
Kiefer Storrer - KWU
Iâm back.
Competitive history; 4 years KS High School Policy, 4 years College Parli. Some IPDA and LD tournaments sprinkled in there. Entering my 8th year coaching Parli/LD/IEs.
I like clash. I donât want to work when judging debate. Super down for Kâs especially if they are implicative of the debate community itself. But I can get down with some regular old net beneficial debate too. Really just like, respect each other, have fun.
I can flow speed but the technological limitations of online tournaments might make this something you should think about more in depth than usual.
Anything else, just ask.
Laura Gwinn - Community
n/a
Leda Pojman - Community
n/a
Mark Harvey - Community
n/a
Martin Stensing - Community
n/a
Michael Harvey - USAFA
The most important thing to me is a debate where both teams treat each other with respect. I will try and flow everything, but if you're going really fast and see me put down my pen, take that as a sign! I am not fond of Ks but will judge them on how they are presented. Answer (at least briefly) all things on the flow and don't make me fill in the blanks on incomplete arguments. Good luck!
Mikayle Scheffel - CCU
n/a
Mike Giese - Community
n/a
Ray Lee - Community
n/a
Ryan Clark - BHSU
n/a
Samantha Becker - Community
n/a
Sarah Hinkle - CC
I mostly live in the world of IEs (read: 20 years of either
competing or coaching) but have moderate experience training in Worlds and IPDA-style
debate.
I like speakers who are fair and balanced: Ethics, Argumentation, Strategy, and Style.
Construct your case carefully with well-developed arguments. Build a foundation with clean definitions. Create values/criteria so I know how to weigh out the evidence. Provide Impacts and explain how you get there. I want a lively debate with good clash. Be well-versed in the topic while implementing high quality and recent research. Respect each other.
By the end of the debate, I should be able to clearly
understand the significance of your position to the resolution.
I tend to prefer argumentation to be grounded somewhat in
the real world and prefer depth rather than rattling off a list of contentions.
Tell me a story. Paint a picture. Speakers who effectively demonstrate why an issue is significant and/or relevant are building strong ethos. I want to be as
involved as possible.
Have fun and ignore my non-verbals! I tend to look surly but
that's just my face. J
Sarah Fuller - Community
n/a
Sean Myers - Community
n/a
Shelby Allen - Community
n/a
Ted Menke - Community
n/a
Terri Meyer - Community
n/a
Trysa Flood - Community
n/a