Judge Philosophies
AJ Spencer - CU Boulder
Adam Testerman - TTU
Background
Hi there!
My background as a competitor involved a couple years reading primarily policy strategies and a couple years reading primarily old-white-man criticisms (Baudrillard, Marx, Lacan, etc). As a coach, my teams have dipped their toes into nearly every kind of argument. I love it all, when it is done well. I can hate it all, when it ain't.
I feel comfortable judging any genre of argument and have no real argument preference beyond the desire to see clash.
I coached for three years at Lewis & Clark College; this is my fourth year as Director of Forensics at TTU.
General Issues
Parliamentary debate is the most fun and the most educational when a variety of argumentative styles, people, knowledge bases, and strategies are given room to thrive. I feel lucky to have judged a vast array of different arguments in my judging career. One of my main goals as a judge is to allow teams to run the arguments they feel are most compelling in front of me. Ive picked up teams reading structural indictments of debate about as many times as Ive picked up teams reading policy affirmatives and defending incrementalism.
It is my goal to involve myself in the debate round as little as possible. I have no preference for any particular kind of argument and generally feel that almost every debate issue can be resolved in the round. I will vote for arguments with warrants. I will try my best to synthesize your arguments, but I also believe that to be a central skill of effective debaters.
Parli debates should be slower than policy debates. Your theoretical top speed is too fast for parli, in my opinion (we don't flash documents, and we don't have enough predictable CX time to clarify key issues). I don't think I've been unable to keep up with even the fastest parli debaters the past several years, however, when in doubt... slow down just a bit.
I will vote for arguments I think are stupid 10 out of 10 times if they are won in the round.
I rely on my flow to decide the round. I attempt to flow performances and I do my best to write down what youre saying as close to verbatim as my fingers allow me. If there is an expectation that I not decide the round based on the way I understand argument interaction on my flow, that should be stated explicitly and it would be a good idea to tell me how I am intended to evaluate the debate round.
Emphasize explanation early¦ dont let your argument make sense for the first time in the LOR or PMR etc.
All constructive speeches should take a question if asked, and its strategic to ask questions (unless there is flex, then I'm agnostic on this question).
Theory interpretations and advocacy statements should be read slowly and read twice.
Points of Order should be called, but I will also do my best to protect new arguments¦ dont be excessive with them though [Ill be vague about what that means, but be an adult]
RVIs have never been good arguments, read them at your own risk.
Theory/Procedurals
I cut my teeth on procedural arguments in college, and I am still a huge fan. To vote on a procedural, I need an interpretation explaining how the debate should be evaluated, a violation detailing specifically why the other team does not fit within that interpretation, standards that explain why the interpretation is good, and a voter that outlines why I should vote on the argument. PLEASE read your interpretation/definition slowly and probably repeat it. It is good to have an interpretation that makes some sense.
DAs/Advantages
DAs and Advs. require uniqueness arguments that explain why the situation the affirmative causes is not happening in the status quo. Defensive arguments are useful, but they often serve to make offensive arguments more impactful or serve as risk mitigation, as opposed to terminal takeouts.
I ran politics in a majority of my negative rounds and I coach my teams to read the position as well. So, I will totally vote on politics every time it is won. That being said, Im finding the position to be one my least favorite and least compelling these days. The obscene nature of congress make the position even more laughable than it was in the past [and its always been sketchy at best, without cards (and with?)]. Read the DA if youre a politics team, but there are almost always better arguments out there.
Critiques
Critique debates can be fun to watch, but only when the position is clear at the thesis level. If your shell argues that the K is a prior question or something like that, spend some meaningful time explaining why thats the case instead of shadow extending an argument from the shell. I am familiar with a lot of the literature, but you should argue the position as if I am not. Critiques are totally dope, but only because they have the potential to advance compelling arguments¦ not because they are obtuse.
Framework debates (on the top of critique... i.e.: epistemology comes first) are a waste of time a vast majority of the time. I do not understand why teams spend any substantive amount of time on framework. The question of whether the affirmative methodology/epistemology/whatever vague term you want to use, is good or bad should be determined in the links and impacts of the criticism. I see almost no world where framework matters independent of the rest of the shell. So¦ the only K framework questions that tend to make sense to me are arguments about why it is a prior question. It makes sense that if the critique wins that the affirmative impacts are threat constructions that Im not going to weigh the affirmative impacts against the position. Thats not a framework debate though, thats a question determined by winning the thesis of the position.
Critical affirmatives can be cool, but they also put me in a weird position as a judge sometimes. If your affirmative is positioned to critique DAs, then I still want to see specific applications of those arguments to the DAs. I need to see how the DA demonstrates your argument to be true in some specific way. By that I mean, if the negative outright wins a DA, I would need to see why that would mean the affirmative shouldnt lose early, often, and specifically. The same is true of any set/genre of negative positions.
Performance/Non-Topical Affirmatives/Alternative Approaches to Debate
I tend to not have super strong feelings in favor or in opposition to performance style arguments. Several of the teams I have coached have run non-traditional arguments and I have seen those be incredibly beneficial for the debaters and have a positive effect on education garnered from their rounds. I have also seen people really struggle with performance-style arguments on an interpersonal level, in both advocating their positions and responding to others doing so. I defer to the debaters to wade through the various issues related to alternative approaches to debate.
I will vote for framework as answer to these arguments if the other team wins the position. However, I also think most non-topical affirmatives are written with 5 minutes of impact turns to framework. Affirmatives must explicitly extend those kinds of arguments to answer framework (don't assume I understand how that's happening just by you extending the affirmative) and teams going for framework should not assume the "a priori" nature of theory means I reject the aff out-of-hand.
I tend to think arguments about the collapse of debate due to alternative approaches to debate, are frequently poorly warranted. Which doesn't mean those warrants don't exist... I just need them to be made explicitly. Debate can look like many things, and still be interesting/educational/productive, in my mind. However, I also believe compelling arguments about "topical versions of the affirmative" can be very compelling. If there is a way to read your criticism as a nuanced way to affirm the resolution, you've probably landed close to my ideal version of critically framed affirmatives. Affirmatives seeking to indict structural conditions of debate can also be very compelling, too. I hope to put my personal desires for a particular model/instantiation of debate to the side in any particular round I'm judging.
CPs
In general, the CP/DA debate is probably what I feel most comfortable judging accurately and I think CPs that solve the affirmative are very strategic. There are probably enough arguments on both sides to justify different interpretations of how permutation or CP theory in general should go down, that I dont have strong opinions about many CP related issues.
I tend to think objections to conditionality are rooted in some very valid arguments, however I find myself concluding conditionality is probably more good than bad in my mind. That only means the conditionality debate is totally fair game and I probably have voted conditionality bad as many times as I have voted it is good.
Cheater CPs are cool with me, so feel free to deploy delay, conditions, consult, whatever. I tend to think the theory arguments read in answer to those positions are more persuasive than the answers when argued perfectly, but that in no way makes me more predisposed to reject any kind of CP strategy.
Amy Maistros - Clemson
n/a
Andrea Van Nort - USAFA
n/a
Anoosha Zaki - USC
n/a
Ashley Christ - USAFA
n/a
Austin Lohmeyer - Wyoming
n/a
Austin Thoma - DU
n/a
Baker Weilert - Whitman
I re-wrote this paradigm because I realized that my previous one was rather generic, and people likely assume I dont know anything because I debated in Arkansas. Take what you will from the comments below, and dont hesitate to ask for clarification.
Pronouns:
He/Him/His
Positions:
Procedurals/Theory: I am a big fan T/Specs/Theory type arguments, but rarely see teams collapsing to these positions (which I think is a necessary strategic decision to win these types of arguments in front of me). As for types of specs Im less/more sympathetic to: I dont find over-spec or under-spec particularly compelling arguments, although I am willing to listen/vote on them. I do really like topicality (as long as you arent running 5 of them and simply just cross-applying the standards and voters without new articulation of how those standards/voters function in conjunction with your different interpretations). I also think that conditionality is a great/true argument, but only in particular scenarios. I am far more sympathetic to conditionality arguments if there are multiple advocacies that cause the affirmative to double-turn themselves (meaning dont run condo just to run condo, run it because you think there is actually a strategic advantage being leveraged by the other team). I prefer articulated abuse, although I will vote on potential abuse, and I default competing interpretations unless otherwise told.
Kritik: I am fine with critical debate on either side of the resolution, although I prefer the K Aff to be rooted in the substance of the resolutions, that being said, I will listen to any justification as to why you should have access to non-topical versions of the affirmative. The framework should be informed by your methodology (meaning your framework should not just function as a way of excluding other positions, but actually inform how to evaluate your advocacy), your links contextualized to your indictments (some generics are fine, but it should include a breakdown of how the other teams position/mindset perpetuates the system), and an alternative that can actually resolve the harms of the K (meaning there needs to be very clear solvency that articulates how the alternative solves/functions in the real world). I dont think rejection alts get us anywhere in the debate space, unless it is rejection on word choice/language (in which case I think those grievances are better articulated in the form of a procedural) or you clearly explain what that rejection looks like (in which case you should probably just use that explanation as your alternative in the first place). Permutation of the K alternative is perfectly fine, but I think on critical debates I need substantially more work on how the perm functions (especially in a world where the links havent been resolved). I am rather familiar with most of the K literature bases, but still think it is important for debaters to do the work of explaining the method/functionality of the K, and not rely on my previous knowledge of the literature base.
Disadvantages: I like a good DA/CP strategy, with a couple of caveats. The first is that the disadvantage needs to have specific links to the affirmative (generics just dont do it for me), I am far more likely to vote on a unique disadvantage with smaller impacts, than a generic disadvantage with high magnitude impacts (although I will obviously weigh high magnitude impacts if you are winning probability). I have a rather high threshold for politics disadvantages, but if you can tell me which senator/representative will vote for which policy and why, I am far more likely to buy into the scenario (specifics are your friend on ptix).
Counter-Plans: I am fine with almost all types of counterplans (+1, pics, timeframe, etc.) but think they often need to be accompanied by theory arguments justifying their strategic legitimacy. I also think that mutual exclusivity competitiveness should always be preferred over simply having a net benefit/disadvantage that makes the position functionally competitive. I am fine with all types of permutations with justification (again often needs to be accompanied by theory). My threshold on perms are sometimes low, but I think that is because they are often under-covered, so knowing that you should be spending a great deal of time answering/going for the permutation if you want to win/not lose there.
General Notes:
1. Status of arguments: It is your responsibility to ask, and for the other team to answer (dont give them the run-around, and if you arent sure just say dispo).
2. ALL Text/ROB/Thesis should be read twice, and made available for the other team.
3. The order you give at the beginning of your speech is actually important. I flow exclusively on paper, so switching between sheets/having them in the correct order helps me follow along. I completely understand that you have to switch up the flow mid speech sometimes, but you need to clearly signpost where you are (especially if you deviate from the order given).
4. Speed: You can go as fast as you want in front of me, that being said, Im not sure if going fast for the sake of going fast is always the best strategic choice, as your word count probably isnt much higher even if you think you sound faster.
5. I will listen to literally any argument (heady, aliens, personal narrative of a farmer from Wisconsin), doesnt really matter to me, but please dont put me in a situation in which I have to evaluate/endorse advocacies of mass death of people (like genocide good). Also, as far as identity politics go (this maybe should have gone in the K section) I think that debate is a great platform to talk about your own person experiences, but I think its important to note that oppression is often intersectional and is articulated/experienced in different ways. I think forced disclosure of experience/identity in order to interact with your position can be potentially harmful to others, and trigger warnings only work if you give people time to exit the room.
6. DO NOT BE MEAN, I will tank speaks. Totally fine to being witty, and slightly confrontational, but avoid personal attacks, I would much rather listen to you actually debate. Overall I believe debate is a creative space, so feel free to run literally anything you want.
Experience:
4 years policy debate in Kansas, 4 years parliamentary debate at Louisiana Tech University, and Arkansas State University. 2 years Assistant Debate Coach at Arkansas State University. Currently Assistant Director of Debate at Whitman College.
Bianca McCloud - USC
n/a
Brittney Szempruch - USAFA
n/a
Bryanna Reed. - DU
n/a
Buzz Fisher. - DU
n/a
Camara Stokes-Hudson - USAFA
n/a
Carla Espinosa - ULV
n/a
Claudia Hauer - USAFA
n/a
Colin Phipps - DU
n/a
Connie McKee - WTAM
n/a
Connie Leonard - USAFA
n/a
Danny Iberri-Shea - USAFA
Dave Buchanan - USAFA
n/a
David Courtright - Clemson
n/a
David Trevithick - CC
Dora Varner - ULV
n/a
Doug Ottino - USAFA
n/a
Emily Girkins - DU
n/a
Gavin Gill - Vanderbilt
n/a
George Fitzpatrick - UVM
n/a
Gloria Batiste-Roberts - TSU
n/a
Greg Laski - USAFA
n/a
Harriet Randolph - USAFA
n/a
Hayden Kuwamura - Regis U
n/a
Isaac Williams - USAFA
n/a
James Taylor - KState
Taylor, W. James “JT” Kansas State University, ADOD
# of years coaching/judging: 20+
Most succinctly, I begin the round as a critic of argument. Depending on how the debaters posit my decision calculus, I go from there...But I think the topic should be debated directly--HOW that happens is up to you.
Biggest tips:
-Don't forget about T vs. Policy Affs.
-DEPTH OVER BREADTH.
-ONLINE DEBATE: Please slow down just a bit--not much but some. Technology issues are YOUR issues, not mine.
-SPEED: Speed is fine but should not be used merely for exclusion. You also need to still be persuasive at speed.
-ENGAGE THE 1AC: I think teams should always engage the 1AC. Even if you are a one-off K team or you mostly take a more performative approach, there is no reason you can’t address the issues, logic, and general claims of the 1AC (denying their logic is not "playing their game"). Even if you don’t have evidence, you should still make smart arguments. Some of this could be approaches like contextualizing your one-off K to the specific claims made. Be smart and make logical arguments against the Aff. I think being educated on the issues of the topic is the true "education" we get out of "topic education". In the end, there should probably be a detailed engagement in the link debate.
-SPEECH DOCS: Ignoring the speeches and just flowing from the speech docs is disrespectful. I love teams who realize this is going on and throw in arguments when that team is not paying attention.
-DEBATE THE EVIDENCE: What are the base assumptions? Studies? Qualifications? These questions are often not engaged by debaters and badly hi-lited 12 page cards just get accepted.
-STOP BEING PETTY: You might think your arguments are the center of the universe, but c'mon. Too many debaters overstate the importance of their claims, fake being deeply offended for purposes of hyping up a link argument, think their type of education is the only acceptable form, deny/ignore the validity of debates about scholarship, or assume that debate is separate from the "real world".
-FRAMEWORK: Although I think most framework arguments are a little silly—I vote on them often due to execution problems by the other team. I think the Aff. Should get to “weigh” the case as offense, unless it begs the question(s) of epistemology/methodology. In that case, the epistemology/methodology should be directly applied to the case debate. Also, don't use framework as an excuse not to engage the Aff. I think there can be real value in policy debate, but not necessarily through its imposition. What rarely gets discussed are the "portable skills" that are fostered through non-policy debates...In the ideal analysis, we would consider all facets of analysis into the discussion or decision-making process (policy, narratives, history, philosophical assumptions, etc.).
-Role of the Ballot – The vast majority of these claims are self-referential and add nothing to debate: “Whoever best does what we said.” Just like policy framework claims, these function with the same intent to exclude. However, some truly act not as a veiled framework but as truly instructional in terms of judging and the meaning of the ballot and the function of my decision. I do not think the ballot inherently means anything beyond a recording of data. Humans infuse meaning to things like the ballot.
-Perm Sloppiness - I think a lot of block debates get sloppy/lazy on the perm. I think the Aff. should have to explain how the perm resolves the links. I also think the Neg. should have to explain why the perm does not resolve those links (don't just say so).
-Method Debates: You need to actually do your method, not just prove it WOULD/COULD be a good idea. Historical Materialism comes to mind...Very few teams actually advance that alternate version of history. Instead, teams usually just read links to how the Aff doesn't fit in their paradigm or somehow masks or trades-off with HM. The same dynamic happens in many other debates.
-Multiple conditional plan or CP planks: I think it is an unrealistic burden for Affs to generate offense against each plank without liability. Aff should get to generate offense and solvency deficits against parts of the CP (or in extremely rare circumstances all parts), but smart Negatives can utilize one plank to compensate for solvency deficits of others or outweigh the internal link to the offense against others.
Jessica Jimenez - MSU Denver
n/a
Jewel William Smith - TSU
n/a
Joanna Li. - DU
n/a
Joe Allen - WU
John Koch - Vanderbilt
n/a
John Rief - MSU Denver
n/a
Jolie Altman. - DU
n/a
Jon Denzler - Regis U
n/a
Jordan Werner - Regis U
n/a
Jose Arelleno - USAFA
n/a
Juan Torres - UA Debates
n/a
K. Harrington - USAFA
n/a
Keely Wilson - Vanderbilt
n/a
Kelsea Schulenberg - Clemson
n/a
Kreg Abshire - USAFA
n/a
Kyle Bligen - Whitman
2018 NPDA National Champion
I can judge pretty much anything. Just be clear and have fun.
For additional speaker points, consult the below recipe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***Before you strike me, ask your DoF how many times I beat the teams they coached. Now, rethink your strike and pref me higher.***
IngredientsNutrition
- 1?2 cupbutter
- 2 tablespoonscream cheese
- 1 pintheavy cream
- 1 teaspoongarlic powder
- salt
- black pepper
- 2?3 cup gratedparmesan cheese(preferably fresh)
- 1 lbfettuccine, prepared as directed
Directions
- In a medium saucepan, melt butter.
- When butter is melted, add cream cheese.
- When the cream cheese is softened, add heavy cream.
- Season with garlic powder, salt, and pepper.
- Simmer for 15-20 minutes over low heat, stirring constantly.
- Remove from heat and stir in parmesan.
- Serve over hot fettucine noodles.
Lindsey Dixon - Clemson
n/a
Lori Davis Perry - USAFA
n/a
Mark Kaufman - USAFA
n/a
Matt Lerdahl - USAFA
n/a
Matt Parnell - TTU
MATT PARNELL JUDGE PARADIGM
Section 1: General information
I debated four years of high school policy and then another five in parli at Washburn. I believe that offense will win you most debate rounds as long as its packaged well enough. As a debater, I read a lot of different positions but there is a soft spot in my heart for politics + counterplan debate. I can hang with most positions however if youre reading something new, you might wanna go a bit slower so I can jive with what youre reading. I will say that theory is my jam. I wont vote for silly theory (I mean I might if you win it) but I do love really good and deep theory debates. Overall, Ill vote on the framework that you present. Ill default to an offense vs. defense paradigm but if you want me to evaluate the round differently, you gotta let me know.
Identity/Performance/Critical Arguments: I view these arguments very similarly as I do Ks. Provide a clear advocacy, or at least some form of tangible action and tell me why that action is key to resolve your links. Provide a clear way for me to weight the debate through impacts. At the core, I believe your argument should have some sort of linkage to the topic. Im not asking you to be topical, but I am asking for at least a little time in the PM/LO dedicated to a discussion of the topic.
Flowing: I need like a second of pen time between positions. If you have any particular questions about my flow, just ask. Essentially I will vote based on what I have on my flow. Im a big fan of debaters who organize well.
Texts and Interps: Slow down when you read plan/cp/alt texts. I think texts are pretty important to the round and I want to ensure that I understand what the text of your arg is.
Procedurals/Theory/T: I love theory. That doesnt mean I like really silly theory but a really intense and deep theory debate is fantastic. I need interps to be said slowly. I think that if you collapse to theory you need to be doing the work on the voter level. So many times, debaters blip out fairness and education and call it good however if you go for theory, give me actual, termialized impacts to those claims. I will vote on potential abuse but you need to tell me why I am doing so. It makes me happy to see debaters having an in depth theory debate. Generally, I think condo is bad however I am not rigid in that interpretation. I will vote on condo strats and condo good if youve won the flow.
DAs: Read them. The more specific the link story the better. I was a politics debater so I enjoy a good politics debate. I do have a high threshold when it comes to the uniqueness question of a politics disad so give actual details i.e. who is voting for what, vote counts, etc.
CPs: Also read them. I really like creative counterplans. If you read a counterplan, make sure you have a net benefit attached.
Ks: These are also fine. Please explain what the alternative does however. Im willing to pull the trigger on any K however I need an explanation of how the alternative resolves the links page. Also try not to slam a bunch of postmodern terms together and call it good. The alt advocates a particular action so please, tell me what that action is. Im at least baseline familiar with most lit bases however if youre breaking something completely new, give a small thesis at the top of the shell.
Perms: Perms are fine and you should be making them. You dont have to read the entire perm text for me. Just say Perm do X and here are the net benefits. Perms are a test of competition but if you want me to treat it as an advocacy, you better make that argument.
Speaker points: Ill start at 28 and go up or down. If you give a good speech with solid arguments, youll be rewarded. If I cant understand you, you will be punished. Ill really only give less than a 26 for things such as hate speech, hyper aggression, etc.
This is your space so you do what you want. I will judge what you want me to judge. I only ask that you be considerate of the other people in the room.
Matthew Schaupp - ULV
n/a
Meaghan McHenry - USAFA
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!
Mike Whiteside - USAFA
n/a
Nathan Sawyer - UA Debates
n/a
Nicole Jerr - USAFA
n/a
Paul Narey - Wyoming
n/a
Quintin Brown - WU
updated: October 24, 2019
Experience: 2 years of parliamentary debate at Northwest Community College, and did 3 years of NPDA and NPTE debate at Washburn University. During this time, I was semi-competitive at both levels. Many of my thoughts and upbringing of debate comes from a multitude of people from the community college circuit and the national circuit. I would say my views on debate though have been largely shaped by Jeannie Hunt, Steven Doubledee, and Kevin O?Leary.
General: Debate to me is a multitude of things meaning that it is an open space for a diversity of arguments. It still to me though is largely a game that is shaped by the real world and lived experience. I am fine with you doing whatever you please, but I am not saying that I will understand it, I will do my best to evaluate all arguments as best as I can. Make the debate yours, have fun, and compete, that?s what I believe.
--Defense (I love terminal defense, to me it is very underutilized)
--Ask for copies of texts or repeat them (ROTB, interps, or anything I will need word for word please read slowly and repeat)
--Partner Communication is fine
In general, I do not have a preference in the style of the way you debate, do you, and I will evaluate the best I can.
Theory: This is one subset of arguments that I
wished I delved more into when I debated. I will not say I am the best
at understanding theory, but I do not mind a good procedural or a
strategic use of theory. Deploy it as necessary or as an escape valve,
it doesn?t matter to me. I think having impacted out voters is nice.
Although, the standards debate to me is the crux of the shell, gotta win
a substantive standard to get the impact/voter. I probably would mostly
default to competing interps, as well, to me it just makes the most
sense.
Case: I love case debate. Good terminal case
defense and awesome turns, to me, is an underutilized strategy. Aff?s
be able to defend the case, sometimes as MG?s we get too bogged down
prepping for the off case positions, just be sure to be able to defend
your case. I think LOC?s should get to case to at least mitigate each
advantage, but I understand time constraints and time management.
Performance: To me all debate is a performance, right? Like the judge is basically the audience and evaluates two opposing speakers, seems like a performance, but I digress.
- You should have a role of the ballot/judge argument (probably in your framework interp).
- Explain how the opposing team ought to interact with your performance.
- Explain the importance of your specific performance within the context of the topic.
- Frame your impacts in a manner that is consistent with your performance
The K- I think a good criticism has framework, thesis, links, impacts, alt, and alternative solvency. The thesis allows the judge to be able to better understand the K itself, by giving a short synopsis of the K, the framework tells me how to evaluate it, is fiat illusory, should evaluate epistemology over ontology, etc. The links should be specific to the topic and grounded to the literature or if the aff is a critical aff then there should be good justifications for why you are rejecting the topic ( I will vote on framework). If the aff is a critical aff, if you are on the neg and don?t have good links to the aff and you prepped your k, and you are also going to read Framework, just make a decision and either go for framework or the K (I just think many instances framework contradicts criticsms so reading framework and a K seems to be contradictory to me unless they don?t contradict). The K should probably outweigh and turn the aff. I do not know all critical literature but the literature bases I do know are:
- Post Modernism
- Post Structuralism
- Whiteness
- Critical Race Theory
Don?t let this constrain you though, I love to learn new things and don?t mind listening. I will try my best to evaluate your arguments
CP Theory: Read whatever theory related to Counterplans you want, if you win it you win it. If you lose it, you lose it.
Permutations:
- Always and only a test of competition
- Should explain how the Permutation resolves the links/offense of the DA/K.
- You don't ever need 8 permutations. Read one or two theoretically sound perms with net benefits.
- Sev/Intrinsic perms are probably not voting issues given they are merely tests of competitiveness.
Speak Points: I will probably range from 26-30. 30 would be excellent, 29 is almost excellent, and so forth.
Raphael Miller-Figueroa - Clemson
n/a
Reese Wold - USAFA
n/a
Sarah Dweik - TTU
My background: I debated for 4 years on the NPTE/NPDA circuit (2.5 years at the University of Missouri and 1.5 years at Washburn). I have helped coach policy, public forum, and parli debate, finished my undergraduate degree at Washburn, and am now pursuing my Master's degree at Texas Tech. Im currently judging for Texas Tech. Starting off at a student-run program has helped me learn debate from a variety of different people and from learning from watching rounds online. I have also largely been shaped by people like Doubledee, Ryan Kelly, and Calvin Coker.
Highlights: I think that debate is a space where we can all engage with each other to different degrees. Personally for me, debate became a place where I could feel more comfortable to express myself and engage with others in-depth over a variety of topics that exist or arent discussed outside of this space. I am fine with whatever arguments you decide to read in front of me, but I cannot claim to fully understand every argument that is read in front of me. I do have an expansive knowledge regarding a lot of different K's, but that doesn't mean that I know everything that you will talk about in the round. I am here to learn just as much as you are. The round is yours and you should do what you are comfortable with, have fun, be respectful, and compete.
I prefer debates that engage the topic and, in an ideal situation, utilize fiat to do so, but I will definitely listen to arguments that interpret the topic differently or if you decide to reject it. I would prefer that you read advocacies unconditionally, but I will not vote you down without the other team winning the condo bad theory. Im most familiar with the following arguments: Politics, T, Hegemony, Feminism, Black Feminism, Queerness, Orientalism, and most other identity or state based criticisms. I will try and protect from new arguments in rebuttals, but please still call them out if you think they are new so I am not intervening as much. I will vote for who wins the round, regardless of my personal views, as long as you can clearly explain your offense and how to weigh the impacts of your strategy. And finally, impact calculus is the most important thing to me as a judge. I want the rebuttal speeches to help me craft my ballot through the lenses of timeframe, probability, and magnitude (not necessarily in that order). I enjoy rebuttals that reflect as much of the RFD as possible, so framing in the LOR and PMR is critical.
Identity/Performance/Critical Arguments: I totally think that debate is a performance, but make the round for you. I judge these arguments similarly to other criticisms. Therefore, I need a clear advocacy; it does not need to be an alternative, but make your advocacy clear (whether it be a poem, metaphor, alt, etc.). I still think you need to have very strong solvency for your argument and I need some type of way to weigh the debate through impacts or a mechanism that you make clear to me. Im willing to listen to framework debates and many times would use framework as an answer to critical affirmatives. I do think that if you are rejecting the resolution then you need some sort of justification for doing so or some kind of explanation or link to the resolution because I think this fosters creativity and gives context within the round of why the debating the resolution, in this case, is bad.
Flowing: I flow on my laptop because I can type a lot more quickly and clearly than I can write. This means that I would prefer if you just gave me enough time to switch tabs on my laptop when you switch sheets, and please flag when you're moving on so I can make sure your arguments go where you want them to be. If I think you are too quiet, unclear, or fast I will let you know immediately. I keep a good and fast flow as long as youre clear.
Texts and Interpretations: You can either provide me with a written copy of the text or slow down when you read the plan/cp/alt and repeat it. I think this is very important during theory debates and framework debates. I would like you to either repeat it twice and slowly to make sure that I have a copy of it or make sure that you give me a copy. If I don't get your text or interp, I will make sure I have the correct wording in my flow when the round ends.
Procedurals/Theory/T: I enjoy a good T debate and I default to competing interpretations, but this does not mean that I wont listen to other frameworks for evaluating T. I think that all procedurals can have a role depending on the round. I am not a fan of RVIs. I understand the utility of these arguments, but they likely arent going to win my ballot. I do not need real in round abuse, but an abuse story needs to exist even if it is potential abuse. I need procedurals to have clearly articulated interpretations, violations, standards, and voters not just blips in the LOC of, vote for us for fairness and education. I view topicality similarly to a disad in that I view standards as being the internal links to the voters (impacts). When it comes to theory concerning advocacies, I find multiple worlds bad theory to be quite compelling because I find that inherent contradictions in strategies for the sake of winning take away from the in round education. I am not a huge fan of multiple new theory sheets in the MG. I can see the utility of MG theory arguments, but reading them to simply shotgun the other team hyper-expands the debate into a jumbled mess. If you are going to read multiple theories, please collapse :D
Disads: I enjoy topic specific disads. However, I also loved reading politics, so I understand the utility of reading politics on a variety of different topics. However, I have higher standards for voting on politics than most others because I ran the argument so often. I need specifics such as vote counts, those whipping the votes, sponsors of the bill, procedural information regarding passage, etc. All disads are great in my book and I will always love hearing them in round.
CPs: I love counter-plans and I regret not reading them as much while I was a competitor. I am not prone to vote against any type of counter-plan. I prefer functional competition over textual competition because it is easier to weigh and more tangible to me, but if you want to go for textual competition, just show me how to weigh and vote on it.
Ks: I enjoy criticisms and I believe that they can offer a very unique and creative form of education to the debate space. If your criticism is complicated, then I would like a thesis page or an explanation of what the alternative does. I really enjoy a good perm debate on the K and am not opposed listening to theory regarding the alternative/perms (floating PICs, severance, etc.). When reading a K, please give me a clear explanation of what the alternative does and what the post-alt world looks like. Just a bunch of fancy words pushed together doesn't mean that I understand what your K is doing. With the alt, there should also be a stable and clear solvency/alternative ground that allows the other team to have some space to argue against it.
Perms: I really enjoy perm debates. As a PMR, trust me, I really love the perm debate. I think that the text of the perm is critical and must be clear in the debate. Slow down, read them twice, and/or give me a copy of the text. You dont have to read the entire plan text in K debates and instead it is sufficient to say, do the plan and x. My definition of a legitimate perm would be that they are all of the plan and all or parts of the CP/Alt. I think that perms are in between a test of competition and an advocacy (because youre really achieving both, ya know).
Speaker Points: I usually start at 28 and will go up or down depending on how everything goes. I do think speaker points are totally random, with no real scale for all of us to follow, but I will try my best to reward you on how well you do. I highly value the argumentation that is made to earn speaker points, although if I cant understand your arguments, then we might have a problem. I do love quotes from RuPaul's Drag Race, after all "Facts are facts, America!"
Basically, I want you to come into a round and not think that I would keep you from reading what you want to read. I understand that I won't get every argument read in front of me, but I want to make sure that I am not preventing you from expressing yourself the ways that you want to in this space. This space for me is something extremely important, so I want to make sure that I can at least help it continue to be important for you.
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
Shara Merrill - MSU Denver
n/a
Shawn Briscoe - USAFA
n/a
Sofia Ramirez - Regis U
n/a
Sondera Malry - TSU
n/a
Suchita Lulla - CU Boulder
Tiffany Wilk Chang - USAFA
n/a
Trevor Woodward - USAFA
n/a