Judge Philosophies
Andy Christensen - Idaho State
n/a
Ashton Poindexter - Utah
I competed in NPDA and NFA-LD throughout my college forensics experience and currently coach at the University of Utah.
Kritiks need to explain what the alternative does.
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.
Ben Jensen - Hired
n/a
Bob Becker - NWC
As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round. I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so. To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues. Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important. All of that said, I am not an information processor. I am a human being and so are you. If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance.
When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose. Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I dont require competing interpretations.
I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. Im fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. We dont like the resolution doesnt cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some contradictory arguments good answers.
Performance based argument need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you dont tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round.
As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says one million deaths and the other says dehume, but doesnt explain why dehume is worse than deaths, Ill vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then Ill vote for dehume. I think Im telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.
I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast. I will tell you if I can't understand you. Also, one new trend I find frustrating in LD is tag lines that are multiple sentences long. Your tag line is a claim, but make it a brief one. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. Thats why Im here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.
Chris DeFreitas - Hired
n/a
Connor Hunt - Hired
n/a
Danika Snyder - Hired
n/a
Frankie Gigray - Utah
Frankie Gigray (she/her)
A couple of notes:
1. Speed makes it very difficult for me to give your arguments the weight they deserve. Be decisive and judicious in your argumentation.
2. While I'm not super well-read/versed in carded debate, I've done a bit of NPDA debate, so I know some of the lingo/general strategies. This may or may not reveal a lot about me.
3. Big picture/world-level analysis really helps clarify the round for me. I did a lot of BP/Worlds debate, so some of their predilections bleed through.
Jessica Jatkowski - NWC
I have been judging debate since 2015. However, this is only my first year coaching.
The most important element for me as a judge is to be respectful.
We are all coming to debate with our own preferences for issues, but I genuinely put my feelings and thoughts aside and will look at both sides to see who is giving the best argument. It is in the general framework of debate for you to tell me as a judge what I am weighing the debate on and bring evidence to the round. If you are unable to do so, then my general stance of how I judge is on the quality of evidence that both sides are bringing to the round.
In terms of actual speeches, it is important for everyone to understand what the issues and topics are, so speed may not be a benefit if I have to tell you to slow down.
Jillian Jaeger - CC
I competed in policy and NPDA and currently coach IPDA, NPDA, and BP styles of debate.
I have no preference in terms of what arguments are run in a round, but do expect that there is clash with the Aff's case and that you explain why the argument matters and why it is a voting issue.
- Topicality is always an apriori issue (if it is applicable) and will be voted on first.
- Kritiks need to explain what the alternative does and why voting for it matters - I'm not convinced by "nuclear war will never happen, but your ballot is a stand against racism." Do better. Be thoughtful. I seldom believe that Kritiks should be run as an Aff plan, but if they strongly link to the resolution, I may be persuaded.
Kiefer Storrer - Whitman
Pronouns:He/Him/His
I care a lot about disasters, fires, floods, and killer bees.
Experience: Competed in 4 years 3A Kansas High School Policy and 4 years Midwest-regional and PKD/NCCFI College Parli. I have a background of coaching LD, Parli, IPDA, the occasional very rare Worlds tournament; but IEs are the real undercurrent of my coaching career. I've coached a Parliamentary National Championship at Phi Rho Pi and PKD, but only rarely have been involved with NPDA-circuit competition. Current ADOD/F at Whitman.
Because metaphors are the cool thing to do these days, I view debate like Professional Wrestling; theatrical spectacle with ambiguous rulesets that are sometimes "broken" to up the entertainment and education factor. National-level rounds are hopefully grandiose back-and-forth engagements where either side, made up of larger-than-life personalities, is winning speech to speech. Please don't have me evaluate a Dusty Finish, I'd like a clear winner, so clash like champions and give your best Impact Calc promo.
TL:DR: Cool with anything, don't advocate for genocide or advocates of genocide. Might be a step behind on my flowing ability ("he's still got it *clapclap clapclapclap*"...hopefully). Again, with the wrestling metaphor; please be kind through the round, but especially before and after. We are a reviving community, and our future is in our hands.
Mackenzie Mattila - NAU
Michael Hulbert - Hired
n/a
Nico Hernandez - Hired
n/a
Reeve Boyer - Whitman
Debate paradigm
I love debate in all its forms as an intellectual activity and I want to participate in an educational and transformative debate culture. As a judge, I consider it my job to walk into the room, adjudicate a discussion regarding the resolution, and render a decision at the end of the round. That just means I default to being a lay judge, but if one or both teams makes an argument to the contrary, I am happy to adapt to whatever is going on. Debate what you want, and I will listen. However, I evaluate arguments as claims with warrants you must have evidence to support your assertions.
That laissez-faire attitude naturally has its limits. No demeaning or derogatory language should be used and we should be kind to one another. I will tank speaks for such behavior and will escalate my response to the nature of whatever bad things may happen.
[WEIGHING] On impact weighing, I tend to follow standard Timeframe/Exponentiality/Magnitude/Probability framing and I weigh arguments on strength of
warrant. That means that every argument should have a claim and evidence supporting it.
[CASE DEBATE] Absolutely a big fan. Please have clear impacts and weigh them, as well as a plan text, which should be repeated in-speech and passed as a text if requested. I am accustomed to the plan/solvency/advantage (with UQ/Links/Internal Links/Impacts) format but please do as you wish in that regard.
[KRITIKS] I think that critical debate is central to the unique education of Parli debate, however our format permits the proliferation of a lot of nonsense. I should know, I ran it myself. Please think self-reflexively about your words. You must patiently explain what symbolic reversal of the Subjects will-to-power means just as a policy debater must patiently explain Bakus petroleum reserves check back against European interference in Nagorno-Karabakh means. I have a high threshold for entirely excluding a teams impacts from the round on account of your FW, and impacts should be well contextualized to the link scenario, which should also generate competition.
[THEORY] I am just as happy to flow theory as anything else. Please have a clear interpretation (and repeat it!) as well as a violation of the interp, standards for why it matters, and voters for why I should care. MG theory can be a good part of a debate, but I tend to think that one condo advocacy is reasonable, but happy to hear otherwise. It must be collapsed to in the PMR.
[IVIs] I believe that the concept of an IVI (Independent Voting Issue) is critical to check back for
wrongdoing in the round, and that the IVI has been weaponized as a way to access the ballot more easily in a round. This is harmful to the competitive environment and more importantly, to those seeking redress for serious events. Do not tag an argument an IVI without a clear articulation of what the problem is, its impact, and why it must be independent of my evaluation of the rest of the flow (it should not be implicated in your framework). I have a high burden for voting on an IVI that is not collapsed to in the PMR/LOR.
[SPEED] I lay no claim to being the best interpreter of speedy debate, but I can flow effectively at 250-300 wpm. I will clear debaters when their speech becomes uninterpretable or unclear. If you do not slow yourself when competitors, or myself for that matter, request it, then I may cast my ballot on that issue because it signifies disrespect and the prioritization of exclusion as a competitive method over education and community.
[MISC] I competed for four years in NPDA parliamentary debate at Whitman College, placing 5 th at the NPTE in my senior year. If you would like to know, I debated everything from strict policy debate to running several theory shells to running high-theory Ks. I am a snob about running Baudrillard correctly, my favorite policy area is Southwest Asian and African defense policy, and I feel somewhat knowledgeable in anarchist theory, ecological critique, and Black critical literature (Wilderson, Moten, Hartman, Sexton, Butler). Bonus points for running something fun and innovative, because I think that innovation and novelty are two incredibly important things in debate.
Salette Ontiveros - UTEP
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
Stephen Sigman - CC
n/a
Thane Zeeh - Utah
n/a
Vivian Lee - Utah
n/a