Judge Philosophies
Amy Ramirez - MoState
Andrew Hart - MoState
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=35837
Becca Godsey - Derryberry
n/a
Brent Nicholson - McK
I am a Debate Coach at McKendree University. We compete primarily in the NPDA and NFA-LD formats of debate. We also host and assist with local high school teams, who focus on NSDA-LD and PF.
Email: banicholsonATmckendreeDOTedu
I have sections dedicated to each format of debate I typically judge and you should read those if you have time. If you dont have time, read the TLDR and ask your specific questions before the round. If you do a format of debate I dont have a section for, read as much as you can and ask as many questions as you want before the round.
TLDR
My goal as a judge is to adapt to the round that debaters have. I do not expect debaters to adapt to me. Instead, I want you to do what you want to do. I try to be a judge that debaters can use as a sounding board for new arguments or different arguments. I feel capable judging pretty much any kind of debate and Ill always do my best to render a fair decision that is representative of the arguments Ive seen in the round. If I am on a panel, feel free to adapt to other judges. I understand that you need to win the majority, not just me, and Im never going to punish you for that. Do what wins the panel and Ill come along for the ride.
I view debate as a game. But I believe games are an important part of our lives and they have real impacts on the people who play them and the contexts they are played in. Games also reflect our world and relationships to it. Debate is not a pro sport. It is not all about winning. Your round should be fun, educational, and equitable for everyone involved. My favorite thing to see in a debate round is people who are passionate about their positions. If you play hard and do your best, I'm going to appreciate you for that.
The quick hits of things I believe that you might want to know before the round:
1.Specificity wins. Most of the time, the debater with the more well-articulated position wins the debate. Get into the details and make comparisons.
2.I like debaters who seek out clash instead of trying to avoid it. Do the hard work and you will be rewarded.
3.I assume negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. I think conditionally is good. Anything more than two advocacies is probably too much. Two is almost always fine. One conditional advocacy is not at all objectionable to me. Format specific notes below.
4.I love topicality debates. I tend to dislike 1NC theory other than topicality and framework. 2AC theory doesnt appeal to me most of the time, but it is an important check against negative flex, so use it as needed.
5.I dont exclude impact weighing based on sequencing. Sequencing arguments are often a good reason to preference a type of impact, but not to exclude other impacts, so make sure to account for the impacts you attempt to frame out.
6.I will vote on presumption. Debate is an asymmetrical game, and the negative does not have to win offense to win the round. However, I want negative debaters to articulate their presumption triggers for me, not assume I will do the work for them.
7.I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts because that feels least interventionist.
8.Give your opponents arguments the benefit of the doubt. Theyre probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning.
9.Debates should be accessible. If your opponent (or a judge) asks you to slow down, slow down. Be able to explain your arguments. Be kind. Debate should be a fun learning experience for everyone.
10.In evidence formats, you should be prepared to share that evidence with everyone during the round via speechdrop, email chain, or flash drive.
11.All debate is performative. How you choose to perform matters and is part of the arguments you make. That often doesnt come up, but it can. Dont say hateful things or be rude. I will dock speaker points accordingly.
General
This philosophy is very expansive. That is because I want you to be able to adapt to me as much as you want to adapt. To be totally honest, you can probably just debate how you want and it will be fine I really do want you to do you in rounds. But I also want you to know who I am and how I think about debate so that you can convince me.
Everything is up for debate. For every position I hold about debate, it seems someone has found a corner case. I try to be clear and to stick to my philosophys guidelines as much as possible as a judge. Sometimes, a debater changes how I see debate. Those debaters get very good speaker points. (Speaking of which, my speaker points center around a 28.1 as the average, using tenth points whenever possible).
I flow on a laptop most of the time now. Flowing on paper hurts my hand in faster rounds. If Im flowing on paper for some reason, I might ask you to slow down so that I can flow the debate more accurately. If I dont ask you to slow down, youre fine dont worry about it. I dont number arguments as I flow, so dont expect me to know what your 2b point was without briefly referencing the argument. You should be doing this as part of your extensions anyway.
One specific note about my flowing that I have found impacts my decisions compared to other judges on panels is that I do not believe the pages of a debate are separate. I view rounds holistically and the flow as a representation of the whole. If arguments on separate pages interact with each other, I do not need explicit cross-applications to understand that. For instance, MAD checks on one page of the debate answers generic nuke war on every page of the debate. That work should ideally be done by debaters, but it has come up in RFDs in the past, so I feel required to mention it.
In theory debates, Ive noticed some judges want a counter-interpretation regardless of the rest of the answers. If the strategy in answering theory is impact turns, I do not see a need for a counter-interp most of the time. In a pure, condo bad v condo good debate, for instance, my presumption is condo, so the negative can just read impact turns and impact defense and win against a no condo interp. Basically, if the aff says you cant do that because it is bad and the neg says it is not bad and, in fact, is good I do not think the neg should have to say yes, I can do that (because they already did it). The counter-interp can still help in these debates, as you can use it to frame out some offense, by creating a lower threshold that you still meet (think some condo interps instead of all condo).
I look to texts of interps over spirit of interps. I have rarely seen spirit of the interp clarified in the 1NC and it is often used to pivot the interp away from aff answers or to cover for a bad text. If you contextualize your interp early and then stick to that, that is fine. But dont use spirit of the interp to dodge the 2AC answers.
I start the round with the assumption that theory is a prior question to other evaluations. I will weigh theory then substance unless someone wins an argument to the contrary. Critical affs do not preclude theory in my mind unless a debater wins a compelling reason that it should. I default to evaluating critical arguments in the same layer as the rest of the substantive debate. I am compelled by arguments that procedural issues are a question of judging process (that non-topical affs skew my evaluation of the substance debate or multi-condo skews the speech that answers it, for instance). I am unlikely to let affirmative teams weigh their aff against theory objections to that aff without some good justifications for that.
A topicality interpretation should allow some aff ground. If there is not a topical aff and the aff team points that out, I'm unlikely to vote neg on T. That means you should read a TVA if youre neg (do this anyway). I am open to sketchier T interps if they make sense. For instance, if you say that a phrase in the res means the aff must be effectually topical, I can see myself voting for this argument. Keep in mind, however, that these arguments run the risk of your opponent answering them well and you gaining nothing.
NPDA
Im going to start with the biggest change in my NPDA philosophy. Debates need to slow down. I still think speed is good. If all the debaters are fine with speed, I still like fast debate and want to see throwdowns at top speed. However, analytics with no speech docs are brutal to flow. Too many warrants get dropped. While we have laundry lists of arguments, they are often not dealt with in depth because theyre just hard to keep track of and account for. Our best NPDA debaters could debate at about 80% of their top speeds and maintain argumentative depth through improved efficiency and increased focus on the core issues of rounds, while still making the complex and nuanced arguments we want and getting more of them on each others flows and into each others speeches. Seek out clash!
NPDA is a strange beast. Without carded evidence, uniqueness debates and author says X/no they say Y can be messy. That just means you need to explain a way you want me to evaluate them and, ultimately, why I should believe your interpretation of that authors position or the argument youve made. In yes/no uniqueness questions, explain why you believe yes, not just that someone else does. That means explaining the study or the article reasoning that youre leaning on and applying it to the specifics of the debate. Sometimes it just means you need an even if argument to hedge your bets if you lose those issues. I try to let these things be resolved in round, but sometimes I have to make a judgment call and Ill do my best to refer only to my flow when that happens. But remember, the evidence alone doesnt win evidence debates the warrants and reasoning do the heavy lifting.
Arguments in parliamentary debate require more reasoning and support because there is no printed evidence available to rely on. That means you should not just yoink the taglines out of a file someone open-sourced. You should explain the arguments as they are explained in the texts those files are cut from. Use your own words to make the novel connections to the rounds were in and the topics we discuss. This is a beautiful thing when it happens, and those rounds show the promise that parli has as a productive academic endeavor. We dont just rely on someone else saying it we can make our own arguments and apply what others have said to new scenarios. So, lets do that!
Affirmative teams must affirm the resolution. How you do that is up to you. The resolution should be a springboard for many conversations, but criticizing the res is not a reason to vote affirmative. You can read policy affs, value affs, performance affs, critical affs, and any other aff you can think of as long as it affirms the res. Affs should include an interpretation of the resolution and a weighing mechanism to determine if youve met this burden. That is not often necessary in policy affs (because it happens contextually), but sometimes it helps to clarify. I am not asking the aff to roleplay as oppressors or to abdicate their power to pose questions. Instead, I want the aff team to reframe questions if necessary and to contextualize their offense to the resolution.
Negative teams must answer the affirmative. How you do that is up to you. You should make sure I know what your objections to the aff strategy are and why they are voting issues. That can be T, DAs, Ks, performances, whatever (except spec*). I vote on presumption more than most judges in NPDA. The aff must win offense and affs dont always do that. I think risk of solvency only applies if I know what Im risking. I must be able to understand and explain what an aff does on my ballot to run that risk on their behalf. With all that said, articulate presumption triggers for me. When you extend defense in the MO, explain thats a presumption trigger because.
I can buy arguments that presumption flips aff in counter-advocacy debates, but I dont see that contextualized well and is often just a risk of solvency type claim in the PMR. This argument is most compelling to me in PIC debates, since the aff often gets less (or none) of their 1AC offense to leverage. Absent a specific contextualization about why presumption flips aff in this round (bigger change, PIC, etc.), I tend to err neg on this question, though it rarely comes up.
*On spec: Spec shells must include a clear brightline for a we meet so aff must specify the branch (judicial, legislative, executive) is fine. Spec shells often only serve to protect weak link arguments (which should be improved, rather than shielded by spec) or to create time tradeoffs. They are sometimes useful and good arguments, but that scenario is rare. In the few cases where spec is necessary, ask a question in flex. If that doesnt work, read spec.
Condo: 1 K, 1 CP, and the squo is fine to me. Two Ks is a mess. Two CPs just muddles the case debate and is worse in NPDA because we lack backside rebuttals. Contradictory positions are fine with me (procedurally, at least). MGs should think ahead more and force bad collapses in these debates. Kicking the alt doesnt necessarily make offense on the link/impact of a K go away (though it often does). I am open to judge kicking if the neg describes and justifies an exact set of parameters under which I judge kick. I reserve the right to not judge kick based on my own perception of these arguments. So probably dont try to get me to judge kick, honestly.
I don't think reasonability (as it is frequently explained) is a good weighing mechanism for parli debates. It seems absurd that I should be concerned about the outcomes of future debates with this topic when there will be none or very few and far between.At topic area tournaments, I am more likely to vote on specific topicality. That does not mean that you can't be untopical, it just means you need good answers. Reasonability makes more sense to me at a tournament that repeats resolutions (like NPTE).
Chris Outzen - Truman State
Judging Philosophy: NFA-LD
I take the position that any form of public communication, including debate, is an audience-centric endeavor. The role of each debater is to convince the judge that they are the more right debater in that round. Adaptation of strategy and delivery of argument necessitates consideration of both your opponent AND the experience of the judge. To that end, I submit the following paradigm:
Judge Experience: DOF at Truman State University since 2015. I hold an MFA-Forensics, have been involved in college forensics since 2007, and have been coaching/judging forensics since 2011. Primarily IE oriented, but with knowledge of policy debate terminology and consistent LD judging experience since Fall 2015. Listening and flowing speed will not to the same level as career policy judges and coaches.
Speaker Speed: I disagree with the trend of increasing speed in LD debate. I believe that LD inhabits a unique position where both argumentation and strong speaking skills can be valued. I take the position that increasing speed of delivery to maximize argument quantity is antithetical to effective public communication. It is also a performative border which keeps those outside policy debate experience from engaging with our activity, which I believe to be a fundamental error in ensuring support for our activity as relevant and valuable.
To that end, debate which is a bit faster than conversational is ok but I will be listening for the deployment of strategic vocal variety to enhance your communication within your quick pace. As a judge who does not have decades of flowing experience, I cannot keep up with true spreading. If you are a traditional spreading debater, consider this an exercise in audience adaptation skills. Failure to adjust appropriately may result in lost speaker points or even a lost round. Spreading does not guarantee a lost round, but it does increase the likelihood I will miss critical components of your case. Extreme cases of spreading or the clear abuse of speed against another competitor may impact my final decision. I will not tell you to slow down mid-round unless I am directly asked to do so.
This position on speed is related to audience adaptation. I expect and encourage ALL debaters to adapt to other judge's speed preferences and the other competitors, as warranted in each individual round. This is simply my personal position from which I will be judging my assigned rounds.
Argument Explanation: You are welcome to run any arguments you wish in front of me in varying levels of complexity. However, remember the audience-centric principle. Debate can be a teachable moment where you can inform us in order to justify your win. This means you should be practicing breaking down complex concepts and providing strong links between the different pieces of your argument.
Ethical Speaking: Engaging in unethical or obfuscating behavior, including but not limited to misleading card cutting, deliberate spreading against judge preference, ignoring the audience as consumers of your message, or styling your arguments deliberately to be overly complex/dense, are not acceptable as a speaker. You are also expected to grant your opponent the same ground/courtesy as you expect. Example: If you cut off their answers in CX to move on to your next question, do not talk over/ignore them when they do the same thing in their CX.
Topicality: I’m open to T arguments. Proven abuse is the best course to win a T argument, but I’m willing to consider potential abuse if the possible abuse is of a significant magnitude.
Kritiks: I’m open to K debate on two conditions. 1) K-Affs must pass the test of topicality, linking to the resolution. 2) Kritik arguments are often dense and highly specialized. Those who run K arguments have an elevated burden to educate in your arguments. Do not assume we are all well-read in the highly specific literature of your kritik.
Judge Intervention: I would rather see you make the arguments and guide my thinking through strong transitions, roadmaps, etc. I typically do not believe in intervening as a judge in debate rounds to complete your arguments for you and hold myself to that standard to the degree possible. However, I will intervene in issues of a) Overt racism, homophobia, sexism, and/or other forms of hate speech; b) Lies about rules or anything which was clearly said in round by either competitor; c) New arguments in non-constructive speeches (as defined by NFA-LD rules), especially in the final AR.
To summarize, I'm open to all forms of argumentation on the premise that a) They are understandable and follow basic ethical guidelines; and b) They are justified by you as fitting in the round and resolution. Arguments should be presented in a way which reflects is accessible to the judge in question.
I will assume that students who do not ask me questions about my paradigm I will assume have read it. It is the job of the students to make sure they understand how the judge will engage with the round.
Christopher Thomas - Park
n/a
Clint Wooderson - Derryberry
n/a
Colin Quinn - UNT
Colin Quinn
University of North Texas
Framing how I should evaluate things is the most important thing to do. When that doesn't happen I have to intervene more and rely more on my predispositions rather than the arguments made.
Topicality: I like T debates. I think that for the neg to win a T debate there needs to be a well established competing interpretations framework and a good limits or ground argument. Affs need to have a reasonability argument paired with a decent we meet or counter-interpretation.
Counterplans: The neg needs to establish competition and a clear net benefit. I think i'm generally aff biased although they need to focus on what they can win (Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument except conditionality bad, I think most condition/consult-esque counterplans are legitimate but not competitive, etc).
Disadvantages: Impact calculus should be a priority. I do not think that there's always a risk of anything and can be persuaded that there's zero risk.
Kritiks: Impact framing arguments are the most important thing to win. They filter how I evaluate the rest of the debate in terms of deciding what is important to win and what isn't. I think that negatives need to make definite choices in the 2NR in terms of how to frame the K and what to focus on otherwise the aff is in a strategic place. Link/Impact scenarios that are specific to the plan make the debate much harder for the aff.
Affs: I think that framework is useful and can be won but I am sympathetic to affs that are topical without maybe defending a resolutional agent. I think a winning framework argument should be centered around a method that encourages the best discussion about the topic rather than just the government. When negs lose framework debates they fail to win links to the aff c/i or role of the ballot arguments. Topical version arguments are useful but negs need to remember to explain the reason they solve the affs offense; "you can still talk about x" often doesn't cut it. I think that affs that don't defend a plan need to focus on framing the ballot because that's how I will filter all of their arguments. I think that it is difficult for aff's to win framework debates without a we meet or counter-interp that can frame any other offense you have in the debate.
I may not know the very specific part of the topic/argument you are going for so make sure it's explained. I'm pretty visible in terms of reactions to certain arguments and it will be obvious if i'm confused as to what is going on.
Don't cheat.
Craig Hennigan - Truman State
Updated for LD judging
Craig Hennigan
Truman State University
TL/DR - I'm fine on the K. Need in round abuse for T. I'm fine with speed. K Alts that do something more than naval-gazing is preferred. Avoid running away from arguments.
I debated high school policy in the early 90’s and then college policy in 1994. I also competed in NFA-LD for 4 or 5 years, I don't recall, I know my last season was 1999? I then coached at Utica High School and West Bloomfield High school in Michigan for their policy programs for an additional 8 years. I coached for 5 years at Wayne State University. Now I am the Assistant Director of Forensics at Truman State University in my 2nd year running the debate part of the program.
I think of myself as adhering to my flow. Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat, and bonus if it’s a messy round and you are able to clean up my flow for me. Saying this, it’s a good idea for debaters to have clear tags on their cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence. If it blends together, I do not do well.
With regard to specific arguments – I will vote seldom on theory arguments that do not show significant in-round abuse. Potential abuse is a non-starter for me, and time skew to me is a legit strategy unless it’s really really bad. My threshold for theory then is pretty high if you cannot show a decent abuse story. Showing an abuse story should come well before the last rebuttal. If it is dropped though, I will most likely drop the argument before the team. Reminders in round about my disposition toward theory is persuasive such as "You don't want to pull the trigger on condo bad," or "I know you don't care for theory, here is why this is a uniquely bad situation where I don't get X link and why that is critical to this debate."
I don’t like round bullys. Especially ones that run a very obscure K philosophy and expect everyone in the room to know who/what it is saying. It is the duty of those that want to run the K to be a ‘good’ person who wants to enhance the education of all present, rather than roll eyes because the opponents may not be versed in every 19th century philosopher from the highlands of Luxumbourg. I have voted for a lot of K's though this season so it's not like I'm opposed to them. K alternatives should be able to be explained well in the cross-x. I will have a preference for K alts that actually "do" something. The influence of my ballot on the discourse of the world at large is default minimal, on the debate community default probably even less than minimal. Repeating jargon of the card is a poor strategy, if you can explain what the world looks like post alternative, that's awesome. I have found clarity to be a premium need in LD debate since there is much less time to develop a K. This being said, I look hard for argument mutations. If the K alt mutates into something else in the NR, this is a pretty compelling reason to vote Aff. (Or in the opposite of the person running the K for that matter). Failing to explain what the K does in the 1AC/NC then revealing it in the 1AR/NR is poor form.
Never run from a debate. I'll respect someone that goes all-in for the heg good/heg bad argument and gets into a debate more than someone who attempts to be incredibly tricksy in case/plan writing or C-X in order to avoid potential arguments. Ideal C-X would be:
"Does your case increase spending?"
"Damn right, what you gon' do about it? Catch me outside."
I will vote on T. I typically don't vote on T arguments about capital letters or periods. Again, there should be an in-round abuse story to garner a ballot for T. This naturally would reinforce the previous statement under theory that says potential abuse is a non-starter for me. Developing T as an impact based argument rather than a rules based argument is more persuasive. As potential abuse is not typically a voter for me, I'll strike down speaker points with great vengeance toward RVI's based on theory. Regarding K's of T, there are better ways to garner offense, like say... your case.
Anything that you intend to win on, it's best to spend more than 15 seconds on it. I won't vote for a blip that isn't properly impacted. Rebuttals should consist of focusing on the arguments that will win you the round. It should reflect some heavy lifting and doing some real work on the part of the debater. It should not be a laundry list of answers without a comparative analysis of why one argument is clearly superior and a round winner.
Performance: Give me a reason to vote. And make sure to adequately respond to your opponents arguments with the performance. I do not see that many of those rounds in the first place. If you win a framework debate, you're more than halfway there to a win. I think there are lots of ways that framework can be run that isn't inherently exclusive to debate styles. However I think there are framework arguments that are exclusive too, which isn't very cool. The main issues that I voted on in those rounds were dropped arguments. If a team running an alternative style aff/K is able to show that the other team is dropping arguments then that is just as valid as the traditional style making claims that arguments are dropped and should be weighed accordingly. The fact that you did a performance is not an independent reason to vote for you. I am seldom compelled that my ballot changes anything outside the debate community or outside the room. If you have specific evidence to why it does, then I have listened to and voted on those arguments (Think Giroux type evidence on pedagogy). Most of the time though, the idea that my ballot changes anything places too much importance on me. I'm just a ham and egger. However if there's things in the room that are going on that can be remedied by my ballot, I'm definitely listening.
Speaker Points -
Upon entering the LD community, I was informed that my previous speaker point distribution was akin to Santa Claus on a meth binge. It has now been revised. This rating system is subject to a "level of difficulty." Meaning if you're totally outmatching your opponent, you're going to earn speaker points not by smashing your opponent, but rather through making debate a welcoming and educational experience for everyone.
Floor- 25 - you might have said something offensive about the other team or my family. I may have had to think about whether or not to stop the round. You didn't complete a speech and conceded. You were racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic and unapologetic.
26-26.5 - You made me feel like a qualified judge. (There were noticable and glaring flaws in your strategy. You went for Condo Bad without a unique reason why I should vote and there was only 1 K and 1 CP in the round. You have problems with fundamentals of making arguments)
26.5-27 - I had to think and do work, but also had to send you a message that I'm not a good judge. (You made some tactical errors that I noticed perhaps went for the wrong NR, or you asked a bunch of questions in C-X that never came up in the speech. Or you lacked confidence, you looked like you were behind. You dropped a lot on the flow.)
27-27.5 - Meh. Middle of the road.
28 - You made me pay attention to my flowing. At one point I was hoping you would not go for the PIC because I had no idea what was happening on that flow. (Odds are you made the correct strategic decisions, outcarded your opponents or did not drop round-winning arguments and tooks advantage of your opponents dropped arguments. You should get a low-mid speaker award)
28.5-29.5 - I would give you a cigarette after the round if asked if I still smoked. (You have noticed a double turn or a speech act by your opponent that is a round winner. You also have reminded me of items in my paradigm for why you are going for the items that you are. I quit smoking so don't ask.)
29.5-30 - Would you like to do my oral defense for me? (I could not find a flaw in your performance to incredibly minor flaws that there is little way to realize that they even happened)
Card Clipping addendum:
Don't cheat. I typically ask to be included on email chains so that I can try to follow along at certain points of the speech to ensure that there isn't card clipping, however if you bring it up I in round I will also listen. You probably ought to record the part with clipping if I don't bring it up myself. Also, if I catch clipping (and if I catch it, it's blatant) then that's it, round over.
Darren Kootz-Eades - UCMO
n/a
David Bailey - SBU
David Bowers - MVC
n/a
David Dooling - MoState
David Van Bebber - Derryberry
n/a
Deano Pape - Simpson
n/a
Eric Morris - MoState
Eric Morris, DoF - Missouri State â 29th Year Judging
++++ NFA-LD Version ++++
You can see NDT version, which is different, here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6383
I primarily judge in NDTCEDA (which I enjoy), but operate under different assumptions when judging in NFA-LD (if you want to read my NDT CEDA philosophy to understand how I think, it can be found here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_account_id=6383).
I like NFA-LD because it is more novice-friendly, and most of the community prefers DA-case debate. I don't dislike CP's (or K's that refute the plan) outside of the novice division, but direct refutation is refreshing to me.
I tend to prioritize probability (strength of link and internal link) when two impacts have a large magnitude. Uniqueness is rarely 100% either direction (although it can be).
Explicitly non-topical affs or K's which refuse the topic entirely have a huge presumption to overcome.
I have a presumption for NFA-LD rules, but you need to apply the specific rule. There is often room for counter-interpretations (including mine). Use them to help you refute arguments instead of making a bunch of independent voters. Thus, stock issues may be a place for debate more than "voting" issues - since negative often minimizes them instead of completely refuting them.
I like that NFA-LD is not as fast as NDT (for access reasons), but the line of "how much is too much" is hard for me to judge. I want debaters to negotiate this before the round - the round should be no faster than the preferences of either participant (including others judges on a panel).
Although I lean negative on many T questions relative to the NDT community, I'm not a hardliner on effects T. I think the literature base is relevant to how much is "too much" on extra T. I think T arguments should be grounded in clear definitions/interpretations, and I lean aff when there is uncertainty about the violation. I think spec arguments are best handled as CX questions, and generally have a strong presumption against theory voting issues - reject the argument not the is my leaning.
If you share evidence via email chain (the best method), my gmail is ermocito. Given quick decision times, I prefer to get a copy of all speeches in real time (even if by flash drive) so I can double check things during prep time and CX.
I will flow closely but often my RFD for the opponent could be reversed with better application of your argument to theirs, or better readings of their evidence to support your argument. Those things are excellent debating.
Gina Jensen - Webster
n/a
Heather Walters - MoState
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml
Jack Rogers - UCMO
n/a
Jay Saxton - MoState
Jen San Miguel - UNT
Jodee Bailey - Derryberry
n/a
Jodi Meadows - Derryberry
n/a
Joe Blasdel - McK
Section 1: General Information
I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so ever since.
In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.
On trichotomy, I tend to think the government has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I donât see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. Iâm also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.
If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If youâre calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.
Iâm not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ânewâ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ânewâ PMR arguments.
Section 2: Specific Inquiries
Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).
Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be âcontradictoryâ? with other negative positions?
Iâm open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than your average judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, itâs important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, itâs likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.
Performance based argumentsâ?¦
Same as above.
Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?
Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position thatâs run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework â Iâm not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an âaverageâ threshold. I donât vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a âhighâ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, Iâm probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.
Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?
All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I donât have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.
In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?
All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.
How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.
Jordan Compton - SBU
I competed in NPDA and IDPA for four years. I've coached NPDA, IPDA, and PF for 10+ years.
I'm a communication guy. That will never change. I'm much more of an IE coach/judge than a debate coach/judge but I should be able to follow along with most anything.
I loathe speed. See the line above. I'm a communication guy.
I try to be a flow judge as much as possible. It's your job to tell me where to flow your argument. If you organize for me and tell me what to do, I'm going to do it and I'll probably like you more for doing that.
I will not do the work for you. You need to explain your argument super clearly. And like I said above, you need to tell me where to put that argument on the flow.
If you give me a criterion that's what I'm going to use to help guide my decision. If you give me a criterion and then fail to use it throughout the debate, you're probably going to lose. (If you say we're doing CBA and then don't give me any costs/benefits, what's the point of the CBA criterion?)
NPDA/LD
Not a huge fan of Ks but I'll listen. Remember everything I said above about being clear and organized. That goes triple here.
I like case debate.
I'll listen to a good CP.
I'll vote on T if abuse is articulated well.
In Parli, I will not flow any argument from a partner who speaks when it's not their turn to speak. I kind of hate when this happens.
I'm happy to answer specific questions before a round, but I probably won't go into great detail. My usual response when asked what I like to hear in debate is, "Don't suck."
Katie Thomas - NSU
n/a
Katie Stringer - CU
n/a
Kelsey Devasure - Derryberry
n/a
Kensey Dressler - MoState
Kiko Garcia - Derryberry
n/a
Kristen Stout - Crowder
I judge the debate that is in front of me. What format of debate I'm judging determines what should/shouldn't happen in that debate. Complete (but old) philosophy on tabroom.
Lora Cohn - Park
n/a
Louis Petit - UNT
Lyle Barber - Derryberry
n/a
Marisa Mayo - UCMO
n/a
Marty Feeney - Simpson
n/a
Matthew Moore - UCO
n/a
Micah Titterington - Derryberry
n/a
Mickie Plummer - MoState
Mikayla Throne - Derryberry
n/a
Nikki Freeman - UCMO
n/a
Nora (Justin) Fausz - McK
I also go by Nora. If you want, you can ask which I prefer by going by that day. But I won't be upset if you don't or use either name (I use any pronouns, feel free to ask)
Important Stuff (PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE):
--Do not use ableist slurs. It is offensive and traumatic for me. This is a vote down on the spot issue. This includes the term p*ranoia/p*ranoid and d*lusional. I have a zero tolerance policy on this. I do not care if you do not view them as a slur, they are a slur to me. Do not test me.
--I will drop a team on the spot if they advocate suicide/the opposing team killing themselves . I will quit flowing the round and will sign the ballot right then and there
--Misgendering someone on purpose, (including being corrected on pronouns, but refusing to the correct ones) will result in me voting you down on the spot. I have no tolerance for transphobia in debate.
--Do not lie in round
Overall/Background:
I have competed in Debate for 3 years. 1 year of Parliamentary Debate and 2 years of Lincoln Debate. I have also done Policy Debate at a tournament. Since then, I have been judging and helping out with McKendree Debate for 2 years judging both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary Debate for them. I also have judged Policy Debate for the Saint Louis Urban Debate League for 4 years.
On Kritiks/Critical Affs:
I can vibe with the Kritik. But Please explain your kritik (Underview or overview). Dont say buzzwords and taglines and expect me to understand it. Im not really up to date with the literature. I also have comprehension issues when it comes to this. Please Know your Kritik. Also, I am open to kritiks on the language used in the round (Ableism for example). You can be non topical in front of me. But you must be able to defend it.
On T/theory:
For Potential Abuse: Id like some example of abuse or a reasonable disad/cp that could not have been read (you don't have to read the disad that no links, a simple here's a disad I could have ran works fine). Because they are so potent, I like the team to be winning at every level and the majority of standards. I would also like some form of impact coming off of T, something you can argue why this is bad and such.
Cross-X:
I do hold cross-x as binding. However, I do not flow it. But you can extend argumentation and answers said in cross-x on the flow and I will consider them as arguments/stuff the other team said.
Misc.:
Speaks for me start at 27, meaning a 27 for me is a normal speech, not exceptional but not bad. I am somewhat fine with speed to an extent (this is more for parliamentary). Dont use it to purposely discriminate/exclude a person from the activity. If you are going to fast for me. I will say SPEED to signal to slow down (if you are becoming incoherent I will say CLEAR). If you dont slow down, I will try to flow But I probably wont get it all so you probably wont like my RFD (Please be considerate, I have ADHD and autism so if you are going too fast it can cause me to end up losing my focus, I'll let you know if this is happening). I am in favor of disclosing RFDs and can explain my reasoning, you are welcome to ask questions. I view Politics as a legitimate disad. Do Impact Calculus please. It makes my job easier and increases the likelihood I vote your way.
Payton Stillman - MoState
Reece Tabor - Derryberry
n/a
Shawna Merrill - IC
My competitive background is mainly in parli, but I judged LD throughout the 17/18 season and am currently head coach of a program competing in NFA-LD.
Debate is ultimately a communication endeavor, and as such, it should be civil and accessible. I’m not a fan of speed. I can handle a moderate amount especially as I follow along with your docs (I want to be included on speechdrop, email chains, etc.), but at the point that you’re gasping for air, I’m over it. Using speed as a strategy to spread your opponent out of the round is not okay for me.
I’m not a big T person. While I prefer proven in-round abuse to vote on T, I will vote for competing interpretations if it’s done well. Basically, if you run T, you’d better mean it. Don’t use it as a time sink.
I will vote on Ks if they address the topic/refute the plan. I enjoy a good critical argument, but don’t assume I’m familiar with all of your literature.
My favorite types of rounds are ones that engage in direct clash and cover the flow. Attend to the link stories and connect the dots as to how we get to your impacts. I’ll vote on just about any argument as long as it’s clearly explained and defended.
Bottom line: don’t try to get too fancy. Run arguments you understand and do what you’re comfortable with.
Shelby Carey - IC
n/a
Spencer Waugh - Simpson
n/a
Steven Gill (Online) - Simpson
n/a
Taylor Corlee - MoState
Tom Serfass - Webster
n/a
Will Wheeler - Derryberry
n/a