Judge Philosophies
Adam Enz - IC
n/a
Adrienne Gathman - Simpson
n/a
Andrew Hart - MoState
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=35837
Andrew Lynch - Hired
n/a
Andrew Bary - Hired
n/a
Angela Wnek - Lafayette
n/a
Aubrey Weber - Simpson
n/a
Austin Sopko - Hired
n/a
Cale Morrow - K-State
n/a
Caprice Applequist - Hired
n/a
Christopher Thomas - Park
n/a
Cody Haviland - KWU
Cole Brown - CCU
IPDA is supposed to be a common-sense, rhetoric-based event. Please refrain from using overly technical language, speed, policy tactics, or anything else that would not be persuasive to the average person off of the street. The point of debate is to make us better at discussing issues with real people, and IPDA is trying to achieve this goal. Also, please be courteous and kind to your opponent.
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 Brown - K-State
n/a
David Dooling - IC
n/a
David Van Bebber - Hired
n/a
Deano Pape - Simpson
n/a
Eduardo Magalhaes - Simpson
n/a
Emily Director - CCU
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
Jackson Slechta - UNL
Jason Roach - Webster
n/a
Jennie Richardson - Lafayette
n/a
Jennifer Bary - Hired
n/a
Jessica Kershner - Hired
n/a
Jimmy Zucker - Noctrl
John Stanley - Noctrl
Joshua Stegall - MoState
Justin Kirk - UNL
Justin Kirk
Director of Debate at University of Nebraska-Lincoln
20 years judging experience @ about 40 rounds per year
"I believe I have an obligation to work as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates." Scott Harris
General philosophy Debate is primarily a communications based activity, and if you are not communicating well, your arguments are probably incoherent, and you are probably not going to win many debates in front of me. It is your responsibility to make quality arguments. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Evidence supports argumentation, it does not supplant it. However, analytic arguments and comparative claims about argument quality are essential to contextualizing your evidence and applying it to the issues developed throughout the debate. Quality arguments beat bad evidence every time.
I flow every debate and expect teams to answer arguments made by the other team. You should also flow every debate. That does not mean start flowing after the speech documents run out. Cross-examinations that consist mostly of "what cards did you read" or "what cards did you skip" are not cross examinations and do you little to no good in terms of winning the debate. If you have questions about whether or not the other team made an argument or answered a particular argument, consult your flow, not the other team. The biggest drawback to paperless debate is that people debate off speech docs and not their flows, this leads to shoddy debating and an overall decline in the quality of argumentation and refutation.
Each team has a burden of refutation, and arguing the entire debate from macro-level arguments without specifically refuting the other side's arguments will put you at a severe disadvantage in the debate. Burden of proof falls upon the team making an argument. Unwarranted, unsupported assertions are a non-starter for me. It is your responsibility is to make whole arguments and refute the arguments made by the other side. Evaluating the debate that occurred is mine. The role of my ballot is to report to the tab room who I believe won the debate.
Online Debate - everyone is adjusting to the new world of online debate and has plenty of burdens. I will be lenient when judging if you are having technical difficulties and provide ample time. You should record all of your speeches on a backup device in case of permanent technical failures. Speechdrop is the norm for sharing files. If there are bandwidth problems, I will ask everyone to mute their mics and videos unless they are talking.
Paperless Debate You should make every attempt to provide a copy of the speech documents to me and the other team before the speech. Disclosure is a norm in debate and you should endeavor to disclose any previously run arguments before the debate. Open source is not a norm, but is an absolutely preferable means of disclosure to cites only. The easiest way to resolve this is through an email thread for the debate, it saves time and the risk of viruses are decreased substantially through email. I suspect that paperless debate has also led to a substantial decrease in clarity and corresponding increases in cross-reading and clipping. I have zero tolerance for cheating in debate, and will have no qualms about voting against you, assigning zero speaker points, and speaking to your coaches about it. Clarity is a must. You will provide me speech documents to read during the debate so I may better understand the debate that is occurring in front of me. I will ask you to be clearer if you are not and if you continue to be unclear, I will stop flowing your arguments.
Topicality Is good for debate, it helps to generate clash, prevents abusive affirmatives, and generally wins against affirmatives that have little to no instrumental relation to the topic. Topicality definitions should be precise, and the reasons to prefer your topicality violation should be clear and have direct relation to your interpretation. Topicality debates are about the scope of and competition generated by the resolution. I usually default to competing interpretations, as long as both sides have clear, contextual, and well warranted interpretations. If your interpretation is missing one of these three elements, go for another argument. Reasonability is a winnable argument in front of me as long as you offer specific and warranted reasons why your interpretation is reasonable vis- -vis the negative. I vote on potential abuse and proven abuse.
Kritiks Should be based in the resolution and be well researched with specific links to the affirmative. Reading generic links to the topic is insufficient to establish a link to the affirmative. Alternatives should be well explained and evidenced with specific warrants as to the question of link solvency. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by negative teams where they have failed to explain the link debate or alternative adequately. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by affirmative teams when I am judging are ones where the affirmative failed to sufficiently argue for a permutation argument or compare the impacts of the affirmative to the impacts of the criticism sufficiently. I firmly believe that the affirmative gets to weigh the advantages of the plan against the impacts of the criticism unless the link to the criticism directly stems from the framing of the Affirmative impacts. I also believe that the affirmative can usually win solvency deficits to the alternative based upon deficits in implementation and/or instrumentalization of the alternative. Arguments that these solvency deficits do not apply because of framework, or that the affirmative has no right to solving the affirmative, are non-starters for me.
Counterplans Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans. NR counterplans are an effective means of answering new 1AR arguments and add-ons and are fair to the affirmative team if they are responses to new 1AR developments. I believe that counterplans are the most effective means of testing the affirmative's plan via competitive policy options and are an effective means of solving for large portions of the affirmative. Counterplans are usually a fair check against new affirmatives, non-intrinsic advantages, and affirmatives with bad or no solvency evidence. If you have a theoretical objection to the counterplan, make it compelling, have an interpretation, and win offense. Theoretical objections to the counterplan are fine, but I have a high threshold for these arguments unless there is a specific violation and interpretation that makes sense in the context of competitive demands in debate.
Disads Yes and yes. A likely winning strategy in front of me usually involves going for a disadvantage to the affirmative and burying the case with quality arguments and evidence. Disadvantages should have specific links to the case and a coherent internal link story. It is your job to explain the causal chain of events that leads to the disadvantage. A disadvantage with no internal links is no disad.
Case Debate - Is a lost art. Most affirmatives are a hodgepodge of thrown together internal links and old impact evidence. Affirmatives are particularly bad at extending their affirmative and answering negative arguments. Especially new affirmatives. Negative teams should spend a substantial portion of the debate arguing why the affirmative case is problematic. Fewer and fewer teams invest any time in arguing the case, at the cost of a criticism or disadvantage that usually isn't worth reading in the first place. Time trade-offs are not nearly as valuable as quality indictments of the 1AC. Spend those three minutes answering the advantages and solvency and don't read that third criticism or fourth disadvantage, it usually doesn't help you anyway. Inidict the 1AC evidence, make comparative claims about their evidence and your evidence, challenge the specificity or quality of the internal links.
Evidence - Qualifications, context, and data matter. You should answer the evidence read in the debate because I will read evidence at the end. One of the largest problems with paperless debate is the persistence of reading cards to answer cards when a simple argument about the context or quality of the evidence will do. It takes less time to answer a piece of terrible evidence with an analytic argument than it does to read a card against it. It is useless to throw good cards after bad.
Speaker Points - Are a reflection of the quality of speaking, arguments, and strategic choice made by debaters in the debate no more, no less.
One final note - I have heard and seen some despicable things in debate in the past few years. Having a platform to espouse your ideas does not give you the right to make fun of other debaters' limitations, tell them to die, blame them for other's deaths, threaten them with violence (explicitly or implicitly), or generally be a horrible person. Debate as an activity was designed to cultivate a community of burgeoning intellectuals whose purpose is the pedagogical development of college students through a competitive and repetitive engagement of complex ideas. If you think that something you are about to say might cross the line from argument into personal attack or derogatory statement do not say it. If you decide to cross that line, it is my interpretation of the event that matters and I will walk out of your debate and assign you an immediate loss.
Katie Stringer - CU
n/a
Kensey Dressler - IC
n/a
Kiefer Storrer - KWU
Iâm back.
Competitive history; 4 years KS High School Policy, 4 years College Parli. Some IPDA and LD tournaments sprinkled in there. Entering my 8th year coaching Parli/LD/IEs.
I like clash. I donât want to work when judging debate. Super down for Kâs especially if they are implicative of the debate community itself. But I can get down with some regular old net beneficial debate too. Really just like, respect each other, have fun.
I can flow speed but the technological limitations of online tournaments might make this something you should think about more in depth than usual.
Anything else, just ask.
Kinny Torre - UNT
Hi Everyone!
I'm Kinny, I'm a Chamoru from Guam, my pronouns are He/Him, and I'm a new graduate assistant at the University of North Texas.
My background is in NPDA debate in college at Western Washington University and policy debate in high school. My competitive career in college mostly involved going for the K or T but please don't let that inhibit you from your ideal strat. I've coached at WWU for 4 years as well as directed high school debate programs. With my students, I've helped coach national champions in a variety of styles and I've judge deep outrounds at most of the tournaments that I've attended so I'd like to think that I can hang with the new debate generation. Feel free to debate in whatever style that you feel is ethical and useful--like all things in debate, it's up for the debaters to justify. To that end, I'll do my best to adapt to you and I expect you to make the same effort. I will say that I won't tolerate someone being an asshole in a debate; depending on the context, that can result in low speaks or an auto-loss. Also, I've only judged one College LD tournament since joining the Mean Green in the Fall of 2020 so do with that what you will.
Below is some of my thoughts about debate when I was a coach at Western Washington University in their Parli program:
TL;DR Do your shit but not at the expense of excluding your opponents* Hello! Background Info: been doing this for too long I debated for 3 years doing policy in Washington State (lol) and 4 years of parli at Western. Im starting my 3rd year of coaching at Western but Ive coached policy, LD, and PF.
*Ill start of by saying that I stayed in this activity because I found this activity to be both fun and educational. Its therefore important to recognize find that diversity can be dangerous if it allows for people to advance an agenda that hurts marginalized individuals. Like obvi you shouldnt be a nazi but its more than just that; speed and frivolous theory should not be a weapon used against novices because of its exclusionary nature. You dont need to go to many tournaments to understand that this format is dying so perhaps we should take measures to prevent its death.
Beyond that, run whatever argument you want at whatever speed or method you wish. The only exception is that there must be a winner/loser at the end of the debate AND the debate must follow speech times and order. Ill do my best to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible. This means that Ill entertain framework arguments against nontopical affs. Delays CPs with tix DAs are cool. Same with floating PICs and Consult nature CPs. Please run all of the weird and untraditional arguments as well as the Heg DA in front of meI just want a good debate!!! The important part is that you tell me what the key issues are and how to I prioritize them. Some random particularism:
¢ Its probably not a good idea to run frivolous theory shells in front of me. Especially MG theory since I dont understand how to judge a theory shell that always gets golden responses. Since the MO needs to deploy offense against the interp or at the very least a net-benefit to their own, then the PMR would always win with the impact-turn. Like I get why MG theory is strategically viable and even a necessity sometimes; however, the more silly or ubiquitous the shell(s) become, the higher a chance that Ill default Neg.
¢ Dont start at your full speed. I know that youre fast and that you want to awe your judge and overwhelm your opponents with your sicknasty blocks but you should give me like 10 seconds to adjust your voice.
¢ Repeat interp texts twice or pass a text to your opponents.
¢ Give a perm text. Perm Do Both on rejection alts as well as all noncompetitive parts of the alternative ARE NOT PERM TEXTS.
¢ Dont Point of Order more than 3 times; I promise I'm flowing and is usually unnecessary.
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.
Kylie Burmeister - Simpson
n/a
Leslie Nuñez - Noctrl
Lora Cohn - Park
n/a
Louis Petit - UNT
Mariah Gilmore - Hired
n/a
Marisa Mayo - UCMO
n/a
Mark Turner - KWU
Matthew Moore - UCO
n/a
Meg Burns - Hired
n/a
Megan Todd - MoState
Michael Tate - KWU
Mikayla Throne - Hired
n/a
Nikki Freeman - UCMO
n/a
Noelle Batchelder - MoState
Quinlan Pulleyking - MoState
Rachael Morrow - Hired
n/a
Randy Stone - Simpson
n/a
Reed Dressler - Hired
n/a
Ryan Fobes - NFADB
But first a little background on me - i debated national circuit NPDA debate and LD for 3 years. 2 at moorpark college, and a third at CSULB. I am genuinely comfortable with speed, and read a wide array of critical and more traditional policy framing type arguments. Generally speaking, there is no ~type~ of argument i wont vote on. There are some exceptions ill get into below. My last year competing was 2016, but Ive been around the activity judging and coaching/tutoring/file editing on and off since then. I will clear you if you are unclear or going too fast, and recommend you heed those requests, as i will not vote on arguments i did not flow. along the same lines, i will not vote for a position that i can not adequately explain in my own words to the competitors. As such, be clear, be explicit, and make sure to provide explanations and clarifications (especially for critical arguments that can become very technical).
All of that was meant to preface the rest of this paradigm - but i also want to mention specifically that i have not judged an online tournament, and deal with sensory issues that may or may not prove more difficult in terms of hearing/understanding thru the computer. As such, i stand by what i said before - i am generally fine with speed, in fact its never been a problem for me as a judge. however, I am probably not the judge you want to go top speed in front of. i will of course clear you, BUT i mention it for the sake of competitors who may have a faster and slower version of their aff, specifically because of the preparation nature of LD. Along the lines of online LD stuff, please make sure, if you are reading a performance of some kind, to make sure it doesnt affect myself or competitors ability to both see and hear the performance. I know file sharing is going to be an issue - but please do your best to be on top of that so you get the files to your opponent (and myself) as soon as possible to avoid delays/stealing prep/so on. Delays and disorganization will certainly affect your speaks. and within reason may also start your prep or speech time for excessive delays. Edit: There is tech time at this tournament, so hopefully none of the time issues will be a problem.
My academic background is in philosophy and political theory, and the majority of arguments i read were anti imperialist and anti capitalist arguments, both critical and otherwise. I mention that for 2 reasons. First, because i expect i will feel comfortable with any type of argument you want to read, and have likely some familiarity with a lot of the usual critiques that get read. I also read a lot of theory, and find myself voting for theory often. Second reason i bring up my background is to address potential bias, while i will not intervene under any circumstance and constrain my bias out of the round as much as possible, we all are subject to our biases, whether or not we want to admit it. I will regardless not vote on any argument whether or not i fundamentally agree with it unless i can explain it clearly in the RFD as i mentioned above. in LD specifically, i also tend to review the cards thoroughly, as this format lends to that. So please make sure you know what your cards actually say, and that your taglines do not tell a different story than the evidence. Also please note that evidence is not a replacement for warranted analysis and thorough explanation, so please make sure you have both strong evidence as well as a command of what the evidence is saying and what it does in the context of your position.
I do tend to think of debate as a game of strategy, and as such, i do not have anything against gamesy positions. However, there are limits to that. When i was a competitor i probably believed that tech over truth was always true - and read some pretty vacuous Ks and theory as a result. However as time has passed that has changed for me as it has for others, and my threshold for those arguments (especially theory, but also especially "troll" critiques). Long story short, I am not looking to see the Consult Ashtar CP. As such, I am open to arguments that explain why truth should come before technical command in a round, especially (or perhaps exclusively so) when tech is used as a strategy of abuse or exclusion. That being said, i still love the game and will be willing to see rounds that are extremely technical, gamesy, or bizarre in nature. My point of view is that those arguments should have a well explained reason and serve a greater purpose in the framework of the round, of debate as a whole, or within a given discourse. It should be used with a purpose other than excluding your opponents. I enjoy conditional advocacies on the neg, I enjoy critical affs, i enjoy interesting strategic choices, new framings, performance, and so on. One thing I would say is that I am not going to vote on a Non Topical aff (as in rejecting or negating the topic as the aff) unless the topic is so written that it calls into question a specific reason to do so. as such, please do be topical since this is LD and the topic is already known. Be topical in LD :)
Heres some arguments you should consider NOT reading in front of me:
-Hypotesting multiple counter plans/alts (i.e. more than 2 conditional advocacies) ESPECIALLY if they contradict. Wont intervene on this question but...... you will get very annoyed looks from me and feedback that reflects those feelings as a result LOL.
-Specification arguments that have a violation other than omitted or suspect Actor, Enforcement, or Funding.
-Delay Counterplans (i hope nobody reads these in general anymore... but.......)
- "hard debate is good debate"
-theory where the violation or abuse happens out of round (namely, disclosure)
-more than 2 NEW theory shells (i.e. more than 2 distinct freestanding interns) in any given constructive speech.
-any argument that is very obviously morally reprehensible (ill leave that up for you to decide, I dont mean capitalism is good i mean like arguments in favor of or making a joke out of extinction, genocide, sexual assault, police violence, etc.) In short its not that deep at all just dont be edgy lol.
Please have fun, be kind to your opponents, and have fun. Please do make jokes and be engaging. I love a good fun and spirited debate. Looking forward to it.
Saeed Malami - Lafayette
n/a
Sam Director - CCU
IPDA is supposed to be a common-sense, rhetoric-based event. Please refrain from using overly technical language, speed, policy tactics, or anything else that would not be persuasive to the average person off of the street. The point of debate is to make us better at discussing issues with real people, and IPDA is trying to achieve this goal. Also, please be courteous and kind to your opponent.
Sarah Garrett - Hired
n/a
Scott Placke - Lafayette
n/a
Sean Franson - Hired
n/a
Shaun Sletten - MoState
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.
Stephen Hagan - McK
Steven Gill (Online) - Simpson
n/a
Sydney Crank - UCMO
n/a
Tiana Brownen - Hired
n/a
Tom Serfass - Webster
n/a
Warren Eidson - NWACC
n/a
Will Seiler - Simpson
n/a
Will Wheeler - Hired
n/a
Zach Thornhill - UNL
Find my paradigm on tabroom