Judge Philosophies
Amy Harder - HiredRAFL
n/a
Amy Hileman - NOVA
For IPDA debate I do not want a jargon-filled round where students attempt to speak so quickly that the competition and judge won't notice the flaws in their logic. I do not believe that IPDA should look/sound like other types of debate. Give me the politeness/ettiquete at the start of the constructives. Focus on the quality of your argument vs speed. If I put my pen down when you are speaking, you are speaking too quickly. I am looking for sound arguments with clear structure and supporting research.
Anthony Suchala - HiredRAFL
n/a
Bonnie Gabel - McHenry
Don't be technical, be structured, and ask questions that challenge. I expect the debate to have civil discourse but passionate convictions can be present. Using jargon will count against you, using language creatively (analogies/metaphors) will count in your favor.
Brandon Wood - COD
Did you persuade me with complete arguments? Did you make this seem like a general audience could follow and enjoy? Did you treat your opponent with respect? Did you speak passionately and compellingly? Did you not talk about the value of education? If you answer yes to all of these then you have mastered my criteria.
It is highly, highly appreciated if opponents greet each other by first or last names and I will only mark refutation on my flow if a specific name is attached to it during the constructive. Personally, I don't respond well to rhetorically being told what I have to do as a judge. This likely isn't an LD round where I'm not being shown a document of cut research that compels me have to vote for someone because of decades of debate theory. Whether it's parli or IPDA you should avoid words like, "you must", "you should strike this", "you have to vote for our side because we did this/they didn't do this", or "here is why we won". Every time I deduct 3 speaker points and will likely be unable to pay attention for approximately 30 seconds of your speech because I will be writing what I've already written here, and therefore, will not be flowing. Don't meet competitor hostility with hostility unless you want to assure a hostile ballot.
For me, arguing that something is or is not"educational" and therefore must be rejected is ultimately a weird form of hyperbole that has infected debate. Experiencing something that is unfair, like circular arguments or bad definitions, is educational. This activity makes it almost impossible to not engage in an educational experience, in the worldly sense. While I won't buy the education-has-been-removed-from-this-debate-round argument, I absolutely will accept issues regarding abusive definitions, incomplete argumentation, denial of ground, moving goal posts etc...
FAQ: Speed? = me not flowing. Jargon? = To me it creates assumed enthymemes and sloppy debate (usually). Technical elements? = will accept them as needed (in Parli). Partner communication during constructives? = Really, really dislike it now that flex time exists because it just decimates your percieved credibility in my eyes ( your ethos is the unspoken contract to accepting information at face value). Role of the judge? = Parli- Tabula Rasa , except when it comes to trichotomy. Lingusitically, resolutions come with burdens that most often are objectively implied ("should" is policy for example) as policy, value, or fact. I flow the entirety of the constructives and dropped arguments are a big deal. IPDA - I am a general audience member and enter each round with my complete knowledge as a human. I approach the resolution with an open mind and a desire to be persuaded but factual errors, fallacious argumentation, and hostile debate styles will not be flowed. I take notes that summarize the debates progress rather than the technical flow I would use for Parli/LD/CEDA.
Brett Holcomb - HiredRAFL
n/a
Bridie Damisch Damisch - HiredRAFL
n/a
Christopher Cox - KCKCC
Crii Cox
KCKCC Assistant Director of Forensics
18 years of Phi Rho Pi, NFA, and AFA experience
IPDA-
For this style of debate, I highly value clean, clear, logical and direct argumentation. Out of all the forms of debate, I view IPDA as the most accessible for anyone to compete. Therefore, here are some things I look for:
Respectful, pleasant, and good natured interaction. Keep attitudes in check Focus on dismantling your opponents arguments, not the opponent themselves.
STRUCTURE! Please have clear structure. Guide me through each contention using clear tags and subpoenas.
Non- tech save the jargon, auctioneer fast talk, and technical arguments for LD and somewhat for Parli. I will not be impressed by a string of technical debate terms. I want layperson clash!
Please do not attempt to run K or counterplans. Neither are good fits for IPDA.
Careful not to get bogged down in T or Rez arguments UNLESS it is extremely warranted or abusive to Neg.
Please have clear voters in your closing speech.
PARLI DEBATE:
I view parli as a more advanced version of IPDA. So much of what I started for IPDA flows here as well. Here are some differences/additional things to consider.
Make sure to identify terms, weighing mech, and type of rez in opening constructive. When you offer a weighing mechanism make sure that you USE IT! You should tie the WM into every argument stated, so have strong links. You want to demonstrate how your contentions interact with the WM as that is what you are telling me is the way to judge the round.
Policy Rez must have a plan text
Flex time- I prefer that the partner whom will speak next is the one to ask any questions, and the speaker that has just concluded will answer.
Partner communication should be limited to passing notes during any speeches. During flex you may speak quietly to each other.
Please have strong, clear warrants for evidence
I appreciate teams that are able to crystallize the round and look at the debate from a broad perspective. Don't get stuck in the little things, lost in the weeds, and forget what the actual debate is really about
Points of order- generally I will rule "taken under consideration" and will allow each side one response each.
Please avoid speed talking. I value clean speaking with poise and charisma over rapid fire delivery. Additionally, I would rather hear 3-5 strong arguments vs 10 quick and under developed ones
NFA LD:
Tech and speed are fine (but don't get ridiculous with it) after reading your evidence card, I pay most attention to how you articulate the argument, link/warrant, and your framing.
I do not prefer K arguments
If possible, avoid running a full T argument. Debating about debate has never been interesting to me. Only run the T if you feel it is absolutely critical and have a strong brightline
Make sure to impact out your arguments
Careful of extra T or extra Rez
I look for a good LD debater to connect their case and arguments all the way through the flow to help me understand how everything that has taken place has been in favor of your position. Essentially, make it CLEAR! Don't leave a trail of disconnected messy arguments that I have to try and interpret.
Please do not make demands of the judge. I do not like being told what I MUST do or how I MUST vote on anything. Simply argue well, explain how you are succeeding and winning the debate, encourage a ballot in your favor, but please leave out the directives
For all forma of debate, I do not time road maps
Finally, have FUN!! Don't take this too seriously. Remember it is meant to be an educational and FUN activity
Christy Carter - OCC
n/a
Damian Samsonowicz - HiredRAFL
n/a
Darren Elliott - KCKCC
Darren Elliott "Chief" --Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City KS Community College
Director and Head Coach at KCKCC for the past two decades. In that time we have had multiple late elim teams at CEDA Nats, multiple teams qualified to the NDT, 2015 NPDA Parli National Champions, 2016 NFA LD National Champion, mulitple CC National Championships in all formats of Debate and some IE's as well. I appreciate the breadth the activity provides and I enjoy coaching, judging hard working students who value the activity.
*PARLI ADDITION--The Aff should have any plan texts, ROTB, ROTJ, Alts, Etc. written on paper prior to the end of the PMC. The Neg should have any counterplan texts, ROTB, ROTJ, Alts, Etc. written on paper prior to the end of the LOC. Debates are routinely spending 3-5 minutes prior to FLEX time after the first two speeches to manage these issues.
Probably the least interventionist judge you will encounter. Will listen to and fairly consider any argument presented. (Avoid obvious racist and sexist arguments and ad Homs). For an argument to be a round winner you need to win the impact the argument has in relation to the impacts your opponent might be winning and how all of those affect/are affected by the ballot or decision (think framework for the debate). No predispositions against any strategy be it a Disad/CP/Case or K or T/Framework on the Neg or a straight up policy or K Aff. Win what it is you do and win why that matters. I actually appreciate a good Disad/CP/Case Offense debate as much as anything (even though the arguments a number of recent KCKCC debaters might lead one to think otherwise). The beauty of debate is its innovation.
I appreciate in-depth arguments and hard work and reward that with speaker points. A debate that begins in the first couple of speeches at a depth that most debates aspire to be by the last two speeches is a work of art and shows dedication and foresight that should be rewarded. Cross-X as well, in this regard, that shows as good or better of an understanding of your opponents arguments as they do will also be rewarded. Cross-X is a lost art.
Most of all--Have Fun and Good Luck!!
Dean Gallagher - HiredRAFL
n/a
Harry Bodell - Highland
Experience/Background: I competed for four years in Individual Events (Primarily LP and PA with an ill-fated foray or two into interp) and Parliamentary Debate, and I competed in IPDA toward the end of my college career as it was starting to catch on in Illinois. I have since coached IE, Parli and IPDA for eight years between North Central College, Northern Illinois University and Highland Community College. I have also judged Lincoln-Douglas and can get through a round, but probably won't be able to handle speed as well as more seasoned LD judges and coaches.
General Individual Events Philosophy:In general, I want you to have fun and commit to your performance in any IE -- you only get so many chances in life to perform for a "captive" audience! As long as you have fun and use your 7-10 minutes effectively, you have a shot on my ballot. That said, my general preferences (which evolve and should not be taken as gospel) by event category are:
- Interp: In Prose, I'm looking for engaging storytelling with emotional levels, narrative flow, clear cutting, etc.; In DI, I'm looking for thoughtful character development (vocal and non-verbal characterization, emotional depth) and establishment of space/scene; In Poetry, I'm looking for powerful use of physical movement and vocal rhythm to enhance the power of the language; In POI, I am looking for a strong and thoughtful argument explored through a unique combination of perspectives of stylistic difference (and clarity in blocking, characterization, cutting, etc.); In DUO, I care most about chemistry and (depending on the lit) blocking/use of space.
- Public Address:In general, I value the content of speeches over the delivery of speeches, but both are naturally important (in other words, in a tie-breaker I will default to the content/messaging). Don't sacrifice in-the-moment connectiveness for the sake of "polish". Really communicate with the audience as opposed to "at" the audience. A few event-specific notes: I'm not crazy about hand-out's in PER/STE -- feel free to use them, but they won't impact my rank; In CA, I really value the crafting of a RQ that leaves room for generalizable rhetorical conclusions and analyses that illuminate how an artifact communicates rather than whether an artifact "checks boxes A, B and C"; In STE, don't be afraid to dive into a comedic persona -- try not to sound the same tonally as you would in an Info round :)
- Limited Prep: In both LP events, I generally value analysis above all else. A well-delivered Extemp that doesn't dig far beyond the surface will not rank as highly as a "shaky" speech with really interesting/in-depth analysis. I will always prefer the impromptu speaker who makes me think about something in a new light over the speaker who takes a very common approach to an interpretation (not every prompt is about success, growth, etc.). That isn't to say that delivery isn't important -- it is, and confidence/willingness to engage/entertain in an LP event is often the difference in a tough round.
General Debate Philosophy: While I do not believe it is realistic for any judge to be truly tabula rasa (a "blank slate" as a judge), I do my best to filter my own beliefs out of debate rounds. I try to focus only on what is on the flow to the best of my ability. That said, the flow isn't the end-all-be-all in a debate. I won't give more weight to a dropped-but-inconsequential argument than I would to a strong-yet-well-refuted argument, for example. Likewise, I'm not going to give an argument that is just blatantly untrue the same weight as a well-researched/supported argument just because it is on the flow.
In general, I judge primarily on quality of argumentation and clear impacts. I will always refer to impacts to Weighing Mechanism (even in IPDA) and general impact calculus unless told to judge otherwise. If you want me to weigh the round in a particular way, tell me that and justify it to me. Always hold my hand through your impacts and explain clearly why any given argument should win you the round. Don't trust me to make connections for you.
Speed/Jargon: While I can follow speed, I don't love speed -- I think that speed-and-spread tactics are detrimental to the accessibility and growth of the activity. That won't factor into my decision if you do speed, but don't assume that I'll keep up with everything. Your first priority should be to have a good debate, not to win the debate, and a good debate requires clear communication between debaters. If your opponent is going too quickly for you to follow the debate, don't be afraid to yell "clear". If your opponent yells "clear", you should try to slow down and risk a dock on speaker points if you refuse to adapt.
As for jargon, I'm familiar with pretty much any debate terminology you may use and can probably follow along just fine (that goes for both Parli and IPDA -- see below).
Differences Between Parli and IPDA:While I recognize that IPDA emphasizes delivery as a tie-breaking factor (or, in some cases, a primary deciding factor), I frankly don't care how "well" you speak in debate as long as you make good arguments and I can follow them clearly (no need for extra flowery language, emotional delivery, introduction/conclusion, etc.). I vote on line-by-line argumentation in either style. I generally reject the "de-debatification" of IPDA. In my mind, debate is NOT just discussion - they're fundamentally different, and the event is not called International Public Discussion. I'm perfectly fine with procedural arguments (topicalities need to be run in IPDA sometimes!) and prefer to see prima facie issues established in an affirmative policy case. Don't limit the tools in your toolbox.
That said, please be respectful of different debating paradigms and styles. There is no one "right" approach to either Parli or IPDA. If you run into a clash of styles (ex: one debater believes you should use plan texts in policy IPDA rounds while the other debater believes that IPDA places less emphasis on resolution "types" and that a policy round should simply focus on clashing contentions), simply justify the value of your approach and its logical application toward enhancing the debate.
Cross-Talk in Parli:Flex time allows you to collaborate with your partner between speeches for a reason. Please don't talk to your partner or obnoxiously wave notes -- let your partner do the debating when they are the one speaking. Even novice debaters need to be able to learn to get through a speech without mid-speech guidance. As such, I will not flow any arguments that are directly provided vocally or via note by a partner who does not have the floor.
Questions and Cross-Ex:First of all, please be polite when asking questions. There's no need to get personal or confrontational. At the same time, please don't try to use questions to "suck time" from your opponent. More debating is better than less debating.
In Parli, please don't arbitrarily limit the number of questions that your opponent can ask ("I'll allow your first of two questions"). Simply adapt as necessary. If you honestly don't have time for a fourth question, politely say that and move on. (That said, you should generally have time for three questions if you manage time effectively). In Parli Flex Time, I prefer that questions asked focus on clarification ("can you repeat your tag for contention 1b?") rather than argumentative cross-examinatio questions so as to protect the right of debaters to ask questions during constructive speeches (I'm not okay with debaters saying "ask that during flex time" when a question was legally allowed to be asked during the speech).
In IPDA, I encourage debaters to use all cross-examination time and keep questions challenging-yet-polite.
Kritiks:While I understand the value in some K arguments, I generally find most K's to be pre-constructed distractions from the actual debate at hand. In other words, I'm probably not the judge to use a K with unless you have a really good justification for doing so and can articulate that justification clearly. While I recognize the need for pre-debate argumentation (topicality, etc.) in most cases, I generally want to listen to a debate about the actual topic at hand.
Roadmaps:Always on time. If you try to roadmap off time, I'll just start my timer and stop flowing once you hit your time limit.
Precision of Language: I flow and judge based on what you say, not what I think you meant to say. Be clear and accurate with language. If you say something that inadvertently supports your opponent, that's how I'll flow it!
Decorum Notes: First of all, be friendly -- let's have fun and avoid getting too heated over an educational activity. I appreciate thank you's at the start of speeches and don't consider them wastes of time. Along those lines, I value the depersonalization of argumentation. In other words, I prefer that you do not refer to opponents by name but rather by speaker position (AFF, NEG, PM, LO, etc.). While that may seem to some to strip debaters of their individual identities, I find that it actually keeps the debate focused on arguments and keeps us out of ad hominem territory (not to mention you would never see one lawyer refer to another lawyer by name in a courtroom trial -- they'd refer to "the defense" and "the prosecution", etc.). It also helps to prevent mis-gendering with inaccurate pronouns ("he/she says" assumes too much about your opponent's gender identity, "Aff/Neg says" is always acceptable). Likewise, whenever possible, please direct eye contact at the judge rather than your opponent.
Debate Pet Peeve!: Few things in debate bother me more than "You will vote X" language ("Judge, you will be voting AFF"; "Judge, you'll be voting on this point"). That just isn't a good practice inside or outside of debate (when would you ever tell a teacher/employer/etc. "you will do ____"?). It's just as easy to say, "Judge, youshould vote X". While it won't ever impact my decision, this may impact speaker points.
Jaime Riewerts - HiredRAFL
n/a
Jake Sadoff - HiredRAFL
n/a
Jason Edgar - Morton College
Make Logical, Rational Arguments and Speak with Conviction. Oh, and you can't spell debate with T.
Jeffrey Stein - HiredRAFL
n/a
Jennifer Hernandez - HiredRAFL
n/a
Joe Vitone - Highland
n/a
John Nash - MVCC
I typically do not judge NFA-LD or Parli, however, I do teach debate so I know the terminology. Please do not spread any information. I should be able to flow the round easily. Please speak for an audience not a debate judge. I would like any new audience member to clearly understand your flow. I prefer you do not debate word semantics.
IPDA: Just make sure this is not single person parli. Make sure you are not running a pre-prepped case. Make sure you are not using any debate lingo. This should be like two people sitting at a table over a family holiday discussing different sides of an issue. I typically judge on ethos, pathos and logos.
Salutations and previews of ideas (roadmaps) would be timed.
John Stanley - Noctrl
Julie Swenson - HiredRAFL
n/a
Julio Reyes - HiredRAFL
n/a
Kaila Todd - SFCC
- not a fan of speed as a weapon or spreading the opponent out of the round. I will vote on speed abuse- let's keep debate an inclusive and equitable space, so slow down if your opponent calls speed.
My personal opinion about speed: Quality over quantity, persuade me. I can handle most speed even though I don't like it. If it is too fast, I will say clear up to 2x. If you don't slow down, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. If something isn't on my flow, it's likely not going to be taken into consideration when I make my decision.
- debate is an educational activity first, and I will vote on fairness/ education voters especially with proven abuse.
- Counterplans: (1) CP shifts presumption. If you are running a CP, it needs to be competitive or I will not vote for it. (2) PIC's are rarely persuasive to me. I will vote aff on the perm 95% of the time if neg runs a PIC.
- T should be used to check aff, and not as a time suck. Really not a fan of clearly throw away arguments. Debate is a game, but there are more goals than just winning :)
- IMPACT CALCULUS. Please. Weigh the aff world and the neg world, and do the work of comparing them for me.
- Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include I will be going over my opponents case and if time permits I will address our case) After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo.
- Framework : Establish a clear framework for the debate and come back to that FW frequently. If you don't provide any, I assume there to be a cost/benefit analysis.
- (for evidence based debate) : I only pull up documents that are shared if there is evidence that I need to check. I flow the round based on what is said in the round. Don't depend on me reading and re-reading your case/evidence to understand it and make the arguments for you- you should present it in a way that I can understand it, and that persuades me.
- Extensions : don't just extend card authors and taglines or arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and compare your impacts. Extend dropped arguments asap and explain their role in the debate. Don't wait until your last speech to bring up subpoint E that hasn't been talked about for the whole debate.
- Narrative : Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story or how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents case. **Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don't know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning. This is a communication event.
- Flow judge - So PLEASE provide clear verbal organization for me during your speech.
- In your rebuttals, tell me exactly where to vote. I'm a fan of "Judge, pull [the internal link/ framework/ subpoint B] through and put a star by it. You're voting for aff/ neg here because XYZ".
- HAVE FUN! Learn something each round, and most importantly- be you :)
Karolina B - HiredRAFL
n/a
Keith Jensen - HiredRAFL
n/a
Kevin Long - HiredRAFL
n/a
Kevyn Sutter - Highland
I look for the following in IE: clear, concise speech, believable and natural speaking pattern, and a variety of emotion. In IPDA, I look for logical arguments delivered in respectful and courteous manners.
Kristyn Meyer - HiredRAFL
n/a
Kyle Larson - HiredRAFL
n/a
Laura Pulio Colbert - HiredRAFL
n/a
Lauren Morgan - COD
The most important criteria for me is good argumentation/persuasion that employs a balance of ethos, logos, pathos appeals with reasoning. Often in debate, I find speakers do not provide sufficient reasoning to support their point. Be sure that you employ solid reasoning. In parli, use of the weighing mechanism is also paramount; if it is the criteria by which you are asking me to judge the debate, then I expect you to use it to show me why your position best fulfills the criteria by which you've asked me to judge the debate.
I expect all debaters to be competent communicators and use decorum. There is no need to devolve into ad hominem attacks, especially when thinly veiled. Both verbal and nonverbal communication matter.
I believe in trichotomy, so not every debate is a policy debate and sheer amount of evidence (cut cards) is not sufficient for me to vote for you. I am not opposed to T arguments, but if it appears you are running it as a matter or protocol or to turn the debate into the one you would like to have rather than the one you've been provided, that will not be in your favor. How you communicate is as important as what you say.
I am not a fan of speed/spread nor overuse of technical elements. Create clash on the topic you've been provided, and debate it.
Leslie Nuñez - Noctrl
Lexi Salvadore - HiredRAFL
n/a
Linda Schumacher - HiredRAFL
n/a
Liz Fritz - COD
The biggest things I look for in any type of debate:
1. Logic that is clearly linked and supported by evidence (note: evidence, not just sources).
2. Arguments that are impacted back to the resolution/weighing mechanism.
3. Direct clash/direct responses to opponents arguments.
4. Respect to each other and the round.
Things that do not bode well with me:
1. Hostility towards opponent(s). Yes, even if they started it. If you respond to hostility with hostility, then you will receive a hostile ballot.
2. Telling me I have to do something (That is why AFF wins/that is why you should vote for AFF - fine; that is why you must vote for AFF/why NEG must lose - nope)
3. Trying to use what are courtesies, not rules, as reasons why your opponent should lose.
4. Lying about facts/statistics/evidence. I wont always know if you are lying, but you dont know when I know you are. So dont.
I will gladly consider all arguments brought to the flow in both IPDA and parli, but they must have a reason for being there. If you do not explain the reason for an argument and why it matters to the debate (top of case issues, non-unique, etc. ESPECIALLY) then it is like they do not exist.
Ultimately, this is your debate. I want to give both sides the room to be able to create argumentation unique to the topic and round. Just keep it civil, logical, and on topic.
Luke Cunningham - HiredRAFL
n/a
Maham Khan - HiredRAFL
n/a
Maria Duffy - BGSU
n/a
Marianne Vanderbeke - BGSU
n/a
Matt DuPuis - NIU
n/a
Maya Szafraniec - KCKCC
I debated for 8 years. In college, I debated mostly parli, some LD and Policy, for Saint Marys College of California. My partner and I dropped in octos of NPDA in 2019. I have been coaching debate both at SMC and at KCKCC since then. In college, My debate partner and I mostly read critical arguments. So Im cool with Ks, and a well-written K will make me happy. Make sure you can explain how you link and how your alt solves. I also know my way around a plan debate, so read whatever draws you. Make sure your Aff is inherent, and have a clear, consistent story through uniqueness, links, and impact. Im also down to hear your CP/DA and think condo is probably good. I would be equally happy to vote on a theory or framework argument as long as you tell me how it wins the debate. I can handle speed, just slow down for your alt/plan and interps and dont use it to exclude people, that will make me fussy.
I also reserve the right to vote teams down for being overtly oppressive (saying something racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, ablest, Islamophobic, etc.), generally or directed to competitors.
Bring me a chai and you get block 30s
Overall: Read offence. Use more warrants. Do impact calc, the more work you do for me explaining how you win the better your chances are of winning. Be nice to each other.
Melissa Bleile - HiredRAFL
n/a
Mia Bonds - NIU
n/a
Mike Barzacchini - HiredRAFL
n/a
Natalie Jurcik - MVCC
I competed in Interp and have judged Limited Prep. So, for IPDA, I'm looking for clear, organized, cited, and intentional arguments/points. I want to see how each point reflects or supports your answer to the question. Be concise and clear. Please do not use debate jargon or tell me who should win the round. I don't appreciate being petty, rude, or condescending. However, I enjoy when competitors have fun, are passionate, speak clearly, and have well thought our arguments.
Neal Heatherly - HiredRAFL
n/a
Nina Rivera - Morton College
n/a
Patrick Sheard - Highland
n/a
Paul Cummins - SIC
Paul Wesley Alday - BGSU
I strongly believe that waffles are superior to pancakes and that soy milk is not really milk.
Salma Morales - Morton College
n/a
Sarah Goldenberg - HiredRAFL
n/a
Stefani Epifanio - CLC
n/a
Stephanie Montolvo - Morton College
n/a
Sunny Serres - UIC
n/a
Tim Anderson - ECC
I am not a debate judge, and when I do judge debate, it is usually IPDA. Because IPDA is "public debate", someone with no debate experience should be able to take part and someone with no judging experience should be able to decide the winner.
IPDA debaters in my rounds should approach the debate as a conversation. Eliminate definition of things that don't really need them (like, we all know what "the Oscar's" are or what a "hamburger" is, so you don't need to define it).
I believe that the use of jargon and debate procedurals should be non-existent. While I have limited debate experience from my time competing and coaching, trying to win a round by trying to prove "my opponent didn't do blah blah so I win" won't win me over. I don't flow your arguments...if they are clear, I should be able to follow. Overall, I view IPDA as the kind of debate I would see in a classroom setting. As opposed to one side trying to prove why the other chose the wrong weighing mechanism, an incorrect definition, etc. just talk like two students in a classroom debate would. Think about it: if you were in a classroom debate and started all in on weighing mechanisms, defining everything, and downing your opponent, you'd be the jerk in class no one wants to work with. Also, don't tell me how I need to vote a round (i.e., "my opponent didn't do x, so you HAVE TO give the round to the affirmative"...No...I don't. The final choice is mine to make, so present your best cases and let me make the final ballot.
I also find IPDA to be more fun and enjoyable when sides actually refute the other and stay "on case" the entire time. Otherwise, it's just two ships passing in the night.
Also, I don't like thank you's at the beginning of rounds. They end up sounding sarcastic. And, don't refer to your opponent as "my opponent". They have a name that is part of their identity...call them that.
I take these same ideas with me when judging any form of debate.
Tom Tracy - HiredRAFL
n/a
Will Olson - Highland
n/a
Zain Ansari - HiredRAFL
n/a