2025 Harper College- The Litrenta Triangle (LIVE on Campus)

Harper College - Feb 14-15 | Status: Completed | 1:08 AM Central

Profile Image
Tournament Time: 1:08 AM Central
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Squad Room   Postings   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

AJ Taylor - Tourn Judges

n/a

Angie Smith - DePaul

n/a

Bill Lucio - Harper College

DEBATE

To me, a good debater can adapt to any style of debate and is aware of the differing styles each form of debate utilizes. For instance, I believe debate jargon has value in rounds of Parli and LD, as those are specific styles of debate that include a unique type of rhetoric and vernacular in which all speakers have learned and been coached on. On the flip side, it is my belief that a more common style of debate, like IPDA, should focus on the bare bones structure of argumentation.

IPDA should be accessible to anyone, anywhere, regardless of their experience. In face, public is in the name. The second speakers start using debate jargon in IPDA, they have already lost me as a judge. I think that one of the reasons why debate is dying, is because its getting too niche focused IPDA is an amazing gateway event that should welcome newer, first-time debaters into the family, and bringing in styles reserved for other forms of debate can be hard on beginners.

I value humanity and humility. I much prefer speakers refer to each other by their names, rather than, my opponent. I dont like aggressive questioning, passive aggressiveness, and boastful or cocky presentations. I dont appreciate speakers telling me how I will vote give me all the tools I need to make an informed decision, but dont tell me what I am going to do or not do. Remember that there is a fine line between enthusiasm and volume. Remember that there is a difference between passion and pace. Make sure you find that happy medium of ethos, pathos, and logos, as speakers who priorities one heavily over the other two will not be rewarded.

At the end of the day, I value debaters who treat the round like three friends having a conversation over coffee. Lets remain friends by the end of this thing, yea?

PLATFORM EVENTS

Regarding individual events, speakers should engage in appropriate delivery strategies when performing Platform events, such as proper pronunciation and clarity of words, a wide range of vocal variety, and natural use of gestures. While the overall delivery of a speech weighs heavily in my decision, I also tend to prioritize organization and flow, as well as creativity in topic choice. I'm a firm believer in creative content, but also respect solid and identifiable transitions. Do not go overtime.
INTERP EVENTS
In other individual events, such as Interp, I expect the speaker to fully embody their characters. Take risks, think outside of the box, and use your body and movement in ways that aren't necessarily obvious or overdone. While the argument articulated in an introduction does play a major role in my overall decision, I value a performance that takes me out of this world and puts me into a new one, so really become your character and "own" the world in which they live in. Do not go overtime.
Lastly, regarding Limited Prep events, I really respect a good, clean delivery, that utilizes all the tools of basic public speaking (organization, variety of examples/sources, confidence in speaking voice, engagement with the audience, etc.). I do not want to hear a "canned" speech, challenge yourself! If I feel like I have heard your speech before, or that the interpretation of your quotation is too much of a stretch, I will most likely reward the other speakers who placed a more creative emphasis on their speech. Students competing in LP events should be constantly reading the news and searching for examples, so i want to see some interesting things I haven't seen before. Do not go overtime, ESPECIALLY if I am giving you time signals throughout the entire speech.

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.

Brenna Bretzinger - NIU

n/a

Carolyn Clarke - Highland

n/a

Charlie Mulvey - Tourn Judges

n/a

Cheryl Golemo - Tourn Judges

n/a

Cri Cox - Harper College

n/a

Dana Trunnell - Prairie State

In competitive debate, I am looking for well-argued and evidenced constructive cases that are strongly upheld through fallacy-free argumentation in rebuttal. The presentation of the top of the case should clearly identify a weighing mechanism for the round, which need not be value-based, especially when a policy or fact resolution is selected.

In each debate, clash should be evident. The AFF/Government should not run cases that prevent the NEG/Opposition from developing its case. Any unfair top-of-the-case definitions or abusive development of constructive cases by the AFF/Government will be frowned upon.

Other factors that are important to my decision:

1. As this is a communication activity, delivery (especially in IPDA), should be extemporaneous, conversational, and communicative. In rounds where I am judging, speed, especially for the sake of "spreading," will not be valued.

2. Being able to talk about controversial topics in a civil and productive manner is a skill that will be upheld in my rounds. Please be courteous to your opponent(s). Any rude behavior or comments are negative points for me.

3. I am okay with counter plans and topicality arguments if good justification can be made for using them. I am more likely to value counter plans in a policy debate.

4. I'd like to think that I am an intelligent coach/judge who writes thoughtful critiques that consider the myriad skills a good debater possesses. When proposing voters, it's okay to ask me to consider argumentation or lack thereof in my decision, but please do not tell me what I can or cannot uphold.

5. The educational pursuit of an eager debater is important to me and I will go out of my way to ensure I am contributing my part to a debater's success. I value debates where all debaters in the round seem passionate about becoming better at argumentation and conversation. In other words, each debater should want to be in the room where it happens, so to speak.

Dean Gallagher - Tourn Judges

n/a

Deena Gallo - Tourn Judges

n/a

DuBoi McCarty - Tourn Judges

n/a

Emma Swanson - Tourn Judges

n/a

Gavin McDonnel - COD

n/a

Gee Baldino - DePaul

IPDA Philosophy:

  • I coach IPDA and Parli, so I know the jargon, but I believe your case should not have to rely on it or technicalities. If you can argue a topicality case without being abusive and have a good justification for, I will listen to it, but it won't automatically win the round. Also, don't spread. I will not reward you for having ten contentions I could barely flow.
  • Treat your opponent with respect. If you are rude or disparaging, I will dock your speaking points.
  • I will do my best to take my opinion out of the equation, but if you don't give me a weighing mechanism/way to judge the resolution and abide by it, I will default to what I think.
  • Having a roadmap and sticking to it will go a long way. An organized case will always get points in my book, and if the round is really close, I will give it to the person who was easier to follow.
  • Don't assume I will connect the dots for you. I will flow the round, but if it is not said, it won't be judged.
  • Pet Peeve: don't tell me how to vote (i.e. "You will vote for me because...") As a former debater, it will put me on the defensive, and I don't appreciate it.

Extemporaneous

  • A well-researched and well-thought-out extemp will win my ballot in every round. I understand you only have 30 minutes, use your time as you see fit.
  • While delivery is important, I will rank a shaky speech that has thoughtful analysis over a well-delivered speech that only scratches the surface of the issue.

Impromptu

  • It is generally more important to me that you have a clear argument and reasoning than perfect examples. I don't care if you talk about an anime or a moral philosophy argument as long as they serve to advance your reasoning.

Interp

  • Make your time count. The best interp is one where I am engaged from start to finish. While each event is a little different, I generally think that characters are what make or break a piece.
  • I am not as concerned with the unspoken "rules" of an event if what you are doing is enhancing your piece. I am probably one of the best judges for experimenting.

Harry Bodell - CLC

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 ten years between North Central College, Northern Illinois University, Highland Community College, and College of Lake County. 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 youdo notrefer 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 "Youwillvote 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, youshouldvote X". While it won't ever impact my decision, this may impact speaker points.

Ilknur Ozgur - Tourn Judges

n/a

Isaiah Carrington - Harper College

Hello, my name is Isaiah Carrington. I am new to the world of forensics so I am not overly well versed in debate jargon. Please take some time to give a clear roadmap and definitions. What I appreciate most is a well-structured argument and for you to be very explicit in what your argument is. I also prefer for debate competitors to be friendly and kind in their delivery. Ideally for me, IPDA rounds feel like a conversation more than a competition. Good luck!

Ivan Cruz - Tourn Judges

n/a

Jacob Sadoff - Tourn Judges

n/a

Jeff Przybylo - Harper College

Public debate should be accessible by any member of the public. To observe or adjudicate, audience members do not need to possess any special knowledge or experience in debate. IPDA is designed to be observed by the public.
In all forms of debate, eloquence in delivery is important.
I believe debaters should speak to each other with respect, enthusiasm, and a positive attitude toward debating ideas.
Debate is an exercise in presenting and supporting ideas. It is not a war.
Debates should be focused on the positive exchange of ideas. I find debates about debate utterly boring.
For individual events, I value creativity. Go ahead and break the "rules." As long as what you are doing serves the literature/topic I value what you are doing. I believe that public performance is art. Let your creativity flow!
Public address events should be well organized, well researched, creative, and eloquently delivered.
Interp events are creative performances. I do not believe that there necessarily needs to be a stated "argument." I believe that performances that portray strong characters and evoke an emotional response have great value. I value an emotional journey and entertainment over the presentation of some sort of overtly stated "argument." As I stated above, public performance is a form of art. What you make me FEEL and what I learn about the human condition is much more important to me and following through on a contrived "argument" stated in your introduction. Be artistic.
In the limited preparation events and debate, I value eloquent delivery, supported claims, and an organized message. The format or approach is less important to me. As long as what you are doing is clear and makes sense, I promise to have an open mind.

Jeffrey Stein - Tourn Judges

n/a

Jonah Rice - SIC

n/a

Joshua Green - Prairie State

In terms of debate I'm looking for well evidenced argumentation. Clearly defined adherence to structure and flow. Reasoned logical argumentation. Civility in terms of tone and delivery.

Kathryn Burke - COD

n/a

Kyle Larson - Tourn Judges

n/a

Laura Jacobson Nejman - Tourn Judges

n/a

Lauren Morgan - Tourn Judges

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.

Maham Khan - Tourn Judges

n/a

Margaret Bilos - Harper College

I believe an IPDA debate should be a structured discussion between two people who may disagree about a topic but are respectful, thoughtful, friendly, and conversational.�  It should be viewed more as a well-reasoned, well-delivered philosophical disagreement that anyone can judge rather than a highly specialized format.�  I would rather hear you disagree over the arguments and claims rather than hear you debate about debate.� � 

I like to imagine that we all went out to dinner and cracked open a fortune cookie.�  One of you agreed and the other disagreed and you talked and argued, bringing up examples and points.�  After fifteen minutes or so, I said one of you won and we all enjoyed dessert.

In public address, I am looking for connection to audience, an interesting topic, solid delivery, convincing research, and credible support.� 

For interpretation events, I am hoping to be drawn into the story, the drama, and the character that you are creating.�  The best performers might not teach us a lesson, but they can sweep us up into a beautiful moment.�  I am less concerned with rigid rules and conventions if what you're doing makes sense and adds something to the piece and character.� � 

In limited preparation events, I am looking for a speech with good structure, interesting arguments, and eloquent delivery.�  If you are thoughtful and clean, I am hoping to learn something new or see it in a new way.

Overall, be creative, be friendly, be conversational, be expressive, be in the moment!� � I'm looking for creativity, passion, energy and for you to put me at ease.�  My favorite speakers, in all events, makes the audience feel like a valued part of the conversation.� � If you are having a good time- we will have a good time!

Margo Vida - Tourn Judges

n/a

Mark Weiland - Tourn Judges

n/a

Matt DuPuis - NIU

n/a

Michael Gonzalez - Tourn Judges

n/a

Michael Nejman - Tourn Judges

n/a

Mike Barzacchini - Tourn Judges

n/a

Mylo Caluza - COD

n/a

Paul Cummins - SIC

Paula Solarska - Tourn Judges

n/a

Richard Paine - Noctrl

      As a competitor, I used the NDT style.  As a coach, I have coached NDT-CEDA (for about 10 years), LD (for about 7 years), IPDA (for about 7 years), and Parli (for about 15 years).  My philosophy obviously has to shift in various ways depending on the type of debate I'm judging, but here are a few key points that generally apply:

    (1) Seek clash.  Don't let the debate become two ships passing in the night.  If your opponent makes an argument, don't drop it - respond to it directly, and show me why your position directly clashes with and takes out theirs.  If your opponent drops an argument of yours, make sure you pull it across and tell me why it matters.

    (2) Be organized.  Regardless of the format, I want to hear numbers/letters and clear tags that are maintained throughout the debate.  Don't just speak in uninterrupted sentences.  Give me numbers and tags if you want me to flow the arguments.

    (3) Topicality matters to me.  The affirmative/government has the initial right to define the terms, but they must be reasonable.  Any challenges coming from the other side must be premised on the question of reasonability.  

    (4) I don't like counterplans.  If you feel that you absolutely must run one, you should know that I feel counterplans must be NON-topical.

     (5) I'm also not a fan of kritiks.  They seldom strike me as the best way to go.

     (6) In a policy round, I am a "stock issues" judge.

     (7) Don't just make claims.  Be sure you support those claims with both logic and concrete evidence whenever possible.  Seek to demonstrate the impact of any given argument.

     (8) Affirmative plans should be fully developed.  It is the initial responsibility of the affirmative to provide all plan components - it is not the responsibility of the negative to seek them through cross-ex.  

     (9) Cross-ex questions are binding.  In formats that allow questions to be asked during speech time, the speaker should take questions QUICKLY.  No "I don't have time" or "I'll take it at the end of this (endless) position."  If you ignore legal questions for more than a short time, I quit flowing your speech.

     (10)  Speed should be easily comprehensible and flowable.  If I can't get your arguments written down, then I can't base my judgment on them.

     (11)  Be cordial and polite to your opponents.  I appreciate intensity and assertiveness - but please don't cross the line into downright rudeness.

    (12) I do not believe that debate is a "tag-team" sport.  Thus, debaters should not interrupt their partners' speeches to add information, clarify statements, tell them what to talk about next, answer questions for them, or whatever.  Only the person whose official speech time we are in should be talking for your team.

     (12) If you have other specific questions, please ask them just before we start debating the round.

     (13)  Have fun!  The whole point of this is to enjoy it as we develop our skills together.  Trophies aren't the point - greater skills are.



Sara Lucas - Tourn Judges

n/a

Sarah Goldenberg - Tourn Judges

n/a

Sheila Cheripka - Tourn Judges

n/a

Shirley Tracey - Tourn Judges

n/a

Stefani Epifanio - CLC

n/a

Stephen Pratt - Tourn Judges

n/a

Sunny Serres - Tourn Judges

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 Tracey - Tourn Judges

n/a

Trevor Magsaysay - Morton College

n/a