Judge Philosophies
Al Golden (he/him) - JJC
n/a
Aleah Janae - ECC
n/a
Alexis Salvadore - Tourn Judges
n/a
Andrew Payette - Tourn Judges
n/a
Armando Arguelles Guerra - Tourn Judges
n/a
Brenna Bretzinger - NIU
n/a
Brian Keppler - Tourn Judges
n/a
Carolyn Clarke - Highland
Individual Events (not debate) paradigm: I appreciate when there are content warnings for events (especially interp) that need them. I understand that what "need" means can get subjective. When in doubt, ask your coaches about this... but I would say if you are on the fence about it, it is better to have one if I am judging than not to. For example, if an interp is graphic, involves acting out something that can be considered traumatic.... (such as abuse, etc.), no matter how good the performance is, a lack of a content warning will likely effect your rank because folks need to be able to consent to seeing it.
~*Debate Paradigm*~
*Please take my directness in this paradigm as only my opinion-- there is no "wrong" way of doing things and when in doubt, listen to your coach! This paradigm just describes stylistically/behaviorally, what I prefer in a debate.:)*
My debate paradigm prefers styles that are more common at tournaments such as Pi Kappa Delta and Phi Rho Pi as opposed to the styles more commonly associated with NPDA or IPDA nationals. I genuinely love debate and I enjoy watching/judging rounds and providing feedback. Watching an amazing debate is like, eating a decadent cake for me. So just know, I am happy to be there and excited to see you learn and grow as a debater.
I consider myself a "mostly" tabula rasa (blank slate) judge-- but I also understand that some arguments are inherently stronger than others. I would like to be directly told why one argument should be valued over the other. I like being blatantly told, reminded, and shown how and why you are winning over your opponents. I also like when you compare the quantity and quality of your impacts to your opponents' (impact calculus).
I can enjoy almost any debate, but I am particularly fond of the following: Directness. I. Love. Directness. I've realized that the more direct a debate round is, the more I tend to enjoy it. I love pathos, but poetic and flowery langauge / delivery is less engaging to me than directness and being real about what is happening in-round. Show and tell me why your argument matters and why I should care. I want the debate round to be acknowledged as such and for there to be direct clash of arguments. Essentially, I want to hear "voter issue"- type reasoning that the (aff/gov/opp/neg) won the round throughout the debate and not just in rebuttals/summaries. I do not want to see two competing extemps. I want to know why you are winning. Show me and sell it to me directly, please. No fluff. (**Voter issue - summarized reason of why you won the round).
I firmly believe that everything in debate is up for debate and there are very few "rules". The rules are the timeframes in which you speak, if there is flex time or cross examination, using internet within rounds, etc. When it comes to arguments, to me, there are no rules. So any "that's against the rules!" claims are unlikely to move me.
I think debate should be accessible. Thus, I hate speed (talking really fast). Do not speed. If you are gasping, you are speeding. If your opponent or I say "clear", slow down or it will really effect your speaker points. Like I will cut them in half. Speed = inaccessable to many people and thus, makes for crappy debate. It's also hinders genuine persuasion. If your idea of winning means putting the most on the flow and hoping the other team drops arguments due to your speed----What does that say about your confidence in your logical argumentation and engagement with your opponents? Just don't speed. It's cringe. I also have a very hard time understanding speed and can't flow it so you risk me dropping all of your arguments. It's a risk you don't want to take.
Continuing on accessiblity: Jargon - I know pretty much all debate jargon but it should be explained before using it. This makes it more accessible to your audience and competitors who may not know the term you are using. I feel this about any form of debate I am judging. Don't just say "Perm the counterplan", first explain what a perm is. Don't just say "the weighing mechanism is more true than false", first explain what a weighing mechanism is, and then how "more true than false" works as a weighing mechanism. If your opponent has never heard of a term, your built-in description of what it is should still give them the opportunity to understand and argue against it. I feel like debate should be won by good logic and argumentation, not "I know this term and you don't.".
On General Argumentation: As a judge, I want to hear all of the "hows" and "whys". I vote on arguments, not claims. I love good links. Show me how you got to your claim. I will not make links for you. Also, I really love fully fledged out impacts. How does your argument impact back to the weighing mechanism? The resolution? The debate? Debate as a whole? Outside the realm of debate? I generally don't consider arguments without links or impacts on the flow. If your opponent lacks links or impacts bring that up to me (**Flow - documentation of debate arguments and responses throughout the round).
On evidence: I believe, a form of debate that allows/encourages citing sources means sources along with their credibility can be up for debate. Cite your dates because that is also up for debate. Sources are not evidence-- they are used to validate your evidence. Evidence is an example "proving" your claim or link. I firmly believe that, at least in IPDA & NPDA, sources are not necessary to win a round. However, evidence, is.... but if your opponent has no sources that should still be brought up (use all your tools).
On organization: I prefer clear hierarchical structure. Give me your 1's, 2's, A's and B's. Example:
Contention II.
___A.
________1.
____________a.
____________b.
________2.
____________a.
____________b.
____B. ....... get it?
Label your structure so it can be easily found on the flow. I expect this in Parli. I know it may not always be realistic in IPDA. Try to also label your responses and refer directly to where they are on the flow: "On the Government's Contention 1, Big A, little 1, little b: They stated x, y, and z. I have 3 responses to this. First,..... second,.... third,... This type of structure makes for such a clean debate.
On Resolutional Analysis: I expect clear, concrete, definitions. Don't leave room for questions. Put it all on the table and own it. Neg - if something feels fishy or unfair, it probably is. Figure it out and call it out. Be direct and again, own it.
On definitions: I care a lot about aff's rights... especially in a format like IPDA where the rebuttal & summary are only 3 minutes. Neg does not just get to bring up definitions because they decide to, and they don't win on spontaneous definitions with no warrant. "My definitions are preferable because xyz" is not good enough. Aff needs to commit a violation in order for neg to change the definitions. However, the affirmative NEEDS to call out any attempt at newly established definitions by neg. Otherwise the neg gets away with it. I see this too often in IPDA. There needs to be a justification as to why the definitions have to change. It's aff's burden and right to define the round and set the parameters on it. "My definitions are better" or "my definitions have a source" or "the source for my definitions is better" are not good enough reasons. Unless aff has 1. caused ground loss in the way they have set up the round, 2. are flat out wrong and are framing the round in a way that is not in line with the resolution, 3. are so vague that clarification needs to occur or 4. The choices were so offensive that it becomes something that cannot be debated, then AFF is who gets to define the round. Neg, if you are dying to change the definitions, you need to explain which of those four violations aff has committed and why it matters. Aff, even if neg doesn't provide those links and impacts, you still need to combat the claim by proving you aren't doing whatever the violation is. It cannot go unresponded to.
On Trichotomy in Parli and IPDA: I am used to and expect cases to be fact, value, or policy ("metaphor" can just be sorted into one of those 3). While I prefer policy rounds, I do not come from the mindset that all rounds are or should be policy. There are multiple formats of debate dedicated to that, and it isn't IPDA or NPDA. Parli was created to expand the resolution types into fact, value, and policy instead of ONLY policy... and you can consider IPDA Parli's younger, also-trichotomous cousin. Thus, I tend to sympathize with opp/neg teams facing unpredictably defined rounds on the basis of trichotomy, but it needs to be brought up and called out directly. I will not make that argument for the negative. (***Trichotomy - a debate framework that allows for 3 types of resolutions: fact, value, and policy).
On Policy in IPDA: To me, IPDA norms are the wild west and I'm still undecided if having a formal policy is a competitive approach (As opposed to just arguing "should we do this, or should we not?"). That said, I think I am personally starting to lean toward wanting to see even just one mandate. I think it's important to "play" policy-maker in debate because whose to say you won't be one someday? It also helps you understand "real world" policies. I think debaters should also be able to form plan-specific disadvantages -- not just disadvantages to a world without the harms described by aff... which is what we usually see in IPDA. I'm not sure which approach is more competitive, but to me I think even just having one formal mandate is more educational for both sides than not.
On Topicality in IPDA - Necessary. Just don't call it a topicality argument or use jargon. Explain it like you are talking to a 6 year old. (**Topicality - when the neg team asserts the aff's case does not fall within the scope of the resolution, or violates what is considered to be a foundational standard in defining a round).
On Performative Debate: If you can justify it, can defend it, and are direct about it, I'm open. Tell me what is going on though. Like, if you want to bring out a guitar for a debate round...or play pretend with the room... OK, but warrant it.
On Abuse: I accept all forms of abuse arguments. However, I expect to be walked through HOW the abuse occurs and I need to know why it matters 1. To the round but 2. More importantly, out of this round. Why should we care about abuse in debate? What are the implications of letting your opponents do what they are doing? Tell. me.
Kritiks: I accept K's. I actually love them--- but I find resolutional K's to be incredibly frustrating. I feel they are often used as a tactic to just catch opponents off guard as opposed to making a genuine, contextual, and appropriate critique on what is happening in the round. Please do the latter if you are going to run a K. (***Kritik/K - a critique of something rhetorical in the round that then becomes a voter issue. Some examples of what a kritik could be called on are: someone saying something incredibly offensive in-round, a resolution that is problematic or definitions that force the negative to be problematic, speeding and thus making your arguments inaccessible to various types of folk, etc.).
Counterplans: Ew. I'm allergic to counterplans. I will accept counterplans but I strongly dislike them. *Especially in IPDA*. The only time I think a counterplan is necessary is when the harms are so valid (and probably identity-related) that refuting them would be offensive (in which case, you should also run a K. See above). If you are running a counterplan, it NEEDS to be nontopical (as in, I still expect neg to uphold the burden of refutation and oppose the resolution. Aff needs to be upholding the resolution, not neg.). I also expect the plan to meet all of the solvency and advantages that the original plan does, plus more. AND, it needs to be mutually exclusive to the original plan. Whenever it's not, I always hope that the affirmative perms the counterplan. I accept perms with little justification. To me, if neg decides to run a counterplan that does not directly conflict with the original plan, Aff can say "ok, we will do both plans, and claim all of the advantages!"-- in that case, I'd give the round to an affirmative team, because both teams met the affirmative burden: upholding the resolution.... while neg did not uphold their burden because they did not negate the resolution. So. Long story short, I don't like counterplans and I don't think they are as an effective approach as disads. I think running a counterplan is less competitive. In my experience, it reduces clash, which makes for worse debates. It's like throwing two plates of spaghetti at a wall and seeing which one sticks. At least to me. Ick. (***Perm - short for permutation - an argument made by the affirmative team to show that their plan and the negative's counterplan are not mutually exclusive and can be done at the same time...usually winning aff the round. In order to overcome a perm, the negative must prove that their counterplan alone without the affirmative plan is superior to a case where both plans are run).
Illegal Should Would Arguments: The affirmative has fiat power. The plan passes. Period. It doesn't get bogged down in congress, there is no "well so and so will veto this". Nope. As far as I am concerned, the plan passes the moment the aff is done announcing it. (Illegal should would arguments*** - when the negative (unless it's in response to a counterplan) argues that the affirmative can't pass their plan for any reason. Nope. the plan passes. By any and all means necessary, the plan passes. Feel free to say that whenever announcing your plan!).
Weighing Mechanism: I do not like "preponderance of evidence" as a WM because it values the evidence part of the argument over the arguments as a whole. When you run that as a WM, you open the door to the other team citing more sources than you and then arguing "well, we had more evidence, our evidence was of higher quality, etc. and thus we win the round." that to me is incredibly frustrating. I want clash, logic, and direct refutation. Not inherant wins because of "I had more/better evidence". Even worse, I dislike "judge, however you feel personally". That opens a nasty can of worms--- when this happens, I tend to vote for the team that did not establish that WM. Because I personally feel that is a bad WM. That demonstrates the problem with it. (***Weighing mechanism - a way for debaters and judges to compare or "weigh" arguments, ultimately deciding which side should win the round).
Partner to partner communication: I accept whispering and quietly communicating with your partner during the round (although, not verbally DURING your partner's speech). Flashing / passing notes is fine by me, but if you speak during your partner's speech it will negatively affect your speaker points. A lot.
Shaming or hissing - will negatively effect your speaker points. Like, I will cut them in half. If your opponent offends you or says something offensive it is so much more competitive and persuasive to bring it up in the round as a K or a voter. That said, when I have heard shaming or hissing it has never been warranted. "I am winning over my opponent because..." does not warrant that. "The affirmative team has violated the standard of education" does not warrant that. Think of a really nasty insult you would hate to hear-- that could warrant shaming or hissing, but wouldn't you rather bring it up as a K so you could win on it? (**Shaming and hissing - when opponents or audience members verbally "shame" (Like, they literally say "shame" during your speech) or hiss at a speaker, insinuating they did something "shameful" or offensive).
Questions: Love questions. Ask questions during cross examination alone in IPDA. For Parli, ask questions in flex time but ask them during speeches too. Flex time is not the same as cross examination. It's a time for clarification and preparation. As a debater, I think it is important to try to use all of the tools you have available to you-- asking questions during a speech is a tool.
Policies: I expect policies to contain at the very least, some form of CLEAR mandate statement(s), a timeline, and funding. There probably should be more and could prompt disads if there isn't, but hey. It's your round. In IPDA I am more open-minded about this though I think I am starting to want to see mandates.
Values: Usually in value rounds there is the WM and then an additional value or value(s) applied as structural lens for the round. If the affirmative team wants to establish a value in a value round, that value should either be fair and applicable to both teams or the affirmative should literally tell the negative that they are selecting that value, and expect the negative to select a countervalue. If the affirmative does not specify this and they apply a value that does not provide ample ground for both teams, the negative should bring up a warrant for a countervalue. By warrant, I mean, what is wrong with the original value? I don't think neg is just effortlessly granted a counter value just because. Explain why neg needs a counter value and then provide a better one. However, if aff is expecting neg to bring up their own value, they need to say that. Otherwise their aff-only value could be twisted as a structural element that also applies to neg, and is thus abusive or unfair...which could win neg a round, if they bring it up.
(***Splitting the neg - bringing up new arguments in the Member of Opp speech in Parli): I believe bringing up a ton of new arguments in the second negative speech is incredibly abusive. If you plan on giving the gov only their last, 5-minute speech to refutue your brand new arguments, continue the old ones, and get to voters, then you have the wrong judge. That said, aff needs to call out this abuse in order for me to vote on it. Why is this abusive? What is this abuse's impact on debate? I especially love when aff preemptively calls it out and says "don't let them bring up a bunch of new arguments" when they had the chance to assert them in the first negative constructive.
On pronouns and names: I prefer for students to call each other by their roles: "the negative", "the affirmative", "The prime minister", "The opposition" etc. This is because saying names opens the door to mispronouncing names and it also makes the round so personal-- something about that layer of intimacy whilst engaging in clash makes me uncomfortable. Also, if the debate round gets heated, it feels MUCH more personal when names and pronouns are being used. Speaking of pronouns- using them makes it more likely to misgender someone. So instead, using "they" and refering to your opponent as their position as opposed to their name allows for less unneccessary risk.
On thank yous and cross ex behavior:Keep thank you's short and genuine. A "blanket" of thank yous means you are thanking everyone in one thank you. No need to go through and thank individual people after saying "blanket of thank you's". That defeats the purpose of the blanket. No need to have "How are you?" or "How is your day going?" as cross examination questions. To me it can come off disingenous and somewhat unsettling--too intimate for the context. You can be kind and polite to your opponents, even be friends with them, without making it performative for a debate. Stick to the meat.
AGDs in any form of debate: Not for me. Time is a precious resource in debate and to me, that is a waste of it--- unless it involves going straight into the topic and gives context (and even probably then), cut it if I am your only judge.
Burdens: I think it is aff's job to fulfill the burden of proof and neg's job to fulfill the burden of refutation. If I'm confused in a round as to what is going on, I will vote on who upheld their burden the best.
Crii Cox - Tourn Judges
n/a
Damian Samsonowicz - Tourn Judges
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.
David DePino - Noctrl
n/a
Erin Hoffman - Morton College
n/a
Frank Kmilek - Tourn Judges
n/a
Gavin McDonnel - COD
n/a
Gee Baldino - Tourn Judges
n/a
Gerain Arias - Tallahassee
n/a
Ilknur Ozgur - Tourn Judges
n/a
Isaiah Carrington - Tourn Judges
n/a
Jacob Sadoff - Tourn Judges
n/a
Jenna Mauk - Tourn Judges
n/a
Joel Chmara - CLC
I'm primarily an IE judge, so please don't speed debate and make me judge off of technicalities. I love seeing healthy clash, respect, and composure.
John Garcia - Tourn Judges
n/a
John Stanley - Noctrl
John Schultz - Tallahassee
n/a
K Imhoff - COD
n/a
Kacy Stevens - COD
I will listen to every argument a debater presents. However, as much as I try, I do find it difficult to divorce myself from my knowledge of fallacious argumentation. Thus, I tend to focus on logical links and how they tie back to the weighing mechanism of the round. If there are links to nuclear war or other hyperbolicscenariosthatare easily broken, I am unlikely to vote on such unrealistic impacts, especially if they have been delinked.
IPDA should be dramatically different than parli. When a debater turns an IPDA round into a parli round, I am likely to vote for the OTHER debater in the round. Delivery, organization, and ethos matter significantly more in IPDA than in parli.
I highly value courteous and respectful debate in both parli and IPDA. I believe strongly in the idea that one of the major distinctions between debate argumentation and "verbal fighting" is the high degree of respect debaters show each other in and out of rounds. Ethos has its place in debate and respect to others does impact ethos. I strongly believe in the distinction between fact, value, and policy resolutions. The burdens for each are vastly different and require teams to focus the debate in drastically different ways. I hold true to the idea that setting up a case using the correct resolutional type is a burden of the government team.
In voting in parli, I equally weigh prima facia issues and the weighing mechanism of the round. I expect debaters to impact their arguments directly to the weighing mechanism established in the round. IMPACT, IMPACT, IMPACT
In parli, speed sometimes occurs, but should not be relied upon. I will make it clear when the speed becomes so quick that I can no longer flow the debate by simply putting my pen down. It should be a clear nonverbal indicator to every debater that I am no longer flowing the debate because of speed, and therefore will not vote on the arguments that are not on my flow. However, I will pick back up my pen and continue flowing when the speaking rate becomes reasonable enough to flow.I also believe that speed impacts credibility. While debate relies heavily upon logos, ethos and pathos should not be ignored. Beyond speed, I also highly encourage debaters to use strong organization including, taglines, roman numerals, capital letters, etc. Labeling and numbering arguments is one of the easiest ways to ensure that both teams and the judge(s) are on the same page. Jargon alone does not make an argument; a debater's explanation of the jargon makes an argument. Jargon alone will never be voted on by me. I expect debaters to explain why the jargon is significant to the round and how it should impact my voting. Technicalities can matter but only if the debater(s) impact out why the technical elements have a bearing on the round itself. Procedural arguments are a part of debate for a reason but should not be relied upon solely to win rounds. If procedurals are present, debaters should feel free to run them and IMPACT them, but not force them to work.
Karolina Bielawska - Tourn Judges
n/a
Keith Jensen - Tourn Judges
n/a
Kyle Larson - Tourn Judges
n/a
Laura Balinski - CLC
n/a
Lauren Morgan - Tourn Judges
n/a
Liz Fritz - McHenry
n/a
Lynn Harper - CLC
n/a
Maham Khan - Tourn Judges
n/a
Margo Vida - Tourn Judges
n/a
Mark Zalewski - Tourn Judges
n/a
Matt DuPuis - NIU
n/a
Mia Poston - COD
n/a
Michael Barzacchini - Tourn Judges
n/a
Michael Gonzalez - Tourn Judges
n/a
Miguel Melgar - Tourn Judges
n/a
Molly Loomis - Tourn Judges
n/a
Nathan Gonzalez - NIU
n/a
Patrick Halpin - Tourn Judges
n/a
Rhys Love - Highland
I have a background in ipda and parli and think the event thrives on clear and consistent argumentation. Try to organize as best as you can. Try not to speak and spread is the only thing I dislike, if you use jargon or run anything else make sure that you define and clearly state your grounds for it. Otherwise have fun in the rounds!
Robin Beelow - Tourn Judges
n/a
Samuel Gallo - Tourn Judges
n/a
Sarah Goldenberg - Tourn Judges
n/a
Shelomi Gomes - Tourn Judges
n/a
Stefanie Epifanio - CLC
n/a
Tim Dirnberger - 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
jason Edgar - Morton College
n/a