Adam Blood - UWF

n/a

---

Alexander Pabon - HCC Hired

n/a

---

Amanda Pettigrew - MVCC

I have been teaching public speaking for over ten years and involved in speech and debate for over 20 years. Debate is persuasion in action allowing students to use the basic principles of argumentation to sway the audience's point of view.

IPDA: This form of debate should sound more like stimulating conversation, allowing someone with no debate experience to evaluate the effectiveness of each student's message. So, avoid debate terminology, jargon, etc., however DO properly cite your sources, there must be evidence to support your point of view.

Ultimately I will judge using Aristotle's means of persuasion; logos, ethos and pathos. My judging criteria in order of importance; LOGIC (evidence & reasoning), ORGANIZATION, CONNECTION with AUDIENCE and DELIVERY.

Please ask for clarification on anything at the start of the round, thank you and good luck!

---

Amelia Burns - HCC Hired

n/a

---

Andrew Kirk - SRC

n/a

---

Ben Davis - HCC Hired

n/a

---

Bill Lucio - Harper College

---

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.

---

Breezey Fox - Marian

n/a

---

Brian Schanen - UW-W

n/a

---

Carolyn Clarke - NIU

n/a

---

Chelsea Martinez - HCC Hired

n/a

---

Crii Cox - McHenry

n/a

---

Damian Samsonowicz - HCC Hired

n/a

---

David DePino - HCC Hired

n/a

---

David Bowers - MVC

n/a

---

Drew Stewart - Marian

n/a

---

Emily Leong - UW-W

n/a

---

Gage Brookman - MVC

n/a

---

JD Deutsch - HCC Hired

n/a

---

Jeff Rieck - MVCC

IPDA should be accessible to anyone watching with no prior knowledge.

Public Debate privileges the use of lay judges, accessibility to all, and real-world application. In other words, the goal should be an intelligent argument that everyone can understand.

Given these statements, please do not:

• use parli terminology, lingo or semantics
• use spread for your information
• run a pre-prepped case
• run single-person parli

Please keep this a civil conversation between participants.

Limited Prep Events:

I listen for a well-organized message, supported claims and strong delivery. Any format or approach you use is acceptable. Be clear with your argument and ensure what you are doing makes sense. Please never give a canned speech. Failing to speak directly to the specific question or quotation is unacceptable.

---

Jeff Przybylo - Harper College

---

Jenny Billman (She/Her) - SIC

I competed in LD and parli debate. I have coached LD, parli, and IPDA. I believe it's important to use time wisely and be respectful. I'll listen to debates on anything else.

I don't time roadmaps unless they are excessively long.

---

Jess Bozeman - HCC Hired

n/a

---

Jessica Wycha - HCC Hired

n/a

---

Jim Yeager - HCC Hired

n/a

---

Joe Vitone - HCC Hired

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 Corum - SIC

I am an experienced policy debater. I am typically standard issues as a judge, but I will let you frame and shape the round for me. Procedurals (especially topicality) will need proven in-round abuse. It is very important to me that both debaters are respectful to each other for the entirety of the round. Have fun and be kind and I will love you.

---

Josh Arp - UCSB

I competed in LD as well as IPDA. The only debate I have judged before is IPDA

My judging style is relatively traditional

Essentially debaters should debate to me as if they are trying to convince the average college-educated layperson (who has the ability to differentiate strong arguments from weak ones) that their side is correct. This doesn't mean employing sophism or theatrical tricks or anything like that one might actually use against a truly lay audience. Strength of evidence is very important.

Don't make things up, if you do and I discover that, you will likely lose

Speed is typically not an issue for me, however, in IPDA specifically, there is an aspect of persuasion and eloquence so don't go too fast

Evaluation of impacts is crucial, do not forget to do this.

---

Joshua Zellar - HCC Hired

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.

---

Juan Munoz - HCC Hired

n/a

---

Judy Santacaterina - NIU

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.

---

Kevin Hill - UW-W

n/a

---

Kevin Doss - LSCO

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.

---

Krista Appelquist - MVCC

I am mainly an Individual Events coach but I have coached and judged parliamentary and IPDA debate in the past. I teach an argumentation course. As a debate judge, these are my values, in order of importance: CLASH, LOGIC, ORGANIZATION, and DELIVERY. I prefer the debate not get bogged down in procedural issues but if you need to call something out that's fine, let me note it, and try to run a good debate regardless.

---

Kyle Larson - Harper College

n/a

---

Maddison Jansen - HCC Hired

n/a

---

Margaret Bilos - Harper College

---

Matt DuPuis - NIU

n/a

---

Michael Baumann - Marian

n/a

---

Nicole Smith - HCC Hired

n/a

---

Nicole Allen - UWF

n/a

---

Norah Flaherty - Highland

n/a

---

Pam Keller - HCC Hired

n/a

---

Paul Cummins - SIC

---

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.

---

Rizamae Enriquez - HCC Hired

n/a

---

Rocky Roque - HCC Hired

n/a

---

Sarah Metivier Schadt - McHenry

Be CLEAR and ORGANIZED. Don't just throw a jumble of arguments and facts at me and expect me to sort it out. Be systematic and intentional about how you lay out your case. Talk to me like a human being. Jargon is a big minus.

---

Thea Klinker - HCC Hired

n/a

---

Tiberius Hernandez - UCSB

All debates

Any argument you want to read works. Impact weighing is an absolute must.

Policy

I know a lot people automatically are looking for how judges feel about the k. In terms of where I land on the spectrum of policy to kritikal arguments, I probably more comfortable with policy arguments but this does NOT mean I hate the k. I will vote for anything that is well explained, but a lot of times teams will rely on the judge being very familiar with their scholarship in order to get away with their tricks and skip explanations; if you do this you will lose. If at the end of the debate I'm not scratching my head about what the advocacy/alternative does and what your thesis is because you explained it well, you'll be in good shape.

Disad stories should be well explained. Don't just read a zillion 1 sentence cards; actually answer the specific warrants of the link and uniqueness claims of both sides. It's possible for there to be zero risk for something.

The counterplans can be either textually or functionally competitive. If you're reading more than 4 conditional positions I'd probably think that's abusive; but if you win condo good than hey, condo's good.

T is incredibly strategic, more teams should go for it. That being said, if the t debate just is a bunch of the classic one liner arguments being thrown by both sides, then it is incredibly difficult to evaluate. Also, in framework debates, aff should be sure to answer the 1nc warrants thoroughly and not just put 15 disads on the flow.

Impact turn debates are always a good time.

Final word: I personally can't stand excessively long overviews. Its become a trend to hide a bunch of offense in there and then go onto the line by line and answer stuff with "that was in the overview." Do your explanation and whatever you else you feel you need to do at the top, but please do the line by line on the line by line.

I start at 29.0 and work my way up. If you slip in a sports joke I'll boost you an extra 0.05. I'll tank you if you say something hella problematic.

---

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.

---

Tracy Mays - HCC Hired

n/a

---