Judge Philosophies
Adelynn Khoo - CC
Anna Squires - CC
Austin Miller - NAU
Austin Miller - NAU
Bethany Thomopson - WTAM
n/a
Bob Becker - NWC
As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round. I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so. To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues. Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important. All of that said, I am not an information processor. I am a human being and so are you. If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance.
When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose. Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I dont require competing interpretations.
I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. Im fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. We dont like the resolution doesnt cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some contradictory arguments good answers.
Performance based argument need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you dont tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round.
As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says one million deaths and the other says dehume, but doesnt explain why dehume is worse than deaths, Ill vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then Ill vote for dehume. I think Im telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.
I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast. I will tell you if I can't understand you. Also, one new trend I find frustrating in LD is tag lines that are multiple sentences long. Your tag line is a claim, but make it a brief one. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. Thats why Im here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.
Brett Delaney - CC
I debated for 5 years (2 years of CX in high school) and 3 years of Parliamentary at Northwest College and Texas Tech. Since, I have judged once or twice annually at Midwest tournaments. I also coach policy debate each year during a summer camp held at Northwest College. Ive been around the activity for almost 15 years.
I try to stay as tabula rasa as possible in my judging, but
sometimes find that debaters do not frame the debate clearly enough to prevent
all intervention. I think it is worth
the Propositions time to give me (and the Neg) a little clarity to the design
of finish line. I will default to Net
Benefits, specifically around magnitude, timeframe, and probability of the
proposed consequences of a policy case. Please note: I do not inherently hold
any of these three measures to be more valuable than the other two, so I need
to be told how to look at the three as a hierarchy. I will listen to fact and value
interpretations of the resolution, of course, but the burden to be clear around
the finish line is heightened, as I most often feel I am forced to intervene
during these rounds due to lack of framework clarity. It MIGHT be best to interpret a policy from
the resolution just being honest.
Im okay with speed, but clarity and argument clash is far
more important to me. Dropped arguments can still be framed out of the round,
so I recommend quality over quantity. When teams can accomplish both, thats
always exciting. I WILL intervene during
a speech by saying clear if I cant understand you so I can better assess
your arguments.
I dont require that arguments be made on case. As stated
before, stock issues are important if you tell me they are important. Please
make a case as to why we should hold them at higher value than the Prop winning
off-case offense.
I am okay with procedural arguments and feel they have an
important place in the debate, especially around switch-side burdens, but I
will listen to anything. Again,
framework is needed so I know how to evaluate it against other positions; the
same goes for counterplans and kritiks.
Personally, I like these latter two positions quite a bit they are a
lot of fun but need even more explanation to how they fit in the round.
Lastly, please call Point of Orders if needed. I will generally not do the work for you,
apart from some obvious argumentation (i.e. entirely new positions, shifting
frameworks). Its never fun to have a POO every 30 seconds in the rebuttals,
but sometimes its needed to keep the debate consistent with tournament rules.
Thanks, and make sure to have fun!
Brianna Heifner - CC
Section 1: General Information
I did Parliamentary debate at Colorado State
University-Pueblo from Fall of 2015-Spring of 2018 under the direction of
Kathryn Starkey (my paradigm will reflect a lot of here same views). I am now a
high school speech and debate coach at Canon City High School in Canon City,
CO. As a debater, I tended to read policy-oriented arguments with the
occasional cap-bad K thrown into the mix. Debate is a game; be strategic. One
thing I request: Please, if you are reading any sort of plan text, CP or
alternative to a K, give me a copy of the text, I want to make sure I can
accurately follow what is going on, especially when competition comes into
play.
Section 2: Specific Inquiries
Please describe your approach to the following.
1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker
points given.
My range is usually between 26-30, a huge
thing for me is respect for everyone debating. We want to make parli debate as
inclusive as possible, and so being rude to debaters in the round, ESPECIALLY
female partners or debaters, will not fly with me. Please be respectful, we are
all trying to improve.
2. How do you approach critically framed
arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be
contradictory¢ with other negative positions?
I have voted ks but a word of caution: I am probably not as well versed in the
literature as you. This being said, if you run a K in front of me, make sure to
thoroughly explain your argument. Several unwarranted tags coupled with name-dropping
authors isnt going to be as persuasive as a thorough explanation of the thesis
of the K. The alternative must be able to solve the mpx of the K, which make
both the alt text and the solvency contention pretty important in my book. Im
not a fan of using the K to exclude the aff. The aff can run critical
arguments, but there is a way to do so and be topical at the same time. The
resolution exists for a reason.
3. Topicality. What do you require to vote on
topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing
interpretations?
For the aff, you should probably be topical (even if it is a K). Aside from
this, I love T debates as long as they arent the generic, stock T debate that
gets rehashed every round. To vote on T, it clearly needs an interp, standards
and a voter. In a paradigm of competing interpretations, there must be a
net-benefit to one interpretation that the other fails to capture. I dont see
T as a win-all for the Aff. I dont think Id vote for an RVI on T.
4. Counterplans - run them! Make sure to
include a net benefit, those really add to the debate and make them more in
depth than having a less shelled out CP and then kicking it. Perms are tests of
competition; they are not advocacies. I use the perm to really test whether it
is competitive, explain to me why functionally they are not the same, textually
is not usually a hugely convincing argument to me unless it is a PIC, then
theory would be appropriate.
Overall: Please do not make me do the work, I
should be able to clearly know who wins or loses by the end of the round, I
should not have to shift through tons of arguments. Please hone in on the
important arguments, and make it clear.
Also, I love Disads. Ill protect against new arguments in rebuttals. You should still call points of order in the event I may have missed something. POIs: Seems like a good rule of thumb to take one per constructive speech. Clarification on texts, especially, is sometimes necessary for a coherent strategy.
Caitlyn Burford - NAU
Burford, Caitlyn (Northern Arizona University)
She/her are my pronouns.
Background:
This is my ninth year judging and coaching debate, and I spent four years competing in college. Please feel free to ask me specific questions before the round.
Specific Inquiries
1. General Overview
I think debate is a unique competitive forum to discuss issues within our rhetoric about the state, power, race, gender, etc. in a space that allows us to rethink and critically assess topics. This can come through a net benefit analysis of a proposed government plan, through a micro political action or statement, through a critique, or through some other newfangled performance you come up with. In that sense, I think debate is a rhetorical act that can be used creatively and effectively. Running a policy case about passing a piece of legislation has just as many implications about state power and authority as a critique of the state. The differences between the two types just have to do with what the debaters choose to discuss in each particular round. There are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. Thus, framework is imperative. I’ll get there shortly. You can run whatever you want as long as a) you have a theoretical justification for running the position, and b) you realize that it is still a competitive debate round so I need a reason to vote for something at some point. (a.k.a Give me a framework with your poetry!).
2. Framework
This often ends up as the most important part of a lot of debates. If both teams are running with net benefits, great, but I still think there is area to weigh those arguments differently based on timeframe, magnitude, structural weight, etc. This kind of framework can make your rebuttal a breeze. In a debate that goes beyond a net benefits paradigm, your framework is key to how I interpret different impacts in the round. Choose your frameworks strategically and use them to your advantage. If the whole point of your framework is to ignore the case debate, then ignore the case debate. If the whole point of your framework is to leverage your case against the critique, then tell me what the rhetorical implications (different than impacts) are to your case.
3. Theory
It’s important to note that theory positions are impact debates, too. Procedural positions, topicalities, etc. are only important to the debate if you have impacts built into them. If a topicality is just about “fairness” or “abuse” without any articulation as to what that does, most of these debates become a “wash”. So, view your theory as a mini-debate, with a framework, argument, and impacts built into it.
4. Counterplan Debate
This is your game. I don’t think I have a concrete position as to how I feel about PICS, or intrinsicness, or textual/functional competition. That is for you to set up and decide in the debate. I have voted on PICS good, PICS bad, so on and so forth. That means that it all has to do with the context of the specific debate. Just make your arguments and warrant them well. Unless I am told otherwise, I will assume the CP is unconditional and my role as a judge it to vote for the best advocacy.
5. Round Evaluation
Again, framework is important. Procedurals, case debate, and critique debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality/procedurals, then the case. Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team. (Again, this is only absent any sort of weighing mechanism for any of the arguments.) If there is a topicality/procedural run without any voters, I won’t put them in for you and it will be weighed against the case. I will not weigh the case against the critique unless I am told how and why it can be weighed equally.
A concrete argument is always going to have a bit more weight than an abstract argument. A clear story with a calculated impact will probably outweigh an uncalculated potential impact. (i.e. “15,000 without food” vs. a “decrease in the quality of life”). But, if you calculate them out and do the work for me, awesome. If I have to weigh two vague abstract arguments against each other, i.e. loss of identity vs. loss of freedom, then I will probably revert to the more warranted link story.
6. Speed, Answering Questions, and Other General Performance Things
I’m fine with speed. Don’t use it as a tool to exclude your other competitors if they ask you to slow down, please do. It’s your round! Do what you want!
Caitlyn Burford - NAU
Burford, Caitlyn (Northern Arizona University)
She/her are my pronouns.
Background:
This is my ninth year judging and coaching debate, and I spent four years competing in college. Please feel free to ask me specific questions before the round.
Specific Inquiries
1. General Overview
I think debate is a unique competitive forum to discuss issues within our rhetoric about the state, power, race, gender, etc. in a space that allows us to rethink and critically assess topics. This can come through a net benefit analysis of a proposed government plan, through a micro political action or statement, through a critique, or through some other newfangled performance you come up with. In that sense, I think debate is a rhetorical act that can be used creatively and effectively. Running a policy case about passing a piece of legislation has just as many implications about state power and authority as a critique of the state. The differences between the two types just have to do with what the debaters choose to discuss in each particular round. There are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. Thus, framework is imperative. I’ll get there shortly. You can run whatever you want as long as a) you have a theoretical justification for running the position, and b) you realize that it is still a competitive debate round so I need a reason to vote for something at some point. (a.k.a Give me a framework with your poetry!).
2. Framework
This often ends up as the most important part of a lot of debates. If both teams are running with net benefits, great, but I still think there is area to weigh those arguments differently based on timeframe, magnitude, structural weight, etc. This kind of framework can make your rebuttal a breeze. In a debate that goes beyond a net benefits paradigm, your framework is key to how I interpret different impacts in the round. Choose your frameworks strategically and use them to your advantage. If the whole point of your framework is to ignore the case debate, then ignore the case debate. If the whole point of your framework is to leverage your case against the critique, then tell me what the rhetorical implications (different than impacts) are to your case.
3. Theory
It’s important to note that theory positions are impact debates, too. Procedural positions, topicalities, etc. are only important to the debate if you have impacts built into them. If a topicality is just about “fairness” or “abuse” without any articulation as to what that does, most of these debates become a “wash”. So, view your theory as a mini-debate, with a framework, argument, and impacts built into it.
4. Counterplan Debate
This is your game. I don’t think I have a concrete position as to how I feel about PICS, or intrinsicness, or textual/functional competition. That is for you to set up and decide in the debate. I have voted on PICS good, PICS bad, so on and so forth. That means that it all has to do with the context of the specific debate. Just make your arguments and warrant them well. Unless I am told otherwise, I will assume the CP is unconditional and my role as a judge it to vote for the best advocacy.
5. Round Evaluation
Again, framework is important. Procedurals, case debate, and critique debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality/procedurals, then the case. Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team. (Again, this is only absent any sort of weighing mechanism for any of the arguments.) If there is a topicality/procedural run without any voters, I won’t put them in for you and it will be weighed against the case. I will not weigh the case against the critique unless I am told how and why it can be weighed equally.
A concrete argument is always going to have a bit more weight than an abstract argument. A clear story with a calculated impact will probably outweigh an uncalculated potential impact. (i.e. “15,000 without food” vs. a “decrease in the quality of life”). But, if you calculate them out and do the work for me, awesome. If I have to weigh two vague abstract arguments against each other, i.e. loss of identity vs. loss of freedom, then I will probably revert to the more warranted link story.
6. Speed, Answering Questions, and Other General Performance Things
I’m fine with speed. Don’t use it as a tool to exclude your other competitors if they ask you to slow down, please do. It’s your round! Do what you want!
Carlos Murillo - CC
I dont have a ton of experience with debate and would appreciate slower speaking to help me keep up. Please make sure to link your arguments and explain the significance of them in the context of the round. I will vote based on the best arguments.
Chris Walters - CC
Connie McKee - WTAM
n/a
David Trevithick - CC
David Trevithick - CC
Dominic Liu - Boulder
n/a
Giseleine Dogan - CC
Hamiyyet Bilgi - CC
I am a lay judge. I'm open to most arguments as long as they are well impacted.
Evidence is necessary. Applying it and
analysis is more important. I want to hear a clear description of evidence,
even if there is only time to present limited evidence. Rather than a speed
listing of memorized evidence items, I want to hear an explanation and greater
detail on individual items .Make an argument. Provide support. Relate the
support to the argument. Restate the point. I would vastly prefer a
well-analyzed argument with quality evidence than five or six cards read at
lightning speed.
I also want to see a lively debate with good
clash. If you chose to speed read, you must do it well or it comes across to me
as a distraction technique. I expect teams to be well versed in the
topic, informed, and have good research. By the end of the debate, I
should be able to clearly understand the significance of your position to the
resolution. I tend to prefer argumentation to be grounded somewhat in the real
world. Real World scenarios resonate better with me. Not everything is a zero
sum game. Regardless, I appreciate a direct, clear, and concise presentation of
each issue. Signposting is important; label information with more than just a
number.
Go with what you are comfortable with. Run
what you have taken the time to research. I will evaluate the round in whatever
way the more persuasive team tells me I should.
Jacob Kirksey - CC
I am a former CX debater (high school) and IE competitor
(high school and college). Im a Ph.D. candidate in education policy, and I got
my B.A. in economics. In general, I prefer a policymaking framework for
debates. Im open to being convinced otherwise in a round.
Speed: Im okay with moderate speed. While I can listen to
spreading, I dont find it necessary in parli. If were in an out round and the
other two judges are fine with it, Ill turn on my CX ears.
Impacts: After debating for four years and listening to
debates for over a decade, Im over nuclear war and extinction impacts.
Controversial as it may be, Im not going to weigh these impacts. Dehum is
fine, but I want empirical examples. Everything else is fair game.
DAs: Absolutely necessary.
Ks: Ran a lot. Listened to a lot. No longer like them. Ks
ask me to insert my own subjectivity into a round, and Im not here for that.
CPs: Not a fan of conditional CPs; otherwise, love.
T: Only when theres clear abuse. Again, not a fan of
conditional Ts.
Partner work: Ive seen partners work well when using each
others flow, and Ive seen complete disasters. You choose.
Other notes: I do not intervene on the flow. I love
intentional clash. You represent yourself in and out of rounds. Be nice.
Jasmine Wallack - CC
Jessica Jatkowski - NWC
I have been judging debate since 2015. However, this is only my first year coaching.
The most important element for me as a judge is to be respectful.
We are all coming to debate with our own preferences for issues, but I genuinely put my feelings and thoughts aside and will look at both sides to see who is giving the best argument. It is in the general framework of debate for you to tell me as a judge what I am weighing the debate on and bring evidence to the round. If you are unable to do so, then my general stance of how I judge is on the quality of evidence that both sides are bringing to the round.
In terms of actual speeches, it is important for everyone to understand what the issues and topics are, so speed may not be a benefit if I have to tell you to slow down.
Jordan Burman - CC
Jordan Shook - WWCC
Josh Hopkin - CC
Josh Hopkin - CC
Josiah Hogan - CC
Katie Stringer - WTAM
n/a
Keely Quinn - CC
Kristy McManus - WWCC
I am an IE coach from a CC. My terminal degree is in theatre. With that being said, I enjoy debate but am not going to be the debate critic you are probably looking for. I have been coaching for 9 years. This is my last year in this community.
I try to come into each debate as tab as possible. This is your debate. I will not do any "work" for you. You must fully explain what you are doing and how you are doing it. Explain well, and I am right there with you.
I do not like abusive arguments. Be smart with your strategy and focus on good debate that uses clear and well developed claims and warrants.
I am fine with speed as long as it is not used as a tactic. I have no problem calling it either. I will always defer to the other team - if they don't want speed, you should adjust accordingly.
Procedurals are a good and strategic aspect of debate. Again, refer to above statements regarding your use and running of them. Be clear, be specific, explain. Tell me what to do, look at, and vote on.
K's are fine...please, please, please take the time to repeat important phrases as well as completely explain. Remember that you might be asking me to engage in YOUR round with K debate. Are you ready to do that?
Enjoy the round, be critically engaged, listen to your opponents, explain in detail, tell me what to do and why.
Krystal Schiffelbein - CC
Mae Rohrback - CC
Matthew Anderson - WTAM
n/a
Megan Maruyama - CCU
n/a
Sam Director - CCU
IPDA is supposed to be a common-sense, rhetoric-based event. Please refrain from using overly technical language, speed, policy tactics, or anything else that would not be persuasive to the average person off of the street. The point of debate is to make us better at discussing issues with real people, and IPDA is trying to achieve this goal. Also, please be courteous and kind to your opponent.
Shannon LaBove - RIce
Shannon LaBove MA, JD
ADOF Rice University
Judging Philosophy
Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.)
I started debating at age ten when I could not see over the podiums in Junior High LD and loved it...still do. I competed LD in High School, Parli in college (I was in NPDA-90’s style with hands on the head questions) and have coached a combination of Parli, IPDA and NFA-LD for 12 or so years for a combination of NPDA, PRP and PKD. Needless to say I understand that there are many styles of debate and consider myself a Tab/Flow judge who likes to evaluate the round presented. I am very keep it simple and give me a place to vote.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)
I do have what many call an “old school” debate preference which includes the following:
Don’t Like:
I don’t do flow work for debaters. If you want it flow it through.
I don’t like bad law. If you don’t know it don’t get complicated with it.
I don't like performance. This is not to say I don't see it as a valid mechanism this is to say it is not my preference in a round to watch.
Do Like
Clash-don’t just dismiss and assume I know the position. I like link and clash work.
Easy decisions-tell me where and how you want me to vote.
Run what you would like-I try not to be interventionist
Aff to define round-Will buy a trichotomy/framework issue if it is blatant and abusive.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
I don’t mind speed but am a stickler for organization and clarity.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making
I like Clean case/off-case structure and for things to be run correctly. For me the Aff has Burden of Proof and the Opp to refute. Clash on case is great and preferred but will vote off/critical.
Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks
No real preference here but you have to link up to round. Generic without clear link does not fly well with me.
Preferences on calling Points of Order.
If you see it call it.
Anything else feel free to ask. I look forward to watching great debate!
Suchita Lulla - Boulder
n/a