2018 James 'Al' Johnson Memorial Swing
Colorado College - Oct 21 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Aabhusan Khadka - 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. I'm 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. Also, I won't read your case with you on Speech Drop or anywhere else. I will look at those documents after the round if I want to check something, or the content of a card becomes an issue. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. Thats why I'm here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.
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. I'm 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. Also, I won't read your case with you on Speech Drop or anywhere else. I will look at those documents after the round if I want to check something, or the content of a card becomes an issue. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. Thats why I'm 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!
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
Dominic Liu - Boulder
n/a
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.
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.
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 Shook - WWCC
Josh Hopkin - CC
Josiah Hogan - CC
Kathryn Starkey - CC
Katie Stringer - WTAM
n/a
Katie Stringer - WTAM
n/a
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
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