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.

---

Liz Fritz - McHenry

TWs (IE) - I prefer content/trigger warnings, especially in interp, but I also know they are not required so it will not impact how I judge you in the round. To me they are important for fellow competitors the most. As a coach, I signed up to watch potentially triggering content but to limit another student's ability to participate in the activity because triggering content may exist is fairly exclusionary to me, personally. But again, not required so its not going to impact the round. Just my philosophy on why they matter.

Overarching debate philosophy - Debate is a place to explore the limits of our critical thought and on the spot thinking. I accept all arguments as long as they are well explained, which also means explaining why they matter to the round. I consider myself mostly tabula rasa, with a minor exception in IPDA (see style). I know this is long, but I think it is important.

Personal experience - I have competed in both IPDA and parli (and most IEs), and have judged LD for the past 3 years.

Types of resolution/Trichotomy of debate - This is for IPDA and Parli. There are three resolution types for a reason. They are different to allow us greater exploration within debate. Treat them differently. A fact is not a value is not a policy. Fact and value are the two that get confused the most. If you feel like you are making subjective statements rather than objective when explaining, it is likely a value, not a fact.

Resolutional Analysis - Government/affirmative has the right to define. Definitions should be clear, contextual, and able to be put in the place of the word being defined without impacting the grammar of the sentence. Weighing mechanisms should be appropriate to the type of resolution.

Opposing definitions/weighing mechanism - This is primarily for IPDA, but if you are going to propose an alternative definition or weighing mechanism, explain why you have chosen it and why it is better/preferable to Affs. In the other forms of debate there are specific procedures that have to be done.

Kritks - if you have a valuable kritik to make and can make it well, I will listen to it. They are hard to run and harder to run well, but if it is valuable and can be made, I will listen.

Topicality - I get why people dislike topicalities, but if you think you should run one, run one. I personally would rather sit through 2+ minutes of a topicality that was unnecessary (followed by additional argumentation because remember, you may not win on it) than watch a neg/opp team lose because the aff/gov set up the debate in a skewed or wrong way/had a plan that was not topical in some way/etc.

Organization - Though style between types of debate will change how the organization presents itself, being organized is super important. You do not want me (the judge) to be lost. I may miss something that could have won you the round. If your opponent does not have good organization, enforce some sort of organization on their arguments the best you can. Use the first contention, big a, etc style where appropriate.

Clash - I love direct clash. This means that if you have an entire point as the negation/opposition that can be used as a direct refutation to something the affirmative/government said, I prefer you to use that argument as direct argumentation and not use it at all as a separate argument. Tying into organization, please be incredibly clear where you are when responding to arguments. What is the point of debate if we are only constructing our own arguments and not also deconstructing our opponents?

Impacts (and Weighing Mechanism) - I will not make arguments for you. Impacts are one of the most important pieces of a fully fleshed out argument, so tell me why things matter, and most importantly why they matter in the round. Impact to the weighing mechanism especially. Thats how the round is judged. You do not want me applying my understanding of how things impact to the weighing mechanism because I may not do it the way you intended. Or, even worse, not weigh it at all because you did not tell me how it mattered.

Plans in IPDA - I prefer some sort of plan. Even if it is not as broken down as other types of debate, what you actionably plan to do is important to the debate. It allows for deeper discussion than the traditional why we should vs shouldnt that exists everywhere.

Speed - While I personally do not mind speed, talking so fast your opponent cannot keep up defeats the point of debating. If you are asked to slow down/clear is stated, I expect you to respect that request. Not doing so will impact speaker points at minimum.

Off time roadmaps/thank yous/are you ready? - Sure, roadmaps and thank yous can be off time. As for judge, are you ready?, this is possibly my most nitpicky complaint - dont ask me. I am ready. Asking your opponent(s) is fine, but dont ask me. If I am judging you in an out round and the other judges want roadmaps on time/are you readys, follow their preference.

Questions during speeches - Questions during speeches are allowed in parli. They in fact should be asked during speeches, NOT flex time (with the exception of protected time and final rebuttals, obviously). I do consider answers binding. 

Cross-X - I generally do not flow cross-ex in IPDA. To be as lay-like as possible, I also do not consider answers binding in IPDA. It is your time for clarification and seeding ideas more than anything.

Style (IPDA vs parli vs LD) - IPDA is supposed to be publicly accessible. I believe all arguments are possible to bring up even in IPDA, it is the framing of the arguments and how/what words are used that must be appropriate to the type of debate. This is very important to me for judging IPDA. It impacts how I judge the round and assign speaker points. If my friends who have never watched a debate round could not understand what is happening, you have failed to uphold the intention of IPDA debate. LD and parli are more complicated and niche in their language and not accessible to laymen generally. Do the style the type of debate is intended to be.

Jargon - I know the jargon. This does not mean you can just not explain things. Explain HOW you are perming the plan/counterplan, what precisely topicality means for the round, etc. Being as clear as possible will always be the best way to do a round over spitting jargon with no impact or value.

Hostility - I hate that I even have to put this in here. But if you are hostile in the round, towards your opponent or me, you will receive a hostile ballot. If the other side starts it, that does not mean you have to finish it. Be respectful. Be kind. Be passionate, of course, but you can be passionate and invested in the round without being mean or cruel. I promise it is possible.

How the room is set up (nationals) - It is your debate. I will adjust to wherever and whatever both sides have agreed upon. I have sat on the ground in rounds while judging. Im there to listen and evaluate what you have to say more than anything else. Just make sure it works for all competitors!

If you have any questions about my philosophy, please ask me before the round. I would rather clarify and everyone have a good debate than let a question linger.

---

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.

---