Judge Philosophies
Alex Walters - Casper College
n/a
Andy Orr - CoSI
As a communication instructor, I believe the purpose of this activity is to prepare students to critically think and engage others in a meaningful way. Ergo, students should deliver arguments clearly with emphasis on effective communication. I am convinced that a few well-developed arguments can prove to be more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.
For constructive speeches, try to address arguments individually. However, grouping is absolutely fine too. With the final rebuttal speech, avoid line-by-line and instead provide a summary of voting area that address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches.
On Policy & Fact Debate:
For organization, sign post your tag lines, and give your citation clearly. Let us know when you have finished quoting material before your own analysis.
Avoid oral prompting or interrupting your partner as much as possible. I consider it to be rude and disrespectful toward your partner. Additionally, part of this activity is learning to work as a team and depending on another person for your success. This is an essential skill in life and you would never use verbal prompting in a business meeting, sales pitch, or political speech. Therefore, it really has no place in an activity designed to create in students those skills.
On Value Debate:
Value debate is by definition, a meta analysis of a topic. The first level of that debate is the overarching value. Students should present and defend a value that has been carefully chosen to have a non-absurd and debatable counter value e.g. capitalism vs. socialism and not freedom vs slavery (forces the opponent to be morally repugnant).
Wonderful debates can occur on by debating value level, but they rarely will win the debate because people (smarter than us) have discussed philosophers, implications, etc. and we still have no concrete answers.
Criteria are the next level of the meta debate. Again we could have a wonderful discussion on the merits of act utilitarianism vs. the categorical imperative, but it would not settle the issue, nor would it persuade the judge on either side of the resolution (although you can win a round by default if your opponent is not able to effectively articulate their value or criterion). Criterions are most useful if treated separately as a test of your contentions rather than a policy-type mechanism for achieving a value.
Your contentions are the real heart of the debate and should be the main focus. Claim, warrant, and conclusion are essential to every argument and can be contested on each or every one of those tenants. The key in value debate is to provide context after giving your argument as to how it affects the criterion and proves your case & value.
On Debate Theory
I have no preference in terms of philosophical, theoretical, or empirical arguments as long as they contain the three parts to make them an argument. Be sure that each part is present: claim, grounds, and warrant. Use this strategy: a. I say.....(claim) b. because......(grounds & warrant) c. and this means.....(impact)
I would find it difficult to vote for a kritik in general, and it would be extremely unlikely in a value round. First, there is already so much to cover in a limited amount of time; I dont think one can do the kritik justice (in other words, I am not often convinced of their educational/rhetorical value because we simply do not have enough time to reach that goal). That being said, if there is an in-round instance prompting a performative kritik, I think there can be a direct link made to education and the ballot being used as a tool.
Second, these arguments by their nature avoid the proposed topic. Thus, they skew preparation time when run by the affirmative and are seemingly a method of last resort when put forward by the negative. Moreover, in a value debate, a kritik provides no ground (or morally reprehensible ground) on which to make a counter case. Thus, the only way to rebuttal is to argue against the philosophical grounding (which leads to a muddled debate at best) or the alternatives which makes it a de-facto policy debate (and is contrary to the purpose of value debate).
The only stock issue that is a default voter is inherency. If the status quo is already addressing the problem, then there is no reason to prefer the plan. Harms and significance are at best mitigations. If you win those arguments, there still is no reason not to do the plan. Solvency and advantages must be turned to become voters. You'll need to prove the plan causes the opposite effect. However if you mitigate either of these, you'll need to pair it with a disadvantage or counter plan to give me a reason not to try the plan.
Each off case position must have a good structure and be complete in its construction (I wont fill in the blanks for you). Additionally any off case argument needs a clear under-view when it is presented (not just in the rebuttals) indicating how it fits into the round, and how I should consider it in my vote.
I prefer debate theory responses to be the first counter/refutation against an argument. In essence, they are a reverse voting issue, and do not easily fit into a line-by-line. Take a few moments and tell me the theory story, then (just in case I don't buy it) get into actually refuting the opponent's arguments.
Angie Dunk - Hired
n/a
Belle Elliott - CoSI
n/a
Beth Worthen - Hired
n/a
Bill Lucio - Harper College
To me, a good debater can adapt to any style of debate and is aware of the differing styles each form of debate utilizes. For instance, I believe debate jargon has value in rounds of Parli and LD, as those are specific styles of debate that include a unique type of rhetoric and vernacular in which all speakers have learned and been coached on. On the flip side, it is my belief that a more common style of debate, like IPDA, should focus on the bare bones structure of argumentation.
IPDA should be accessible to anyone, anywhere, regardless of their experience. In face, public is in the name. The second speakers start using debate jargon in IPDA, they have already lost me as a judge. I think that one of the reasons why debate is dying, is because its getting too niche focused IPDA is an amazing gateway event that should welcome newer, first-time debaters into the family, and bringing in styles reserved for other forms of debate can be hard on beginners.
I value humanity and humility. I much prefer speakers refer to each other by their names, rather than, my opponent. I dont like aggressive questioning, passive aggressiveness, and boastful or cocky presentations. I dont appreciate speakers telling me how I will vote give me all the tools I need to make an informed decision, but dont tell me what I am going to do or not do. Remember that there is a fine line between enthusiasm and volume. Remember that there is a difference between passion and pace. Make sure you find that happy medium of ethos, pathos, and logos, as speakers who priorities one heavily over the other two will not be rewarded.
At the end of the day, I value debaters who treat the round like three friends having a conversation over coffee. Lets remain friends by the end of this thing, yea?
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.
Brandon Kosine - Hired
n/a
Brayden Chiatovich - CoSI
I appreciate it when both the affirmative and negation can move past definitions and framework and focus directly on clashing and analyzing the arguments brought into the round. Take time to address major issues in the round and make impactful rebuttals and arguments, I do not like it when people bring up repeated arguments or have replies that do not address the core issue of the opponents claim. Quality over quantity of arguments will always win in my book, otherwise I am open to different debate strategies and techniques.
Brendan Vu - UCSD
n/a
Bri Weigel - Hired
n/a
Caleb McKinley-Portee - Hired
n/a
Cara Rodriquez - Hired
n/a
Dalen Brazelton - NWC
n/a
Damian Samsonowicz - Hired
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.
Daniel Lee - UCSD
n/a
Destiny Cunningham - Prairie State
n/a
Doug Hall - Casper College
IPDA: The intent of this event is to be accessbile to the layperson. This is 100% how I look at and judge this event. Detailed procedural arguments have no place in this event. I will not vote on kritik and will likely reject a debater attempting these positions. If the procedural argument is accessbile and well linked, I may consider the reasoning. Other than that, I am looking for fluency of speech, sound logic, good argumentation and research, and an appropriate CX. As for rate, my rule in IPDA is if I can't flow it, I won't. Don't rush! I also, always, look for mutual respect between debaters. Treat each other with kindness.
LD/Parli: I will vote on procedural arguments IF they are well linked and make logical sense. If procedural arguments are being run as a strategy, and do not link well to the resolution in question, I'm not likely to consider it; this especially applies to Kritik positions. Linking a Kritik and offering an alt are critical. Without those two things, I will not vote for K. While I don't necessarily like or respect spreading, I will flow what I can.
Dylan Comer - Hired
n/a
Ethan Fife - Casper College
Debates don't happen on paper. They happen in real life, in the round, between the speakers. For that reason, I rarely judge a debate solely on the flow. I focus on base contentions, and the evidence used to support those claims. Debates are won or lost on how well speakers can articulate an idea and argue in a clear, concise, logical, and respectful manner for their argument and against that of their opponent. I am rarely swayed by rules lawyering, though I obviously take into account blatantly abusive definitions/scope/etc. That said, this is your round. It is the responsibility of the speakers in that round to make sure those issues are elevated to my attention. Marrying those two ideas (rules lawyering vs. lodging grievance) means that I encourage competitors to identify unfair debate behavior if it truly exists, but you best not miss on your persuasive explanation of why we are seeing abuse and why it matters for your ability to debate. At all times, be kind, be smart, and be clear.
Ethan Haines - UCSD
n/a
Gabriela Gomez-vega - UCSD
n/a
Jacob Humphries - UA
n/a
Jae Fletcher - Hired
n/a
Jeffrey Frailey - Hired
n/a
Jennifer Hernandez - Harper College
n/a
Jennifer Barella - Hired
n/a
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.
Jeremy Hodgson - NOVA
Interpretation:I believe in communication that is respectful. Trigger warnings are welcome but not required. I focus on clear argumentation in interpretation events as well as exigency, developed characters, relationship development and nuanced performance choices. I welcome all types of literature and unique topics as well as breaking convention and taking risks while still respecting the events rules. I appreciate humility, heart and humanity. Clean delivery and time matter in tough rounds. Above all I want genuine human connection. I judge rounds from the second you walk in the room and therefore, I believe good communication is more than just the debate, presentation or performance at hand.
Platform & Limited Prep:I pride in ethos, pathos and logos. Relevancy, solid structure, and impact are all critical. Practicality and accessibility in persuasion is paramount. Lofty proposals should be avoided. Relatability is not always a deal breaker. Timing weighs on my decision heavily. Value your own prep time- please use it. Speaking sooner does not dictate better scoring. I welcome diverse topics and ideas and pride in inclusive language and sensitivity to ones audience. Be boldly yourself up there. I judge rounds from the second you walk in the room and therefore, I believe good communication is more than just the debate, presentation or performance at hand.
Debate:I expect, respect. Attacks or petty banter will lose a competitor the round. Debating one another does not mean judging the round for me, telling me how someone failed to uphold a rule, or telling me why I should vote someone down is not energy well spent. Spend your time justifying your own side of the debate. Competitors should courteously bring flaws in argumentation to the table-not the rules. I will judge you on the merit of your research and argumentation in comparison to your opponent. Speed holds no weight to your rank. I care about emphasis, control, and logic. Students must remain on topic and clearly articulate the tenants they bring forth from the beginning of the debate. Late arguments should be avoided. Anything off topic from the debate itself should be avoided. Weighing mechanisms are appreciated and staying on top of timing is critical. Levity is also appreciated and welcome in modesty. I judge rounds from the second you walk in the room and therefore, I believe good communication is more than just the debate, presentation or performance at hand.
Above all, have fun up there and be supportive of one another.
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.
Jillian Jaeger - CC
I competed in policy and NPDA and currently coach IPDA, NPDA, and BP styles of debate.
I have no preference in terms of what arguments are run in a round, but do expect that there is clash with the Aff's case and that you explain why the argument matters and why it is a voting issue.
- Topicality is always an apriori issue (if it is applicable) and will be voted on first.
- Kritiks need to explain what the alternative does and why voting for it matters - I'm not convinced by "nuclear war will never happen, but your ballot is a stand against racism." Do better. Be thoughtful. I seldom believe that Kritiks should be run as an Aff plan, but if they strongly link to the resolution, I may be persuaded.
Jingjing Liu - UCSD
n/a
Jodi Rudell - Casper College
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 Stanley - Noctrl
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.
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.
Kimberly Jimenez - Harper College
n/a
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.
Kristen Moon - Hired
n/a
Lauren Lindley - CoSI
n/a
Laurie Cicotello - Hired
(Taken from Tabroom.com - Please update if old or inaccurate)
Aloha!
I am returning to judging after a couple years off to care for my parents. I have judged speech and debate from middle school to collegiate levels. I have a Master of Arts in teaching Language Arts and qualified for AFA-NIET during my time competing.
While speech/debate is a very personal endeavor, my opinions may run contrary to your expectations for any number of reasons and my decisions are not personal, but are rooted in 20 years of judging and coaching experiences.
I’m holistic in my judging and judge on the merits of arguments rather than anything negative toward your opponant.
I would appreciate getting a roadmap/info chart to help with flow. I also appreciate metaphor when interpreting resolutions.
I appreciate a good turn in debate rounds—Hit me with unexpected angles and viewpoints. Thank you for keeping your delivery slow and clear—especially since we are online and internet glitches happen. I also appreciate clear analyses of why your team should win in the final rebuttals.
Finally, I lived in Hawai’i for 14 years and will often drop “Aloha” or other Hawaiian words. If it’s unclear, please feel free to ask!!
Louise Wang - UCSD
n/a
Margaret Bilos - Harper College
Mark Wasden - CoSI
Communication is vital to the creation of shared understanding. As a professor in our field for more than 20 years, I value debate for the central role in plays in our democracy and everyday interactions. While I did not participate in forensics as a student, I understand its importance as an academic activity and believe that it should be a learning exercise - regardless of the competitive outcome. Consequently, I value courtesy, respect, and the strength of the presented argument more than a rapid-fire discussion that attempts breadth but lacks depth. A recognition that this activity is the opportunity to develop skills, while analyzing our own views and the views of others, should guide the rounds and our participation in the event.
Maureen Rudell - Casper College
n/a
Michael Stedillie - Hired
n/a
Natalie Jurcik - MVCC
I competed in Interp and have judged Limited Prep. So, for IPDA, I'm looking for clear, organized, cited, and intentional arguments/points. I want to see how each point reflects or supports your answer to the question. Be concise and clear. Please do not use debate jargon or tell me who should win the round. I don't appreciate being petty, rude, or condescending. However, I enjoy when competitors have fun, are passionate, speak clearly, and have well thought our arguments.
Nicole York - Hired
n/a
Paul Cummins - SIC
Peter Van Houten - Hired
n/a
Rachael Hoffman - Hired
n/a
Rachel Parish (She/Her) - SIC
I approach IPDA from the perspective of a non-debate judge. I believe the event should be able to call without the knowledge of jargon or formal debate mechanics. The best argument will win every time and I do not reward technicalities.
Ritika Muthukuma - UCSD
n/a
Sam Weaver - Hired
n/a
Shane Jonson - CoSI
My judging philosophy focuses on the importance of clear and organized communication. The arguments that persuade me are those that are easy to follow and comprehend in a logicalway. Although I don't have a background in forensics, I do have experience teaching Fundamentals of Human Communication courses with multiple speeches to assess each semester. In those courses, I emphasize the benefit of communicating in a manner that minimizes misunderstanding and allows for people of different backgrounds and experiences to understand the speaker's main points and takeaway messages.
Shelby Davis - Hired
n/a
Stephen Pratt - Harper College
n/a
Stephen Sigman - CC
n/a
Tiffany Turner - Hired
n/a
Violet Wright - Hired
n/a
William Lewis - Hired
n/a
Yijia Zhang - UCSD
n/a