Judge Philosophies
Amy Hileman - NOVA
For IPDA debate I do not want a jargon-filled round where students attempt to speak so quickly that the competition and judge won't notice the flaws in their logic. I do not believe that IPDA should look/sound like other types of debate. Give me the politeness/ettiquete at the start of the constructives. Focus on the quality of your argument vs speed. If I put my pen down when you are speaking, you are speaking too quickly. I am looking for sound arguments with clear structure and supporting research.
Angela Rodriguez - Morton College
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?
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.
Carolyn Clarke - Highland
n/a
Christopher Lapee - KCKCC
KCKCC Debate (NPDA/NFA LD) (20212024)
Assistant Coaching at Olathe North High School, KCKCC
I'm down for speech drop or email whichever works best for you. christopherlapeedebate@gmail.com
I was a 2 time quarter finalist at NPDA (2023, 2024) 3 time NFA qualifier.
I'm a first year out at the college level iykyk use that with prefs accordingly. a lot of this judging philosophy is based off my high school paradigm which I use to largley judge TOC policy debate so it might seem weird.
TLDR: I don't particularly care for certain arguments over others. Rather, I care more about debaters doing what they're good at and maximizing their talents. Granted to whereas I'm ok with you reading whatever, do keep in mind that the experience I've had with debate/arguments might not make me the best decision maker in the back of the room for that round. So if you get me in the back of the room read what you want but be mindful it might need a little explanation in the Rebuttals or else you'll end up with a wacky RFD you don't like.
Speed I'm cool with it (make sure ur opponent is too) if I can't keep up i'll say speed if you arent clear i'll say clear. This will allow me to keep up better. If you ignore my speed/clear signals I'm gonna be bound to miss stuff so if you get an rfd you don't like after the round thats prolly why.
More in depth version of how I evaluate
Top level:I default tech over truth
T: On T I'll default to competing Interps unless I get a good reason to favor reasonability or if reasonability goes conceded. I think T is a debate about models of a hypothetical community agreement to what the the topic should look like, in this I think the debate comes down to the internal links like who controls limits and ground and who's limits/ground is best for education and fairness. I don't think you need proven abuse but if there is you should go for that.
CP: I think CP's can be a good test of solvency mechanisms of the aff I wont vote on a cp unless it has a net benefit. I think the CP is a reason why 1% risk of the DA means I should probably vote neg if the CP solves, even if case outweighs. I don't think the CP alone is a reason to vote neg, just because there is another way to solve the aff doesn't mean I shouldn't give it a try. Internal net benefits are real and I'll vote on a CP with one.
Condo: I tend to think condo is good. That doesnt mean I wont vote on condo just that it might be a more uphill battle than with other judges. This is prolly bc the condo debate gets super messy and is late breaking af which means intervention happens and one team always winds up disliking the RFD.
DA's: I think a DA being non uq means no risk. I think no Link means the same, I think the I/L strat is commonly underrated if the link doesn't actually trigger the mpx then there is probably no risk, MPX turning a DA is underrated too. If you go for the DA in front of me focus on the story of the DA and form a coherent story by focusing on the internals if I understand how the plan actually causes the MPX I'm more likely to vote for the DA. Also you have to win that the Disad outweighs the aff. I default magnitude>timeframe>probability. Ill buy other orderings/framings but that work needs to be done in the debate.
Spec: If you go for spec go for it just like you would T. I'll listen to 6 mins of spec and vote on it. Same thing as T I view it as a models debate and you should focus on the internals because that tends to show who actually controls the mpx debate.
The K: On the link level first. I think the links to the k page operate in the same way as links to the Disad. What I mean by this is that the more specific the better. Just vaguely describing "the apocalyptic rhetoric of the 1ac" seems like a very generic link which is prolly not that hard for a turn and or no link argument.
On the impact debate. I think you need to be weighing the impact of the kritik in the round I find that a lot of debaters get jumbled up in line by line and forget to actually weigh the impact. Just extending it and saying "they cause xyz" isn't good because it isn't developed and lacks the warranting of why that matters and why I should vote neg because they cause that.
On the alt debate. It's a common stereotype of K debaters that we can't explain the alt. What does the alt look like? Why is that good? And so on so forth. I think that while I hate this stereotype I dislike even more that in the rounds I've watched debaters have tended to just read their tag line of the alt solvency and the alt whenever asked in cx what does the alt look like, and or do that to extend the alt in later speeches. This is not a good way to debate and doesn't help you convince anyone your alt is good, you should be able to articulate the method of your alt whatever that may be and how that changes the debate space or the world. I don't think this means you need to be able to tell me exactly what goes on at every waking point of the day.
K aff:
On the case debate I think k affs should link to the topic/debate in some way shape or form otherwise they feel very generic. specificity >>>>>>>> generics (on every arg tho). There should be a clear impact/impacts to the aff. I think where the aff falls short is in the method/advocacy debate I think that I should be able to understand the method and how it is able to resolve the impact in some way shape or form. I think the rob/roj should be clearly identified (the earlier in the round the better). That way I understand how I should evaluate the rest of the debate and process through things (I think in close debates both teams wind up winning different parts of the flow, I need to understand why your flow comes first). I think that performance K affs lose the performance aspect which sucks, I think that applying the performance throughout the rest of the debate is >>>>>> rather than losing it after the 1ac.
V FW I tend to think debate is a game that shapes subjectivity Ie y'all wanna win rounds and fairness is good, and also the arguments we make/debate shapes who we become as advocates. I will technically sway based off args made in the round (ie debate doesn't shape subjectivity/debate isn't a game) I think from the neg I need a clear interp with a brightline for what affs are and are not topical extended throughout the debate. I need a clear violation extended throughout the debate. I think standards act as internal links to the impacts of fairness and education. I think you should be able to win that your fairness is better than the affs fairness and that it outweighs their education. for the aff I also think you need a clear interp for what affs are and are not allowed under your model of debate extended throughout the debate. If you go for a we meet I think that the we meet should be clear and makes sense and also be throughout the debate. I think the aff should win that the TVA doesn't resolve your offense/education, that your fairness is just as good or better than the neg's model of fairness. And that your education outweighs. I think top level impact turns to t/fw are good. And use the rob/roj against the T debate (remember it all comes down to filtering what arguments are most important and come first)
KvK uhhhhhhh I tend to get a little lost in these debates sometimes tbh bc I think its tough to evaluate and weigh two methods against each other especially if they aren't necessarily competitive with each other. I think in these debate the fw debate including the rob/roj is most important, and judge instruction is likely how you'd pick me up if I'm in the back of the room. If you don't tell me how to evaluate arguments and what they mean in context to the round we'll all prolly wind up frustrated at the end of the round bc I'll intervene or make a bad choice. (I'm not perfect and make mistakes so judge instruction is crucial to make sure I don't make them)
Cri Cox - Harper College
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.
Destiny Cunningham - Tourn Judges
n/a
Harry Bodell - CLC
Experience/Background: I competed for four years in Individual Events (Primarily LP and PA with an ill-fated foray or two into interp) and Parliamentary Debate, and I competed in IPDA toward the end of my college career as it was starting to catch on in Illinois. I have since coached IE, Parli and IPDA for ten years between North Central College, Northern Illinois University, Highland Community College, and College of Lake County. I have also judged Lincoln-Douglas and can get through a round, but probably won't be able to handle speed as well as more seasoned LD judges and coaches.
General Individual Events Philosophy:In general, I want you to have fun and commit to your performance in any IE -- you only get so many chances in life to perform for a "captive" audience! As long as you have fun and use your 7-10 minutes effectively, you have a shot on my ballot. That said, my general preferences (which evolve and should not be taken as gospel) by event category are:
- Interp:In Prose, I'm looking for engaging storytelling with emotional levels, narrative flow, clear cutting, etc.; In DI, I'm looking for thoughtful character development (vocal and non-verbal characterization, emotional depth) and establishment of space/scene; In Poetry, I'm looking for powerful use of physical movement and vocal rhythm to enhance the power of the language; In POI, I am looking for a strong and thoughtful argument explored through a unique combination of perspectives of stylistic difference (and clarity in blocking, characterization, cutting, etc.); In DUO, I care most about chemistry and (depending on the lit) blocking/use of space.
- Public Address:In general, I value the content of speeches over the delivery of speeches, but both are naturally important (in other words, in a tie-breaker I will default to the content/messaging). Don't sacrifice in-the-moment connectiveness for the sake of "polish". Really communicate with the audience as opposed to "at" the audience. A few event-specific notes: I'm not crazy about hand-out's in PER/STE -- feel free to use them, but they won't impact my rank; In CA, I really value the crafting of a RQ that leaves room for generalizable rhetorical conclusions and analyses that illuminate how an artifact communicates rather than whether an artifact "checks boxes A, B and C"; In STE, don't be afraid to dive into a comedic persona -- try not to sound the same tonally as you would in an Info round :)
- Limited Prep:In both LP events, I generally value analysis above all else. A well-delivered Extemp that doesn't dig far beyond the surface will not rank as highly as a "shaky" speech with really interesting/in-depth analysis. I will always prefer the impromptu speaker who makes me think about something in a new light over the speaker who takes a very common approach to an interpretation (not every prompt is about success, growth, etc.). That isn't to say that delivery isn't important -- it is, and confidence/willingness to engage/entertain in an LP event is often the difference in a tough round.
General Debate Philosophy:While I do not believe it is realistic for any judge to be truly tabula rasa (a "blank slate" as a judge), I do my best to filter my own beliefs out of debate rounds. I try to focus only on what is on the flow to the best of my ability. That said, the flow isn't the end-all-be-all in a debate. I won't give more weight to a dropped-but-inconsequential argument than I would to a strong-yet-well-refuted argument, for example. Likewise, I'm not going to give an argument that is just blatantly untrue the same weight as a well-researched/supported argument just because it is on the flow.
In general, I judge primarily on quality of argumentation and clear impacts. I will always refer to impacts to Weighing Mechanism (even in IPDA) and general impact calculus unless told to judge otherwise. If you want me to weigh the round in a particular way, tell me that and justify it to me. Always hold my hand through your impacts and explain clearly why any given argument should win you the round. Don't trust me to make connections for you.
Speed/Jargon:While I can follow speed, I don't love speed -- I think that speed-and-spread tactics are detrimental to the accessibility and growth of the activity. That won't factor into my decision if you do speed, but don't assume that I'll keep up with everything. Your first priority should be to have a good debate, not to win the debate, and a good debate requires clear communication between debaters. If your opponent is going too quickly for you to follow the debate, don't be afraid to yell "clear". If your opponent yells "clear", you should try to slow down and risk a dock on speaker points if you refuse to adapt.
As for jargon, I'm familiar with pretty much any debate terminology you may use and can probably follow along just fine (that goes for both Parli and IPDA -- see below).
Differences Between Parli and IPDA:While I recognize that IPDA emphasizes delivery as a tie-breaking factor (or, in some cases, a primary deciding factor), I frankly don't care how "well" you speak in debate as long as you make good arguments and I can follow them clearly (no need for extra flowery language, emotional delivery, introduction/conclusion, etc.). I vote on line-by-line argumentation in either style.I generally reject the "de-debatification" of IPDA. In my mind, debate is NOT just discussion - they're fundamentally different, and the event is not called International Public Discussion.I'm perfectly fine with procedural arguments (topicalities need to be run in IPDA sometimes!) and prefer to see prima facie issues established in an affirmative policy case. Don't limit the tools in your toolbox.
That said, please be respectful of different debating paradigms and styles. There is no one "right" approach to either Parli or IPDA. If you run into a clash of styles (ex: one debater believes you should use plan texts in policy IPDA rounds while the other debater believes that IPDA places less emphasis on resolution "types" and that a policy round should simply focus on clashing contentions), simply justify the value of your approach and its logical application toward enhancing the debate.
Cross-Talk in Parli:Flex time allows you to collaborate with your partner between speeches for a reason. Please don't talk to your partner or obnoxiously wave notes -- let your partner do the debating when they are the one speaking. Even novice debaters need to be able to learn to get through a speech without mid-speech guidance.As such, I will not flow any arguments that are directly provided vocally or via note by a partner who does not have the floor.
Questions and Cross-Ex:First of all, please be polite when asking questions. There's no need to get personal or confrontational. At the same time, please don't try to use questions to "suck time" from your opponent. More debating is better than less debating.
In Parli, please don't arbitrarily limit the number of questions that your opponent can ask ("I'll allow your first of two questions"). Simply adapt as necessary. If you honestly don't have time for a fourth question, politely say that and move on. (That said, you should generally have time for three questions if you manage time effectively). In Parli Flex Time, I prefer that questions asked focus on clarification ("can you repeat your tag for contention 1b?") rather than argumentative cross-examinatio questions so as to protect the right of debaters to ask questions during constructive speeches (I'm not okay with debaters saying "ask that during flex time" when a question was legally allowed to be asked during the speech).
In IPDA, I encourage debaters to use all cross-examination time and keep questions challenging-yet-polite.
Kritiks:While I understand the value in some K arguments, I generally find most K's to be pre-constructed distractions from the actual debate at hand. In other words, I'm probably not the judge to use a K with unless you have a really good justification for doing so and can articulate that justification clearly. While I recognize the need for pre-debate argumentation (topicality, etc.) in most cases, I generally want to listen to a debate about the actual topic at hand.
Roadmaps:Always on time. If you try to roadmap off time, I'll just start my timer and stop flowing once you hit your time limit.
Precision of Language:I flow and judge based on what you say, not what I think you meant to say. Be clear and accurate with language. If you say something that inadvertently supports your opponent, that's how I'll flow it!
Decorum Notes:First of all, be friendly -- let's have fun and avoid getting too heated over an educational activity. I appreciate thank you's at the start of speeches and don't consider them wastes of time. Along those lines, I value the depersonalization of argumentation. In other words, I prefer that youdo notrefer to opponents by name but rather by speaker position (AFF, NEG, PM, LO, etc.). While that may seem to some to strip debaters of their individual identities, I find that it actually keeps the debate focused on arguments and keeps us out of ad hominem territory (not to mention you would never see one lawyer refer to another lawyer by name in a courtroom trial -- they'd refer to "the defense" and "the prosecution", etc.). It also helps to prevent mis-gendering with inaccurate pronouns ("he/she says" assumes too much about your opponent's gender identity, "Aff/Neg says" is always acceptable). Likewise, whenever possible, please direct eye contact at the judge rather than your opponent.
Debate Pet Peeve!:Few things in debate bother me more than "Youwillvote X" language ("Judge, you will be voting AFF"; "Judge, you'll be voting on this point"). That just isn't a good practice inside or outside of debate (when would you ever tell a teacher/employer/etc. "you will do ____"?). It's just as easy to say, "Judge, youshouldvote X". While it won't ever impact my decision, this may impact speaker points.
Isaiah Carrington - Harper College
Hello, my name is Isaiah Carrington. I am new to the world of forensics so I am not overly well versed in debate jargon. Please take some time to give a clear roadmap and definitions. What I appreciate most is a well-structured argument and for you to be very explicit in what your argument is. I also prefer for debate competitors to be friendly and kind in their delivery. Ideally for me, IPDA rounds feel like a conversation more than a competition. Good luck!
Janine Stroemer-Cheeks - Tourn Judges
n/a
Jason Edgar - Morton College
Make Logical, Rational Arguments and Speak with Conviction. Oh, and you can't spell debate with T.
Jeff Przybylo - Harper College
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.
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.
Kevin Pritchett - Tourn Judges
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.
Prince Lowe - COD
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.
Stefani Epifanio - CLC
n/a
Stephanie Turner - Tourn Judges
n/a
Thomas Nicholas - Tourn Judges
n/a
Trevor Magsaysay - Morton College
n/a
Valerie Nicholson - Tourn Judges
n/a