Judge Philosophies
Adam Sirimarco - MSU Denver
n/a
Alex Anderson - KState
n/a
Ana Ciancone - LUC
n/a
Anastasia Ramirez - USC
n/a
Angel Rodriguez - USC
n/a
Arjun Aggarwal - USAFA
n/a
Brandon James - Vanderbilt
n/a
Brian Von Buhr - MSU Denver
n/a
Brianna Scoleri - USAFA
n/a
Christopher Jones - USAFA
n/a
Colin Jarrett-Izzi - USAFA
n/a
Danny Iberri-Shea - USAFA
Darrin Hicks - DU
n/a
David Steinberg - UM
n/a
Emily Bergman - CCU
n/a
Fiona Fitzpatrick - DU
n/a
Gavin Gill - Vanderbilt
n/a
Gina Iberri-Shea - USAFA
J Jiwani - Clemson
n/a
Jacob Riser - MSU Denver
n/a
Jason Jordan - MSU Denver
n/a
John Koch - Vanderbilt
n/a
Joshua Burke - USAFA
n/a
Kendall Woods - CCU
I have been judging and competing in speech and debate since 2014. My primary goal as a judge is to provide a respectful and fair environment, focusing on the arguments presented in the round.
I approach each debate with an open mind, putting aside my own biases. I am here to determine which debater presents the stronger case, based on the arguments and evidence provided in the round.
Its your responsibility as debaters to guide me on how to weigh the debate. I appreciate when debaters offer a clear framework to evaluate the round. If a framework isnt established, I will primarily focus on the quality and explanation of the evidence brought forward. Strong, well-explained evidence is crucial for winning my ballot.
My biggest pet peeve in debate is the misuse of the word "abusive." Unless your opponent's weighing mechanism is genuinely harmful, avoid calling it abusive. Instead, focus on showing why it's unfair or problematic without resorting to exaggeration. I value clear communication over speed. Its important that everyone in the round, including myself, can fully understand the arguments.
At the end of the round, I will weigh the arguments based on their evidence, logic, and persuasiveness. My decision will reflect the debate that happened in front of me, with respect for the rules and fairness in the round.
Kobi Cannata - Regis U
n/a
Lindsey Dixon - Clemson
n/a
M.L. Sandoz - Vanderbilt
n/a
Manuel Rodriguez - MSU Denver
n/a
Michael Harvey - USAFA
The most important thing to me is a debate where both teams treat each other with respect. I will try and flow everything, but if you're going really fast and see me put down my pen, take that as a sign! I am not fond of Ks but will judge them on how they are presented. Answer (at least briefly) all things on the flow and don't make me fill in the blanks on incomplete arguments. Good luck!
Prat Mamidi - USC
n/a
Rianna Herzelinger - USC
n/a
Rob Margesson - Regis U
n/a
Ruby Nunez - MSU Denver
n/a
Sage Margesson - Regis U
n/a
Shawn Briscoe - Alaska
n/a
Stephen Scheffel - CCU
I think that IPDA is a comment sense and rhetoric based event. I am going to judge primarily on the arguments, but speaking ability will most certainly be taken into consideration. Please refrain from using overly technical language, speed, policy tactics, etc. If it would not be persuasive to a lay person, I won't find it persuasive.
Be sure to properly back up your claims logically. I understand that the speech and debate community has a specific political bent, but I am not going to consider an argument that is made without warrant simply because it is a widely held belief in the debate community.
Steve Johnson - Alaska
n/a
Travis Loik - DU
n/a
Trevor Woodward - USAFA
n/a
Will Reid - Clemson
n/a
Zigi Kaiser - USC
n/a
jason nichols - USAFA
n/a