Judge Philosophies
Ahmed El Sammak - Cornell
n/a
Alec Baker - Seattle U
n/a
Alia Gilbrecht - Swing
n/a
Amaar Jeyasothy - Cornell
n/a
Ben Krueger - Nevada
Ben Krueger (he/him/his)
University of Nevada, Reno
I competed in Parli and IEs in the early 2000s at Northern Arizona University. After many years away from competitive forensics, I returned to judging in 2016. I have been the assistant director at UNR since 2019.
General Debate Views and Preferences
1. I come from a traditional policymaking background, but I'm open to multiple frameworks and interpretations of debate. It's up to you to defend and justify your framework choices in the round.
2. I don't do well with speed. The faster you spread, the more likely it is that I'll miss arguments on the flow and make a decision you won't like.
3. Structure is good and I appreciate signposting, but remember that it's not a replacement for substantive argument. Having a catchy tagline is not the same thing as having a well-developed warrant that supports your claim.
4. Rebuttal speeches should "zoom out" and give me a big picture overview of what's going on in the round. When the rebuttal is simply a line-by-line analysis, I inevitably have to do more work to weigh the issues myself.
5. I viscerally dislike "gut check" arguments and won't vote for them. Instead, give me more specific analytic reasons why I shouldn't believe a specific claim (for example, it doesn't have a clear source, it's based on a post hoc fallacy, it's based on a faulty analogy, etc).
6. Don't be jerks. It is possible to make assertive, highly competitive arguments while still recognizing the humanity of your opponents. Hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior cheapens the pedagogical value of competitive debate and drives students away from the activity.
My views on Parli
I rarely judge Parli anymore, but in case you encounter me in a Parli round, there are a few things to be aware of about how I approach the event: (1) I hate stupid T arguments and tend to default to reasonability over competing standards unless there's something really wonky going on. (2) K's absolutely must have clear links and clear alt-solvency that I can weigh against the plan. If they don't, I will have a low threshold for accepting any plausible-sounding answer to them. (3) I will not vote for poorly-explained technical arguments just because they're on the flow if they aren't properly weighed or impacted out.
My views of IPDA
IPDA is NOT parli-lite! If you treat the round that way, I will at minimum tank your speaker points.
I believe that IPDA should be publicly accessible as a debate format, by which I mean that speeches should be delivered at at a conversational rate and and should minimize use of technical jargon as much as possible. I will still evaluate IPDA rounds from a flow-centric perspective, which means that things like top-of-case and dropped arguments still matter. Eloquent oratory or witty comebacks alone will not be enough to win my ballot if you aren't winning on flow. I tend to be disinclined to vote on framework presses beyond the level of definitions reasons to prefer a specific criterion.
Although uncommon, I find myself giving more low-point wins in IPDA than I did in Parli. If I give you a low-point win, it typically means one of two things happened: (1) you clearly won on flow, but there was a major issue with your delivery/presentation style, (2) you weren't winning on flow, but your opponent collapsed to the wrong voting issues or made some major strategic blunder in rebuttals that led me to buy your voting issues instead.
A Final Note on Recent Political Developments (6/2022)
In light of recent developments in national politics, I am choosing to disclose that I am a gay man. Please be mindful that resolutions about legal rights of specific groups (such as LGBTQ+ individuals, women, or racial minorities) can be triggering to competitors and judges when framed as a binary either/or choice between maintaining civil rights or eliminating them. In such rounds, I will grant leeway to both affirmative and negative teams to frame their arguments in ways that avoid a morally problematic division of ground. If you find yourself on the "bad" side of such a resolution, some ideas for you how might reframe include: state-level counterplans, constitutional amendments, constitutional convention, secession, Northern Ireland-style consociationalism, etc.
Bert Li - Cornell
n/a
Bryce Reher - Wyoming
n/a
Caroline Guess - Seattle U
n/a
Cathleen Monahan - UW
n/a
Gavin Gill - Vanderbilt
n/a
Hamza Echari - UW
n/a
Jacob Witt - NorthwestU
n/a
Jessy Nesbit - Claremont
n/a
Joe Gantt - Lewis & Clark
Johanna Richter - Cornell
n/a
John Schultz - Alaska
n/a
Jonathon Sanchez - Alaska
n/a
Juliette Sablan - UCSD
n/a
Kaeli Meno - Alaska
n/a
Katelyn Johnson - DU
n/a
Leo Grageda - Cornell
n/a
Lillian Tran - UW
n/a
Lionea Thomas-Hines - LeMoyne
n/a
Liz Rangel - Alaska
n/a
Marcus Khoo - Wes
n/a
Mark Baechtel - Grinnell
n/a
Matt Song - Wes
n/a
Michael Mayambala - Cornell
n/a
Nadia Steck - Lewis & Clark
Nadia here, I am currently the Coach for Lewis and Clarkâs debate team I graduated from Concordia University Irvine where I debated for 2 years, before that I debated for Moorpark College for 3 years. Iâm gonna give you a TL:DR for the sake of prep time/pre-round strategizing, I want my personal opinions to come into play as little as possible in the debate round. I want the debate to be about what the debaters tell me it should be about, be it the topic or something totally unrelated. I am fairly familiar with theory, policy, and critical debate. I donât have a strong preference for any one of the three, all I want you to do is not be lazy and expect me to backfill warrants from my personal knowledge of arguments for you. If you donât say it, it doesnât end up on my flow, and thus it doesnât get evaluated. There arenât really any arguments I wonât listen to, and I will give the best feedback I have the ability to give after each round.
For out of round thinking or pre tournament pref sheets here are a few of the major things I think are important about my judging philosophy and history as a debater
â?¢I hate lazy debate; I spent a lot of time doing research and learning specific contextualized warrants for most of the arguments I read. It will benefit you and your speaks to be as specific as possible when it comes to your warrants.
â?¢I did read the K a lot during my time as a debater but that doesnât mean I donât also deeply enjoy a good topical debate
â?¢I did read arguments tethered to my identity occasionally; if you want to read these sorts of arguments I am sympathetic to them, but I believe you should be ready to answer the framework debate well.
â?¢As far as framework and theory arguments go, I am open to listening to any theory argument in round with the exception of Spec args, I honestly feel like a POI is enough of a check back for a spec arg. I have yet to meet a spec arg that was justified much beyond a time suck. If youâre In front of me, I give these arguments little credence so you should respond accordingly.
â?¢As far as the actual voting issue of theory, I by default assume they are all Apriori, as theory is a meta discussion about debate and therefore comes as a prior question to whatever K/CP/DA is being read. When it comes to evaluating the impacts of theory, please please please do not be lazy and just say that fairness and/or education is the voter without justification. These are nebulous terms that could mean a thousand things, if you want to make me really happy as a judge please read more specific voters with a solid justification for them. This way I have a more concrete idea of what you mean instead of me having to insert my own ideas about fairness or education into the debate space.
â?¢As far as policy debates go, I default net bens, and will tend to prefer probable impacts over big impacts. That being said, I am a sucker for a good nuke war or resource wars scenario. My favorite policy debates were always econ debates because of the technical nuance.
â?¢Go as fast as you want, just make sure if your opponent calls clear or slow you listen because if they read theory or a K because you didnât slow down or speak more clearly I will most likely vote you down.
Orion Ocerus - UW
n/a
Parker Davidson - Seattle U
n/a
Paul Monahan - UW
n/a
Robert Hockema - Alaska
n/a
Sean Thai - Nevada
I'm Open to most debate.
Theory/Framework/Topicality:
I default to competing interpretations, unless reasonability is won hard. Spec is good. What are RVI's? "We meet" your counter-interps. Voters are cool.
Straight-Up:
I am most familiar with this type of debate. I almost exclusively went for extinction. I will always use judging criterion and impact framing explicated in the debate, but as a last resort, I will evaluate impacts independently - this isn't to say that I will always vote for high? mag/low? prob, but that I am more open to these than other judges.
Don't delay. Don't Object. Don't? cheato? veto.Don't cheat. I have a low threshold.? It'snorcal, so I'll mention this: topical CP's are fine.
K's:
I appreciate and think ID politics and CRT have done more good than harm for both the real world and debate; but I do believe that sometimes it? weaponizes? identities and that debate is the wrong forum for it. I believe that K's need to clearly explicate how the alt works, the world post alt, and good links. I'm willing to buy a K that doesn't do any of these, but if these get indicted by procedurals or arguments will be damning.? Aff? K's that reject the topic are definitely more susceptible to theory, especially when the? negreads "topical version of the? Affsolves/exists." Simple reject alternatives are not too welcomed, but, are acceptable.
General Debate:
Condo is good.? Multi-condo not so much.Don't try to understand my non-verbals, because I don't understand them. Sometimes I'm? veryexpressive, sometimes I'm not.
Flex time questions are binding.
Novice Debates:? i? am more inclined to default to more of? a reasonability/articulated abuse lens of debate. I suppose? its? just an arbitrary decision to decide this way, but it's just a gut feeling.
?Â
Sindre Carlsen - Berkeley
n/a
Stephen Stohs - UCSD
Stephen Stohs UCSD 1) What is your experience with speech and debate? I have served as a volunteer judge for the UCSD Speech and Debate Team since Fall 2019, and continued judging straight through the pandemic, including the transition to all-online judging in spring 2020. 2) What does your ideal debate round look like? a) I appreciate well reasoned arguments communicated through a public speaking style that meets professional broadcast standards suitable for television or radio news. b) The importance of clear communication is heightened by the extra challenges of the pandemic situation. Under present conditions, an ideal debate round is free of technical glitches which hamper the performance of competitors or judges. 3) Is there anything you would like the debaters in your round to know about your judging preferences? No extra credit will be given for faster than normal speech to cram in as many points of debate as possible. Quality of speech and clarity of expression will be rewarded over quantity or speed.
Steve Johnson - Alaska
n/a
Trevor Christensen - Claremont
n/a
Will Klotzbier - UCSD
n/a