Alexandrea Dillon -- Pikes Peak Community Collegen/a
Amy Schneider -- Hired Judges (WSCA)n/a
Ashley Nuckels Cuevas -- San Diego State Universityn/a
Barbra Garrett -- Pikes Peak Community Collegen/a
Ben Mann -- University of Utah
They/them or he/him (gender non-binary).
tl;dr for prep time: I evaluate comparative access to comparative impacts. In other words, I will vote for the team that demonstrates to me that they best access the most important impacts in the round. Feel free to read whatever arguments you feel most comfortable with in front of me, including advantages/disadvantages, counterplans, theory, Ks, performance-centered arguments, or any other arrangement inclusive or outside of these categories. I can efficiently flow fast debates, but will say Ã¢??SLOWÃ¢?Â if youÃ¢??re speaking too quickly (generally not an issue) or Ã¢??CLEARÃ¢?Â if I cannot understand your words, regardless of your rate of delivery. I take my role as a critic very seriously and my goal in RFDs is to clearly explain how I reached my decision and offer suggestions in the role of an educator. I will disclose speaker points after my RFD if you ask me to, because I want to be held accountable for why I assign the speaker points that I do. If you have additional questions, feel free to contact me atÃ?Â
Everything below is more extensive and substantially less important.
Experience: this is my ninth year involved in NPDA debate (fifth year out of competing) and tenth year involved in forensics. I competed in NPDA debate on the national circuit for four years at Lewis & Clark College, coached NPDA for two years at University of the Pacific where I received my MasterÃ¢??s degree in Communication, and am currently in my third year coaching NPDA at the University of Utah, where I am a primary NPDA coach and a Ph.D. student in Communication.
Things I like:
1.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Strategic decision-making and collapse in the back half of debates.
2.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Clear impact and warrant comparison in rebuttals.
3.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Specific, well-developed link arguments.
Things I donÃ¢??t like:
1.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Blips in constructive speeches that suddenly metamorphize into well-developed arguments in rebuttals.
2.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Using speed and esoteric postmodern jargon for the purposes of excluding other teams.
3.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Treating other teams/competitors poorly,Ã?Â especiallyif said competitors come from community/junior college programs and/or programs with limited resources.
1.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â My average speaker points are 27.5, and will go up or down from there.
2.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Parli is not a textual event. I do not want copies of your advocacies. IÃ?Â dowant you to slow and/or repeat your advocacies or theory interps.
3.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Call points of order if theyÃ¢??re close. IÃ¢??ll protect against blatantly new arguments.
4.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â MG theory is more in vogue these days, and IÃ¢??m fine with these arguments. I am, however, sympathetic to neg arguments telling me I should evaluate MG theory differently than other theory arguments because the block is the only chance to respond.
5.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â I prefer advocacy-based debates on policy resolutions, but I will listen to debaters/programs who want to engage in trichot-based rounds. If you engage in those debates, I would prefer that you give some sort of stable advocacy statement.
6.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â I think conditional Ks are often poorly executed, especially on the framework level. I am not opposed to you reading these arguments, but I am persuaded, for example, by two white people kicking a conditional Wilderson K probably being a link to anti-blackness.
7.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â My research areas pertain to disability rhetoric and disabilityÃ¢??s relationship to gender identity/expression. I do not see this being expressly relevant to evaluating debates, but I will call out ableism and disrespect for gender identity/expression.
8.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â IÃ¢??m autistic. I have next-to-no awareness of my affect, including my facial expressions, and I will probably give you little-to-no eye contact. Nothing personal.
9.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â I really, really do not care about the impact of my decisions on Ã¢??the communityÃ¢?Â for many reasons, in part because it would compromise my integrity as a critic, and in part because there is no debate community (Jordan & Stewart, 2017).
Blake Harris -- Colorado Christian University
Blake Harris -- University of Colorado Bouldern/a
Bob Becker -- Northwest CollegeAs 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 don’t 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. I’m fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. “We don’t like the resolution” doesn’t 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 don’t 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 doesn’t explain why dehume is worse than deaths, I’ll vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then I’ll vote for dehume. I think I’m 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. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. That’s why I’m here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.
Brett Delaney -- Hired Judges (WSCA)n/a
C Peebles -- Pikes Peak Community Collegen/a
Carolyn Brown -- Pikes Peak Community Collegen/a
Claudia Boyd -- The University of Texas at El Pason/a
Clint Cordova -- Hired Judges (WSCA)n/a
Cole Brown -- Colorado Christian UniversityIPDA is supposed to be a common-sense, rhetoric-based event. Please refrain from using overly technical language, speed, policy tactics, or anything else that would not be persuasive to the average person off of the street. The point of debate is to make us better at discussing issues with real people, and IPDA is trying to achieve this goal. Also, please be courteous and kind to your opponent.
Craig Brown -- Kansas State Universityn/a
Doug Frank -- Western Nebraska Community Collegen/a
Frank Gigray -- University of Utahn/a
Gabriel West -- University of Colorado Bouldern/a
Jake Townsend -- Hired Judges (WSCA)n/a
Jason Jordan -- University of Utah
*I have fairly significant hearing loss. This is almost never a problem when judging debates. This also doesn't mean you should yell at me during your speech, that won't help. If I can't understand the words you're saying, I will give a clear verbal prompt to let you know what you need to change for me to understand you (ex: 'clear,' 'louder,' 'slow down,' or 'hey aff stop talking so loud so that I can hear the MO please'). If I don't prompt you to the contrary, I can understand the words you're saying just fine. Ã?Â
*make arguments, tell me how to evaluate these arguments, and compare these arguments to the other teams arguments and methods of evaluating arguments. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to place me within. I have very few, if any, normative beliefs about what debate should look like and/or Ã¢??be.Ã¢??Ã?Â
Jeannie Hunt -- Northwest College
I want to be able to judge the round with no intervention on my part. That means a couple of things. You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round. I don’t care what that framework is, but I want one – policy making, critical, big picture, etc. That framework is what I will follow, so please don’t set the round up as a stock round, and then ask me to look at the big picture at the end. More importantly, give me something to look at in the end. I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, something tangible for me to vote on. Absent that, I have to intervene.
There are no specific arguments that I prefer over another. I will vote on pretty much anything, and I am game for pretty much anything. I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions. If you run a k, you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about. However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out… This is true of any theory based argument you choose to run. I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important. If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don’t have to spend time flowing it.
Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective. I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K. Make sure the framework is very specific so I don’t have to abandon objectivity all together.
Finally, make your own arguments. If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago. Prompting someone with a statement like, “go to the DA” is fine. Making an argument that is then repeated is not.
Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn’t mean you should have no style. You should be clear, structured and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is team). You can at least take your hat off and tuck your shirt in. Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument. Speed is not a problem if it is clear.
Because I don’t want to intervene, I don’t appreciate
points of order. You are asking me to
evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small
way. Additionally, I think I flow pretty
well, and I know I shouldn’t vote on new arguments. I won’t.
If you feel particularly abused in the round, and need to make a point
of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is
Joe Gantt -- Lewis & Clark CollegeÂ
Justin Kirk -- University of Nebraska-Lincolnn/a
Kate Rich -- Hired Judges (WSCA)n/a
Kevin Phillips -- Hired Judges (WSCA)n/a
Kodi Delaney -- Hired Judges (WSCA)n/a
Max Groznik -- San Diego State Universityn/a
Michael Middleton -- University of Utah
Ã¢??The present situation is highly discouragingÃ¢?Â Ã¢??Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari
Debate is Awesome
Judging Makes Me Cry Softly
Do I weep in vain?
Some things to consider (when debating in front of me):
10.Ã?Â Ã?Â I DO NOT support speed as a tool of exclusion
9.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â I DO NOT like deciding for myself what is the most important thing in the round or how to evaluate the competing arguments; You should do this for me.Ã?Â Ã?Â You will like it less if you donÃ¢??t. On the other hand, I will like it more.
8.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â I DO like well-structured debates. I also like interesting structures.
7.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â I DO like creative interpretations; I DO NOT like when you donÃ¢??t explain/provide a rationale for why I your interpretation makes for a productive/rewarding/interesting/good debate.
6.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â I DO NOT like nor understand potential abuse arguments; I DO like and reward teams that demonstrate compellingly that the quality of the debate has been compromised by an interpretive choice made by the other team.Ã?Â
5.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â I DO NOT vote for any given argument or against any given type of argument.Ã?Â Ã?Â Run whatever strategy you like; Be clear about your strategy.
4.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â I am a participant in the round also.Ã?Â Ã?Â While I make my best effort to vote on who is winning and losing the debate based on the arguments, I use speaker points to evaluate and highlight both excellent and poor behaviors, i.e. if you create a hostile environment, you get massively low speaker points.
3.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Jargon does not equal argument. Nor does it equal a good time.
2.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Cross-application does not equal new argument. It doesnÃ¢??t really equal anything.
1.Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Ã?Â Debate is not life.Ã?Â Ã?Â Losing a ballot will not steal your humanity.Ã?Â Ã?Â I tend to prefer rounds that demonstrate everyone in the room knows this.Ã?Â
0. Have Fun
Nadia Steck -- Lewis & Clark College
Nathaniel Rogers -- San Diego State University
Shanna Carlson -- Illinois State University
Sue Peterson -- CSU Chico
I am now primarily judging NFA-LD.
PARLI: If you have me as a parli critic, know that it is not my strength nor my favorite style of debate. I just think that referencing evidence with no ability to check the accuracy of your reference makes it difficult to evaluate conflicting arguments, but I will do my best. Having well-warranted arguments beyond just a source (so explaining the warrant, not just naming the source and claim) will help your efforts. I can flow pretty fast debate, but without evidence, the arguments sometimes come fast and furious and I can't write or type that fast, so slow down a bit if you want everything on my flowsheet at the end of the speech.
BOTH PARLI AND LD:
As far as argumentative preference, performance debates are not really my cup of tea. I like critical arguments and I'm relatively familiar with the literature, but if you are going to "use the topic as a starting point" on the affirmative instead of actually defending implementation of your plan, I'm probably not going to be your favorite judge. But, I think claiming some methodological advantage to a certain plan is fine and the negative is free to critique it up if they so choose, as long as they in some way specifically engage the affirmative's arguments (usually better if it is the affirmative's arguments and not just the resolution or the status quo, but that is debatable).
I do not enjoy nasty debates where people ad-hom each other, yell at each other, or otherwise argue instead of debate. I think debate should be enjoyable for both the debaters and me -- so be nice and have fun. And if your opponents are not nice, don't get sucked into the evil...maintain your composure.
Rebuttals are key. Make sure you take the time to explain your arguments, how they should be impacted in the debate, how they compare to the other team's.
I am no longer inclined to read much evidence, but if you want me to read evidence because of it being a focus of controversy in the round, identify the evidence by author AND warrant - not just author. I want to know WHAT to read and WHY I'm reading it. I prefer to hear the evidence and hear the explanations and vote on that because debate is about oral argumentation. So, I won't read anything unless I feel like I have to in order to be fair to both sides in the debate.
I am not prone to vote on "this is a rule" unless it is well-warranted. I get that LD has rules and I believe there are reasons for those rules, but I also believe that debaters should be able to articulate those reasons in a round in order to win on those arguments. So, if you are going to make arguments about what should be excluded in a round, be sure to provide warrants other than "its a rule". I am open to debaters asking others to speak more conversational in rounds as that is part of this activity's unique appeal, but I do think that you should be reciprocal - so don't ask for someone to slow down (or yell slow/clear during their speech) and then speak fast in your own speech.
I love a good T debate. Most pre-round questions seem to focus on in-round abuse and competing interps, so I will say here that I think both those arguments are things that can be debated out in the round. I don't HAVE to have in-round abuse, but I'm open as to why I shouldn't evaluate Ts that don't prove it. My default is competing interpretations, BUT if the affirmative is obviously topical under the negative's interpretation and explains such, I don't think they HAVE to have a counterinterp.
If you have any other questions, let me know before the round begins!