Updated 2/7/24

Add me to the chain: christopherjpjackson at gmail

Background:

Ames High School (’14)-qualified to the TOC and then-NFL Nationals

University of Iowa (’17)-Dr. Dave once called my extension of topicality “lucid and succinct”

Wake Forest University ('20)-M.A. in Communication

Genealogy:

I've spent over a decade (yikes) in this activity as either a debater, judge, or coach. Just some of the people who have influenced how I think about debate include: David Hingstman, Brian Rubaie, Kyle Vint, Brooke Kimbrough, Jason Regnier.

Overview:

Existence precedes essence. Or, to use the phrase I see littered across numerous paradigms, you do you. My default setting as a judge is nonprescriptivist, and this is reflected in my voting record. Partially from years of playing baseball, I conceptualize the role of the judge as akin to that of an umpire calling balls and strikes, though that itself can be contested by the participants.

Specifics:

K: I am primarily versed in the cap and so-called high theory set of arguments. I likely have a passing understanding/have previously judged whatever K you are thinking about reading. I am not sufficiently predisposed for or against any position to the extent that it becomes expedient to read something other than what you're best at. While in my day "job" I work mostly as a quantitative social scientist, I still enjoy reading philosophy pieces, including those more critical in nature. I prefer, in a strictly relative sense, more systematic criticisms to individual/subject-centered ones. So, for example, I tend to be a better judge for Afropessimism compared to those focused on embodied performance.

CP: I'm probably about one standard deviation more willing than the average judge to err aff on counterplan theory PROVIDED the affirmative does the work throughout the rebuttals beyond just reading extensions. The theoretical validity of some of the jankier counterplans (cc: Lopez) strikes me as seriously questionable, but again, the aff needs to do the work. Incidentally….

Theory: I don't presume to reject the argument and not the team unless prompted.

T: Yes, please. I am very drawn to arguments about grammar and syntax. Like all judges I do think demonstrating actual impacts to debatability are good and well but am quite fine with the point that words mean things.

DA: <3. While I do broadly accept the standard model of debate (and offense/defense more specifically), I can be convinced that there is functionally zero risk of a link or impact. That the chance of something happening is so low as to be the equivalent of statistical white noise=terminal defense.

A pet peeve: "fiat is an illusion". Absent specific contextualization to the round or an on-the-nose card, please, no. I have yet to hear a round where this argument was deployed in a manner that made me think “I’m really glad we had a discussion of how nothing happens when the judge votes aff” at the end of the day. Note: in the years since I first put this in my paradigm I have continued to hear and vote off of this line of argument. So it certainly is viable in front of me-though I don't like it.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I have judged plenty of both national-circuit and old-school LD rounds and am comfortable with either. Value/criterion is useful but not necessary.

Public Forum:

You will find I have high expectations for evidence quality and am quite flow-oriented. Doing well in front of me in PF involves:

-directly answering your opponent's arguments. Directly refute what they said. I'm not going to spot you a link

-explicit impact calculus

-being attuned to the flow

My preferences for judging a debate are: 1) That debaters not speed spread, if I can't follow your arguments it's hard to persuade me. It also makes for a better Public Forum debate if everyone can follow the main arguments. 2) That crossfire be cordial, being rude and/or cutting a speaker off will lose you points. 3) I prefer that your evidence support your argument, not that it tangentially might apply. I also an extensive background in speech and debate as a high school student and as a high school Speech & Debate Coach and a speech Judge.

***I've only judged a couple of tournaments this year, so I won't be as used to some of your top speeds***

Kyle Kopf (He/Him/His)

West Des Moines Valley High School ‘18 || University of Iowa '22 || Iowa Law '26

I want to be on the email chain (but I do my best to not flow off of it): krkopf@gmail.com

Conflicts: Iowa City West High School, West Des Moines Valley High School

Bio: I coached Iowa City West LD for 5 years. I debated LD for Six Years. Received one bid my junior year and 3 my senior year.

I don't like long paradigms so I did my best to keep this as short as possible. My opinions on debate aren't what matters anymore. I try to be as tech as possible and not intervene.

OVERVIEW:

I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument (Phil, Theory, K, policy, T, etc), I will only drop you for offensive arguments within that style (for example, using a policy AC to say racism is good). That being said, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for my familiarity with styles:

Phil – 1

Theory/T – 1

K - 1

Policy - 2

Tricks - 3

Online Debate:

-Please speak at like 70-80% of your top pace, I'll be much more likely to catch your arguments and therefore vote for you if you actually slow and don't rely on me shouting "slow" or "clear" a lot. Also, slow down extra on underviews, theory, and author names because I'm extra bad at flowing those.

-Please keep a local recording in case your speech cuts out to the point where I miss arguments. If you do not there is no way for me to recover what was missed.

-I find myself flowing off the doc more with online debate than I do normally

-If you think there are better norms for judging online I should consider, feel free to share before the round!

-I will always keep my camera on when debaters are speaking. Sometimes I turn my camera off during prep time. Feel free to ask me to turn my camera on if I forget.

SPEAKS:

Based on strategy, quality of discourse, fun, creativity etc. NOT based on speaking style. I will shout “clear” as needed without reducing speaks.

SPEED:

Don’t start speech at top speed, build up to it for like 10 seconds. Slow down significantly on author names and theory underviews.

IDENTITY AND SAFETY:

Firstly, I've stuttered for my entire life, including the 6 years I was in debate. Speech impediments will not impact speaks or my evaluation of the round whatsoever. I default shouting “clear” if needed (I always preferred being told to clear than losing because the judge didn’t understand me) so please tell me if you prefer otherwise.

Secondly, If there is anything else related to identity or anything else that might affect the round, please let me know if you feel comfortable doing so.

Ks:

This is what I primarily read in high school. I’m familiar with K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc.

Theory/T:

I read some theory although significantly less than Ks. Since I've started coaching I've become a lot more familiar with theory strategy. Assuming literally no argument is made either way, I default:

- No RVI

- Competing Interps

- Drop the debater on theory and T

- Text of interp

- Norms creation model

- “Converse of the interp/defending the violation” is sufficient

Phil:

I started reading phil in high school and I coach a lot of phil now. I'm comfortable in these debates.

Tricks:

I'll vote on just about anything with a claim warrant and impact.

Policy:

While I never debated policy arguments in high school, I've judged a lot of policy-style rounds and am much more comfortable with them now.

Postrounding:

I think post-rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, prevent hacking, etc. Always feel free to post-round me. I'll be VERY strict about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).

Misc:

*If you're kicking a CP or K, you need to explicitly say "kick the CP/K", not extending is not sufficient to kick

*All arguments must have some sort of warrant. The warrant doesn’t have to be good or true

*If an argument is new in the 2, I will disregard it even if it’s not pointed out. To clarify, you still should point it out in case I missed it.

Pronouns: She/her/hers

Pre-req: I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence, rape, or suicide/suicidal ideations that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.

I believe that problematic arguments are problematic whether the opposing team points them out or not. I believe that this is not a space where any argument can be made. Problematic arguments at minimum impact the people in the round and can impact discourse outside of the round. I want the opposing team to point out problematic arguments and abuse. However, arguments that promote sexism, racism, or other forms of hate will not be persuasive for me and are likely to result in a down ballot.

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language

Speed: I don't like speed. Learning how to talk fast has no post-debate benefit, so I do not support it as a strategy in an educational debate round. I can follow fast talking, but if you are spreading, then I will put down my pen and stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it probably means I am confused; either because you are going too fast, or I don't understand what you are saying.

Style: I need to have a weighing mechanism in PF debate. I need to know how to decide who won the round, otherwise I will get very frustrated. I do not want to decide using my own metrics, I want YOU to tell me how to judge the round. I will be using this weighing mechanism as I look at my flow to decide who won the round.

I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round.

Evidence This is also very important to me. By that I mean that I need evidence that is clearly cited and explained. Actually READ me your evidence, don't just give me your summary of the evidence. Analytical arguments are great, and I will vote there, but when disagreement is happening about what may or may not be true about the topic, I would like to hear evidence. This should also connect back to your weighing mechanism.

I also like to hear evidence in the rebuttal. If you are responding with an analytical argument to an argument that has evidence, I need you to do the work of explaining to me why your analytical argument is sufficient to off-set the argument with evidence. You can do this by telling me that sense the argument doesn't make sense/has a fallacy, then it doesn't stand even with evidence. Or you can make an analytical argument about the evidence itself. Otherwise, I am likely going to still prefer the argument with evidence.

Please call for evidence in a timely manner. Please use an email chain or the evidence sharing that Tabroom provides. I want to be included on the email chain.

If there is conflict about evidence, I need you to do the work of telling me why I prefer your evidence over your opponent's evidence. Just telling me, "It post dates," is not sufficient. What has changed since that date? Why is your source more reliable? Otherwise, I will just get frustrated.

If your opponent asks for evidence, per the NSDA rules, you need to provide them with the cut card and the full article in a way that allows everyone to see and read the evidence. I expect to be included in any email chain, so I can also see the card that was called for. I also expect this exchange of evidence to happen promptly (less than 30 seconds) when asked.

If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot.

On a related note, I do not believe that everything needs to be quantified. Just because numbers cannot or are not put to an impact, does not mean that it cannot be weighed. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to impacts to human beings. I do not find the argument, "we don't know how many people will be impacted," persuasive.

Prep Time: I expect competitors to keep track of their own time. I will also be keeping track of prep time. This will be official time used. If you use all of your prep time before the end of the round, I expect you to start speaking promptly. That means you should take no more than 10 seconds to begin your next speech.

Background: I am a math teacher, so if you are going to throw around math terms and mathematics, you need to be certain that you know what you are talking about and are correct. As an example, there is a difference between exponential, linear, and geometric growth, so make sure you say the right one.

I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college.

I am not a LD debater, so I have minimal understanding of the theory and technical arguments that exist within LD. You can absolutely still make those arguments, but you need to make sure that you are explaining those terms, otherwise I will be lost and frustrated.

I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)

Thomas Mayes

I do not want to be on the e-mail chain.

He/him/his

You are likely to run into me at Iowa tournaments. I nearly always judge LD. (I judge P/F and Policy on rare occasion. Following my LD paradigm in those events would serve you well also.)

Please keep in mind the following three things, which apply to any form of argument you may consider using:
1. Tell me what to prefer.
2. Tell me why to prefer it.
3. Tell me that you did what I should prefer (at least better than your adversary).

Although I have been around LD since the earth cooled, I have no views about how LD should be. I am not tied to a historical ideal of the activity. In my view, the nature of the activity is to be resolved by coaches, competitors, and competition committees. My job is to evaluate the round that is presented to me, as it is presented to me. I evaluate rounds based on their internal competitiveness, not against some external standard of goodness.

I have no default "positions" or evaluative mechanisms. I will listen to any type of argument. If there is weighing to do, please do it. Since this is a competitive activity, I must award a ballot to someone. If there is no reason to affirm or negate at the end of the round, and I am left to my own devices (meaning neither competitor has done a good job of attending to the three items above), I will penalize the debater who made the biggest strategic error by assigning that debater the loss. Since this is a competitive activity, I will be constrained by any instructions on the ballot (such as instructions regarding burdens, speaker point allocations, etc.).

I am fairly generous with speaker points, tending to cluster around a 27.5 on the customary 1-30 scale. To ensure I remain generous, (1) be smart, (2) be authentic, (3) be decent to your adversary, (4) be clever, and (5) keep trying and pressing your positions until the timer goes off (even if you think you're losing).

Background: I have degrees from Baylor, Iowa, and Lehigh. I have been a practicing attorney for many years and am currently general counsel for the Iowa Department of Education. My favorite things are running, spicy food, caffeine, collecting passport stamps, and Luka Doncic.

I debated for 5 years at WDM Valley. I qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year. I am attending Iowa State University to study Computer Engineering, Physics, and Math.

Overview: You can literally do whatever you want and I will do my best to evaluate the round as tab as I can. I can flow fast only if you are clear. I am comfortable with any argument being made in the round, but would prefer that your arguments follow some sort of logic or justification. I debated framework and theory, but feel fine judging any type of debate. I decide a winner by evaluating offense to what ever framing mechanism is won in the debate, therefore doing weighing will put you ahead.

As a debater I was most comfortable debating under a truth testing, debate is a game paradigm. I will not vote for you because you run a trolly a priori. I will vote for you if you run a trolly a priori and win the argument as a voter.

I only consider arguments made in the round. If I don't understand an argument I will not vote on it. I will not do any work for either debater. Do not let the debate get to that point and you'll be fine.

Tips and Tricks for a Big Win:

1) I have bias for arguments I think are creative
2) Making it clear what offense you are going for (including overviews/voters) makes it easier for me to give you a ballot
3) Have fun and be nice

4)Don't say hyperreality is bad

Speaks:
1) I will average a 28.5-29.5 (not sure how high this is so it may change as I become a more experienced judge)
2) 27- ok, 28-good, 29 -great, 30 -best
3) if you want speaks please ask me privately after the round and I will tell you

Edited 5/5/2022

I'm gonna put this right at the beginning: if you read 3 or more offs in the 1N, especially if they are unrelated and/or constitute a performative contradiction, I am going to give the aff SO much leeway in responding to them it's not even funny.

Please go slow. It's been a while since I've judged and I'm out of practice on following speed. A little bit faster than conversational speed is fine but not much.

About me: I have a BA in philosophy. I did primarily LD in high school, but I also found varying levels of success in PF, World Schools, Policy, and Big Questions.

I enjoyed k debate in HS and that's what I prefer to judge, but I can be persuaded to vote on almost anything.

In general, I just want to see a good debate with a lot of clash. Quality over quantity and truth over tech (although tech still matters). I will do the very best I can to be impartial and vote only off of what is said in round, but like everyone I do have some preconceived biases and ideas about how debate should be.

Specifically:

Ks regarding oppression are a good strategy in front of me. We have so many systemic problems in this world and I'd love to see a discussion on the best way to fix them. I love performance. If you wrote a poem or something, please read it in front of me. A poem (or something else of that nature) can be an argument!

I don't care if you're topical (or if neither debater likes the current topic and wants to debate a different one), but I am sympathetic to the fact that not everyone has access to the resources needed to learn how to be successful at non-topical of debate, and am therefore sympathetic to theoretical criticisms of non-topical affs.

I studied philosophy in an analytic department. I do not particularly care for continental philosophy, but I'll listen to it and vote on the arguments if they are well-explained and won. I'm familiar with the literature and extremely critical of it from a Marxist feminist perspective, so it's probably an uphill battle.

Theory has the potential to be so interesting, but it almost never is. I would love to see a good, fresh, in-depth theory debate. The actual argument is more important to me than the structure/community norms around what a theory shell "should" look like. As long as there's something to the effect of "the other team did something bad, here's why it's bad, and here's why that means you should disregard their argument/vote against them" you're good.

I don't particularly care for policy-making type arguments in LD, but I'll listen. I'm much more interested in policy strategies to solve real problems. I'm very sympathetic to theory against hyper-specific plans that significantly limit the neg's ground. I believe in the distinction between LD and policy debate.

Framework-heavy cases also have the potential to be really good and cool but almost never are. I want to hear some good philosophy; keep in mind if you're reading anything analytic I have likely read the source literature. I don't like spikes or "a prioris" and I'm probably not going to vote for you based on one quick sentence that you said in the AC that the neg missed. I probably missed it too tbh. (Update: this is especially true for online rounds. Straight up, I seriously doubt I will vote on a spike in the aff framework. If you're questioning whether your argument is a spike it probably is)

I was never that great with speed so please slow down for me at least for tags. If I miss something important that's on you. I would so rather you slow down and take the time to make one or two really strong arguments than speed through 12 blips. (Again, especially true for online rounds)

Humor is great and I don't care if you swear. I also don't care if you sit or stand or wander around the room during speeches and cx.

I'm straight up not going to tolerate racism, misogyny, homophobia, ableism or any type of bigotry. Trigger warnings are important, but the line between something that needs one and something that doesn't is often fuzzy in debate rounds, so I have a hard time voting on theory related to them (but I will if need be).

If you have any other questions/comments/concerns, feel free to email me at ottingjo@gmail.com. Also, yes, I do want to be on the email chain. Just go ahead and add me.

I am a fairly traditional judge but will listen to most any argument as long as it applies to the Resolution.

Please listen to your opponents arguments and have your rebuttal address their arguments.

I can listen to speed to a certain extent, but would rather not to have to tell you to slow down if I cannot hear the argument I cannot judge the argument.

I have coached and judged debate for 19 years.

I will not disclose in round unless told by the tournament to do so.

About me:

- Pronouns are she/her

- I debated for WDM Valley for 4 years - policy for 3 years and LD for 1 year. Graduated in 2017.

- Currently in my first year of law school at the University of Richmond.

- Primarily a k debater, faves were fem rage, Nietzsche, and Deleuze.

- I've been out of the activity for a hot min, so I'm not as up to date on the literature anymore. Just be clear and weigh your offense plsssss. I like cool strats and I like sass (don't be snarky or rude tho pls, especially if there's an obvious skill differential between you and your opponent. No one likes a jerk).

- Add me to the email chain: manasisingh2017@gmail.com

In general, I think debate should be whatever you want it to be. As I see it, it’s up to the debaters to tell me what is or isn’t important in deciding the round, and I think it’s important that you use the debate space as a way to hone new skills and learn how to think creatively. Here is a list of my random thoughts about debate:

1. I don’t care what you read in the round; I will reward smart strategies/punish messy work

2. Fairness is harder to prove than education/skills.

3. There’s no such thing as a bad argument – just bad debating

4. Speed is good, but clarity is better. I have a high threshold for speed, so I'll say slow or clear a reasonable amount of times, but don't make me work hard to understand you.

5. I love kritiks, but that doesn’t mean that’s what you should read in front of me. Debate what you like debating, and do it well

6. Phil debates are hard for me to flow, so slow down a little. I was never a phil debater, so don't assume I know the exact implications of your args, otherwise you might not like the conclusions/decisions I come to.

7. Crossex is a valuable tool that not enough people take advantage of. That said, arguments made in cx are way more persuasive if they’re grounded in your speeches

8. I’m a sucker for creative strategies, and I LOVE creative cross-applications

***Everything above does not include blatantly offensive statements. Be mindful of what you say and be respectful.

Greetings All,

I am a debate coach of over 20 years. I have coached Policy, Public Forum, Congress and Lincoln-Douglas Debate. My favorite is L-D, but only if you DO NOT SPREAD! I have judged at Nationals and have watched some of the best debater's in the country debate the issues, they don't cram a bunch of junk into the round.

If you prepared a good case, defend it, respect your opponent (don't be rude) and can counter your opponent you have a strong chance of winning the round.

I expect a value, the means to measure it and contentions (main arguments).

I DO NOT LIKE CRITIQUES! All your opponent has to do in the round in my book is to call you out for it and your opponent will get the win.

I expect you to be able to explain your points and defend them in CX and flow your arguments into your rebuttal. DO NOT BRING IN NEW EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENTS INTO REBUTTALS. Give me examples or context, so you can apply your case to the resolution. I need you to show me that you comprehend the resolution and how to apply values to it. The more you explain or give me context, the more convinced I am of your comprehension of your case and it will increase the chance of a winning ballot.

I strongly suggest that you pull your value through at every turn you can (within each contention), try to bring it into CX and of course the rebuttal. You can drop your value and value criteria if you accept your opponent, but this is risky and not recommended. At the end of your constructive and rebuttal summarize why you won!

Again, DO NOT SPREAD! If I can hear you breathe you have likely already lost the round!

I have been teaching public speaking for over 25 years. There are few careers that benefit from SPREADING! I make it a point to remind students of this!

I have judged mostly PF and have just a little LD experience. I come from a speech and theatre background, so I expect you to speak clearly. I can flow fairly quickly, but I give a lot of weight to making your arguments clear and supported. I judge on logical ideas that are well supported not the minutiae LD.

Please, look at me as much as possible!

Randy Stone

Debated for Des Moines Roosevelt (LD) from 2007-2011

Debated for University of Iowa (Policy) from 2011-2012

I am judging infrequently - but am comfortable with speed and flow based arguments/strategies. Speed is fine- make sure it's clear. Have no oppositions to any form of argument as long as you are not racist/sexist/hateful to your opponents. Clear crystallization/voters is important to me!