I value a good mix of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in a debate. Lincoln-Douglas debate is about the value clash; I expect to see debtors using philosophy and moral arguments.

Interpretation events paradigms:

I have no problem with materials that are edgy or considered "triggering" - this are events that are meant to raise awareness of issues and to allow competitors to push boundaries. Please do not chew gum.

Speaking events paradigms:

I have no problem with materials that are edgy or considered "triggering" - this are events that are meant to raise awareness of issues and to allow competitors to push boundaries.

Debate events paradigms:

I expect competitors to speak clearly and not race through their points. Quality over quantity is important to me. If I can't understand you, then I have a hard time voting for your side. I like evidence, evidence, evidence. I want your points backed up with valid sources. I expect civility - debate can happen without being rude and disrespectful.

I am a very traditional judge for all events. 

LD - This is a value debate, so both debaters should have a value and criteria with which to weigh them. The debate centers around whether something should be done, not how it can be done. I don't want to see plans or generic critiques, or hear that we cannot solve. LD is about whether an action is good, moral, right, practical, maybe even feasible, but not about the nuts and bolts of implementation. There should be philosophical arguments, and direct clash. Everyone needs to ne nice, and speed should be kept to a comfortable flowing pace.

I am a traditional LD judge with 35 years of experience in the event. V and VC are important to me as well as use of evidence, logic, flow of the debate, as well as speaker quality. No games please, no new fangled theory attacks and/or maneuvering. Just debate straight up and let the best person win. In summery if I were to hire a lawyer, I would pick the debater who I would feel most comfortable representing me in court. I would not pick the debater who wasn't respectful or who might sway the jury against me due to their speed or overly aggressive style.

I have judged zero NDT/CEDA debates this season.  This means that if you choose to pref me, you will have to explain your arguments.  Do not assume I am familiar with the current trajectory of the topic.  I have judged at least 26 NPDA debates.  I have been involved in NDT/CEDA debate since 1991. I debated at the University of Utah in NDT style debate from 1991-1995.  I was an assistant coach at the University of Kansas from 1995-2001.  I have been the Director of Debate at Idaho State since 2001. 

I understand debate theory.  I also believe debate is for the debaters.  So, I think that the debaters need to establish the specific paradigms within debate and defend those paradigms.  I do vote on theory/t with the caveat that it needs to be developed and not too blippy.  If it is too fast for me to flow, I won't vote for it.  My flow is pretty good but not perfect.  Also, I am from Idaho State which means I think it is possible to develop external offense against topicality and theory positions - you must beat these positions if you want to win a topicality violation.

I try to read a minimal amount of evidence after the debate.  I want the debaters to explain their arguments, to convince me to vote for them, and to highlight sections of the evidence that they believe are relevant. The debater's job is to communicate an argument to the judge. This means that arguments that are key parts of your strategy should be explained. I do not consider a list of jargon (for policy or critcal debates) clear explanation.

Evidence is important to the way that I decide debates but, it is not paramount. The debaters' arguments and explanations are much more important. Arguments about the spin on evidence or the quality of the evidence are always helpful in my judging process and are usually necessary to make me read much the evidence after the debate.

I can usually follow fast debating.  But, I prefer about 85%-90% of top speed.  I find that debaters could often be more persuasive and efficient while going a little slower.  If your strategy is to spread people out of the debate, I will probably be irritated. 

If you have questions, feel free to ask.     

I want the debaters to be respectful of each other and of the judge or judges in the debate.  Debate is a community and a family for so many.  The connections you make now will be with you for the rest of your lives.  Please be resepctful and nice to each other and to me.

kplunkett@stmdhs.org for cases/cards

Traditional judge, I prefer no spreading or Ks. I won't take off for them, but I encourage you not to! I have judged policy rounds but am by no means a policy judge, if it's possible to debate a little slower that's appreciated, but I understand that you may not have a case cut short enough to make that happen.

• The easiest way to earn speaks is to clarify the voting issues and prove how and why you outweigh. I'll weigh the round based on the criteria you give me, so be sure to give me a metaphorical rubric!
• I'm a tabula rasa, so I'll vote exactly how you tell me. Hit your framework/V/VCs early and often.
• I like to see claim-warrant-impact. I flow what you say, not what I think you mean.
• Spreading will not affect your speaks, but I prefer conversational speed and good delivery. Quality, not quantity, for arguments.
• Cards should be clearly cited and available for review should there be a conflict over source validity or context. Clipping will not be tolerated.
• Signpost - reference the contention # or subpoint in speeches and CX.
• CX is for questions, not rebuttals.

I flow carefully, and I look for who has command of the round in terms of content, organization, and delivery. I love when you give me a clear reason for decision in your closing speech, and I tend to be swayed by weighing arguments. Debate is a public speaking activity, so I will pay attention to presentation.

C-X: Tabula Rasa paradigm. Tell me why your argument is the correct choice for voting.

I am comfortable with all debate techniques and arguments.

LD: Utilitarian Moral Imperative: I vote generally for affirmative or negative based on who provides a moral imperative for voting. I believe in the greater good, a willing sacrifice of my own privileges to assure that society survives. Your case's values, criteria, etc. should explain how this is accomplished.

Public Forum: I consider this debate akin to a round table on a news station. I'll be the anchor, and the debaters will be the "experts." The winner is the most convincing.

Congress: Sound like a senator/rep. I'm most interested in who commands the room. Politics are verbally abusive, so be firm in your speeches.

All the other stuff: Do well, don't screw up, keep to time limits. Be respectful as an audience member.

All Events:

-On the clock roadmaps

-Speak at a speed/rate that the judge and audience can understand

LD Debate:

-Value/Value Clash is Prioritized

-Use of analytical and empirical evidence