I have both competitive experience and coaching experience. When I was in college I did NPDA and IPDA. As a coach, I have successfully coached students to attain national success in NPDA, IPDA, Public Forum and NFA-LD.

Overall I feel that debate is a game, other than the obvious rules of the game (time limits, speaker order, resolution) I feel the debaters set the tone for the debate. I am a critical judge that prefers to hear K's or projects. While this is my preference, I can act as a policy maker if this is what you need me to do. Give me voters, do not make me decide what is important, it may cost you the round. Also give me structure, if you do not number your arguments separately than I am okay with your opponent collapsing your six arguments into one. Remember to signpost, it is important. Debaters should remember that I am not voting for good positions; I am voting for good arguments. A superior position is nothing if it does not take advantage of the superior arguments that make it a superior position. To win my ballot, out-impact your opponent. Impacts may be ideological or real world. It is a lack of weighing impacts that usually forces judge intervention. If you do the work for me, I won’t have to do it on my own.

I do not like to intervene as a judge; this means that it is your responsibility to give me everything I need to vote for you so that I am not forced to fill in gaps or assumptions. If you want me to vote on topicality, tell me why I should vote on topicality. If you tell me that your position has more advantages, tell me why this means you should win. If this isn’t done, I will resort to whatever decision criteria are advocated in the debate or impose one of my own if no such criteria are offered.

I have no problem voting on topicality or on critical arguments, but they must be structured. If your opponents are forcing either of these positions you must explain why your stance does not bite topicality or the critical argument, "because it doesn’t" is not sufficient argumentation. I HATE POSITIONS THAT ARE JUST TIME SKEWS. If your opponent fails to structure the topicality or critical argument, point that out, give me an RVI and move on, I will not vote on the theory arguments if they are not structured.

The Flow: A dropped argument means nothing if you don’t tell me why it matters. Weigh it for me. I won’t vote for you just because the other team dropped arguments. Also, two or three well developed strong arguments are better than ten undeveloped arguments.

Debate as a Forum of Communication: Being rude is not acceptable; play nice or I will dock your speaker points. I am average when it comes to my acceptance threshold of speed. I have grown tired of judging debates where a team simply out spreads their opponents. Please do not use speed as a weapon within the debate space. If you are going too fast I will give you two "clear" warnings before it impacts you in round. When speed comes into conflict with clarity, I always prefer clarity.

As 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.

I’ve coached forensics for seven years. My experience is primarily with IPDA, but I’ve judged PF, Words, Parli, and LD. I like to see well-organized arguments that have clear case layout and real-world impacts. I don’t like rounds going to nuclear war, or similar extreme impacts. I won’t vote on kritiks in parli. I want to see the resolution debated. I believe that debate should be focused on the discourse aimed at solving real problems.

Enjoy the round, and have fun while debating. I love a friendly round and always love a bit of humor and fun ina debate round.

TLDR: This is your round - do what you want, tell me how I should vote, and don't be mean.

I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of 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. If there is debate about that criteria, make sure the theory is clear and there are specific reasons why one framework is preferable to the other. That framework is what I will follow, so please don't set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits 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, and something tangible for me to vote on. Absent that, I have to intervene. There are no specific arguments that I prefer over others. 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 or present narratives that you don't want to be attached to the currency of a ballot, which is what presenting the narrative in the round really comes down to. 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. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well.

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 altogether.

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, and then having it 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 a team). Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.

Speed is not a problem if it is clear, but never be used to exclude others from the round.

Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what could have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is really just you saying think you should have won on that argument.

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 ill-advised.

I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.

Hi friend,

This is my first year out as a judge. This is my first paradigm as a judge, so, idk take from that what you will. I competed for 4 years at Boise State University. My argumentative background mainly consists of Lacanian psychoanalysis and critical security studies. My last year of competition involved a pretty steamy affair with 1-off disads and big stick affs though, so I wouldn't say I have a preference for any particular kind of argument. I just wanna see clash, impact comparison, and people loving/empathizing with one another.

Specifics:

Theory: I was never really that good at theory, but I've been impressed before. Theory is cool and all, but I'm not super great at flowing it, so please slow down a bit here. I understand theory as an advocacy, and sort of weigh the impacts that the implementation of one interpretation over another produces. So, idk, do some work on impact comparison/analysis. I tend to default to 'competing interpretations', so like, make sure your interpretation is competitive. I used to perm theory shells in college, so I guess that's something you could probably do in front of me too.

DA/CP: Nothing impresses me quite like a 1-off disad. I don't really like condo which is surprising given my fear of commitment. IDK, flow Freud across here. I put a pretty heavy emphasis on impact comparison, so don't just throw a bunch of impacts at me, explain how they interact with the aff, the aff's impacts, and why it means you win and they lose. I like argument summaries and applications to other arguments on the flow.

Kritiks: I like 1-off kritiks. I also like thesis level explanations of arguments. I've read a lot of K literature, but my interest has mainly been in Lacanian psychoanalysis, so keep that in mind before you debut your sick Deleuze aff in front of me. My literature degree doesn't mean that you don't have to summarize/explain things though. I really value application of arguments and the comparison between competing truth claims, and that's especially important for these kinds of arguments. I'm sensitive to graphic depictions of violence, especially in performances and the impact page, so keep that in mind and please be gentle, particularly with LGBT issues.

Case: I like cases that just make sense. I'm a sucker for a good nuclear war scenario. I won't automatically extend case for you, and I won't automatically contextualize the aff to theory without you doing that kind of work for me.

Performances: I was mostly a K debater in college, but never really got into performances. I think that these arguments have a place in the community and provide education/empowerment to people which I really like. I also think that treading carefully here is good though because I have been on the receiving end of having to answer back performances I really agreed with, and having the other team not be particularly kind, gentle, or empathetic to my position interacting with these arguments on the negative. I don't really buy that empowerment is a zero sum game. I'm sensitive to graphic depictions of violence, especially in performances and the impact page, so keep that in mind and please be gentle, particularly with LGBT issues.

Mack Sermon- College of Western Idaho

Bachelor of Science: Social Science- Boise State University 1991

Master of Arts: Communication- Notre Dame 2016

1980-1984 Competitor Skyline HS, Idaho Falls, Idaho

1984-1990 Competitor Boise State University

1986-1987 Director of Speech & Debate, Skyline HS, Idaho Falls, Idaho

1990-1993 Assistant Speech & Debate Coach, Boise State University

1996-2012 Director of Speech & Debate, The College of Idaho

2012-2015 Assistant Speech & Debate Coach, Utah State University

2015-2017 Assistant Speech & Debate Coach, College of Western Idaho

I have about 35 years experience in competition, judging and coaching, mostly in the Great Northwest. I have significant experience with IEs, NDT, CEDA, NPDA, IPDA and NFC-LD. 

Debates should focus on Aristotle’s Big 3: ethos, pathos and logos- and keeping it fun and educational.

-Your character, ethos, is established in and out of the debate by your behavior with opponents, teammates, me and others. Please treat everyone with respect and friendship.

-Emotion, or pathos, is demonstrated by the conviction and selection of your arguments and fairness to your opponents. Your delivery should make me believe that you really care about the issue.

-To me, logos is most important. A case must be logical. This requires that you make a claim, provide proof of some sort, develop a warrant, then pull it all together for a case. Please, please, do not simply make claims and expect me to accept them as truth.

-Speed: Sure I could talk as fast as any of them, but I really dislike debaters who purposely garble their presentation. I tolerated it in policy debate because at least I could look at their evidence after the round. In NPDA, what am I supposed to look at, your flow? Also, you can be persuasive when speaking fast.

-I’m fine with counterplans if you meet the requirements of a counterplan- I’m bored by agent change, study, and delay counterplans. But I’ll listen.

-I will listen to Topicality, procedurals or structured definition arguments but since you are basically accusing your opponents of “breaking the rules”, presumption is with the AFF. I sort of like Specification arguments but I don’t always vote for them.

-I’m not opposed to the concept of the Kritik but I only voted for them about 30-40% in true policy debate-- less in NPDA and IPDA. There just isn’t enough time in the shorter forms, without substantial evidence, to perform the type of dialectic discussion that Aristotle advocates, so a Kritik is often too complex to work. However, you are welcome to give it a shot.

-It’s unlikely that you will win on a single dropped subpoint- unless it’s really, really important. Give me a framework to evaluate the round. Show me the big picture to justify my ballot.

-I really prefer a straight up debate on the heart of the topic. Case versus Disads, impact and link comparisons. Straight refutation. I’m old-school, yes, and just generally old. But, I think I am a fair judge and willing to evaluate the debate without using my preferences against you.