FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Alyssa Sambor - Texas Tech

n/a

Anthony Cavioni - CSU

Billie Harvey - Utah

I will make this short and sweet, because I am.  I am open to any arguments, but I tend to lean towards Policy Making. As far as spreading goes, please just make sure you can be understood. If not, I will shout "CLEAR!" just once, so please adjust. I want clash. I don't usually vote for theory or critiques that aren't sufficiently linked to the Aff. Don't waste my time or your opponents. Overall, just debate. I want good argumentation. One thing that I will not tolerate in a round is bad attitude. Be nice. This is suppose to be fun and educational. Once you cross the line into being a jerk, I put my pen down.

Caitlyn Burford - NAU

Burford, Caitlyn (Northern Arizona University) Background: This is my eigth year judging and coaching debate, and I spent four years competing in college. Please feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. Specific Inquiries 1. General Overview I think debate is a unique competitive forum to discuss issues within our rhetoric about the state, power, race, gender, etc. in a space that allows us to rethink and critically assess topics. This can come through a net benefit analysis of a proposed government plan, through a micro political action or statement, through a critique, or through some other newfangled performance you come up with. In that sense, I think debate is a rhetorical act that can be used creatively and effectively. Running a policy case about passing a piece of legislation has just as many implications about state power and authority as a critique of the state. The differences between the two types just have to do with what the debaters choose to discuss in each particular round. There are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. Thus, framework is imperative. I’ll get there shortly. You can run whatever you want as long as a) you have a theoretical justification for running the position, and b) you realize that it is still a competitive debate round so I need a reason to vote for something at some point. (a.k.a Give me a framework with your poetry!). 2. Framework This often ends up as the most important part of a lot of debates. If both teams are running with net benefits, great, but I still think there is area to weigh those arguments differently based on timeframe, magnitude, structural weight, etc. This kind of framework can make your rebuttal a breeze. In a debate that goes beyond a net benefits paradigm, your framework is key to how I interpret different impacts in the round. Choose your frameworks strategically and use them to your advantage. If the whole point of your framework is to ignore the case debate, then ignore the case debate. If the whole point of your framework is to leverage your case against the critique, then tell me what the rhetorical implications (different than impacts) are to your case. 3. Theory It’s important to note that theory positions are impact debates, too. Procedural positions, topicalities, etc. are only important to the debate if you have impacts built into them. If a topicality is just about “fairness” or “abuse” without any articulation as to what that does, most of these debates become a “wash”. So, view your theory as a mini-debate, with a framework, argument, and impacts built into it. 4. Counterplan Debate This is your game. I don’t think I have a concrete position as to how I feel about PICS, or intrinsicness, or textual/functional competition. That is for you to set up and decide in the debate. I have voted on PICS good, PICS bad, so on and so forth. That means that it all has to do with the context of the specific debate. Just make your arguments and warrant them well. Unless I am told otherwise, I will assume the CP is unconditional and my role as a judge it to vote for the best advocacy. 5. Round Evaluation Again, framework is important. Procedurals, case debate, and critique debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality/procedurals, then the case. Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team. (Again, this is only absent any sort of weighing mechanism for any of the arguments.) If there is a topicality/procedural run without any voters, I won’t put them in for you and it will be weighed against the case. I will not weigh the case against the critique unless I am told how and why it can be weighed equally. A concrete argument is always going to have a bit more weight than an abstract argument. A clear story with a calculated impact will probably outweigh an uncalculated potential impact. (i.e. “15,000 without food” vs. a “decrease in the quality of life”). But, if you calculate them out and do the work for me, awesome. If I have to weigh two vague abstract arguments against each other, i.e. loss of identity vs. loss of freedom, then I will probably revert to the more warranted link story if I must. 6. Speed, Answering Questions, and Other General Performance Things I’m fine with speed. Don’t use it as a tool to exclude your other competitors if they ask you to slow down, please do. I don’t really care about how many questions you answer if any, but if you don’t then you are probably making yourself more vulnerable to arguments about shifts or the specificities of “normal means”. It’s your round! Do what you want!

Caleb Rawson - CCU

"My background is that I competed in parli for multiple years in college and now do some assistant coaching on the weekends while I get my PhD in Business. I’ve been told I am a very expressive judge so feel free to utilize that to your advantage. I hold to a very ideological view of debate, especially that access to debate (both as a competitor and as an audience member) should be open and non-discriminatory. This manifests itself in some of the following points.   -Courtesy. Both teams need to not only be polite with their words, but also with their nonverbal signals. If an opponent asks a question (and they should ask, and you should answer) be polite with your answer. Dramatic sighs or eye rolling will result in a significant drop in speaker points.   -Speed. Having debated I know that a fast speaking speed can be beneficial. However, your speed must be at an understandable pace for everyone in the room (including audience members). I will not flow anything I cannot understand and I will not call “clear” or tell you to slow down. If you talk fast you must pay attention to my nonverbals (i.e. do not read directly from a page at a fast pace and expect me to flow everything). -Probable Cause. Impacts, K’s, and abuse must be probable, not just possible. -Generic Politics Argument and Resolutional K’s. See above point. I don’t care if you “feel” the resolution is discriminatory or unfair, you must prove that it is. -Use rebuttals to actually refute your opponents and show why you win instead of using them like a constructive speech. That’s why debate has rebuttals in the first place…. I like to have fun as a judge and I like my competitors to have fun."

Chad Meadows - WKU

Debate should reward hard work. Your strategies and in round execution should reflect intensive research and thought about the topic/your opponents arguments. My speaker points AND ballot will be used to reinforce a curriculum that normalizes debate practices I believe are needed for the overall health of the community. 1 -Evidence Debate should be a referendum on the quality and quantity of research done first, and then a matter of execution later. I will reward debaters who do excellent and thorough research over debaters who have “slick tricks” to win debates. I think evidence is VERY important, its quality and qualifications should be debated. I will usually prefer excellent evidence to spin. When comparing a good card which was not well explained/had no spin vs. no card or a bad card with excellent spin I will typically prefer the good card. I will call for cards after the debate. I will generally only call for evidence which is referenced in the final two rebuttals. Refer to evidence by last name and date after it has been cited in the first instance. If you do not READILY share citations and evidence with your opponent in the round - I WILL be cranky, probably vote against you, or at the very least give you TERRIBLE speaker points. 2 - Speed/Flowing If speaking at a more rapid rate is used to advance more scholarship in the round, I encourage debaters to speak quickly. If speaking quickly devolves into assaulting the round with a barrage of bad arguments in the hope that your opponent will not clash with them all, my ballot and speaker points will not encourage this practice. I keep an excellent and detailed flow. However, winning for me is more about establishing a coherent and researched explanation of the world rather than extending a specific argument. An argument is not “true” because it is extended on one sheet of paper if it is logically answered by evidence on another sheet of paper or later on the line by line. You can check your rhetorical bullying at the door. Posturing, repeating yourself (even loudly), insulting your opponents (except during cross-x), or insisting that I will "ALWAYS vote here" are probably a waste of your time. 3 - Argument Selection Any argument that advances argument on the desirability of the resolution through valid decision making is persuasive. The source of argumentation should be left up to the debaters. I am very unlikely to be persuaded that the source of evidence justifies its exclusion. In particular I am unconvinced the methodology, epistemology, ontology, and other indicts pertaining to the foundation of the affirmative are unjustified avenues of research to explore in debate. Above all else, the content of your argument should not be used to duck clash. Specific Issues: 1 - Topicality is a voter and not a reverse voter. "Proving abuse" is irrelevant, well explained standards are not. 2 – The affirmative does not have to specify more than is required to affirm the resolution. I encourage Affirmatives to dismiss specs/vagueness and other procedurals without implications for the topicality of the affirmative with absolute disregard. 3 – Conditionality is logical, restraints on logical decision making are only justified in extreme circumstances.  4 – There is nothing implied in the plan. Consult, process, and other counterplans which include the entirety of the plan text are not competitive. 5 – I will decide if the counterplan is competitive by evaluating if the permutation is better than the counterplan alone or if the plan is better than counterplan. Ideological, philosophical, and redudancy standards for competiton are not persuasive and not useful for making decisions. 6 – I mediate my preferences for arguably silly counterplans like agent, international, and PICS/PECS primarily based upon the quality of the counterplan solvency evidence. 7 – Direction/Strength of link evidence is more important than “controlling uniqueness” This is PARTICULARLY true when BOTH sides have compelling and recent uniqueness evidence. Uniqueness is a strong factor in the relative probability of the direction of the link, if you don't have uniqueness evidence you are behind.  8 - I do not have a "threshold" on topicality. A vote for T is just as internally valid as a vote for a DA. I prefer topicality arguments with topic specific interpretation and violation evidence. I will CLOSELY evaluate your explanation on the link and impact of your standards. 9 - I am very unlikely to make a decision primarily based upon defensive arguments. <a href="mailto:chadwickmeadows@gmail.com">chadwickmeadows@gmail.com</a>

Chris Leland - CCU

Debate has always been and always will be an academic lab for the articulation of good argumentation.  I have competed, judged and coached programs at the university level in IE, CEDA, NDT and Parli.  As such I am not a novice to debate, but I am relatively new to some forms of theoretical arguments and especially the more recent lingo that surrounds them.  I have been out of coaching for 14 years, but have been putting into practice the debate skills in the public forum against philosophers, theolgians, cultural critics, politicians, free thinkers, etc.  So I have seen what debate does in the "real world."  As such I am not yet convinced that some of the culture of debate doesn't force us into a box that is really pretty particular to our little world.  I say that to say,  I am not opposed to T or "Kritique" (which I guess is the hip postmodern spelling) or any other theoretical arguments but I can say I would much rather see clearly articulated and communicated arguments that are well constructed and well thought out.  It is fair to say I have a much higher threshold for those types of arguments.  Debate, I recognize, is also about strategy, but not at the expense of solid argumentation.  Having coached CEDA and NDT and now Parli for the last couple of years, I can flow.  Have to use my glasses to see what I wrote, which is different from the good ol' days, but ...  I will say that the thing that has shocked me the most this year is the casual way in which language is thrown around.  I fully don't expect it at this tournament, but there is no room in academic debate (even with the idea of free speech in  mind) for foul language.  It is unprofessional and rude.  Might be considered cool for some, but it is not accepted in any of the professions for which we are training up this group to move onto in the future.  Otherwise, I am excited to be back in the debate realm the last couple of years.   Chris Leland, Ph.D. Asst. VP for Academic Affairs, Professor of Communication & Director of Debate Colorado Christian University

Chris Axtman - Carroll

n/a

Chris Sheid - WWCC

Danny Iberri-Shea - CSU

I am open to many different styles and formats of debate and debate theory.  Ultimately, I see debate as a game of intellectual chess.  Weigh out all impacts in the round and tell me why your side provides a superior philosophy, plan, or perspective.  Be offensive!  Control the agenda of the round.  The big picture of the debate (over a criteria) is just as important as the line-by-line.  I did CEDA, Parli, NFA LD, etc., and have coached many different formats of debate.  Control the variables in the debate (definitions, criteria, contentions, etc.), and then use those variables to your advantage.  Strike first, strike hard! - Danny :)

Darrin Hicks - DU

n/a

David Airne - U of M

4 years HS Policy; NDT 3 years and 1 year LD in college Coached HS Policy, HS LD, HS PF  NDT/CEDA, LD, IPDA and Parli for +10 years.   Upadated: January 2018 and also on Tabroom.com The quick overview to my judging is really simple. I judge things on what happens in the context of the round and it is up to those in the round to write that ballot for me. If you do not write it for me then you leave it up to me and I do not really want to intervene in the round, so write the ballot for me. So use the rebuttals to write my ballot. Asking me what arguments I like is silly, run what you want and if you are winning it then I vote on it. If you run things I happen to not like that just means you might have a higher threshold needed to win it, but if you are winning it then I vote for it. I typically default into a policy maker, but I am happy to vote wherever the round takes me. Finally, I will openly admit I do not give the highest of speaker points when compared to others (26-28 is pretty typical) but good debate warrants higher speaks when it occurs. Any specific issues you want to know about continue reading or just ask me since I am happy to tell you. However, note I teach, research, and publish in political communication (campaigning) and gender (masculinties, in particular). Those issues are difficult, at times, for me to step away from and while you are not debating against me as the juege, it can make it more difficult for me to evaluate the argument because it those issues are ingrained in my head and I see them in different ways that you may be arguing those issues (especially in Parli since we do not have access to evidence, but in evidence based forms that is different). That does not mean that you cannot run those certain positions, but they get a differnet listen than other arguments due to my work in the area. Framework: If you have a framework be sure you explain how it functions for me in the round. Remember, I tend to default to policy maker so without a clear explanation of it I will use that lens in the framework. So you have to tell me how the AFF/NEG views compete with each other. Critical Stuff: Never have had any problem with it other than I do not like them run poorly and I am not a fan of running them in the 1NC with other contradictory positions so that you can pick which arguments are your winners. It does need to be well developed and explained, especially in forms of debate where there is no evidence that I get to read after the round. Otherwise, feel free to run whatever critical arguments you want but be sure you explain how it compares to the AFF or NEG so I see how it operates in the world. Doing those things make critical arguments always great to hear. Traditional Policy Arguments: All are fair game. Be sure that you give me some way to evaluate the impact and show me how it relates to the AFF/NEG. However things like "RVI", or "T is a voter for fairness and education" do need some form of explanation. Your unsubstantiated claims are not going to work so well against one that is supported and explained. Parli specific notes--Points of order: You are welcome to call them, but just know that they are all under consideration and that is how I will answer to all of them. I tend to feel that me ruling on them has to potential to provide some unfair advantage for the team and it feels like a form of intervention since now you know how I "feel" about an argument so I just default to the under consideration answer to avoid that perception/advantage one side might get from the argument. Any specific questions you have please feel free to ask and I am more than happy to answer.

Dayle Hardy-Short - NAU

Dayle Hardy-Short - Northern Arizona University Saved Philosophy: Background: I have not judged NPDA parliamentary debate this year--I have judged BP and Lincoln-Douglas. So my flowing is a little rusty. On speaker points, I look to such things as analysis, reasoning, evidence, organization, refutation, and delivery (delivery being only 1 of 6 considerations I made for speaker points). Thus, I virtually never give low-point wins because if a team "wins", then it has done something better than the other team (i.e., like had clearer organization or better arguments). Generally: Generally, I am open to most positions and arguments. I expect the debaters to tell me what they think I should vote on, and why. I appreciate clash. I will not do the work for the team. I believe that the affirmative/government has the responsibility to affirm the resolution and the negative/opposition has the responsibility to oppose the resolution or the affirmative. Such affirmation and opposition can appear in different forms. I feel pretty comfortable in my understanding of whether or not something is a new argument in rebuttals, and I will not vote in favor of new arguments--just because someone extends an argument does not mean it's new, and just because someone uses a new term does not mean the argument is new (they may be reframing a previously-articulated argument based on additional responses from the other team). I prefer debates in which debaters clearly explain why I should do what they think I should do. This includes explaining use of particular jargon and/or assumptions underlying it (for instance, if you say "condo bad", I may not necessarily understand in the heat of the debate that you're talking about conditionality versus something you live in; similarly I do not understand what “fism” is—you need to tell me). Do not assume that simply using a particular word means I will understand your argument (argument includes claim, explanation, and evidence of some kind). Please consider not only labeling the argument, but telling me what you mean by it. I will listen as carefully as possible to what's going on in your debate (I will try to adapt to what YOU say and argue). Do your debate, make your arguments, and I will do my best to weigh them according to what happened in the debate. I am not arrogant enough to think that I get everything on the flow, nor am I arrogant enough to claim that I understand everything you say. But if you explain important arguments, most of the time I can understand them. At least I will try. Topicality is a voting issue for me, and I listen to how teams set up the arguments; I consider it to be an a priori argument. I have an extremely wide latitude in terms of what affirmative can claim as topical within the scope of any given resolution. I don’t like T arguments that are ONLY about so-called abuse (indeed, I do not find them persuasive). I prefer that you focus on why the affirmative isn’t topical. Thus, I prefer in the round you explain why something is not topical (standards, alternative definitions, etc.), but you do not need to articulate abuse (which I define as "they're taking ground from us; they’ve ruined debate; or similar arguments”). I guess it does seem to me that if a case is truly non-topical, then it almost always follows that the position is unfair to the negative--as long as the negative came truly prepared to debate the topic. Thus, the negative does not need to belabor the point--say it and move on. I will assume your counterplan is unconditional, and if you think it should be otherwise, please explain and justify that position. With an articulated counterplan, then my job becomes to weigh the best advocacy with regard to the resolution. Please provide me (and the other team) with an actual CP plan text, so I can consider arguments about it as they are made (I really do prefer a written plan text, or please repeat it 2-3 times so I get it written down correctly). I certainly am not opposed to permutations, but please have a text that you can show me and your opponents. I am not opposed to critiques nor performance debate, but please be very very clear about why they should win and what criteria I should use to evaluate them and/or weigh them in the debate as a whole. Abstract impacts should be clearly demonstrated and explained, and concrete impacts need to have similar weight. A final note on speed and civility. I don't have particular problems with speed, but clarity is essential--clear speakers can speak very quickly and I will get the flow. I believe that debate is an important activity, both as an intellectual exercise and as a co-curricular activity in which we get to test classroom learning in a more pragmatic way (application and reductio ad absurdum), including communication skills and the extent to which arguments can go. The way we behave in rounds often becomes habit-forming. So show some respect for the activity, some respect for your opposition, and some respect for the judge. I'll try to keep up with you if you'll treat me like a human being. I will think through your arguments if you will give me arguments worth thinking through.

Dena Counts - ACU

I am the DOF at ACU.  I have been coaching Parli for the last 7 years.  For those last 7 years, I have judged on average 65 rounds per year.  This year I have been judging less but still should be able to keep up with you.   I vote with the better quality of argument. When I say better quality, I am looking for depth of arguments and warrants behind your claim. I attempt to remove my individual biases from the round and make debaters tell me where and why to vote. I understand that biases do seep into my judgments, but I do feel that I should make decisions based upon your argumentation – not my worldview. Probably, I’m more of a game player when it comes to a decision maker.  Love new and unique strategies. I really think almost anything goes in this thing called debate. I say "anything" as I don't like cursing, nakedness, or slurs, but strategy wise, you can do what you need to do to win. Know that I’m very expressive in my nonverbals. If I am getting your argument, you’ll know. If you’ve lost me, you should know from my nonverbals. I have only been coaching for five years, so there are times that super speed (not typically speed) can lose me. Again watch my nonverbals, and I’ll let you know. I flow, judge on the flow, and don’t do the work for you.  Use your rebuttal to tell me why you win and where on the flow your arguments overwhelm the teams.     Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.   1.     Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?  25 to 30 25 to 27 means you need work 28 to 30 means you are pretty awesome   2.     How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   Kritiks are great from both Aff and Neg. Explain your framework, impacts and give me a realistic alternative.  I do think you need an alternative and it shouldn't bite your story.  No I don’t think when you run other negative arguments they should contradict other neg positions unless through the running of those positions you are trying to make a point.     3.     Performance based arguments…  Great.  Just tell me how I should interpret them, how they function in the round.     4.     Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?   I will vote on T but would rather vote elsewhere. To pull that trigger in -round abuse is typically necessary. Also, competing interp is necessary.     5.     Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?  CP’s are fine. PICS are fine. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t run argumentation of why PICS are bad though. Yes, ID the status of the CP. PERM the CP every which way you can. If you can think of a new way to PERM that would be super fun.   6.     Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)  Yes that’s fine.     7.     In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?  Topicality is first.  Then I look to Criteria or Framework to tell me where to go.  Usually it is impacts or turns on case.  I REALLY like rebuttals that tell me where to vote and WHY to vote.     8.     How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? If you don’t tell me WHY your impact outweighs their impacts on timeline, magnitude or probability, you are gambling on my choice or priority.  I would probably go with concrete impacts over abstract ones.

Denis Sapranov - Regis

n/a

Duane Fish - Northwest

Parliamentary Debate is one in which the analysis and the argumentation are the critical elements. As a consequence, I evaluate two competing sets of arguments. My decision is based upon which team best persuades me to their position. I focus on the big picture at the end of the debate. I very seldom go into the minutia. The team that tells me the best story at the end of the round will win my ballot. I know that makes me a buffalo of sorts, but that is the way it is. That means elements such as organization, structure, and clash are critical. While delivery is important, it does not outweigh argumentation. I want the debaters to be professional and have fun. I try not intervene unless there is some violation at this level. My preference is to make a decision based upon the voting issues and not the flowery oratory. I treat topicality as another argument to be weighed in the context of the round. I want to see some abuse before I would vote on topicality. I must admit that topicality must be compelling for me to vote in this area. In policy round, I will listen to all types of competing plans and counterplans. I prefer net benefits as a paradigm for evaluation. I have voted on kritics, but would say that they are not my favorite argumentative strategy. In value rounds, I want a comparison of the values in competition as well. It is not enough to say we value "X" and say that is good enough to win the rounds. I really want a debate that is cordial and fun for everyone. Be nice to each other and enjoy what you are doing. If you have fun, so will I. I do not particularly like points of order. I think it is used to annoy rather than to make legitimate objections. I generally know new arguments and will not vote on them. They seldom make a difference in the big picture anyway. I certainly don't like them if you are looking to find out how I am feeling on an issue. I will most often tell you I will take it under advisement.

Fred Ebert - Northwest

Years Coaching Parliamentary: 6 Most Important Criteria: I tend to look at the argument as a whole. That being said, I'll listen to and evaluate a wide variety of strategies with an open mind. If at the end of the round, your strategy solves most in regard to the topic, that's where my vote will lie. Expectations of Decorum: I expect people to be respectful of each other. Having some good fun is fine but being mean to each other isn't. I expect the seated partner to be mostly quiet while the standing partner is speaking. Notes are fine but adding to the speech is not. Predispositions: As I said earlier, I will listen to a wide variety of strategies and positions with an open mind. I get pretty annoyed with 'time-suck' strategies such as an unfounded T. If you are going to ask me to vote on procedurals, please follow it all the way through. In the event that you want to run a K, don't do it unless you really understand what's behind it Speech/Jargon/Technical: I flow reasonably well. Speed is fine as long as what you are saying is clear and understandable. Don't try to dazzle in the round with excess jargon. I understand what you are talking about but if it doesn't add to the debate, I'm left un-impressed.

Jackson Miller - Linfield

n/a

Jaime Wright - STJ

n/a

Jason Jordan - 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.   *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 ‘be.’    *Unless I am told to do otherwise, on all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments.

Jeannie Hunt - Northwest

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 that 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, 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 or present narratives that you don't want attached to the curency 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 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 off your hat. Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.  Speed is not a problem if it is clear.  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.

Jeremy Hutchins - Tx State

n/a

Jessica Furgerson - WKU

Joe Zhang - DU

n/a

Jon Denzler - Regis

n/a

Jordan Smith - CCU

Josh Martin - Independent

n/a

Josh House - Cypress

I have tendencies but I'm not entirely robotic and my views are not perfectly static across time and space. If I change in a major way I’ll let you know. I tend to prioritize substance over style. That's not to say that I discount style entirely, and your delivery can certainly influence my understanding of what you have to say, but I'm not ever voting based on what you're wearing or just based on who sounded more polished. I tend to prefer structure in your delivery, and I prefer it if you watch my nonverbal reactions and adjust accordingly when appropriate. That is to say, if I’m confused or lost I try not to keep that to myself, and I’d appreciate it if you make some attempt to un-confuse me sooner rather than later. I tend to want to vote in debates based on how the debaters tell me I should vote and to try to keep my personal feelings about a topic out of my decision. That is, I try to stick to the flow and I try not to intervene. I tend to view voting on Topicality (and procedural issues more generally) in Parli as something that is in opposition with that last tendency. The Gov team gets about 20 minutes to figure out what a topic means and what they’re going to say. As long as their interpretation of what the topic means makes sense I tend to think that the Opposition team should debate them on that interpretation. To be clear(er), I will vote on Topicality but I am very sympathetic to “we meet” arguments and I absolutely require articulated in round abuse (not potential abuse and not prep-time abuse). In LD or other activities where the topic stays the same over time I’m much more likely to vote on Topicality and to listen to reasons why I should choose the “best” interpretation of the topic. I would love to talk to you more about this if you’re interested. Oh yeah, I tend to want you to run a policy because I think it usually makes for better, more educational debate. I tend to think that if the alternative on your K has to include the words “Vote Opp to…” it’s a good sign that I don’t really need to vote Opp to accomplish what you’re after. If your Alt solvency rests on changing the minds/actions of people in the real world (not via fiat) then I expect an explanation of how it works starting with the people in the room and extending as far as our influence reaches. Otherwise don’t tell me that my voting Opp will end capitalism or the patriarchy and expect me to fill in the gaps on how that happens. I tend to forget to give time signals because I’m busy writing things down. I will usually at least have a timer, it’s just that I forget to look at it as you go, so if you time yourselves or have somebody in the audience help out that’s usually to your advantage. I tend to want people to enjoy this activity, to seem like they’re enjoying this activity, and to help others to enjoy this activity. I tend to react pretty negatively to behavior that is exclusionary, rude, or mean. I would be happy to add clarification on items of interest on request.

Julian Plaza - CC

Julie Welker - HPU

n/a

Kaitlin Bundock - Utah

Question 1 : Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, # of rounds judged, etc)        I competed for four years in college parli debate for Northern Arizona University; I have judged 20+ rounds this year. Question 2 : Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)        I vote on the flow, keeping in mind that dropped arguments that are not impacted out or made to have an important role in the round will likely not be a factor in my decision making. In other words, I will not just see which team had less dropped arguments on a position and vote there. I will evaluate the quality of the arguments being made.        I will usually only vote on procedural arguments if there is in round proven abuse that excludes one of the teams from being able to access offensive arguments. You have a better chance of me voting on a procedural if you are able to make it kritical in some way. When evaluating rounds I will look first at the procedural debate to determine if there was significant abuse, then to the K debate (if there is one) then to the impacts, then to theory (unless theory arguments are being made as to why I should reject a position or a team). The rebuttals should tell me how to prioritize the arguments of the round, where to look first, why to look there first, and why the argument matters. I will flow the rebuttals and would prefer teams to call points of order, but not when the new argument is trivial.        I prefer policy debates and dislike procedural debates. I do not like fact or value debates because I think that they often are not argued well, and tend to go in circles. If you are in a fact or value debate in front of me, you should make well warranted arguments that have impacts, and provide me with a clear way to evaluate the round.       You need to have well warranted link stories on case advantages and disadvantages. If you have a weak link and/or internal link story on a disad that leads to massive impacts, I will likely not be persuaded by your disad and will be more apt to vote on turns to your internal link/link story by the gov. I do not have any particular preferences about the CP debate, but prefer the CP to be mutually exclusive and net-beneficial. To beat a CP in front of me you must put offence on it.        I will generally vote for any argument as long as it is argued well and justified. I default to the net-benefits paradigm unless you specify another criterion.   Question 3 : Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making        I am ok with speed as long as it is not used to purposefully exclude a team from the round. If speed is used to exclude you from a round you need to make an argument about it and demonstrate proven abuse and why it is significant to you and the round. I can keep up with speed fairly well, but the faster teams can out-flow me. I will let you know if you are going too fast. Question 4 : Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making        I prefer there to be a good amount of on case argumentation, but am fine with the debate occurring more on another position. If the debate is occurring mostly on off-case positions, the gov needs to make good, well warranted, and offensive arguments on those positions in order to win the round. Additionally, the opp needs to demonstrate that the reason they are not addressing case more is because their impacts outweigh the case impacts. Question 5 : Other information:        Overall, I enjoy seeing competitors having fun with this activity and talking about issues that are important to them.

Kaleb Brooks - DU

n/a

Kevin Stone - U of M

Making Decisions: My goal is to base my decision solely upon how the debaters argue I should decide; I avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible. I like to be placed in a paradigm by the debaters. This would be done by explaining what my evaluation process should look like and defending why that particular process would be preferable. When this doesn’t happen I will revert to what I see to be the most appropriate mechanism for making a fair decision (frequently a policymaker framework). I look primarily to the rebuttals in making my decisions (meaning you can’t split the block in that way) though I do trace arguments made in the rebuttal backward through the debate. Assessing Arguments: Dropped arguments still need to be placed within the context of the round and it is the responsibility of the debaters to explain what sort of impact the argument ought to have on my decision. I think it is necessary to supplement line-by-line argumentation with "contextualization." I feel that it is important to bridge the gap between arguments and the framework. I have strong viewpoints but I evaluate arguments based on the comparison of impacts made by the debaters. There are some arguments I probably would never endorse but I can’t imagine a debater ever making them ("rape is good" would be an example). Presentation Issues: This is your debate round rather than mine, as long as you are speaking intelligibly, there shouldn’t be a problem. Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: CPs- I subscribe to generally accepted counterplan theory. Topicality- I think T is probably where I am most likely to deviate from what has been said above. I focus on the standards debate on topicality. The definition and voters are important of course but it is my opinion that they are more like hurtles that must be jumped for topicality to be a viable position whereas the standards are where topicality is won or lost. Offense coming out of the standards and critical offense in particular seem to be underutilized methods of making topicality a wining position. Kritiks-I am fan of critical positions but I feel that many criticisms are little more than non-unique disads. This is not to say that a criticism can’t be effective if its primary function is as a case turn, I just feel that to fully exercise the potential of the line of argumentation the debaters must articulate a sophisticated framework that explicates the roll of the position as well as its relationship to the critic and the ballot. I think one personally held theory belief that may distinguish me from the community at large is a rejection of the pre-fiat/post-fiat dichotomy. Debate is a game and an impact is an impact.   Again, I can be placed, with successful argumentation in just about any judging framework, and if a team is winning that that should be the case. This puts some added pressure on the debaters though, and requires a fully thought-out "system." I am not one to ignore arguments, I am open to whatever you have to say as long as it fits into the framework you are having me use for the round (or that which I have reverted to in the absence of direction from the debaters. My primary goal as a critic is to provide fair judication of the debate round, and I believe this can best be done by being open to what the students want say, and is best maximized when debaters articulate a specific voting mechanism to me. This makes the rebuttals quite important. If you have questions prior to the start of the tournament please email me at kevin.cascadia@gmail.com, otherwise, feel free to ask me in person.

Kevin P. Eubanks - UGF

n/a

Kim Bryant - HPU

n/a

Krista Stone - Northwest

Framework is the most important part of the round for me - I don't want to have to do work for you, so establish where you want me to vote and then stick to that framework. I also need some sort of analysis in the end. You need to weigh the round for me, not expect me to wade through every detail of the round in the end. Line by line and impact analysis is also important. Please warrant your arguments and have clear links between claims. I understand debate jargon but I have a moderate threshold for speed. If you are speaking too fast, I will not flow it. If I don't have it on the flow I will not be evaluating that arument. I also have a moderate threshold for critical arguments. Make sure you thesis is clear. I am open to most arguments and don't have any real predispositions. Please be respectful of everyone in the round. Being rude will affect your speaker points at the very least.

Kristy McManus - WWCC

I have been coaching since 2010.  I competed for two years at the college level.  I took a long break from forensics but returned when working on my second Master’s Degree in Communication.  I am currently the DOF at Western Wyoming Community College. I try to remain as tab as possible.  It is your responsibility to dictate what the round will look like. I put a lot of weight on the flow.  I will not “do the work for you”. CP’s, DA’s, K’s – sure!  Strategy is key for me but all must be done well and show understanding through warranted argumentation. Tell me what to do.  This is your debate.  Where should I look and how should I vote.  Impact calk is a must. T’s are there for a reason – if you need to use them – you MUST.  Otherwise, they are a waste of my time. Be civil – if you are rude, I stop listening.

Lindsey Dixon - CLEM

n/a

Maja Nenadovic - Independent

n/a

Matt Lenell - CCU

I’m a recent graduate serving as an assistant coach, with 5 years competition experience in high school and collegiate debate. As with anyone recently changing sides at a tournament, I understand the difficulty arising from the vast differences in judging paradigms. I’ll listen to any reasonably sound arguments you want to make, but I do judge through the lens of logic.   Don’t make up facts; I’ll probably know…   I tend to be mostly flow based and tabula rasa when I can stifle my personal opinion. Sarcasm is acceptable, and persuasion is a must. I will vote on whatever criteria and voters you offer within reason. Whatever you do, don’t run a procedural half-heartedly. Example: NEG offers T and claims education as a standard/ voter, NEG then proceeds to adapt DA’s to apply to on case; BAD IDEA, you just delinked your own T. Debate lingo is fine. Spread debating is not. I’m looking for quality ideas. Adding metaphors to explain link stories is also a plus.   Any other paradigm Q’s may be asked in round.   ML

Megan Towles - Carroll

n/a

Michael Shapira - Independent

n/a

Michael Stewart - La Verne

n/a

Michael Cole - USAFA

Michael Brooks - UTEP

I believe debate can most effectively be thought of as a communication event; as such, ideas and arguments in a debate round become most accessible and finally, most persuasive,  if stated clearly, utilizing a comprehensible rate of speed  and without undue dependence on jargon.  Clear signposting and effective organization throughout the debate enhances the clarity of argument.  Consistent signposting creates a clean flow, with major arguments prominent in the mind of your judges.  I tend to vote on the flow.  I’m open to any strategy as long as it is explained well, organized clearly and makes sense.  I use a tabula rasa approach as a judge, so don’t worry about what I may or may not believe in re whatever proposition is being debated, or what rhetorical strategies and/or debate conventions you choose to utilize.   I enjoy a well-crafted and intellectually satisfying argument on any topic, from any viewpoint.  Clash is the heart of debate, so keep on point.   Please remember the value of transitions reinforcing the organization you’ve established throughout the round, and don’t forget to spend appropriate time on summary, most specifically in rebuttals.  A strong rebuttal traces the evolution of the most important arguments used in the debate, showing how and why your version of the proposition should prevail.  I do caution you against the use of offensive language or actual rudeness toward your opponents.  NPDA debate should be an exercise not only in communication, but in the practice of good ethics in this formalized and rather ritualistic exchange of ideas.  Wit and humor are appreciated, if you have the occasion to use such strategies.

Michael Martin - UTEP

<o:p> </o:p>   My judging philosophy is very motivated by good communication skills. I am impressed by individuals who speak clearly and eloquently in-round. Individuals with high skill levels in spreading tend to lose me. I also feel that speech should be as jargon free as possible but, if jargon is necessary, provide a quick explanation. I think that the K should be used appropriately. To elaborate, I feel using the K as the entire neg argument decreases education on the topic at hand and, consequently, allows for less research and general knowledge on the topic. The K can be very effective when used in conjunction with the counterplan or alternative, but I feel it tends to be a weak argument on its own.  I consider myself a tabula rasa as far as the issues go. I do my best to ensure that my own politics do not cloud my judgment, as I feel the debate should go to the team with the best argumentation.<o:p></o:p>

Michael Dvorak - NAU

<ol> <li>Please describe your background and experience with debate.</li> </ol> I am fairly new to collegiate debate. I competed in both LD and Policy in high school but for the past four years I was primarily involved in individual events with a few parli rounds of competition during my career. I am currently a Graduate Coaching Assistant for NAU. During my (thus far) limited judging experience, I tend to vote with the more logical argument(s) that was presented. I will vote based on what is said in round unless competitors miss a crucial piece of evidence that trumps their argument that competitors should know about. I don’t want to hear arguments that are outlandish (I won’t vote because you say nuclear war happens if we raise taxes on cigarettes), but I will think outside the box so long as you provide me with sound reasoning to think that way. While I don’t mind speed, make sure I can understand you through watching my feedback. I am looking for high quality, well thought out arguments to judge on. I don’t want to hear arguments that you don’t think or want to win simply because they are a “time-suck” on your opponents. If you have any other questions about my paradigm I will attempt to answer before round if you ask.

Michael Middleton - Utah

Michael Middleton Judging Philosophy A Quotation: “The present situation is highly discouraging” –Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari A Haiku: Debate is Awesome Judging Makes Me Cry Softly Do I weep in vain? Some things to consider (when debating in front of me): 10.  I DO NOT support speed as a tool of exclusion 9.    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.  You will like it less if you don’t. On the other hand, I will like it more. 8.    I DO like well-structured debates. I also like interesting structures. 7.    I DO like creative interpretations; I DO NOT like when you don’t explain/provide a rationale for why I your interpretation makes for a productive/rewarding/interesting/good debate. 6.    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. 5.    I DO NOT vote for any given argument or against any given type of argument.  Run whatever strategy you like; Be clear about your strategy. 4.    I am a participant in the round also.  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.    Jargon does not equal argument. Nor does it equal a good time. 2.    Cross-application does not equal new argument. It doesn’t really equal anything. 1.    Debate is not life.  Losing a ballot will not steal your humanity.  I tend to prefer rounds that demonstrate everyone in the room knows this. 0. Have Fun

Miranda Clark - LA Tech

n/a

Nicholas Butler - ASU

n/a

Nick Larmer - Texas Tech

Nick Larmer- Texas Tech University I debated Parli for five years at the University of Wyoming.  I am currently at Texas Tech University. I really do not have a set philosophy in which I judge; but rather will vote how I am told to.  I am fine with any form/style of argument as long as it is justified and impacted.   Any type of argument is also acceptable to me.  I tend to believe that the arguments presented rather than the presentation/communication skills should hold more weight in the debate and will ultimately determine my decision.  On case arguments affect my decision equally as off case arguments as long as they are impacted and explained how they interact within the debate. I have a relatively low threshold for procedurals (except specs) and often enjoy good technical procedural debate.  I like CP/DA debate as well as critical debate.  Essentially, explain how your impacts win the round and I will vote that way on any position that you feel comfortable running.  I will protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals but I understand the importance of calling points of order. I would prefer you use them with caution.  Debate is an activity for the competitors. Good Luck

Nick Robinson - Texas Tech

Background/General<o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"></o:p> I debated at Willamette for four years and then coached at Whitman for two. I tend to be pretty expressive while I’m judging, I can’t help it. I try to keep my speaker point average around 27.5, which means I give as many 26’s as I do 29’s. I will listen to anything, but I am definitely happiest watching a disad/counterplan debate. Try not to lie. Presentation<o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"></o:p> The way in which you present your arguments will not have any influence over the outcome of the round as long as I can understand you. I will say “clear” at least a couple of times if I cannot. Being really mean to your opponents will cost you speaks. Rolling over/giving up against a really good team will also cost you speaks. Either give me a copy of your advocacy text or read it twice, slowly. Case/Disads<o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"></o:p> Most of this is obvious, so here are a handful of aphorisms: Organization is your friend. You should terminalize your impacts. Just saying “and you know, it’s like rivets on a plane” does not count. You should warrant your link arguments. You should warrant all your other arguments too, ideally. Read your plan text twice or give me a copy. Procedurals<o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"></o:p> I would much rather watch substantive debate than half an hour of theory. In virtually all circumstances, I determine that fairness comes first. I think that, in general, you win the procedural if you win that a) the other side violates your interpretation and b) you win that their interpretation is inferior to yours. The aff should be topical. To beat T, you need at least one good reason why the other side’s interpretation is bad plus a credible counter-interpretation. RVI’s are dumb and I won’t vote on one unless it’s really compelling, well-warranted, and completely conceded. Spec arguments are terrible. You should read your disad and explain why it links through normal means. In most cases, you should be able to generate links to your disads by making credible arguments about normal means. I will not vote on spec unless the other side is flagrantly abusive and there is really no alternative. Kritiks Last year everybody kept voting for one of my teams to “disrupt the velocity of the government war machine,” and I think that’s kind of hilarious. I am skeptical that a critical framework makes the PMC disappear. If you want the K to outweigh or turn case, that’s great, but pointing out that plan won’t actually happen does not compel me to ignore the logic of the other side’s arguments. The best K’s do not rely on framework to win, but rather persuade me that the logic of the affirmative is fundamentally faulty. They also have specific, well-developed link arguments that go far beyond “you use the USFG so you are statist.” You should be able to demonstrate exactly how the logic/rhetoric intrinsic to the affirmative links. I have serious trouble believing that a K alt can change the world, whether by sparking a movement or rewiring my brain. Counterplans In terms of theory, counterplans are best evaluated on a case-by-case basis. On some topics, for example, PICs are fine. On others, they are probably abusive. I much prefer to evaluate CP theory as a question of whether neg gets to advocate the CP rather than as a voter. I generally think that conditionality is good, even with multiple conditional advocacies. Of course, I would never judge a debate as though my opinion on a theory question is the word of God. Permutations do not need a text beyond “Perm: do both,” unless you’re doing something tricky like permuting only a part of the text. Asking for a text on “Perm: do both” makes you look dumb. The perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. You should articulate a net benefit to your permutation because pointing out that plan and CP can coexist is not really relevant to my decision. Rebuttals Three things good rebuttals have in common: they give thorough overviews that explain the interaction of all the arguments in the round, they make choices about what is important and what isn’t, and they weigh both the strength of warrants and the strength of impacts. You do not need to call a point of order in front of me, but you can if you want to. Cross-applications are not new arguments. The LOR does not need to explicitly extend each MO argument he/she would like me to consider in my decision. You do not get to split the block.

Rhydian Morgan - Independent

n/a

Rob Ruiz - La Verne

n/a

Rob Layne - Texas Tech

Rob Layne – Texas Tech University  1.       Compare warrants between contrasting arguments.  2.       Compare impacts using words like “irreversibility,” “magnitude,” “timeframe,” “probability.”  3.       Use warrants in all of your arguments.  4.       Make sure your permutations contain a text and an explanation as to what I do with the permutation.  5.       Use internal and external structure like Subpoint A 1. a. i. instead of saying “next” or stringing arguments together without breaks.  6.       Be cordial to one another. There’s no need to be mean or spikey.  7.       I take a careful flow…if you’re unclear or not giving me enough pen time don’t be upset when I ask you to clear up or slow down a touch.  8.       Allow me to choose a winner at the end of the round.  9.       Have voters and standards attached to procedural arguments if you want me to take them seriously.  I like “we meets” on interpretations.  10.   I will protect you from new arguments in the rebuttals. There’s little need to call superfluous Points of Order.  11.   Have an alternative attached to your criticism or at least explain why you don’t need one.  12.   Be on time to the round. Already have used to the restroom, gotten your water, found your room, etc.   13.   Prep Time and Round Arrival: I will subtract 5 speaker points if you are more than a minute later to the round than I am or after prep time has elapsed (which ever is later). After 3 minutes, I will begin the proposition team's speaking time.  Please don't come to the round and then go to the bathroom, please relieve yourself before prep begins or during prep.  This addendum is obviously reflecting my judging by myself and will not be inclusive of a paneled round.  14.   Compare standards if there are competing interpretations present.  15.   Connect the dots between different arguments to illustrate how those arguments interact.  16.   Kick arguments in the opp block to go deeper on selected arguments.  17.   Know the difference between offensive and defensive arguments. I still think arguments can be terminally defensive as long as it’s explained.  18.   Avoid extending answers through ink. Answer opposing arguments before making key extensions.  19.   Extend arguments/case via the member speeches to have access to them in the rebuttals.  20.   Not everything can be a turn. Please avoid making everything a turn.  21.   Enjoy the debate round. I’m not going to force fun on you, but not everything has to be so serious. Speaker points I typically give speaker points from 25-30. My average is a 27. 30’s from me are rare, but they are occasionally given. You likely won’t see more than one 30 from me at an invitational tournament. At NPTE, I’ve typically given out 3-4 30’s. I expect that most debaters at the NPTE will likely be in the 27-29 range. Critical Arguments I tend to enjoy critical arguments as long as they’re well explained. Framework your argument and provide an alternative. Affirmatives can run critical arguments. If you’re running arguments that are incongruent with other arguments, you should likely have an explained justification for doing so. Performance based arguments Please don’t ask me to sit in a circle…have a discussion…rip up my ballot…get naked…or do anything that most folks would find mildly inappropriate. I think that debate is a performance. Some performances are better than others. Some performances are justified better than others. If you prefer a framework of a certain type of performance, make sure your framework is well articulated and warranted. Procedurals I require an interpretation, a violation, and a voter. You should probably have standards for why your interpretation is better than other interpretations. I don’t require competing interpretations, but it can be a useful tool. I don’t require in-round abuse, though it will help to prove why your interpretation is preferable.  I have a low threshold on procedurals.  Folks do wanky stuff…explain why your version of debate is preferable and why that means I should vote for you. Counterplans <span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">I think folks should define what a PIC is for me (make that just about any interpretation of a counterplan). I might have a very different conception of a PIC than you do. I think opp’s should identify a CP’s status to avoid procedural args. Permutations should be explained. I want to know how you think they function in the round. My default status for a won permutation is that I just stop looking at the CP. If you have a different interpretation as to what I should do with a permutation, you should articulate my options.

Robert Margesson - Regis

n/a

Ryanne Bible - La Verne

n/a

Sahan Jayasumana - CC

Sarah Hinkle - CC

Sarah Collins - Cameron

n/a

Shane Puckett - LA Tech

n/a

Sharmila Parmanand - Independent

n/a

Shelby Jo Long - Rocky

n/a

Steve Johnson - Alaska

n/a

Steve Llano - STJ

n/a

Susan Taylor - WKU

Tanner VanWyck - Carroll

n/a

Tracy Valgento - NAU

Quick Tips in Prep Time: Debate is a game and you should play it the best way you know how. This means DO WHATEVER you want argument wise and stylistically. Anything is up for debate, so long as you can win the reasons why your argument is best. Most importantly, stay organized. Clean debates are easily won debates. The Specifics: I debated for a total of seven years with four years of Parli and LD for Northern Arizona University. Impact calculus: I am a material girl in a material world. I prefer material, real world impacts within the debate. Absent another framework I default to Net-Benefits first with probability and timeframe first. You should explain clear internal links that say specifically how you get from point A-Z. Procedurals: I have a generally high threshold for procedurals, meaning you must prove abuse within the round. Or if you choose to use a competiting interpertaintions framework you need impacts to your interp and why it is best. DA/CP debate: I really enjoy clear and specific disadvantages. I am open to hearing anything, but I want a convincing, specific uniqueness debate. For example on econ debates I want to hear about specific markets or situations rather than generally collapses and for politics I want to hear specific warrants about who votes what way and why over a generic backlash arguments. For counter plans I enjoy good permutations debates. Perms need a text and articulated net benefits/ solvency. I want to hear why the counter plan is not functionally, ideologically and/or textually mutually exclusive. Kritics: Criticisms are fine in front of me on both the Aff and Neg-despite this being what I mostly ran do not assume that this a) all I want to hear or b) that I have read all K literature and will know what you are saying if you name drop critical theorists. You should know that I have very little Post-Modern literature. Critics should have clear frameworks that articulate impact prioritization and the roll of the ballot. If the MG does not answer an LOC framework I will defaults to the Neg’s interpretation. Conditionality: I feel that absent policy style backside or second rebuttals, the Neg should only run one counter-plan. In my experience, multiple, conditional advocacies tend to contradict themselves. Arguments made and things said in a debate round do NOT occur in a vacuum for example, your disadvantage should probably not link to your kritic. That being said, all things are debatable and if you have good, winnable reasons why you should get two or more counter plans, go for it. Speaker points: Generally 26-30 points. A 26= egregiously offensive behavior. A 30= ingenious and articulate argumentation.

Tuna Snider - UVM

n/a

Tyler Butler - LA Tech

n/a

Wayne Kraemer - Tx State

n/a

Will Riley - La Verne

n/a

Will Van Treuren - CU

Experience: I debated for four years in high school policy and four years in college parli. I have coached CU for four years and a high school team for one. I enjoy the activity of debate immensely and see my role as a judge to keep my biases out of the round and let you play the game how you see fit. I will happily listen to traditional debate, the K, theory, performances, anything you want to do, and try to evaluate the arguments objectively and within the context of the debate. Here are my current preferences/biases formed over my time in debate. They are guidelines; you can convince me any of them are wrong (i.e. you still have to win that multiple conditional advocacies are bad, there are good reasons for them): Multiple conditional advocacies – I tend to believe multiple conditional advocacies are abusive to the affirmative. Frameworks that procedurally exclude offense – (like ‘aff can’t weigh their case because fiat is illusory’) are not particularly persuasive to me. If a framework question is unresolved I will default to thinking of myself as a policy maker and of the teams as advocates for the policies they are defending.  Alternate frameworks often lack a way to compare impacts (e.g. what is a methodology or ontology DA?) and I will compare the world of the alternative to the world of the plan in terms of articulated consequences (impacts) without filter unless you provide a clear decision criteria for what impacts to include or exclude. Case debate – I think the state of case construction and the level of case debate in parli is bad. Most cases I have seen in the last two years of judging have had internal contradictions/tension that were not exploited by the LOC. I reward clever case argumentation, and wish it would be a larger portion of LOC strategies. In particular smart defense in conjunction with a case specific disad or turn will often be more demonstrative of intelligence and clever strategic thinking (to me) than reading several counterplans and resolving aff offense with conditionality (same goes for smart defense coupled with a few clear pieces of offense against a CP, K, DA or whatever). Impact calculus – I assess internally consistent arguments that clearly articulate incentive structures (check out Stephen Moncriefs excellent philosophy for more) for various actors as far more probable impacts/links/uniquenesses. If your scenario is not internally consistent in some clear way, I will treat it with inherently lower probability. As an example, an aff with a really well constructed single advantage can often outweigh poorly warranted LOC disads (even if they are otherwise undercovered) by virtue of how important being able to construct the causal chain and incentive landscape for the actors is post your link for me. I will vote on RVIs if they are entirely unanswered, but my threshold here is very high – I think RVIs are stupid. I hold no bias for or against specification arguments.  I default to competing interpretations but think that the aff can easily win reasons why they are bad and/or their interp is good enough. In round abuse is not necessary. I think that PIC’s encourage strategic and in depth debate. It will be hard to convince me that they are bad without a more nuanced argument about functional and textual competition. I am a fan of most counterplans that are not veto-cheato style, but can more easily be convinced that plan contingent counterplans are abusive. My default ordering for argument evaluation is procedural then all other arguments equally unless arguments about the sequencing are made (i.e, impact filters, ontology precedes something, etc.). You can change my default. I think death is probably worse than dehumanization and that body counts are a more effective way to get my ballot then nebulous claims about dehum. However, I think that teams can seriously improve on impact calculus and more complex weighing of dehum versus death or probability vs. magnitude could be fertile ground to win an otherwise unwinnable debate. Style and speaker points: The only stylistic thing that I think merits inclusion is that I dislike arrogant or mean debaters. Intensity is encouraged but very easy to do that without being rude. I like to reward clever decision-making and technical prowess more than eloquence or being funny (but those things will help you as well). If you are not taking the debate seriously I will not enjoy judging you, and while I will try to make sure that doesn't impact my decision, it will likely influence speaker points. Critical/performance arguments: I am happy to listen to critical or performance arguments by either side. I think that a clear framework for my role as a judge needs to be established and that the alternative have explanation. I have backfile knowledge of many criticisms but am not deep on the literature so your arguments will have to be explained. I think that affirmatives under utilize ethics or critical style advantages and enjoy the strategic options they introduce into the debate. Being ‘contradictory’ with other negative positions doesn’t seem like a problem in a world of conditionality. Contrary to my reputation as an anti-K hack I frequently vote for criticisms but I have never voted for Baudrillard and Nietzsche (not to say that I won’t, just a word of caution).

Zach Fort - Cameron

n/a

josh stout - DU

n/a

2013 51st USAFA Forensics Classic