FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Abbay Dow - CSU

n/a

Alex Warren - UT-Tyler

Alex Reid - CSU

n/a

Andrew Potter - Texas Tech

Judging Philosophy – Andrew Potter Experience 4 years high school policy at a small Kansas school on the UN, Civil Liberties, National Service, and Sub-Saharan Africa topics. 4 years NPDA/NPTE parliamentary debate at William Jewell College The Nitty-Gritty I learned debate from Kevin Garner, Kyle Dennis, Luke Landry, Tim Brooks, David Dingess, and the all-knowing Gina Lane. A lot of what they think about debate is what I think about debate. Seeing as they are probably judging you, it would behoove yourself to read their philosophies because it sheds light on mine. That being said, I have some predispositions on this game.  One of these predispositions is: I LOVE HEARING ABOUT THE TOPIC. Initial Thoughts As I am sure almost anyone can tell you, I like a good joke. I think debate should be fun for those debating and for those who watch. Political jokes are good and I am not really one to be offended easily by humor. The things I will be offended by are general disrespect for your competitors or using hate speech. Those are sure fire ways to get your speaks nuked.  I like: Star Wars Lord of the Rings Big 12 Football and Basketball Kansas City sports Video Games (Specifically Zelda, God of War, and Starcraft) Dingess jokes Incorporating these likes into a joke or an analysis of an argument effectively will improve your speaker points. Offense/Defense Defense may win championships in sports but offense is what wins debate championships. However, that does not mean to cast off defensive arguments because those can be damn useful when weighing impacts. Use both offense and defense strategically and you will likely get higher speaker points and access to my ballot. Status of Counter Plans/Kritiks I am prone to believe all positions are dispositional. Each piece of paper has an impact on the round once it is said. A good example is a DA. Team A runs the DA. Team B answers the DA Once the argument has been answered there are one of three scenarios that are true with regards to said position. 1)Team A avoids the impacts, 2)Team B avoids the impacts, 3)There are no impacts for either team. It is up to both teams to tell me which of these three scenarios I am supposed to believe. Every position (CP, K, DA, T, Theory, Adv, etc.) ran in the debate is prone to these three scenarios. Now, this does not mean I will not vote for a conditional CP or K. What the former paragraph means is that I am swayed by dispo and it may not be the best idea running condo in front of me. It is an even worse idea to run multiple conditional CPs or Ks in front of me because I have not heard too many great arguments for the existence of multiple conditional positions. My definition of dispo is: If you straight turn the CP, we have to go for it. If you prove it is not an opportunity cost to the plan i.e. a perm, CP links to the DA, Net-Benefit has no impact, then you reserve the right to defend the SQuo. I also believe the status should be said right before the text as in “The CP, the Unconditional Text, US Congress will pass and President Obama will sign blah blah blah”  Flowing I flow the Resolutional Analysis, Background, Plan, and Solvency contention (if there is one) on one piece of paper. All subsequent advantages/off case positions get their own sheets of paper after that. I break up Counter Plans and the Net-Benefit into separate sheets of paper. Also, each section of the K gets its own piece of paper with the Alt and Alt Solvency on one paper.  I flow answers to positions in a long column starting with 1,2,3 etc. Speed My general tendency towards speed is that if you are going too fast for me to flow, then I will yell “clear.” I do not believe speed is the issue, it is clarity. There is nothing wrong with going slower but being more clear. You will probably win more rounds and get better speaker points if you do so. Also, I do not like seeing speed used as an exclusionary tactic. If you are clearly faster than your opponents and they yell clear but you do not slow down or try to accommodate them, then your speaks are gonna suffer. However, I do not find “Speed Kills” arguments persuasive because it feels like some sort of intervention would have to happen on my part to vote on that position and that is not a position I am comfortable judging. Also, here is how you can make sure I get all your arguments. For example, if you are answering a DA then it should go something like this “1, Non-Unique, Dems capitol low b/c blah blah blah. 2, Non-Unique Obama capitol low b/c blah blah blah. 3, No-Link, plan doesn't affect captiol. 4, Turn, plan increases Dem cap blah blah blah......” Warrants Yes, please! I fall into the Luke Landry school when he says, “I guess I missed the meeting where people decided not to use warrants.” I will have a high threshold voting on positions that are lacking substantial warrants. I will also have a tough time voting on positions that are one thing in the LOC and another thing in the MOC and will be pretty sympathetic to new PMR characterizations of MG responses to fit the transformed position.  Questions I believe it is the duty of every constructive to take one question. Every constructive has importance for another speech's strategy. If Team A is speaking and Team B asks for a question but Team A says they are not taking a question, then I will do one of two things but probably both 1) give leniency to the strategy choices of Team B or 2) allow Team B to shout their question while Team A is speaking. Team B will suffer no consequences of speaker points while the speaker from Team A who refuses a question will see a deduction. In a format that does not allow C-X and is getting increasingly fast and techy it is ridiculous to refuse to give ONE question. Also, the time it takes Team A to refuse and to justify why like saying “not during the constructives” would take the same or less time than answering the question in the first place. Theory I ran theory a lot in college and feel like I have a decent grasp on the ins and outs of theory. However, that does not mean I will fill in blanks for theory. Every theory position should have an interpretation that is read twice and preferably slower than other arguments, a violation, reasons to prefer, and voters. I view theory debates similar to CP/Plan debates. There are texts, DA or Advs to those texts, and impacts for voting for or against a certain text. I would say I have an average threshold on voting for theory but if you can run it well and win it, then my thoughts should not detract you from making that strategic decision.  Disads I feel like this is the most straightforward part of my philosophy. Disads need to be unique and warranted. I feel this is a question more on Econ or Politics debates. On Econ, instead of just throwing numbers my way, why not make some comparison why your numbers are more important/predictive of economic trends. Politics is the same way, do not just throw out Dems high, Bill gonna pass, you stop it, bill woulda done some good things, WE ALL GONNA DIE. Instead, I like Politics that focus on key members of the Senate or House who would be influential in the bill's success or demise and EXACTLY what the bill does. That will give me a better idea of how to evaluate the claims of the debaters.  Impacts Run any impact and make it important. I usually default to Timeframe 1st with Probability and Magnitude 2nd and 3rd. I like good impact analysis with Timeframe because if you win the impact to a disad/adv before the other DA/Adv happens, then it probably changes the impact story of the other DA/Adv. CPs  CPs need to be functionally competitive and have a net-benefit, whether that is an advantage the CP captures that the plan does not or a DA that is avoided while gaining the Solvency of the Aff. I feel like I have a decent grasp on what textual competition is and I have determined it is not nearly as important as people have made it out to be. Functional competition is the way to my heart.  Types of CPs to be avoided in front of me: Delay Veto-Cheeto Secrecy CPs Types of CPs to be ran in front of me: Alt Agent (mmhhmmm they warm my soul) PICs  Alternate Plans that avoid the DA but solve the Case (Example: Plan regulates Ag pollution with an Environmental Adv. CP is to clean up ag pollution and run a regulations bad DA.) Advantage CPs Ks These were not really my thing in debate. I ran them occasionally but it was nothing super tricky or too post modern. Basically I ran Biopower. If you run something like Derrida, Deluze and Gutarri, Zizek, Lacan, Baudrllaird (I have no clue how to spell their names nor do I believe they would care about the spelling with everything being fluid and shit) expect me to be confused and have an expression of “why me?” on my face. I feel comfortable in Cap, BioPower and some more of the generic Ks but this PoMo BS is too much for a debate round with no C-X, backside rebuttals or backfiles. Maybe this sentiment will change in the future but for right now it stands. I am fairly persuaded by “No Alt Solvency” or Solvency Turns to the K. More times than not I am pretty sure their Kritik hurts Hegemony and you should probably say that's a bad thing.

Andrew Gallion - USAFA

Bob Becker - Northwest

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.  I think there needs to be resolutional analysis to justify affirmative choices.  Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions.  Left to my own devices, I will evaluate procedurals (topicality), then look to disadvantages and then case. I’ll evaluate kritiks wherever you tell me to place them in the order of things. 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 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 arguments 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. 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 think PICs are abusive, but that doesn’t make them bad. If they are so awful, you ought to be able to beat them. There are theoretical arguments to be made as to why they are bad, as well as why they are good. Make some arguments. I think the opp should, at least as a courtesy, identify the status of the CP and explain what that means. Mostly I think textual competition of perms is all right but, if pressed, probably an aff will want to show that it is functionally competitive as well. 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.

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!

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

Daniel Hogan - Sterling

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 :)

Dave Gaer - LSC NH

n/a

David Bowers - Sterling

Generally speaking I think that you should do what you like in debate and I will do my best to evaluate whatever that may be, the more clear you can be the better RFD you’ll receive I imagine.  Please, ask questions if you have them, my email is <a href="mailto:dbowers01@sterling.edu">dbowers01@sterling.edu</a> if you have any prior to the tournament.  I debated in various places and in varied formats. Collegiate competition in CEDA, PARLI & LD for Hutchinson Community College, Barton Community College, Kansas City Kansas Community College and Sterling College. Theory—Competing interps makes the most sense to me, always, abuse in round is an impact to a standard.  This is probably the only place that I would make a definitive stand on anything.  Impacts to standards are critical in evaluating any procedural question, that doesn’t mean “education is important” it means “education is important because…” Counter plans—I don’t have any problem with any cp.  The only thing I’d have to add here is that is in regards to theory.  PICS, ect theory is probably a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Disads—These are neat things to do.  I need you to spend a second extending arguments that are winning you the round but PLEASE do not feel like you have to extend the entire shell.  Any impact is fine, I really don’t care as long as in some point in the debate there’s impact calc. Da K—This is fine.  I think that in order to vote on it I need more than “State bad”.  I also rarely think that framework means that you drop the team, but rather it means that you get to weight the aff. Performance—These are cool, and I know this sounds stupid but do them well.  Don’t do it because it’s weird, or fun, or something.  I feel like I haven’t said much, mainly it’s because I don’t have a ton of preferences.  Like I said above, I’d much prefer to let you do what you do in debates.  But please, if there are questions please ask.

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.

Elisabeth Meinig - CC

Jacki Evans - Utah

Jared Bressler - Texas Tech

Jared Bressler - Debate 4 years, Coach 4 years Coach Texas Tech University Case: I much prefer policy to value and fact, but if you relay want to run a value or a fact I will listen to it. I am OK with performance and other non traditional affs explain how you want me to evaluate them. I will not vote on case defense (or any defense) unless you give me a reason to.  Topicality: Make sure you extend your voters I have drooped way too many people for not doing this. In general I prefer competing interpretations to any other standard, but if the Aff wins I should only look at in round abuse I will only look at in round abuse. I don't know what is or is not reasonable if you are running that as a counter standard tell me why your reasonable and how to evaluate that. T: I will vote on competing interpretations unless told otherwise. I will vote on RVIs and Ks of T if you win them.  Theory: I have the slight preference that you put theory on a separate sheet of paper than the CP or the K it keeps my flows better. Do the same if thing if you have a large theory preempt in to LO.   Again you need a clear voter for me to vote here.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> Disads/CPs: Fine give good impact calculus. This should probably include magnitude probability and time frame and if you relay want to do a good job explain why whichever of these you are ahead on is the most important. Again offensive answers will help you more than difference. If you want to go for deference explain how it fictions in comparison to your offense (if you win a terminal no like explain how that makes the DA go away). I will only look at the impact caculus that you gave. This means if everyone only talked about magnitude that is all I will look at. Clear and concise counterplan texts and perm texts make my job easer. K: I am cool with any framework you want to set up. I am cool with any theory argument you make on the K (again put this on another sheet of paper for me).  Other things If you shame your opponents I will give you 0 speaker points.  I am cool with speed and will tell you if you are unclear.  I will severely dock speaker points if you are rude or offensive.  If you are passing around coppies of plan and counterplan texts and you want me to make my decision based on what is written down you would do well to give me a copy. Make sure you termanilize your impacts. I think that you should call points of order.  Any other questions feel free to ask     Things people should read, but many don’t.<o:p></o:p> Read what you are most comfortable with, teams who never read the K trying to impress me by reading one typically don’t. You just need some offense at the end of the round<o:p></o:p> I like copies of texts when possible.<o:p></o:p> I can be very harsh with speaker points if you step over certain lines. Don’t say racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. things. If you do, you will lose points. Don’t shame your opponent/ knock excessively or you will lose points. Also a few years ago there was a habit of asking for speaker points (ie. Giving a short preview saying that all debaters should get 30s) - if you do this, you will lose a lot of speaker points. If you don’t do any of these things, you will get a 25 or above. If not, I have given debaters 1 point (mostly for shaming, or being really offensive when I thought they should know better) and more 15s (if they said something really offensive without thinking about it) so if seeding matters to you, be nice.<o:p></o:p> I have a reputation of being a K hack and historically, I have voted more for Ks than against them (though this year, that pattern has been reversed.) I think the reason I tend to vote for K’s is because teams are not responsive to key (often stupid) arguments such as questions of root cause, in round solvency, nuances of how the framework functions, and K turns solvency.<o:p></o:p> I try to judge as much as possible as a robot evaluating the flow (I don’t know how good I am at it). If an argument is dropped it is true no matter how underdeveloped. That being said if there are opposing arguments with no analysis on which one prefer I will vote for the one that is the truest/ best warranted.  I also think comparing warrants is the best way to decide debates.  <o:p></o:p> Other things the NPDA wants<o:p></o:p> I don’t look at presentation to make decisions as long as I can understand you.<o:p></o:p> I like POIs. I try to protect, but I’m not all that smart.<o:p></o:p> <a name="_GoBack"></a>  <o:p></o:p>

Jason Jordan - Utah

For the NPTE:   Name: ____Jason Jordan____________________ School: _____Ranger College__________________ <o:p> </o:p> Section 1: General Information <o:p></o:p> Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. I have very few, if any, normative beliefs about what debate should look like and/or ‘be’. Absent debate to the contrary, I default to voting for the advocacy with the most net beneficial post fiat impacts. 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. I don’t evaluate speaking skills as part of my decision, nor do I have any value judgment attached to a proper “method” of speaking in debate rounds. Unless I am told to do otherwise I attempt to flow everything I possibly can. I think people should be nice, in round, out of round, etc. So, please try to be nice, in so far as you consider my value to life important. <o:p> </o:p> Section 2: Specific Inquiries  <o:p></o:p> Please describe your approach to the following.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  1.     Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?<o:p></o:p> For the NPTE I anticipate I will assign points on a range between 27-29.9, with 28 as an “average”. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  2.     How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?<o:p></o:p> Do what you want to do, just make an explicit framework argument if I am supposed to adjust my decision calculus from what I have elucidated above. My MS is in critical rhetoric, so I am comfortable with these arguments, but I try very hard to evaluate the arguments as presented in the round, so I vote both direction on the K quite a bit.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  3.     Performance based arguments…<o:p></o:p> See above. Do what you want, just tell me why it matters (the ‘impact’) and how I evaluate the merit/epistemic value of your argument.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  4.     Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?<o:p></o:p> I prefer debaters to make these framing arguments in the round. Absent debate to the contrary I will default to evaluating these debates through the lens of competing interpretations, and assuming in round abuse is a necessary pre-requisite to T being a voter. I tend to look at T and Theory debates as questions of methodological advantages/disadvantages, unless I am told to consider the argument in a different way.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace: none">  5.     Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?<o:p></o:p> I have no personal stance as a judge on any of these questions. Really. Make the theory argument. Absent an offensive reason to not grant a team their argument, I default to them getting access to it.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  6.     Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If debaters choose to do this, I have no problem with it.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  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?)?<o:p></o:p> Critical positions about debate-> ‘Rules’ arguments (Topicality, Theory, Procedurals, etc.)-> pre-fiat/discursive critical positions about the aff/neg-> post-fist impacts of enacting/not enacting an advocacy.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  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")?<o:p></o:p> If these two are not compared (ie: otherization is not presented as an internal link to the nuclear war scenario, and/or nuclear war is not presented as the worst form of otherization/inclusive of such impacts) I will most likely default to preferring the “concrete” impacts, but I would greatly prefer for debaters to make comparisons of such claims in the round.<o:p></o:p>

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.

John Hansen - EWC

Debate / Judging Philosophy - John A. Hansen My philosophy of debate is constantly evolving or devolving depending upon your locus of control within the continuum.  Philosophically I think in order to understand my orientation you have to understand my background of debate and experience.  I’ve been associated with debate for nearly 20-years; I started as an old school Lincoln Douglas debater (value / criteria) from there I transitioned to CEDA and NDT, and now coach NPDA and IPDA. Each format has revealed nuances about argumentation and theory and allowed me to refine my views on what ‘debate is.’ The overarching ‘rule’ I ascribe to debate, is the notion of reciprocity meaning that if neg wishes to disco, dispo, challenge on multiple levels, etc. Aff is also able to engage within the same constructs to challenge the negatives suppositions.  Inherently debate introduces strategy into a normative oppositional framework; hence, I am open to speed, jurisdiction, the K, framework conditionality / dispositionality, etc.  Each strategy bends the goal of communication and have their own inherent strengths and weaknesses and just because I am o.k. with the bleeding edge of speed doesn’t mean that I am not sympathetic to a critique of said strategy.  This dichotomy is emblematic of my views on debate, I think its important to try new forms of argument/strategy but be mindful of how such constructs are impacted by reciprocity. My debate philosophy has transitioned beyond the tabula rasa judge because (literally not all arguments are equal {‘racism good’ never a ‘good idea’} and I am incapable of subjugating all past experiences) into viewing the communication medium as Habermas does- one whereby individuals evaluate their motives amongst the technical, the practical, and the emancipatory.  Each of these categories demarcate debate theory and communicative action and provide a scaffold for understanding our own constructions. Please impact your arguments, weigh the round, provide judging / evaluative standards and be respectful of one another. Regards, Hansen

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

Kamil Khan - U of Houston

n/a

Kara Carisio - CC

Ken Troyer - Sterling

Kenny Hopkinson - Hutchinson CC

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.

Lauran Schaefer - Texas Tech

Section 1: General Information  Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. Overall, I honestly want debaters to do what they do best in round. I do have a few caveats, however. First, I was never a theory debater and I can get lost in them very easily. I would suggest a few things, most importantly, slow down on the most relevant parts of the theory debate, specifically interpretations. So be advised, I need a clear story and proven abuse to feel comfortable with a decision on theory. I understand in some cases where the other team meets your interpretation, but you don’t have any good positions to go for, in that case be as clear as possible. Second, I prefer probability to magnitude and I will explain that in a later section. Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Please describe your approach to the following. 1. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given. I’m probably too generous with speaker points. I generally give between a 27-29 and avoid 30’s unless the speech is close to perfect. If the round is full of speakers who are generally at the same level, I default to giving the best a 29, the second best a 28.5, etc. This is subject to change because of Rob Layne’s incessant nagging about being a point fairy. J 1. 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?  I really like critical debates. Affirmatives can run critical arguments, but I think they need a clear framework with an interpretation and standards. Specifically, tell me why this particular critical aff is warranted. Your interpretation can’t be some “reject blah blah” that are somehow mutually exclusive and some bs solvency telling me how the world will all of a sudden change their mindsets from collapsing some “ism.” Although, I ran arguments like that, I now see that made me a bad debater. JExplain your solvency. What does the world look like after the action is taken? This seems to be missing in most critical debates. 1. 3. Performance based arguments… I’m fine with them, but I need to know how to evaluate them. 1. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?  Like I said, I prefer proven abuse. Competing interpretations is probably your best bet. I’m not sure I would even know what to do with out one unless you’re critiquing T. 1. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? PICs are a good strategy. The opp should identify the status IF they are asked to, otherwise it’s fair game. Perms should be functional in my ideal debate world. If you’re going to go textual comp you’ll probably want to run more theory than you would with functional telling me why I should prefer it.  1. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) I think as a courtesy, you should always give a copy of any plan text or counterplan text, especially if asked. I don’t care if teams want to share anything other than that. 1. 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?)? Procedurals are obviously first. Next, I would go to framework, if necessary, to determine if the K comes first. Then the substance. I default to the impact debate.  1. 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")? I look to probability, first. Then magnitude. Finally, timeframe. If you want me to vote on huge impacts that are incredibly unrealistic, you should warrant exactly how these impacts will occur. Not some x country is pissed, the US gets involved, boom, big explosion because some random action causes a war in which rational actors would absolutely have to use nuclear weapons and it would cause a dust cloud that covers the sun. Although I did this, it’s because I had no idea if what I was saying was actually true.  Other Things Making fun of Colin Patrick would make me smile. Forrest Gump, Keith Stone and Honey BooBoo references are a good idea.

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

Matt Valeta - CC

Michael McGrath - CC

Michael Cole - USAFA

Mike Fain - U of Houston

n/a

Mike Edmonds - CC

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.

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

Patrick Muenks - UT-Tyler

Name: Patrick Muenks School: UT Tyler   Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE.   I view debate as an educational activity that should supplement and enhance the collegiate experience of those who participate in it. As for my debate background: -3 years competing @ Washburn University. (2005 - 09) -4 years coaching @ Drury University, Washburn University, & UT Tyler. (2009 - 13)   Please slow down to roughly conversational pace and repeat any and/or all of these arguments: plan/cp texts, alternatives, perms, interpretations/counter-interpretations.   Always call points of order. I will protect in rebuttals, but I would rather have you error on the side of caution.   The term “default” in my philosophy. Default means that I will revert to that position or method of evaluating arguments in the absences of any arguments made to the contrary.  Default does not mean that I hold an attachment to these predisposition. For example - while I default to evaluating topicality through ground, I would vote for the gov if they won arguments about why evaluating topicality through education is best.   A couple of things to know about how I look at debate:   An argument = claim + data + warrant.   Depth is always better than breadth.   Debate is ultimately a strategic exercise.   Pen time & speed: In most instances, speed is not necessary. If you’re fast and unclear, I will start yelling “clear” until you become cogent. Additionally, making a lot of warrantless claims usually means I’ll miss something which will no doubt upset you when it comes time for the RFD. When you’re debating, make arguments as opposed to claims.   This ensures two things. -I keep a much better flow because I can listen to an argument develop as opposed to trying to keep up with the ten claims you’re attempting to shell in 45 seconds. Ultimately benefits you, the competitor, since a better flow means I can better evaluate your arguments. -You won’t sound informed and/or will sound under researched. I do not find underdeveloped arguments persuasive or compelling. If you’re disad turns case but you don’t mention that, I won’t do that work for you.    When it comes to NPTE, I want to stress that while I have been researching and reading about the topics, it would be better for you to assume I know nothing. Just because I have been researching does not mean I’ve been examining the same material you have.   Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Please describe your approach to the following.   Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?   25 - 30.   27.5 = average performance. You made some arguments and did not do anything to “lose” the round.   28 - 29 = You made deep well warranted arguments. You made smart tactical and strategic decisions within round to defeat your opponents. Usually associated with some level of risk taking as opposed to “screwing up less” than your opponent.   30: I was in awe of your performance and will make a Facebook post immortalizing it.   If you receive anything lower than a 25 from me, you were a terrible person in round.   How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   Critical arguments, projects, etc are fine. I default to evaluating critical arguments through net-benefits.   Critical affirmatives are fine.   Its fine by me if a team runs a critical argument and double turn themselves with other negative positions.   Performance based arguments…   Performance based arguments are fine. I default to evaluating performance based arguments through net-benefits. My only reservation to performance based arguments is I don’t think you should “win” just because you “preformed”. The performance should solve something.      Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?   I default to requiring in round abuse to vote on topicality. I also default to evaluating topicality through a lens of ground. I do not require competing interpretations. The question of whether or not a counter interpretation needs to be deployed is a tactical consideration, not a necessity.   The above also applies to specification arguments.   Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?   I’m fine with all types of counterplans. The theoretical validity of a given counterplan is subject to debate. In this area, I try to be as open as possible and come in without any predispositions. I default to assuming theory is a reason to reject an argument, not a team.   Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)   Yes   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?)?   I default to the following order:   Topicality/Procedurals Net-benefits calculus of all other positions in the round   So unless the K framework sets forth arguments why it should be evaluated before the case, then I will default to weighing case versus the kritik.   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")?   I default to body count over abstract impacts.

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.

Ron Bronson - EWC

Background: I competed in parliamentary debate at Washington University in St. Louis and revived the debate programs at Monmouth College & Knox College in Illinois. I competed at NPDA nationals twice and organized the first midwest tour of the Oxford Debate Union, also competing against the English during that time. I co-founded the Central Debate Conference, a former confederation of liberal arts college programs throughout the midwest. I'm in my 2nd year coaching parli at Eastern Wyoming College, though my day job is actually as the college's digital strategist. You'd be safer thinking of me as a lay judge with insider knowledge into the activity than a formal debate judge. Approach to judging: I tend to view debate as a game and enjoy fun debates where teams are matching wits up against a topic. The key is people actually knowing what they’re talking about or sounding like it. Nothing frustrates me more than hearing people spew on misrepresenting an issue wildly for 45 minutes.  That being said, it’s your round. Impacts are fine, but I like things to be weighed. My opinion shouldn’t matter as much as your arguments and I don’t make a habit of inserting myself into rounds. I want debate with warrants and substance and strongly prefer debate that’s clear and persuasive over speedy drivel, but will vote for the latter so long as it gets the job done.   Counterplans are fine and DAs are super so long as each one of them doesn’t result in nuclear war. I’ve got a strong public policy background and so, it’s often hard to be tabula rasa when people get up and say wildly ridiculous things (though I’ll vote for it if the other team leaves it on the flow untouched.) Long story short is: Know what you’re talking about. I don’t expect you to speak with the breadth of a Ph.D., but I do expect both teams to understand the case they’re running at some base level.    Splitting the block is cool with me. I abhor tricotomy, run it at your own risk.

Sahan Jayasumana - CC

Sarah Hinkle - CC

Tiffany Dykstra - Utah

Experience… I did HS policy for 4 years and competed in parli and LD for four years in college- this is my fourth year coaching/judging.   I consider myself tabula rasa, I like well warranted and clearly explained arguments. Beyond that, I’ll listen to almost anything. If no one defends an alternative framework, I’ll revert to policy making.   Point of orders..… Although I don’t have a problem with speed, I struggle keeping up with confusing, messy or inarticulate speeches. Because this can be a problem in rebuttals, I appreciate points of order. I will do my best to protect but it’s just a much better idea to call out new arguments as you hear them. I will never dock speaker points unless you are excessively calling illegitimate POI’s for the sake of disrupting your opponent.   Speaker points…. I usually won’t give lower than a 25 unless you are extremely offensive or dishonest. 26-28 is my average. I will reward excellent articulation, efficiency and strategic decision-making.   Critical arguments…. I am open to critical debate but I usually don’t like voting on kritiks without an alternative. I also don’t like rejection alternatives. That’s not to say that I won’t vote for a reject alt, just that I appreciate more creativity and imagination. And I also always want an alt text. Critical affirmatives are fine with me, just be sure to clearly explain and justify your framework. If you read a kritik it has to be unconditional, I don’t like multiple advocacies or reverting advocacies. I am completely open to performance, but I don’t have a lot of experience evaluating these arguments in a debate context. As long as you are sufficiently knowledgeable and can clearly explain your position we shouldn’t have a problem.   Topicality…..I actually really enjoy a good topicality debate but I would prefer you to have some in round abuse. For me, evaluating potential abuse is problematic. Also, I will never vote on an RVI.   Impacts… It’s super important that you’re weighing things for me. Please, do not make ridiculous or warrantless dehumanization claims. I feel like this desensitizes people to real dehumanization and makes it less likely that people will recognize and respond to actual instances of dehumanization.

Tram Ha - CC

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).

2012 68th James 'Al' Johnson Invitational