FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Alyssa Sambor - Texas Tech

n/a

Bethany Grubbs - CC

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.

Brandt Springman - Cypress

General:   For all events I am looking for participants to be trying to enjoy their participation (even if nervous). Parliamentary debate: My experience includes both British Parliamentary debate at the University of Bristol in England as well as Parliamentary debate at Central Wyoming College. I am especially looking for teams that are persuasive in working with their opponent to bring out a greater truth on the topic, more than that brought by either team itself.   I will be looking to vote for the team that, by both their analytical work and choice of positions as well as the persuasiveness of subsequent arguments and counter arguments, appears to me to have explicitly developed and delivered the greater share of my understanding on the topic by the close of the round. Ideally, topics are written that allow and lead either side to almost equal opportunities to be the most persuasive and compelling team, though in practice this is harder with some topics, and in some cases, the team that may be on what normally appears as the “right” side of an issue may be out argued, in a fair way, by the team taking up the other side. Even if I may agree with the magnitude of an indirect impact I prefer for you to make all the connections to direct, tangible impacts explicitly. I do not object to points of order where you feel  there has been non trivial abuse, but may respond that I will take them under advisement rather than further intervening directly in the moment.  In the British Parliamentary rounds that I participated in questions of the opposition were used more frequently and if done appropriately I find choice questions enhance the level of engagement between the two sides on the issue. Again, I am looking for teams that are enjoying the competition, being  respectful  of the other teams in the debate community tends to follow naturally from this.

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."

Carlos Tarin - Utah

Broadly, I consider myself to be fairly straightforward in my approach to debate.  I think the best debates happen when teams actually engage the issues invoked by the resolution, rather than getting bogged down in pointless meta-theoretical exercises.  I am open to a variety of perspectives, but will generally default to a policy-making paradigm that evaluates net benefits unless I am given a reason to do otherwise.  If you want to run more creative positions (critical or otherwise) I’m okay with that as long as I am given a rationale that substantively articulates the importance or worth of those arguments.  Basically, don’t play games with the round for the sake of playing games; warrant your positions and give me a clear way of evaluating the claims you are making.  I am okay with some speed, but generally don’t appreciate spreading (and, in all fairness, I probably won’t catch everything if you’re going crazy fast).  I try to stick to the flow as much as possible, but if you arguments aren’t clearly labeled or are rushed, I’ll eventually give up trying to follow along.  Tell me where to go on the flow and where I should be (cross)applying arguments if necessary.  Things I generally don’t like: counterplans, topicality (unless there is demonstrable abuse happening in round), convoluted theory arguments (of the debate variety; I dig philosophical arguments), time sucks, rudeness. Your chances of winning my ballot will be greatly improved if you: clearly give me reasons why I should vote for you in rebuttals, weigh impacts, provide actual clash, win frameworks.  Miscellaneous: I’m usually pretty nice with speaker points (just don’t be a jerk).  Points of order are fine, but don’t go overboard.

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

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 :)

David Worth - Rice

David Worth, Ph.D.   D.O.F., Rice University   Judging Philosophy   My decision is based mostly on how the debaters argue I should decide the round; I try to avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible but will when the round demands it.  There are many cases where this might be necessary: If asked to use my ballot politically for example, or if both sides fail to give me a clear mechanism for voting, or if I know something to factually incorrect (if you are lying).  In these cases I try to stay out of the decision as much as I can but I don’t believe in the idea that any living person is really a blank slate or a sort of argument calculator.    Decision-making Approach: I’ll judge based on given criteria. I can think in more than one way.  This means that the mechanisms for deciding the round are up for debate as far as I’m concerned.    Warrants: I will not vote for assertions that don’t at least have some warrant behind them. You can’t say “algae blooms,” and assume I will fill in the internals and the subsequent impacts for you. You don’t get to just say that some counter-intuitive thing will happen. You need a reason that that lovely regionally based sustainable market will just magically appear after the conveniently bloodless collapse of capitalism. I’m not saying I won’t vote for that. I’m just saying you have to make an argument for why it would happen. NOTE: I need a good warrant for an "Independent Voting Issue" that isn't an implication of a longer argument or procedural. Just throwing something in as a voter will not get the ballot. I reserve the right to gut-check these. If there is not warrant or if the warrant makes no sense to me, I won't vote on it.    Offense/Defense: Defense can win, too. That doesn’t mean that a weaker offensive argument with risk can’t outweigh defense, it just means that just saying, “oh that’s just defense,” won’t make the argument go away for me. Debate is not football. There’s no presumption in the NFL, so that analogy is wrong.   Assessing Arguments: An argument’s weight depends on how strong it is.  I think line-by-line vs. "big picture" is an artificial divide anyway.  This can vary by round.  I would say you need to deal with all the line-by-line stuff but should not fail to frame things (do the big picture work) for me as well.  It’s pretty rare that I vote on one response but it’s equally rare that I will vote on the most general level of the ideas.   Presentation: All good as long as you are clear. I’ll tell you if you are not, but not more than a couple of times. After that, I will try, but I make no guarantees.   Strong Viewpoints: As I’ve said before, I probably won t vote to kill everyone to save the planet/galaxy/universe. Otherwise I haven t found "the" issue yet that I can t try to see all sides of.   I vote on procedurals a bit less than other arguments but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t run them. I am getting kind of tired of purely strategic procedurals. However, even though they aren’t favorites they are sometimes necessary.   Points of Order: Call them, or don’t call them; I’ll probably know whether the argument is new and not calling them does not change their status as new.  Also, if you’re clearly winning bigtime don’t call a ridiculous number of them in your opponents’ rebuttal. Just let them get out of the round with some dignity (if you don’t, speaker points will suffer). It’ll be obvious when I think you are calling too many.   Other Items to Note:   If the round is obviously lopsided and you are obliterating the other team (e.g. if they are novices), then be nice. I will obliterate your speaker points if you aren’t nice or if you simply pile it on for the heck of it.   You don’t need to repeat yourself just to fill time. If you’re finished, then sit down and get us all to lunch, the end of the day, or the next round early.   I’m not going to weigh in on the great theoretical controversies of the game. Those are up to you to demonstrate in the round. T can be more than one thing depending on the round. Counterplans can function in more than one way. Critical debates can have many forms. I’m not going to tell you what to do. I am familiar with pretty much all of it, and have been around for a long time. I don’t pretend to think any of the issues are settled.  Actually, I’ve learned or at least been forced to think about theory issues from debaters in rounds far more often than from anyone else. If I had pontificated about The Truth As I Knew It before those rounds, the debaters would have simply argued what I said I liked and I wouldn’t have learned, so it’s in my interest as well as yours for me not to hand you a sushi menu with the items I’d like to see checked off. PICS, Framework, Competing Interp, in-round abuse, etc. These are all interpretable in the debate. I will say that I probably most naturally think in terms of competing interpretations on T, but, as I mention above, I can think in more than one way.   I will also say that I dislike the post/pre-fiat issue. I am kind of over it.  Find a way to compare the impacts/implications and the plan/alt, etc. for me. It really annoys me to have compare things after the round that I was told throughout the round were “not comparable.” If you don’t find a way, don’t get mad at me for comparing them however I choose to compare them.   My “Debate Background:” I did CEDA/NDT in college. I coached policy for years, and also coached parli from the days of metaphor and holding-the-wig-on-as-you-stand all the way into the NPTE/NPDA modern era. I have also coached NFA-LD.   Finally, everyone in the room has sacrificed something to be there. A lot of resources, time, and effort went in to bringing us all there. Be sure to show some basic respect for that.

David Dickinson - Snow

n/a

Diego Cardenas, Sgt. USAF - CC

Doug Hall - Casper

Argumentation: I am a flow judge. I only vote on what is on the flow, I will NOT intervene or do work for you. I vote primarily on the merit of the arguments made in the round. Are arguments covered, defeated, or dropped? I will vote on these sorts of things. Speed: I do NOT like speed and your speaker points will be decreased for poor communication. I will also not flow something if I can't follow it due to speed. Again, if it's not on the flow, its as if I didn't hear it. In this vein, I do NOT like spreading either. The point of this activity is to not see how much crap you can get to stick, it is to make good arguments that defeat your opponent. Think of it in the context of the real world, would a representative in a parliament win over her colleagues just by making a lot of arguments? Even if some, or most, of them were weak? No, she would focus on the strongest arguments and present those. If you choose to spread, I will not punish your opponent for dropped arguments. Civility: I will judge you harshly if you behave rudely in round. This can be through aggressive tone and/or behavior, caustic sarcasm, using insulting or demeaning language, or displaying a general lack of respect for your opponents. You may not drop the round for this type of behavior, but your speaks will be greatly reduced. Partner Help: I am okay with this as long as the person who is recognized to speak is doing the large majority of the speaking. If the person who is not recognized to speak is speaking, it is as if I cannot hear them and I will not flow it unless it is said by the recognized speaker. Round Etiquette: I would prefer that recognized speakers please stand while speaking. If you would like to ask a question, I ask that you stand to be recognized and not simply raise your hand or interrupt. Procedurals: I do not vote on procedurals unless there is a clear violation and that case is made articulately by the opposition team. I will almost never reward the use of procedurals as gamesmanship. Permutations: Permutations must be clearly laid out with a perm text for me to consider them. I have to know what the plan is for which I would be voting. Kritiques: I am not a fan. The rules of Parliamentary Debate clearly state that you cannot bring pre-prepped materials into the round with you. I, in most cases, do not believe that the Kritique was solely prepared during the prep period and therefore have trouble accepting them as legitimate. That being said, if I do find your "K" to be legit, I will be looking for a clear link and alt. Without these components I cannot vote on the "K". In other words, if you are a team that is going to be running a project "K", you should just strike me now.

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.

Everette Richardson - USAFA

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.

Grace Horone - CC

Holly Manning - LCCC

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.

Jessica Hurless - Casper

Jordan Smith - CCU

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

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.

Malynda Bjerregaard - Snow

Marie Marinelli - CC

Maurianna Shelbourn - Utah

I do not have any competitive debate experience but I do come from a speech and communication background. I enjoy critical theory and performance and am very open to their use in rounds. Primarily I am looking for teams’ strength and quality of argumentation. I want to see you take the time to warrant your claims.   It is unlikely for me to vote on procedurals unless there is very clearly demonstrated abuse. I tend to get frustrated when time is spent here unnecessarily.   In rebuttals I am looking for you to address the impact calculus and provide arguments that explain why one impact should outweigh another.   I believe debate should be accessible. This means I am not a fan of excessive speed and like to hear clear, articulate delivery. While I am learning the structure and terminology of debate I also appreciate minimal use of jargon. I will take notes but I do not consider myself to be a flow critic.

Michael Cole - USAFA

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

Nicholas Hellbusch - 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

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.

Rob Margesson - CC

Sahan Jayasumana - CC

Savannah Sandburg - CC

Steve Miraglia - WWCC

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.

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).

2013 James 'Al' Johnson Memorial Speech and Debate Tournament