FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Mouritsen - UNR

Allen Amundsen - SJDC

Amanda Burk - Sac State

Benjamin Mann - Pacific

Brief version: I take my role as a critic very seriously. My goal is to judge in the most fair, neutral, and open way possible through a careful evaluation of the flow and strategic decisions made by debaters that avoids judge intervention and minimizes adaptation under the framework the debaters provide (or fairly resolve said framework if it is contested). Because I care about this activity and love to see competitors on their game, I enjoy judging a lot and strive to be the best critic I can be.   I believe you should debate in the most comfortable and strategic way for you. I’m open to and experienced with a variety of arguments, including advantages/disadvantages, kritiks, counterplans, performance, procedurals and critical affirmatives. I would much rather have you debate the way you like rather than alter your strategy because you have me as a judge. I don’t necessarily prefer certain types of arguments over others: the best debates come from people running the strategies they want.   Everything else is more specific but elaborates this general theme as well as my experience with the activity. Feel free to keep reading, but I realize time is often tight.   2015-16 updates: -My philosophy is fundamentally the same as last year. I realize it’s a novella, but I aim to be thorough, clear, and predictable as a critic, so I decided to avoid too much condensing. I also did some rearranging to put the most important parts at the top. -Added a small section at the bottom specific to NFA-LD. While everything before it is parli-specific, relevant aspects apply. -Regarding trichot: I personally find policy debates significantly more educational and easier to evaluate than fact or value, and I believe advocacies can be derived from fact/value resolutions. That being said, I respect competitors who want to have those debates and will do my best to assess them as fairly as possible, as well as any theory for or against trichot. -I find that extensive judges’ responses to points of order tend to heavily alter the rest of rebuttals. Still call them: I’ll hear the point and response, but I will need time on the flow to do a fair assessment of newness. Expect to hear “under consideration” unless I am very certain, in which case I will say “point well taken” or “point not well taken”. -2014-15, I judged at: Jewell, (both halves) GGO, Lewis & Clark, Reno, UOP, Mile High, (both halves) NCFA   This is my second year out of competition and my second year and final year coaching while pursuing my Master’s in Communication as a Graduate Assistant at the University of the Pacific. I competed for a year of high school Lincoln-Douglas debate followed by four years of college parli for Lewis & Clark from 2010-14 on the national circuit, with the team name Lewis & Clark HM my senior year. Overall, I competed in over 50 college parli tournaments and in my time as a competitor ran several different types of debate arguments, from politics to Foucault. From 2013-14, I also worked as a high school speech and debate coach, extensively judging both CX and parli.   The rest of this philosophy is divided into two parts: general notes and more in-depth discussion about my views on particular arguments.   General notes: -I do not aim to steer the direction of the activity with my ballot or use it to force people to debate in a certain way in front of me. -I approach theory in a neutral way, including conditionality, PICs, and textual competition. In other words, these procedurals are neither autowins nor dead in the water: I will evaluate them via competing interpretations unless an alternate criterion is offered and prioritized. Under competing interpretations, I examine which definition or interpretation is the best internal link (via the standards debate) to the impacts of the procedural through the arguments made by debaters. -Unless an alternative framework is offered, I default to a net-benefits evaluation of the round that examines the advantages against the costs between the hypothetical, post-fiat implications of the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option. This evaluation considers the risk of timeframe, magnitude, and probability, but does not necessarily prioritize one over the other: if impact prioritization is made by debaters in rebuttals, I will alter my evaluation of impact framing devices accordingly. -My speaker point average is 27.5. Things that will buoy your points include: argument and speaking clarity, strategic decision-making and collapse, argument diversity, strong warrants, aff-specific links, efficient time management, and comparing, resolving, and prioritizing warrants and impacts in rebuttals. Things that will hurt speaker points include: rudeness and personal attacks, dropping key arguments, needless repetition, counterfactual and warrantless claims, excessive cursing, going for too much, and lack of thesis level work in rebuttals. -I was trained to follow quick debaters while competing and similarly can flow fast debates as a judge. I will yell “clear” if your enunciation isn’t comprehensible to me, and will yell “slow” in the event that you are going too fast for me to flow. Generally, this should not be a problem, however… -Please slow down or repeat plan/counterplan/alt texts as well as interpretations for procedurals. Slowing for the thesis level of kritiks or the top of complex politics disadvantages is also preferable to help me understand the nuance of the position. -Though I competed extensively in IEs as well, that does not inform how I approach parli. The two activities have very different norms and expectations, so only debate in a “speechy” way if that’s how you want to debate. -Offense is generally more valuable in debate insofar as it gives me reasons to vote for you, but strategic defense can do a lot, especially if impact framing prioritizes probable impacts. -Unless told otherwise, I evaluate permutations of advocacies as tests of competition. -“Perm do both” is a sufficient perm text, but means I will evaluate the texts of the two advocacies in their entirety together. Thus, alts including “vote negative” are probably not the best places to read these kinds of perms and “do the plan and…” perm texts would work better. -Unless otherwise specified, I will assume affirmative advocacies are unconditional and negative advocacies are conditional. -I will not vote teams down on this basis unless theory is read and won by the other team, but my knee jerk reaction is that all constructive speeches should take at least one question unless CX is offered and a copy of an advocacy text should be provided, or have the text repeated. -Only call points of order if you feel an argument is close. I will protect against blatantly new arguments in rebuttals and it is not in your best interest to call points of order for arguments clearly on the flow in an attempt to get the rebuttal off its game. -While I’m fine with some partner prompting, I will only ever flow what’s said by the debater giving their speech, so they’ll need to repeat what’s prompted. -It’s in your interest to make extensions in member speeches, however brief, (e.g. extend the entirety of the advantage) of PMC/LOC arguments to avoid messy points of order in rebuttals and force me to evaluate the newness of extensions. -I’m here because I love this activity, community, and judging. Debate’s a fun and incredible limited time offer with a great group of people: please don’t misinterpret my tendency to be serious and aloof as apathy or condescension. At the same time, while I can be a silly person, I leave that at the door when judging rounds. My aim for RFDs is to clearly articulate my decision calculus and also to offer feedback of the round from my perspective as an educator.   My views on specific arguments are below:   Topicality I value T as both a viable strategic tool and an important check against abuse. If I’m not told otherwise, I will examine T a priori and default to competing interpretations unless a different criterion such as reasonability or a kritik of topicality is explained and prioritized. Under competing interpretations, I examine which definition is best via the standards debate for the impacts of topicality. As a result, I will consider potential abuse unless arguments are made against it. T is fundamentally a question of the best definition: it asks whether you should have links to an argument in the first place, not whether you’ve been no-linked out of a position. Good T debate includes a nuanced definition that’s clear out of the LOC, a coherent violation, compelling standards, and voters. I enjoy internal collapse for teams that go for T or answer it in the PMR, leveraging a few standards and prioritizing either fairness or education. While I will listen to RVIs, I generally think they’re not particularly strategic or compelling arguments. Arguments such as effects topicality or extratopicality are fine as either standards or standalone procedurals.   Other Procedurals As mentioned above, I’m neutral on other theory positions and tend to believe abusive techniques in debate (as well as the question of whether the technique is abusive in the first place) can be resolved in-round through these arguments. The deeper, more nuanced interpretation, the better. I similarly look for clear standards and impacts for these procedurals and also evaluate them under competing interpretations absent another framing device provided and explained. In answering these procedurals, I tend to think people can be too dismissive or defensive in MG standards, so offensive reasons why your interpretation is preferable will get you far.   Kritiks Strategic K debate solves, gets to the root cause of the aff, or provides a framework that precludes a standard evaluation of PMC arguments while beating back the perm and other offense. I enjoy K debate and am familiar with a lot of the classics (Nietzsche, Cap/Marx, Fem IR, etc) but am always open to different Ks or new spins of old favorites. Going a little slower through more obscure K literature is preferable so I can capture the argument. I do think that Ks can be too eager to find something to criticize while giving an alternative that resolves little offense or isn’t a good idea in the first place, and tend to think disadvantages to alternatives or impact turns are underutilized. I’m also not a fan of Ks designed to be confusing out of the LOC so the MG mishandles responding to them; it’s better to have a clear argument from the get-go you’re willing to defend. Perms and offense, including disads to the alt and either link or impact turns, as well as leveraging the aff or giving a different framework, are some strategic ways for the MG to engage the K. While I’ll listen to them, I’m less persuaded by K frameworks designed to moot the entirety of the PMC: whether or not they’re granted post-fiat implications, I tend to think the aff should be able to weigh the representations of their speech. Finally, please signpost clearly when going through different parts of the K, especially in rebuttals.   Counterplans Clever counterplans that capture the aff and avoid specific offense, such as strategic PICs, can be a thing of beauty, though as mentioned, I’m open to MG theory against them. As a result, run delay, veto, and other counterplans of that variety at your own risk. Please slow down or repeat CP texts. Without specific theory and under a standard framework, I believe that all CPs need to compete through net-benefits as a more desirable policy option than the aff or the perm. This means the CP need not be mutually exclusive: it becomes a question of whether the permutation should be done, verses whether it can be done. Clear explanation of the CP’s solvency mechanism is also essential: don’t name a nebulous bill that apparently solves the aff without any details. Aff teams that utilize solvency deficits, offense against counterplans, permutations, or theory to respond are well-equipped against these arguments.   Disadvantages/Advantages Nuanced uniqueness, deep warrants, specific links, and clear, varied internal link/impact modules can turn these good arguments into great ones. I’m familiar with a lot of generic disadvantages, such as politics, relations, and business confidence and understand their utility, but they become much more compelling when they’re tailored to the aff, especially on the link level. Teams often read a laundry list of econ/relations/etc uniqueness that accurately portray the state of affairs, but don’t give a clear trajectory on how something being low actually leads to collapse or give explanation in how the aff offsets this trajectory. Extinction level impacts are part of the game and I understand their utility, but also believe there should be an explanation of how you reach these impacts rather than blipping “extinction” or I’ll hold them to a high level of scrutiny. Small, systemic impacts are underutilized in debate and can be compelling, especially for teams that tell me to prioritize probability in rebuttals. For very specific positions, such as politics disadvantages, thesis-level clarity and slower explanation in the beginning is preferred to help me understand your argument. I also think that affirmative teams too often structure advantages on solving the status quo without shielding them against predictable counterplans. Brief source citation builds legitimacy to warrants, especially when warrant accuracy is brought into question by the other team and since cards aren’t used in parli. I enjoy internal collapse on these arguments as well. Rather than simply extending these arguments in rebuttals, final speeches should explain, compare, and resolve both warrants and impacts. Lastly, I think LOC arguments on-case are underutilized and can often be the best sources of clash. Neg teams can be quick to assume the solvency of their counterplans or Ks while missing big chunks of the aff.   Performance I want teams to run the arguments they enjoy, benefit them strategically, and are personally important to them, and I absolutely believe that performance-based arguments are good for this activity. If it’s supplemented with a robust defense of your approach should the other team brings it into question, I’ll follow the argument under the framework you provide. This being said, I am extremely uncomfortable with performance-based arguments that demonize or engage in personal attacks against programs, critics, or debaters without an extremely good justification. I would much rather see performance-based arguments that address important issues rather than target or scapegoat individuals or hurt the activity, but if those strategies are integral to your advocacy, please do them with extreme caution and understanding of their implications. I also think that neg teams can be too easily spooked by these arguments or deem them unwinnable when a lot of strategies, including compelling counteradvocacies or PICs can be extremely effective.   Critical Affirmatives Similar to performance, I think that teams should run the arguments they want to run and I will work to evaluate them fairly under the framework provided, or resolve the framework debate if two interpretations compete. Aff teams don’t always have to engage in rounds through utilitarian, net-benefits calculus and there are many topics where that approach isn’t advantageous. Unless told otherwise, I will evaluate impacts through the lens you provide.   Special Note on the LOR The LOR is easily the most misunderstood and underutilized speech in parli. At its worst, it can be a retread of the MO, but at its best it can do a ton for negative teams. Though I protect against new arguments in rebuttals without theory on splitting the block, smart LORs differentiate from MOs by giving thesis level explanation, unwrapping and re-explaining offense, and preempting PMR strategies. The LOR can only turn the dial more toward neg teams and make it harder for the PMR to turn it back.   NFA-LD Relevant aspects of parli apply. I assess postfiat implications as fairly as possible and do not have particular argument preferences. -I will fairly evaluate any rule violations or theoretical objects, but am open to impact turns against these. After all, sometimes there are things more important than the rules. -I generally will not need to see cards after the round, but reserve the right to ask. -Please time yourselves and monitor your use of prep. If you need a minute to get something on a flash drive, that’s fine, but try to be swift. -Generally I am more persuaded by carded evidence, but this ought to be explained and prioritized over other cards and cardless warrants. -I am inclined to believe that SOURCE, DATE warrants a full citation, but will fairly consider theory against it. If you have any additional questions about my coaching philosophy or decisions, I’d be more than happy to communicate with you via email at benwmann@gmail.com or by talking to me at tournaments. Happy competing!

Bethany Renfree - Sac State

Devin Betts - UNR

Hans Craycraft - CCC

My judging philosophy is simple and founded upon Aristotle’s axiom that there are only two parts to a speech-----you make a statement and then you prove it.  I want to know what the speakers believe and why they believe it. I expect the speakers to be clear, concise and eloquent. I look for claims to be supported by evidence and that evidence to be evaluated by its quality. This applies not only to the primary claim, but also to secondary claims. I do not look favorably upon claims made in passing, that I am expected to accept without adequately linked evidence.  I do not expect the speakers to be unbiased, but I do expect them to be reasonable, rational, credible and passionate. I place a lot of value on the quality of evidence, structure and the reasonableness of the inference drawn from that evidence. I look for teams to provide quality analysis, reasoning, organization, and delivery. I prefer that teams carefully and clearly label the various elements of their case.  I also look for strong refutation on opposing points. I will normally give the win to the team that most skillfully blends these various elements into a coherent whole and thereby displays power, consistency and reasonability in their advocacy.

Jake Poff - Chico

I competed in parliamentry debate for two years and also have been judging parlimentary debate and NFA debate for over four years now. I am open to all arguments as long as the voters and impacts are justified. You will pick up my ballot by focusing on impacts especially in the rebuttals. I really look to vote for teams that weigh out arguments in the rebuttal, or focus on proecedural voters that prove abuse was given in the round that I must vote on. Overall win the impacts in the rebuttals and you will pick up my ballot.

Janet Brehe-Johnson - LPC

n/a

Jeff Toney - SJDC

Jeffrey Lamb - SFSU

John Perez - CCC

Thanks for stopping by to check out my thoughts. I have been active in debate since 1999 as a student, coach and now DOF.  I understand the various theories and strategies within the event.  As a student, I loved the persuasive aspect of this event.  As the DOF for Contra Costa, I teach my students the importance of structure, organization, and being fair.  I enjoy Parliamentary debate when there is line by refutation, fun, and logical reasoning.  I really discourage arguments on "T".  Prop- be fair, don't take ground and don't be abusive.  Opp- if you feel you have no ground and the government is abusive, feel free to call it out.  Debates on "T" take away from debating the basic topic dictated by the resolution. Spreading? DON'T.  There really is no reason for it.  As a competitor, I was trained to flow the round, therefore, as a judge, I will also flow your arguments.  Organization is important.  If you sign post, follow it!  If you are unorganized, then I get to decide where to put your arguments, this is very dangerous! Overall, have fun, BE NICE, and be fair.

Jonathan McGuire - UNR

Joshua Harzman - Pacific

Name: JOSHUA CARLISLE HARZMAN School: U. PACIFIC   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’m a former debater so run whatever you want; however you want. My voting paradigm is tabula rasa until you tell me otherwise. Please be kind to one another. After you maintain competitive equity, do whatever is necessary to win.     Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.   <ol> <li>Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?</li> </ol>   27-29----To get the 30, you must clearly be the best debater in the room. I do not give 30’s every round.   <ol> <li>How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?</li> </ol>   You may argue whatever you want, but be able to defend it. If you claim in-round solvency or impacts, you better warrant those claims. Affirmatives have equal access to these types of arguments. For contradictory positions, again, be able to defend your representations if opponents choose to read theory.   <ol> <li>Performance based arguments…</li> </ol>   Give a framework for how I ought evaluate and I prefer arguments that allow your opponent access to the representations, however, I understand this is not always the case.   <ol> <li>Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?</li> </ol>   I require a definition, competitive standards, and voting impacts. If you give a standard, (don’t explain what predictability means) explain how your interpretation better upholds said standard (explain how your definition is better for a predictable debate). I think reasonability calls for judge intervention but if that’s how you want me to vote then make the argument.   <ol> <li>Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?</li> </ol>   All types of counter-plans are fine – until the affirmative tells me otherwise. All permutations are fine – until the negative tells me otherwise.   <ol> <li>Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)</li> </ol>   Yes, if they want to.       <ol> <li>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?)?</li> </ol>   The debate will answer this question. No one argument is theoretically “before” another until the debaters tell me as such. If T is A-Priori and the K framework comes before the 1AC, then I would evaluate theory, followed by methods, and then impacts. If T isn’t A-Priori and the Case gets weighed against the K, I’ll vote as such.     <ol> <li>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")?</li> </ol>     AGAIN, ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN INSTRUCTED TO VOTE OTHERWISE: Quantity > Quality Extinction > Torture Genocide > Dehumanization

Kathleen Bruce - SJDC

Kelsey Caldwell - Chico

Kevin Steeper - SRJC

Kevin Steeper, Santa Rosa Junior College Most Important Criteria I'm a tabula rasa judge, so I look to vote on the flow where the debaters tell me to. If one team tells me the sky is orange and the other doesn't respond, the sky is orange for the purpose of the round. I will, however, intervene if the other team says the sky is blue as I'll be inclined to give weight to the argument I know is true. I want to see concrete, real world impacts on your argumentation. I won't do any extra work for you in order to give you the ballot, so you need to make sure you impact out all of your arguments. At the end of the round, I'm also far more likely to vote on probability over magnitude (so, for example, you'll might have a hard time getting my ballot if you lay out an unlikely human extinction scenario if your opponent has more reasonable impacts). Predispositions The only thing I'm predisposed to not want to vote on is a K. I want to hear a debate on the issues, one that was prepped as much as can be expected in the 20 minutes of prep time as opposed to something you've been working on all year. If you run it really well, or the opponent totally mishandled it, I'll still vote on it even though I won't want to. If the other team, however, handles it well enough, my threshold to reject a K is pretty low. Otherwise, I have no issues voting on T or any other procedural. I prefer to see arguments on the resolution, but have no problem voting on a procedural if it's warranted. In addition, on topicality (and related positions) I prefer potential abuse as opposed to proven abuse as far as what I need to vote on topicality. I feel that running a position that specifically does not link to the affirmative's case to prove abuse is a waste of my time and yours, and I'd rather you spend the 30-60 seconds you spend running that position making arguments that really matter in the round. Topicality can be evaluated just fine in a vacuum without having to also complain about how it prevented you from running X, Y, or Z position. The affirmative team is topical or they aren't, and no amount of in round abuse via delinked positions (or lack thereof) changes that. Additionally, I tend to default to reasonability over competing interpretations, but will listen to arguments as to why I should prefer competing interpretations. Speed/Jargon/Technical I debated Parli for four years, so I have no trouble with jargon or debate terms. I'm not a fan of speed as a weapon and I like to see good clash, so my feeling on speed is don't speed the other team out of the room. If they call "clear" or "slow", slow down. Additionally, my feelings on speed are also directly related to clarity. My threshold on speed will drop precipitously if your clarity and enunciation is low, and conversely is higher the more clear you remain at speed. NOTE: I do not protect on the flow in rebuttals. It's your debate, it's up to you to tell me to strike new arguments (or not). My feeling is that me protecting on the flow does not allow the other side to make a response as to why it isn't a new argument, so I want one side to call and the other side to get their say. NFA-LD SPECIFIC NOTES: Because of the non-limited prep nature of the event, I am far more receptive to K debate in this event. Additionally, given that there are no points of order, I also will protect on the flow in rebuttals.

Koji Takahashi - BerkeleySpeech

The round is yours and it is your job to tell me what I should vote on and why. I’m down for any argument as long as you win on it and tell me exactly why it is important and how I should evaluate it. Good rebuttals make my job easier, so please use them wisely. I will vote first and foremost on the arguments that are brought up as voters in the rebuttals and prefer to only evaluate other things on the flow if the arguments are a wash. I’m fine with some speed, but my flow is not as fast as it used to be and I prefer to be a flow judge. If you want me to have all your argument on my flow, I would not recommend going full speed. Medium fast. I prefer systemic impacts to outlandishly big ones, but it really is up to you to explain to me why I should be voting for any impact and I will defer to you. If an argument is a wash, I’ll defer to me and I like systemic impacts better. Please understand perm theory and be able to explain it well. I’ve judged a lot of rounds that were lost because open teams didn’t understand how to make basic perm arguments, so don’t let that happen. Down for Ks, but make sure the alt is sound. I am a firm believer that the rhetoric in round is important and am super down for pre-fiat impacts, but please make the arguments good. Also, I’m super down with queer theory. PET PEEVES -Shallow dehum arguments I don’t particularly like most dehum arguments that are thrown around in debate and don’t consider it a terminalized impact on its own unless you explain exactly how your conception dehum functions. If you don’t, my default is to view it the way I’ve been trained to-- as a social process (i.e., poverty is not inherently dehumanizing—people who perceive or portray those in poverty as living or being subhuman are dehumanizing). If someone throws out dehum in an uncritical way, call them on it and I will be happy. -Root cause arguments that are just wrong I know how root cause arguments function strategically, but I don’t like the way most people run them. They are far too often either wrong or poorly articulated to the point of sounding wrong. Run them if you feel you have solid analysis to defend it, but be warned. -Teams that bite their own K Please don’t do this. If your opponents do it, please don’t let them get away with it. I’m down for good Ks, but I really don’t like people telling me what I have to do with my ballot if they won’t do it with the rest of their advocacy.

Kyle Cheesewright - IDAHO

“All that you touch   You Change.   All that you Change   Changes you.   The only lasting truth   Is Change.   God Is Change.” –Octavia Butler, “Parable of the Sower.”   Debate is a game. Debate is a strange, beautiful game that we play. Debate is a strange beautiful game that we play with each other.   I love debate. It’s the only game that exists where the rules are up for contestation by each side. There are some rules that aren’t up for discussion, as far as I can tell, these are them:   1/ Each debate will have a team that wins, and a team that looses. Say whatever you want, I am structurally constrained at the end of debate to award one team a win, and the other team will receive a loss. That’s what I got.   2/ Time limits. I think that a discussion should have equal time allotment for each side, and those times should probably alternate. I have yet to see a fair way for this question to be resolved in a debate, other than through arbitrary enforcement. The only exception is that if both teams decide on something else, you have about 45 minutes from the start of the round, to when I have to render a decision.   Pretty much everything else is open to contestation. At this point, I don’t really have any serious, uncontestable beliefs about debate. This means that the discussion is open to you. I do tend to find that I find debates to be more engaging when they are about substantive clash over a narrow set of established issues. This means, I tend to prefer debates that are specific and deep. Good examples, and comparative discussion of those examples is the easiest way to win my ballot. Generally speaking, I look for comparative impact work. I find that I tend to align more quickly with highly probable and proximate impacts, though magnitude is just so easy.   I tend to prefer LOC strategies that are deep, well explained explorations of a coherent world. The strategy of firing off a bunch of underdeveloped arguments, and trying to develop the strategy that is mishandled by the MG is often successful in front of me, but I almost always think that the round would have been better with a more coherent LOC strategy—for both sides of the debate.   At the end of the debate, when it is time for me to resolve the discussion, I start by identifying what I believe the weighing mechanism should be, based on the arguments made in the debate. Once I have determined the weighing mechanism, I start to wade through the arguments that prove the world will be better or worse, based on the decision mechanism. I always attempt to default to explicit arguments that debaters make about these issues.   Examples are the evidence of Parliamentary debate. Control the examples, and you will control the debate.   On specific issues: I don’t particularly care what you discuss, or how you discuss it. I prefer that you discuss it in a way that gives me access to the discussion. I try not to backfill lots of arguments based on buzzwords. For example, if you say “Topicality is a matter of competing interpretations,” I think I know what that means. But I am not going to default to evaluating every argument on Topicality through an offense/defense paradigm unless you explain to me that I should, and probably try to explicate what kinds of answers would be offensive, and what kinds of answers would be defensive. Similarly, if you say “Topicality should be evaluated through the lens of reasonability,” I think I know what that means. But if you want me to stop evaluating Topicality if you are winning that there is a legitimate counter-interpretation that is supported by a standard, then you should probably say that.   I try to flow debates as specifically as possible. I feel like I have a pretty good written record of most debates.   Rebuttals are times to focus a debate, and go comprehensively for a limited set of arguments. You should have a clear argument for why you are winning the debate as a whole, based on a series of specific extensions from the Member speech. The more time you dedicate to an issue in a debate, the more time I will dedicate to that issue when I am resolving the debate. Unless it just doesn’t matter. Watch out for arguments that don’t matter, they’re tricksy and almost everyone spends too much time on them.   Before I make my decision, I try to force myself to explain what the strongest argument for each side would be if they were winning the debate. I then ask myself how the other team is dealing with those arguments. I try to make sure that each team gets equal time in my final evaluation of a debate.   This is a radical departure from my traditional judging philosophy. I’ll see how it works out for me. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. For the record, I have strong opinions on just about everything that occurs in a debate round—but those strong opinions are for down time and odd rants during practice rounds. I work to keep them out of the debate, and at this point, I think I can say that I do a pretty good job on that account.   I just thought of a third rule. Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I thought speeches are. If you tell me what speaker points I should give you, I will listen, and promptly discard what you say. Probably.   For the sake of transparency: My personal gig is critical-cultural theory. It's where my heart is. This does not mean that you should use critical theory that you don't understand or feel comfortable with it. Make the choices in debate that are the best, most strategic, or most ethical for you. If your interested in my personal opinons about your choices, I'm more than happy to share. But I'll do that after the debate is over, the ballot submitted, and we're just two humans chatting. The debate will be decided based on the arguments made in the debate.   “[Y]ou can’t escape language: language is everything and everywhere; it’s what lets us have anything to do with one another; it’s what separates us from animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so on.” -David Foster Wallace, “Authority and American Usage.”   Old Philosophy A Body's Judging Philosophy Debate has been my home since 1996— and when I started, I caressed Ayn Rand and spoke of the virtue of selfishness.   I am much older than I was. These days, I am trying to figure out how subjectivity gets created from the raw material of words and research.   I have no interest in how well you can recite the scripts you’ve memorized. Or at what speed.   I will not be held responsible for adjudicating your bank balance. And I will not provide interest on your jargon. I will listen to your stories and I will decide which story is better, using the only currency I am comfortable with: the language of land, and the words that sprout from my body like hair.   I remember the visceral intensity of the win and loss, and the way that worth was constructed from finishing points. I am far too familiar with the bitter sting of other names circled.   I think that the systemic is far more important than the magnitude. Politics make me sick. And I know that most of the fun with words, has nothing to do with limits, because it’s all ambiguous. And nothing fair.   These days, I read Deleuze and Guattari, and wonder what it means when classrooms are madhouses. And all that remains is the affect.

Kyle Johnson - SFSU

What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I prefer to vote for the team that presents the most logical, well-reasoned, organized, and creative arguments regardless of my own personal view of the resolution. Debaters should provide/contest criteria for evaluating the round. Highlight key voting issues during your final speech.   What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters? Be respectful of your opponents at all times but please let your personality come through. Be a little snarky but try not to make it personal. (It takes a small person to make someone sound foolish but a real scholar to make the same person sound intelligent.) Partner communication is acceptable, heckling is acceptable but each one of us engaged in this debate deserves the others full and undivided attention.   What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote? Don’t make stuff up, if you aren’t certain, qualify your statement. I give such statements more credibility than false information. Convince me of how I should evaluate the debate. The team that wins my ballot will have a logical, criteria based argument when compared to the opposing side. When well warranted, I can vote on well-structured and clearly explained topicality arguments and, in Open only, kritiks. Debaters should be specific in their argumentation and provide clear voting issues in rebuttal speeches.   How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements? This activity is based in Communication, so I would hope that all parties, including any spectators would be able to access your arguments through your effective oral delivery; in other words speak to be heard not merely to hear yourself. Speed is appropriate if the previous condition is met and I can still flow your argument. (Hint, if I stop flowing you have either lost me completely or you have won the debate and I’m relaxing.) Read my very obvious non-verbal signals. Delivery can be accelerated beyond a conversational rate, but my roots are in Interpretive Events and I value articulation, emphasis, inflections, and pauses. Delivery style may affect speaker points but will not factor into a decision. Points of order can be called when rules are broken; I will stop time and hear briefly from the opposing side before ruling.

Kyle Johnson - USF

MATTHEW LANE-SWANSON - SMC

New for the 17-18 season - looked at the poem and was like..... damn, this is old I see debate as a contest of two sides of an argument.  The aff picks the argument and the neg responds to it.  Many times, the aff will select their comments based on a resolution that is provided by a third party.  Personally, the topic and customs of the round matter not.  What is the point of me trying to enforce rigid standards of competition that are not necessarily agreed upon by the individuals participating in the debate?  As such, I see my position in the round not as a participant but as an participant-observer.  I am someone who will enter into the field of debate with you and observe/record the data you present to me.  However, unlike traditional P-O methods I would prefer for you to do the analysis for me.  At the end of the round I will render a decision based off of the arguments in the round as instructed by the participants of the debate.              To unpack this further, to perform what I consider a debate there should be two sides to the debate.  Unfortunately for the negative, the burden they are given is to refute the affirmative.  The reason I feel this is unfortunate is that I believe the affirmative needs to offer an advocacy that would be better than the sqo.  This does not require the aff to pass a policy through the usfg/state/whatever agency in my opinion.  This does not grant the aff a free ticket to do whatever.  While I may not have those requirements the negative team may and they may even have compelling reasons why lacking those concepts is reason enough for you to lose the round.  The purpose of this is to explain that the debate I am to observe is up to you to determine as participants in nearly all ways.  The only rules I will enforce are structural such as start/end round times, speaker times, and speaker order.             In my RFDs there are two things I like to cover, arguments you did make and arguments you could have.  The best RFDs I have seen starts with what people are going for in the rebuttals and they work backwards in the debate and I have tried to implement this style into my RFDs.  Sometimes I want to run arguments by you and see what you think of them.  Not because they are the “right” argument but because I respect your opinion and wonder what you have to say on the matter.  Does that mean it affects the round?  No, of course not.  However, if we assume that all learning from debate happens in the round and not after I think we are selling ourselves out.  Lots of people, the greatest people, like to ask my opinion on what I would do in whatever situation and I think it is a great way to learn a little more by asking these hypothetical questions.             When it comes to speaker points I see a 30 A+; 29.5-29.9 A; 29-29.4 A-; 28.8-27.9 B+; B 28.4-28.7 B; 28.0-28.3 B-; 27.8-27.9 C+; C 27.4-27.7 C; 27.0-27.3 C-; 26.8-26.9 D+; D 26.4-26.7 C; 26.0-26.3 D-; Less than 26 = I will be looking for your coaching staff after the round.               I feel as though there are certain places my mind wanders in a debate that I am forced to fill in for debaters and so I wanted to share some of those concerns with you.  First, impact prioritization.  I often times will have one team saying nuclear war will happen and the other talking about poverty and nobody compares the two arguments with one another.  They just claim to win their impact and that impact is bad.  What happens when the aff and neg both win their impact?  Nobody really 100% wins their impacts ever so for however likely the impact is what should that do for my evaluation of the round?  Basically, the whole two worlds theory assumes a vision of the round where your impacts do not interact with the other sides impacts.  Would an overnight economic collapse with a poverty impact make a nuclear war more or less likely to occur?  Maybe you could tell me.  Second, how to evaluate the round.  I think this comes back to a larger question of impact calculus.  I feel that teams debating in front of me who are surprised by my decisions do not generally compare their impacts against the other team’s as often/thoroughly as they should.  They know they have won their impact, poverty kills and that’s bad, but they think I will just vote on that because I have a bleeding heart.  I am not going to fill in for you so do not ask me to.  I want rich explanations of concepts, especially later in the debate.  It is not that I do not understand the concepts but it is your job to explain them to me so I can evaluate them fairly.  When you say something without a warrant I just write n0w in the next cell, my abbreviation for no warrant, and move on.  I will not fill in the warrants for you or apply arguments to places you do not.  I might talk to you about doing so after the round but it will not play a part in the round.    Previous philosophy: Thoughts from Matthew Please speak up, I am still really hard of hearing.  I do sit in the back of the room almost exclusively to make you work harder.  If you want me to not sit where I want ask me to move, I have no problem moving.   Debate has been my home since 2k When it came to competing I did OK It is 2015 and I am still here Doing something that is so dear Before you decide that I am a worth a strike Question if that is really what you would like I have yet to go Mad as a Hatter don’t you fear But some of this may not be what you want to hear   Where do we come from and what have we seen Debate is about all of these things and more if you know what I mean Debate has something to offer us all Perform it how you want that is your call But when you say “new off”, condo, I squeal with sooooo much joy… Skipping that strat is something you may want to employ   Don’t just deposit your arguments, I am more than a purse We all have our own rhyme rhythm and verse As fast or as slow before time has been met Say what you can, leave no regret Teach me these things you believe I will listen to any argument that you conceive   Many of you will pretend to be the state If you don’t it won’t make me irate Yet, I read as much of your lit as you did of mine I say this now so you don’t again hear me whine Explain what you mean and mean what you say Wouldn’t want that pesky discourse getting in your way   Do you think this is some kind of game Probability magnitude timeframe Impacts are not dead, they represent life Be aware of where you point your knife   Now comes the end of my little story Go off and live – fight for your glory I wish you the best with an open heart As a judge, my time is yours, until our ways part

Mariel Cruz - Santa Clara

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara Univerisity, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School  I judge both Policy and Parlia debate. I just both events pretty similarly. I do have a few specific notes about Parlia debate at the bottom. Parlia debaters, be sure to read the notes at the very bottom as well.  Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. This is my second year coaching, but I have seen a lot of rounds and know a lot about debate. I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly. I’m good with speed, but be clear. I’ll let you know if you aren’t. However, if you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow.  I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of K literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater, but I don't work with Ks as much as I used to, so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough.  I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I also think conditionality and topicality are pretty awesome. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this. I'll vote on theory and T if I have to.  I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line, so make sure to make those type of arguments as well, ie impact analysis and comparative claims.  I’m cool with paperless debate. I was a paperless debater for a while myself. I don’t time exchanging flashdrives, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.    PARLIA Debate I only went to a hand full of parlia tournaments as a debater, but I helped coach the parlia team during my entire debate career, and I coach both policy and parlia. And, as a policy debater, I'm familiar with all your arguments (since most of them come from policy). I'm also really good with speed, since I had to flow fast rounds all the time for policy. Just be sure to sign post so I can flow properly.  Since the structure for parlia is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parlia rounds than in policy rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parlia, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation.  I'm pretty familiar with debate jargon, but after judging some parlia rounds, I've come to realize that the some terms have slightly different interpretations in parlia than in policy, so you should err on the side of explaining and elaborating instead of just using these terms. For example, explain what "dispo" means, or explain your "try or die" situation, etc.  For any other argument, I judge it the way I would judge policy, so you can look to the information above if you want to know anything else. Also, feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.

Mary Anne Sunseri - San Jose State

I like clear arguments and good, solid, logical  thought processes.  I try my very best to leave my biases out of the round and will likely vote on just what happens in the round. I will not vote on issues not presented by the students. I appreciate good delivery, the use of wit and well mannered competitors. I like all forms of argumentation as long as they are presented clearly, warranted and supported logically. I expect courtesy and respect from and for all in the round (competitors, gallery, etc). It is not okay to speak loudly to your teammate while the other team has the floor; nor is it okay to speak for your teammate.

Matthew Zweier - San Jose State

I prefer debates that are grounded in reality, where impacts represent legitimate concerns and are not drawn to a hyperbole. I value probability over magnitude for impacts. Clarity is a virtue I hope everyone embodies since it makes my job easier. Spreading is something I do not value and do not wish to hear in a debate. It has no value outside of debate and, in my experience, lessens debate as a whole. I enjoy procedural arguments, but only if they are warranted, and if you do the work to make it a strong argument. Procedurals simply for the sake of winning, when it isn’t appropriate, is poor sportsmanship and something I find distasteful. When it comes to Ks, I will not listen to your K unless you can prove the government is being truly abusive. Running a K for the sake of winning, such as running a preprepared K because you figure the other team won’t know how to respond, will only hurt you in the round. I like to see clash in the round that focuses on the topic we have been called to debate. Strong arguments with clear links, evidence to support, and a great presentation are what makes a great debate.

Matthew Hogan - UNR

Name: Matthew Hogan School: University of Nevada, Reno 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. To begin, I have about 12 years experience in the activity between competing in high school policy, competing in college parli, and coaching parli for 3 years. My general approach to evaluating the debate is that the government team has the responsibility to defend the topic and their case, while the negative can challenge either of those two burdens to win the round. I believe the affirmative team should defend the resolution. This means that if you want to run a critical affirmative, you need to explain to me how this position is topical under the specific resolution. I allow quite a bit of leeway when it comes to affirmative interpretations of resolutions, so the least you can do is spend the extra 30 seconds explaining how you are topical. My only exception to this burden is a project affirmative, but I need a good framework explaining why this is more important than the topic, and probably an explanation as to why you are not running the position just to skew your opponents out of the round (ie: disclose your project if it is that important to you). Opposition Teams, your Kritik should also be topical either to the resolution or specifically to the plan text. Generic links, links of omission etc, don’t really do it for me. Link specific discourse, the plan text or the wording of the resolution. Really try to engage your opponent or the resolution with the kritik, don’t run the kritik just for the sake of running it. Also, I believe in negation theory, so you can have contradictory arguments in the round. Just make sure you parameterize down to one of the two arguments by the rebuttals. If you are going for both arguments in the rebuttal and are winning both, I don’t know what to do with the two competing claims you are winning and, thus, disregard them both (government teams should know this too). I am open to procedurals of all kinds, kritiks, diusads and counterplans. I am willing to vote for either liberal or conservative positions, so long as those arguments are not deliberately racist, sexist, etc. I am ok with speed, so far as you give a little pen time between claims, since this is parli after all. A good idea would be to give a warrant after the claim, so I can get pen time and so you can actually support your argument. Above all else, I expect both teams to be respectful to each other. Don’t deliberately be mean, rude or patronizing. I am ok with banter, sarcasm, etc, but being rude just for the sake of bullying your opponent will upset me. Not enough for me to vote against you, but enough for me to dock your speaker points substantially. Points of order should be called in front of me. If something is blatantly new for me, I will do disregard the argument. If there is a grey area, I may allow the argument unless a point of order is called. I think it is better to be safe than sorry. My idea of net-benefits is probably not traditional, where whomever has a higher magnitude wins. Unless you tell me why I need to prioritize magnitude first, I will evaluate net-benefits to my default standard which is: probability>timeframe>magnitude. My political philosophy is that high magnitude debates stagnate real action and reform, which is why I prioritize probability. That isn’t to say that I won’t evaluate magnitude first if you tell me why I should abandon my default judging standard. If you have any specific questions, feel free to email me atmchogan86@gmail.com. Best of luck to you all!!! Section 2: Specific Inquiries Please describe your approach to the following. 1.â€‹Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? â€‹26-29 2.â€‹How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? â€‹Critically framed arguments are cool with me for both teams. Critical affirmatives should be topical to the resolution (see above), and still give the negative some ground in the round. Critically framed arguments should have a clear framework for both teams that tell me how I should prioritize the position. Without a winning framework that prioritize the critical argument first, I will weigh it equally to other positions. Yes the position can contradict other positions, as long as you collapse to only one of the positions in the rebuttal. My one exclusion to this rule is that if you run a critical position based off the discourse someone uses, and then you use that discourse, then your contradictory positions can cost you the round, since you can’t take back your discourse. 3.â€‹Performance based arguments… â€‹I am also ok with performance based positions, so long as they meet a standard of relevance to the resolution. However, it needs to be clear to me that I am evaluating the performance rather than the content, with reasons why I should evaluate performance first. The opposing team should have the right to know if they are actually debate the performance or the content, instead of being excluded by a team switching back and forth between frameworks. 4.â€‹Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? â€‹ â€‹I don’t require competing interpretations. If you tell me why your opponent has a bad interpretation, I won’t vote for it. If you want me to vote for your competing interpretation, though, I need counter-standards. I don’t need in-round abuse as long as the standards and voters you are going for aren’t related to ground (ie: grammar and Jurisdiction). However if you are going for a fairness voter with a claim to ground loss, then I need the abuse to be present in round. I do give government teams flexibility in being creative with the topic, as long as they can win topicality, but I am also more likely to vote on topicality than some other critics may. 5.â€‹Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? â€‹Counterplan is assumed dispositional to me unless told otherwise. If asked about the status of the counterplan, the negative team should answer their opponent. Counterplans of any kind are ok with me, as long as you can defend the theory behind the counterplan you ran. All theory is up for debate for both teams when it comes to counterplans. My favorite counterplans are plan exclusive counterplans, but I will entertain any kind. 6.â€‹Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) â€‹Yes, teams can share flowed arguments. 7.â€‹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 first, krtiks second, then net-benefits. You can easily tell me why I should prioritize differently in the debate. Additionally, if nobody is winning the theory as to why I should look to one argument first, then I will weigh procederuals vs. kritiks vs. plan/da/cp equally under net-benefits and weigh the impacts of each. So you should be winning your theory debate on your position.â€‹ â€‹ 8.â€‹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")? â€‹As mentioned before, I prioritize probability first. I will still consider things like magnitude and timeframe, I just give more weight to more probable impacts. Therefore things like dehumanization can outweigh extinction or vice versa, as long as you are winning the probability debate. The other option is give me framework reasons as to why I should prefer magnitude or timeframe first. BOLDED TEXT REFLECTS CHANGES TO MY PHILOSOPHY ON 10/29/12 Case Arguments: Fact cases generally make me upset and uncomfortable because I feel I must always intervene. Value resolutions, a little less so. I am most comfortable with policy rounds because I think it incorporates the other two types of rounds and then goes beyond; however, I will listen to the round no matter how it is formatted. Affirmative cases should be well-warranted, clear, and solvent; after all, affirmative does get the benefit of choosing their case. I think inherency is a difficult battle to win for the negative; however the link and impact debate are incredibly important. I probably give more value to solvency attacks then other critics. I view solvency/advantage links as the internal link to all the impacts I weigh for the affirmative, so for the same reasons why proving a no link on a disadvantage make it go away, I feel the same is true for solvency. Lastly, I will default to a net-benefits framework until either team provides me with a different framework in which I should view the round. Disadvantage Arguments: Generally enjoy the disadvantage debate. Disadvantages must be unique, with well-warranted internal links and articulated advantages. I hate hearing big impacts like global warming or nuke war without a clear articulated scenario of how we get there and how the impact occurs (same goes for the affirmative case). Example of a bad impact: Emissions create ocean acidity and lead to extinction in the ocean and the world. Example of a good impact: CO2+H2O results in carbonic acid, eating away the calcium shells of shellfish and coral, which are the 2nd most biodiverse place on earth and a major food source for all animals. I WILL NOT DO THE WORK FOR YOU ON THE IMPACT DEBATE. Links are very important as well, and while a risk of the link will get you access to the impacts, probability will greatly decrease, which given the right affirmative rebuttal may still not result in me voting for large impacts. Link turns are only offense if the government is winning the uniqueness debate. Counterplan Arguments: The following are my default views on counterplans; however, counterplan theory is completely up for debate, and I will listen to any counterplan if you defend and win the theory debate. I actually enjoy very clear, competitive counterplans. Delay counterplans generally are unfair and honestly quite unnecessary, since if you are winning the disadvantage, the CP isn’t required unless you have small impacts. Consult counterplans are a little less unfair than counterplans, but I feel somewhat the same towards these counterplans as I do towards delay. Consult CP’s have a little more offense, though. PICs are fine, but a little abusive (just a little J). I would just hope that you have a specific disad to the part you're PICing out of. I'm fine with topical counterplans. My default view is that perms are a test of competition, and not an advocacy. A perm is all of plan, and all or part of the counterplan. Anything outside of this, and I'll have a sympathetic ear to Opp claims of severance or intrinsicness. I prefer if you write out the counterplan and perm texts on separate pieces of paper to avoid debates about shifting perm/CP texts. I view all CPs as dispositional unless I'm told otherwise. To be clear, this means that Opp can kick it only if Gov perms it. If Gov straight turns the CP, Opp is stuck with it, unless they've declared it conditional at the top of the CP. Lastly, losing the counterplan doesn’t mean a loss for the opposition. Multiple Conditional (and usually contradictory) Counterplans will probably lose you the round, if your opponents tell me why they are abusive. They force the gov team to contradict themselves, run multiple uniqueness scenarios and definitely skew your opponents out of the round. Please do not run them. You already get the option between the status quo and/or a competing advocacy. You don’t need 3 more! (This applies to a kritik alternative and a counterplan, unless the counterplan is the alternative. Kritik Arguments: Framework of kritiks is incredibly important. Without a clear framework, I will simply weigh the kritik against the case, which generally means all you have is a non-unique disadvantage. I would much more prefer specific links to the aff case/rhetoric over resolution links (I am somewhat sympathetic to the affirmative when they don’t get to choose the resolution or side). More local impacts (personal/individual) will get you further in terms of the solvency of your alternative than huge impacts like “root of all violence”. However, I will listen to larger impacts as well, as long as your solvency can convince me that I can solve the root cause of all violence simply by signing my ballot!!!. Your alternative should be written and clarified if requested, and your solvency needs to be articulated well. Best option for the affirmative to answer the kritik is to perm, answer framework, or challenge the solvency. Impact turning something like, “the root of all violence” is risky, and chances are, the kritik probably will link in some way to the affirmative case. T and Theory Arguments: I give a lot of flexibility to the affirmative to be creative with their interpretation and affirmative case. On the flipside, I enjoy topicality debate more than most judges. I guess the two balance each other out and will result in me being able to hear arguments from either team regarding topicality. Interpretations should be clear, and preferably, written out. Ground/Fairness claims should have proven in-round abuse in order to win them; however, you might be able to convince me that prep-abuse is important too. Otherwise, in-round is the only thing that will win you a fairness debate. Other standards and voters can still win you topicality, though. Your voters should be related to the standards for your interpretation. Short, blippy, time-suck topicality will make me very sad and less likely to vote for it. If you are going to run topicality, you should be putting in at least as much effort as your other arguments if you expect me to consider it. Other theory arguments like vagueness, policy framework best, etc are all up for debate in front of me. However, theory should be explained clearly, and you should give enough pen time on these arguments, since generally there are not as many warrants for theory arguments as there are for case arguments. Approach to Deciding: Net-Benefits paradigm until told otherwise. I cannot stress enough the importance of the rebuttal for evaluating impacts. Tell me where to weigh, how to weigh, and why I should weigh the impacts the way you tell me too. I prioritize impacts in the following order unless told otherwise: Probability of impacts comes first, Timeframe second, and magnitude last. I will not vote on a try or die of nuclear war that has low probability if the other team has a 100% chance of feeding 100 people and saving their lives. This is contrary to my personal political perspective that catastrophic rhetoric can lead to political paralysis. However, if you want to go for big impacts, you can convince me to change my prioritization of impacts by arguing why I should prioritize timeframe or magnitude. Convince me why timeframe matters more than anything, or probability, or magnitude. Any of these can be enough to win you the round, even if you are losing one of the other standards for weighing. Big impacts don’t necessarily result in a win, unless you tell me. Without any weighing, I feel like I must intervene and do the work for you (which I don’t want to do), and you may not enjoy the decision I make if I do. Without weighing being done, I will default to probability over timeframe and then timeframe over magnitude. If you fail to argue why I should change the way in which I prioritize impacts, you may lose the round despite winning the line by line because I will default to a more probable impact scenario. THIS IS IMPORTANT, since most judges evaluate magnitude first and this is not in-line with my own views on policy-making. So if you are a large magnitude impact debater, you must make it clear why the magnitude should come before a highly probable, small impact advantage for your opponents. Presentation Preferences: Speed is generally fine with me. There are only a few teams that may be fast for me, and I will let you know during your speech if you are going to fast. Should you decide not to slow down, then you may not get your argument on my flow. However, I believe that this is an educational activity while also a competitive one. Therefore, if your opponents are asking you to slow down because they can’t engage, and you refuse to, you may win the round, but you may not get very good speaker points in front of me. I believe using speaker points is the best way of balancing my responsibility in making sure debate is inclusive and educational, but at the same time not being interventionist by giving somebody a loss for speaking to fast. Sitting is fine and won‘t affect your speaker points, but you’ll generally speak clearer and quicker standing, so I don’t know why you wouldn’t want to stand for your own sake. I am fine with communicating with your partner, but will only flow those arguments that are coming from the speaker. If communicating with your partner is excessive, then your speaker points may be affected. The person speaker should be answering cx questions (but you can get input from your partner). CLARITY is the most important thing in terms of presentation.

Micah Waterlander - MHCC

<ul> <li>Background of the critic: I competed in high school policy as well as competing 2 years in NPDA in college. This is my 2nd Year coaching, I coach both IPDA and NPDA formats.</li> <li>Approach of the critic to decision-making: I consider myself to be pretty tabula rasa and will vote for whatever the debaters tell me is important for me to vote on. I think that the trichotomy argument is a worthwhile argument, as well as most procedural arguments. I will vote on T if there is clear abuse, but I don't think the team has to only go for Topicality to show abuse. While I will listen to any argument ran in front of me I don't particularly like kritiks, especially in NPDA style debate, since any real evidence need to back up the kritik can't be brought into round. Furthermore, I think the kritik needs to show real world impacts to outweigh. But with that being said, if the kritik is necessary for your strategy then by all means run it. Also, I tend to think that a lot of debate hinges on solvency so this could win or lose a round easily. </li> <li>Communication/presentation: I'm pretty comfortable with most aspects of speed, but feel like clarity and signposting should falter because of your speed. Also I am a pretty expressive judge so if you pay attention you will know if I am getting down what you are saying. </li> </ul> <ul> <li>Preferences on calling Points of Order: I have no issue with POI being called, I think that if it is warranted you should call your opponent out on it. </li> </ul>

Mitchell Grover - UNR

Nathan Steele - CCSF

What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I aim to subdue my bias and objectively adjudicate rounds, voting for the team that presents the most logical, well-reasoned, organized, creative, clever and dynamic arguments. Debaters should provide/contest criteria for evaluating the round. Highlight key voting issues during your final speech. What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters? Be respectful of your opponents at all times. You can be a little snarky but do not make it personal. Attack the arguments and behaviors in the round rather than the people. Avoid obnoxious nonverbal-behaviors. Partner communication is acceptable, but don't parrot or puppet your partner. Heckling is acceptable but everyone (partner and opponents) should minimize interruptions to the debate and the flow of the speaker. I will listen to you throughout the round, and I hope you will continue to listen to each other. What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote? Don't lie. Convince me of how I should evaluate the debate and what the affirmative or negative team must do to win my ballot. I'm capable of believing any well-reasoned and supported claim, but I favor cogent, criteria-based arguments that are ultimately weighed against other issues in the round. When well warranted, I can vote on well-structured and clearly explained topicality arguments and kritiks. Debaters should be specific in their argumentation and provide clear voting issues in rebuttal speeches. How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements? The debate should be accessible to your opponents and judge(s). Delivery can be accelerated beyond a conversational rate, but I value clear articulation, emphasis, inflections, pauses, and vocal variety. Delivery style may affect speaker points but will not factor into a decision. Points of order can be called when rules are broken; I will stop time and hear briefly from the opposing side before ruling.

Philip Laverty - UNR

Robert Seaney - PDB

Ron Price - IDAHO

Background: Did policy and LD in high school. Debated for Boise State. Have been the assistant coach for C of I for the past 8 yrs. Have been involved with this activity for the past 15 yrs or so. Please make your arguments logical and cohesive. Ok with speed, but if you are not organized or clear then your arguments may get “lost” somewhere and it’s up to you to “find” them again. Will vote on Topicality; include standards, voters, etc. Ok with critical arguments but make sure your advocacy doesn’t contradict itself. Make sure your links story is solid. A to B to C works, but A to B to Z is a no go.  Have a plausible link/ impact story (not everything has to lead to or end in nuke war and extinction). Also not a huge fan of morally repugnant arguments (i.e. all gays will psychologically damage their children when raising them) so don’t make them.   Hmmm, so basically I will vote on the most convincing and logical arguments you present in the round so make smart choices and arguments, have fun and we’ll see what happens on the flow.

Salim Razawi - LPC

n/a

Scott Laczko - Chico

Copied over from tabroom. My basic beliefs about debate have not changed. for LD ... rules are debatable the more like policy debate you make the round for me the happier i'll be Updated 10/29/13  I'm still figuring out my paradigm and it is an every changing process as this is my first year out but, below ar my basic beliefs about debate. With that being said i'm also trying to determine what i look for when giving speaker points. To get a better understanding of what my values are or what i look for I should start by saying that I have been heavily influenced by Sue and Jason Peterson and Theresa Perry. If my philo is confusing i suggest you look there for additional information. I debated for 3 years at CSU Chico the reason you read the philo-   Framework and non topical aff's - i believe that you should affirm the resolution. I love a good framework debate specifically when it is well carded. the community  bashes on the clash of civs debate but as a competitor they were probably my favorite to have. I think that the framework should have it's own built in topicality but additionally that a different topicality is worth the time investment. topical version of the aff is very compelling to me.  stolen from Sue's philo: if you are going to "use the topic as a starting point" on the affirmative instead of actually defending implementation of your plan, I'm probably not going to be your favorite judge.  If that is unclear i'll state it another way. If you are not even loosly related to the topic you should not pref me. I believe that the debate should at least in the same hemisphere as the resolution. I believe it at the most basic level the resolution is the commonality that binds the activity together. K's-  holy batman if your link is solely based off a link of omission you are running an uphill battle before me. I think links of omission debates are the largest waste of time it is impossible to talk about all of these problems in the world in a 9 minute speech. Linking to the status quo is also problematic for me links should come off what the aff does not to what the squo is. alternative solvency needs to be explained so that it makes sense, I am not familiar with the liturture base. Why is rejecting the plan necessary what does it actually do? T's - go for it i'm down. i default to competing interpretation and don't like to vote on potential abuse C/p and DA: always a dependable 2nr decision. I really enjoy listening to nuanced DA's. c/p with a solid internal net benefit are also underutilized. case: 2a's hate talking about their case in the 2ac. a good 1nc strategy will have a large case debate ready to ruin some days.  theory: should always be where it applies. however i'm pretty persuaded by reject the argument and not the team

Shannan Troxel - Chico

Shannon Valdivia - MHCC

Somerset Bassett - SRJC

<blockquote> Somerset Bassett, Santa Rosa Junior College Judging Paradigm 2014 I think the resolution affects how I evaluate a round, if the resolution is broad I will listen to generic K’s or tic’s with less animosity than if you run them on a specific policy resolution where the oppositions ground is predictable. I tend to vote affirmative (around 60%) probably because I dislike K’s, Theory, and PICs. Sorry opp. The K- I will vote for the K and have run it both as affirmative and negative, however running the k in front of me tends to be an uphill battle. 1. I would like to judge the round without intervening and most K frameworks prevent this from happening.  If you ask me to vote for impacts that extend to real world then I feel I have an obligation to determine that your either not credible or I have to intervene as I wont endorse a real world movement that I’m opposed to simply cause the mg didn’t answer an argument, either way your odds of winning that round are slim as I will blame you for forcing me into that predicament and will listen openly to arguments of abuse or degradation to the activity. 2. In terms of literature I have a novice level of understanding on most commonly used philosophy however, please explain your argument, and don’t rely on an appeal to authority.  Thesis’s are helpful, go-slow here and explain your central argument early in the speech.  I would much rather you explain what your project is and defend it as opposed being sneaky and extending some muddled spew. 3. I feel that policy debate tends to be more grounded in reality (just barely) than the k debate and will look forward to debates on good topics.  I will not consciously punish you for running something else but understand that when I’m yawning through a generic FW debate I tend to give lower speaker points. CP- I prefer the disadvantage/advantage debate however I also enjoy a good counterplan plan debate. In terms of status I tend to side with conditional being ok, however dispositional without an explanation pisses me off, so be careful if that’s your strategy.  Blipped out preempts about severance should be answered in kind as I will do anything I can to not vote there. The permutation debate I prefer is that of net benefits i.e. Is perm better than CP. Multiple condo/perfcon strats/ 5 off + cp/ etc. – I will be very sympathetic to theory against these strats .(if you run the right interps!) because its probably not fair and more importantly I think it’s bad for debate. Positions either develop in block/PMR interaction or not at all.  I will give the PMR a lot of leeway in terms of new answers to a strategy that becomes intelligible in MO as it should have been in LO so if your going to run five off make sure you can develop them in LOC, especially those you plan to go for otherwise I will let the PMR be a constructive. PICs- I’m fine with PICs in general, I ran them, they make sense as an opposition strategy my one problem occurs when the aff has only 1 topical plan text ie. pass HR 356 in which case I am inclined to buy abuse claims. Speed- I don’t believe my preference is important, as you should debate your way as much as possible.  My capacity to flow fast debates is good, there are debaters who are too fast for me to flow well, but not many.  I generally think speed k/theory are a waste of time however if mishandled I will vote for them. Debate is a communication event and therefore if I didn’t flow an argument you made it is your fault J I’ll try to keep up. however ensuring you have clear taglines, allow pen time, and don’t jump all over the flow will be to your advantage. Theory-I ran theory very selectively almost always to protect against an abusive MG argument.  I hate whining and I hate exclusive technical theory.  I don’t think competing interpretations makes sense in parli and will generally prefer arguments saying I should vote on abuse in prep time or in round.  I don’t say this to discourage you from running theory as protecting your strategy is very important, if you think you might need it run it and kick it later. I wont punish you, but if you collapse to it you should have some real abuse present to convince me to vote here (also prove your lost ground matters).  I think there are situations where you can go for theory and a da/cp/case turns /whatever but if you do be careful of contradictions as any reason not to vote on theory is generally good enough for me. POOs – Please call POO’s if the PMR makes a new argument, LOR too I suppose but only if they are fundamentally changing the PMR strategy. Ie. Picking up a crucial drop out of the M.O.  Don’t call them excessively it’ll lower your speaker points, make me ignore your next POO’s nuance, and generally bother me as after 40 minutes of speeches I am generally sick of watching you argue. Impact Calc.- I prefer an impact calculus that favors probability to magnitude.  I generally don’t think a .00001 chance of nuclear war is a reason to not fix the economy right now.  Get ahead in terms of comparing impacts early in the debate I do think answering that death is worse than dehumanization in the PMR is new if the LOC said the opposite, so do your work early and it will benefit you. </blockquote>

Steve Farias - Pacific

Steven Kalani Farias – University of the Pacific PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY   Updates: My threshold to vote on theory has decreased. Proven abuse is not a necessity on T, though it is preferred. Also, my thoughts on role of the ballot has changed under my section for K's.   TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round; however, theory I generally have a high threshold for voting on except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.   Section 1: General Information-   While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY IF PROBABILITY MEANS ANYTHING BESIDES A DROPPED, BLIPPED INTERNAL LINK—which I think it does.   I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips don’t ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say “I didn’t get that”. So please do your best to use words like “because” followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.   Section 2: Specific Arguments   “The K”- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that K’s without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves. NEW: In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provied a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how should perform that role will be ahead on Framework. For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Also, please do not make myself or your competitors uncomfortable. If they ask you to stop your position because it emotionally disturbs them, please listen. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not. I believe you should be able to run your argument, but not at the expense of others’ engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.   Topicality/Theory-  I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competeing definitions and a question of abuse in my book. Not either or. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an aff who was not abusive, if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T. To win, I also think you must either pick theory OR the case debate. If you go for both your topicality and your K/DA/CP I will probably not vote on either. Caveat-  I think that negative teams should remember that a contextual definition IS A DEFINITION and I consider multiple, contradictory definitions from an affirmative abusive (so make Aff doesn’t meet its own interp arguments).   In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized interpretations to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win my ballot on theory.   Counterplans- CP’s are the best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team (or at least some alternative advocacy). It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with. I do not think that “We Bite Less” is a compelling argument, just do not link to your own disad. In terms of perms, if you do not in the end prove that the Perm is preferential to the plan or cp, then I will simply view it as an argument not used. This means if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the CP should be rejected as an offensive voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the Alt. is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links.   Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.   LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY   Section 1 – General Information   Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 6 years coaching experience (3 years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale)    General Info: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round; however, theory I generally have a high threshold for voting on except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.    Section 2 – Specific Inquiries 1. How do you adjudicate speed?  What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?   I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debater’s lack of clarity you will say “clear” (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debater’s excessive speed, I expect you to say “speed.” In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to “report” me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.    2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you don’t find yourself voting for very often?   I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.    3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:   Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achieveable at the end of the debate.    4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue   Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons i should ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all therory arguments are voting issues.    5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?    Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.    6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months   Yes   7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?   I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.    8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?   No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.   9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?   You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way you tell me too. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.    10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?   My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.   Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!

Sue Peterson - Chico

I primarily participated in CEDA/NDT debate as a competitor and coach for the last 20 years.  We made the move to NFA-LD four years ago and I haven’t looked back.  I consider myself to be open to most decision-making criteria, but I default to an offense/defense, cost-benefit calculus minus further instructions.  I do not enjoy adjudicating performance debate.  I like for affirmatives to have a plan text that clearly identifies the government action that is being advocated and then solvency advocates for that government action.  I like when the debaters clearly identify the key voting issues from their perspective and do impact analysis in those areas.  Simply said, I like for the rebuttals to “write my ballot” for me.  The best rounds are those with good evidence AND good analysis.  The worst rounds are those with neither of those things.  I love a good topicality debate that gets to the heart of predictable, educational and fair ground on the topic.  I also like good counterplan/disad debates that clearly identify the competitive points and focus the debate on that competition.  I am okay with theory debates, but I think they need to have a real purpose in the round (read – I don’t like cheap shot theory arguments as voting issues) and they need to have clear warrants for why I should vote on the them other than “It’s abusive”.  I have no problem with criticisms, but I feel like the limited speech time and having only two speeches usually results in an underdeveloped argument.  So, if you run one, be sure to consider that and try to develop it as an argument, not just repeat taglines.  Overall, be nice to one another, have fun, but most important, be smart! Because NFA-LD has an actual “rule” relating to speed of delivery, we should at least give that rule a “nod” in rounds.  So, just because I am fine with you talking fast in a debate, if your opponent or other judges on a panel feel that speed is a hindrance to their performance and states that out loud before the round, we should honor it.  My least favorite thing is listening to speed critiques or requests for others to slow down from someone who is talking relatively quickly – don’t be hypocritical.  I also think that clarity is a key component in these discussions.  Some people can talk fast and be totally understandable.  Others, not so much. Arguments that probably won't go well for you in front of me:  Performance, debate bad arguments and reverse voting issues on topicality.  Underdeveloped theory arguments.  Critiques that are contradicted by other arguments you are making in the round without some justification for that contradiction.

Tim Heisler - LPC

n/a

2014 Biggest Little City Classic