FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Testerman - Lewis & Clark

Background   Hi there!  I have competed in debate and forensics for over 10 years.  I participated in parliamentary debate during college, with two years at Southern Illinois University and two years at Texas Tech University.  I feel comfortable judging any “genre” of argument and have no real argument preference beyond the desire to see clash.  This is my second year coaching for Lewis & Clark College.    General Issues   It is my goal to involve myself in the debate round as little as possible.  I have no preference for any particular kind of argument and generally feel that almost every debate issue can be resolved in the round.  I will vote for arguments with warrants. I will try my best to synthesize your arguments, but I also believe that to be a central skill of effective debaters.  The only thing that I hate is awkwardness.  Please don’t be rude or overly confrontational with your opponents, because it makes me feel awkward and I will probably try to reassure myself with your excess speaker points.  I will vote for arguments I think are stupid 10 out of 10 times if they are won in the round.    Etiquette   Emphasize explanation early… don’t let your argument make sense for the first time in the LOR or PMR etc.  All constructive speeches should take a question if asked, and it’s strategic to ask questions.  Theory interpretations and advocacy statements should be read slowly and read twice.  It will be difficult to explain why fact or value debates aren’t horrible, so roll that way at your own risk.  Points of Order should be called, but I will also do my best to protect new arguments… don’t be excessive with them though [I’ll be vague about what that means, but see above for awkwardness.]  RVI’s have never been good arguments, read them at your own risk.  <a name="_GoBack"></a>I am not the best judge when it comes to speaker points.  I tend to average a 28-point something, but I don’t vary outside of that range much.  I am trying to adjust my scale, but fair warning that I’m not the judge giving everyone 30s.    Theory/Procedurals   I cut my teeth on procedural arguments in college, so I understand why they can be useful.  It is probably true that debates are less substance-driven when they become about procedurals, but that won’t impact my decision at all.  To vote on a procedural, I require an interpretation explaining how the debate should be evaluated, a violation detailing specifically why the other team does not fit within that interpretation, standards that explain why the interpretation is good, and a voter that outlines why I should vote on the argument.  PLEASE read your interpretation/definition slowly and probably repeat it.  I think bad T arguments are REALLY bad, but good T arguments are some of my favorite debates to watch, so… have an interpretation that makes some sense.    DAs/Advantages   DAs and Advs. Require uniqueness arguments that explain why the situation the affirmative causes is not happening in the status quo.  If you plan on running linear DAs, please spend time explaining how the affirmative triggers a new impact that is not present in the status quo [or makes a current impact worse.]  Defensive arguments are useful, but they often serve to make offensive arguments more impactful or serve as risk mitigation, as opposed to terminal takeouts.    I ran politics in a majority of my negative rounds and I coach my teams to read the position often as well.  So, I will totally vote on politics every time when it’s won.  That being said, I’m finding the position to be one my least favorite and least compelling these days.  The obscene nature of congress these days makes the position even more laughable than it was in the past [and it’s always been sketchy at best, without cards].  Read the DA if you’re a politics team, but there are almost always better arguments out there.    Critiques   Critique debates can be fun to watch, but only when the position is clear at the thesis level. If your shell argues that the K is a prior question or something like that, spend some meaningful time explaining why that’s the case instead of “shadow” extending an argument from the shell.  I am familiar with a lot of the literature, but you should argue the position as if I am not.  I really hate when critiques prove the “people who hate critiques crowd” right, by being excessively confusing and blippy.  Critiques are totally dope, but only because they have the potential to make compelling arguments… not because they are obtuse.    Framework debates are a waste of time a vast majority of the time.  I don’t understand why teams spend any substantive amount of time on framework.  The question of whether the affirmative methodology/epistemology/whatever vague term you want to use, is good or bad should be determined in the links and impacts of the criticism.  I see almost no world where framework matters independent of the rest of the shell.  So… the only K framework questions that tend to make sense to me are arguments about why it’s a prior question.  It makes sense that if the critique wins that the affirmative impacts are threat constructions that I’m not going to weigh the affirmative impacts against the position.  That’s not a framework debate though, that’s a question determined by winning the thesis of the position.    Critical affirmatives can be cool, but they also put me in a weird position as a judge sometimes.  If your affirmative is positioned to critique DAs, then I still want to see specific applications of those arguments to the DAs.  I need to see how the DA demonstrates your argument to be true in some specific way.  By that I mean, if the negative outright wins a DA, I would need to see why that would mean the affirmative shouldn’t lose early, often, and specifically.  The same is true of any set/genre of negative positions.    CPs   There are probably enough arguments on both sides to justify different interpretations of how permutation or CP theory in general should go down, that I don’t have strong opinions about many CP related issues.  In general, the CP/DA debate is probably what I feel most comfortable judging accurately and I think CPs that solve the aff are very strategic.  Multiple CPs in the round is probably bad for education and not strategic.

Alyssa Sambor - TTU

n/a

Bear Saulet - Concordia

The following information is probably relevant in some capacity if you find me in the back of the room.   Experience: 3 years of California Community College NPDA at El Camino College, transferred and did 2 years of NPDA Debate at Concordia University Irvine.  During this time, I was nationally competitive at both levels.  Many of my views on debate and debate pedagogy have been shaped by my upbringing in the Community College circuit as well as the coaching I received from K. Calderwood at Concordia.   General: Debate is first and foremost a competitive game.  There are ancillary benefits including the education garnered through prolonged engagement in this activity, etc.-but debate at its core is a game.   - Defense (especially terminal) is underutilized in most debates. - Demanding texts is absurd-go do policy if you want textual copies of arguments. - It is common courtesy to give at least one substantive question to the other team. - Partner communication is fine but could tank your speaks. - Please don't try and pander to me by reading arguments I read when I competed. - I really don't like having to vote on Topicality-like, really.   Theory: Theory-based arguments are probably my least favorite subset of arguments in debate. That is to say, all things being equal, I would prefer to hear case debate or a criticism before theory.  I don't need articulated abuse, but I do need substantive explanations of how you've either already been abused or reasons why potential abuse is sufficient enough.  Impact your standards. Read your interpretation slowly and clearly at least twice-have a written copy if necessary.  If debating against critically framed arguments, it would behoove you to include a decision about how your procedurally framed arguments interact with their critically framed arguments.  I default to Competing Interpretations on theory issues unless instructed otherwise.  I also tend to think “Reject the Argument, not the Team” is persuasive aside from the Topicality and Condo debates. Spec is fairly silly, please don't read it in front of me. Your Spec argument is presumably to protect your normal means-based link arguments, so just read those arguments on case.    Case: Being good at case debate is usually a good indicator of your fundamental debate skills.  I appreciate seeing well warranted PMC's with organized and efficiently tagged internal link and impact modules.  For the Neg, I appreciate an LOC that saves time to go to the case and answer the Aff line-by-line.  Impact defense is severely under-utilized in most case debates.  Being efficient with your time will allow you to read strategic offensive and defensive case arguments which gives you more options and leverage for the rest of the debate.   Performance: I find Performance to be a distinct but related category to the K. My partner once ate paper as our advocacy out of the 1AC-at nationals we performed a newscast of the topic.  I am supportive of innovative ways of approaching the topic. That said, a few things to consider:   - You should have a role of the ballot/judge argument (probably in your framework interp). - Explain how the opposing team ought to interact with your performance. - Explain the importance of your specific performance within the context of the topic. - Frame your impacts in a manner that is consistent with your performance.   The K: My favorite subset of arguments in debate.  Criticisms should ideally have a framework (role of the judge/ballot), a Thesis (what your critical perspective is), Links, Impacts, and an Alt with accompanying Solvency arguments.  If you don't have a Thesis page, please make it clear what the thesis of your position is elsewhere.  The best criticisms are directly rooted in the topic literature and are designed to internally link turn common opposition arguments/impacts.  This means your K should probably turn the Aff (if Neg) or internally link turn topic Disads (if Aff).  Reject Alternatives can be done well, but I appreciate Alternatives that are more nuanced.   When reading the K, please highlight the interaction between your Framework and your Alternative/Solvency. These two should be jiving together in order to do what the K is all about-impact frame your opponents out of the round. I don't care very much about your authors but more your ability to take the author's theory and convey it to us persuasively within a given debate round.  Name-dropping authors and books will get you nowhere quick in front of me. The literature bases I am most familiar with are:   - Post-Structuralism - Critical Race Theory - Whiteness Studies - Gender Studies - Existentialism - Post Modernism - Rhetoric and Media Studies   Don't allow this knowledge to be a constraining factor-I love learning about new critical perspectives so don't refrain from reading something outside this lit in front of me.   CP Theory:   - After debating Conditionally for a year and Unconditionally for a year, I found being Unconditional much more rewarding competitively and educationally. Who knows, maybe it was just having Big Cat as a coach.  Either way, I'm fine with one Condo CP/Alt but am open to hearing and voting on Condo bad as well. - Delay is probably theoretically illegitimate (and just a bad arg). - Textual Competition is meant to protect against CP's that are blatantly cheater anyways. - Not the biggest fan of Consult unless there's a particularly strong literature base for it. - Read your CP text twice slowly and ideally have a written copy. - PICS are good.   Permutations:   - Always and only a test of competition - Should explain how the Permutation resolves the links/offense of the DA/K. - You don't ever need 8 permutations. Read one or two theoretically sound perms with net benefits. - Sev/Intrinsic perms are probably not voting issues given they are merely tests of competitiveness.   Speaker Points: I start at a 27 and work up from there generally. The difference between a 29 and a 30 are the following:   - Effective overviews that concisely summarize and contextualize sheets in the debate - Star Wars references/quips - Effective use of humor (Stay classy though, San Diego) - Pausing for Effect - Comparative warrant analysis: Stuff like, “prefer our uniqueness because it's more predictive-all their depictions of the status quo are snapshot at best” followed by supporting warrants. - Effective use of Metaphors - I don't like teams/debaters stealing prep. But let's be blunt, everyone does it, so do it well I suppose. - Take at least one question in each constructive   Multiple Worlds: Most debaters struggle to competently and productively have a debate round based in one world-let alone multiple. I would prefer you not read multiple worlds in front of me.    Feel free to ask for clarifications before the round.

Ben Campbell - ACU

Affiliation: Abilene Christian University, Southern Illinois University (Competitor from 2010-2014).  Experience: 4 years HS policy (Parkview HS), 4 years college parliamentary debate (SIU).  Have judged >50 debates last year in NPDA.    Education: B.A. in International Relations (SIU), Second-year Ph.D. student in International Relations and Political Methodology (The Ohio State University).  My research interests are largely in empirical strategies for modeling relational data, and in theories of asymmetric alliance formation and their dynamics. Approach: ~Tabula Rasa (with the exception of the biases I describe below). Communication and Presentation: Unless unclear communication inhibits my ability to accurately evaluate the round, communication and presentation only matter for speaker points (at the margins). Points of Order: Call them, and without a panel, I will rule on them ~75% of the time.  My decision to rule is a function of the clarity of a decision at that time, and the pertinence of the issue being flagged.    Update: 11/11/2015 -Updated to reflect my own biases with respect to impacts and impact calculus.  Read it, please J     My ideal debate is a debate over the topic.  The affirmative reads a plan text implemented by a policymaking body via fiat with two advantages stemming from the implementation of that policy in a fiated world.  The negative would read an unconditional counterplan with two disadvantages and case arguments.    Don’t use this to assume I cannot or will not evaluate alternative styles, but to know what my preference is.  Preferences manifest themselves in inflated speaker points and a happier Ben.      Generally held views relevant to Parli: -Conditionality is acceptable if the arguments are logically consistent (although, I still prefer unconditional positions for the reason of depth). -Disclosure isn’t necessary, I’m not convinced it’s good for parli, and find theoretical arguments to the contrary unconvincing.  I am, however, willing to listen to the discussion – it might be an uphill battle.  -Functional competition is better for evaluating competition than textual competition.  If you must read theory against consult or conditions, read consult or conditions bad.  -That being said – I generally think consult and conditions are theoretically legitimate if the links to the disad(s) are generated by the action of the plan.  -A theoretically legitimate permuation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan/alternative implemented simultaneously.  -Negative gets fiat -Google researching by the judge is intervention – it assumes that I am making a decision about what the “literature” says, and that I read the same articles you did.  That being said, I err on the side of caution about if I think you’re lying or not.  -As a judge of the activity, I am constrained by its rules. I’m being hired on the expectation that I enforce those rules, and I can no longer arbitrarily determine whether or not I will or will not enforce those rules.   I am intellectual, but first and foremost, I am a judge hired by an institution that has certain rules that are required of me as a contractor.  This applies to rules of lateness, speech times, and conduct in round.    While I will generally try not to enforce my ideology through the ballot, I find that the following significantly harm my ability to do so: -Making people feel unwelcome in debate, either through violent rhetoric, actions, or general rude behavior.  This includes, but is not limited to, “Vote against X-school because their DoF is a facist”, name calling, yelling, or asinine impact turns (genocide good, patriarchy good).  This does not include De-Dev, Rights Malthus, or Wipeout.  I just think those are stupid arguments to begin with.  -Clearly lying or misrepresenting facts (i.e. WW2 didn’t happen, Napoleon was a lizard, etc). -Going for “blippy” arguments with the expectation of winning on a “cheap-shot”.  For me an argument includes a claim and data.  -Making causal assumptions that are not clear. -See impacts portion   Don’t be afraid to ask! For the sake of transparency and open communication, I am willing to do the following before the round for you: (1) If you ask, I will give you my frank opinion of how you should rank/pref me.  I may or may not know your “style”, but upon a ~2-3 minute conversation I can accurately answer this question for you.  (2) Answer any impromptu questions during prep-time about how I feel about certain arguments – a response will only come if at least one representative from the other team is also included on the e-mail, text message, or Facebook message.      ***Back to the details   Pedagogical Moment: None of us our policymakers – we are not actors of the USFG and like such I do not believe we role play as them as automatic.  When I discuss fiat, or think it exists in debate, I don’t think we actually believe it is what we say it is.  No one believes that it exists outside of a vacuum of our language.  In fact, when we discuss fiat and role playing, we are discussing a broader way in which we try to employ language to change the world or our perceptions of it.  In a traditional policy debate, a fiat-based approach to political change is just assumed, so it is not worthy of making argument to such a point.  Remember, the plan text as I consider it is a suggestion that you propose to change the policy of the subject of the resolution.   I say that as a way to have you consider how I view framework, affirmatives, and the criticism.  I consider the language of the affirmative’s (fiat/role play based framework) v. some critical-theory based approach of the criticism – framework is a weighing of the best way to solve those implications in the real world.   If that doesn’t make sense, let me know.    Impacts: I have been known as a big-stick policy-based terminal impact sort of debater and judge.  As a debate I welcomed this acknowledgement, and in my early judging career I tried to be as open as possible to a variety of impacts.  I think one poverty of modern debate, and I know it’s one that I certainly participated in, is using heuristic shortcuts to efficiently produce impacts at the cost of clearly articulated impacts that would perhaps be more specific to the topic. I think there are a couple of examples of these shortcuts, and even if I have some biases, I can be convinced otherwise: -“This group is dehumanized, which outweighs nuclear conflict”.  I think dehumanization is a heuristic stand-in for something that may be better described in the context of the advantage and the topic.  For example, saying “poverty is dehumanization” is not saying that people’s sense of humanity is stripped from them through conditions of economic inequality.  Instead, what this argument is describing, is that poverty undermines life expectancy and health care, the ability to be well-nourished, and produce the luxuries that make life more enjoyable.  With that being said, life expectancy and starvation are impacts that can be quantified and are exceedingly probable.  While it may be harder to make these arguments, I generally find them more convincing than individuals who are often in positions of privilege waxing poetic about the suffering of individuals that they can never truly empathize with. -“Economic decline causes nuclear conflict and extinction.” This argument is often made with the assumption that judges will fill in the gaps, and I think absent any clear articulation of a particular scenario that makes conflict likely (i.e. a power-keg exists, and economic decline is the spark), it’s really easy to lose these impacts to terminal defense.  Additionally, I think even if war occurs, the escalation to nuclear conflict is exceptionally unlikely given some unique feature to that conflict.    I say all of this to say something simple: “I generally prefer impacts that are falsifiable (and as a result measureable), quantifiable (death is usually me heuristic for evaluating impacts, given a good enough reason I could be convinced otherwise), and will maximize the utility associated with those impacts.” That last part may require clarification: The risk of 1,000 people dying with a probability of 0.01 (expected death of 10), versus the risk of 12 people dying with a probability of 1 (expected death of 12) means I’d act to save those 12 people.  This is cold and calculative, but I’m not entirely comfortable wading into the waters of comparing quality of life as I have no objective measure with which to make my decision.    If you are to read a criticism, you can clearly make impacts that operate within this metric.  It is to say that I prefer impacts like “Borders are the root of conflict” than “Borders and nationalism create a distancing from our own sense of self”.    It is also worth mentioning that if you are a team that would read critiques of impacts, I rarely think these are more convincing than well thought out impact defense.  I am more likely to vote for your aff that saves 12 lives if you have put terminal defense on their big-stick impact than if you said “save 12 lives and ignore the threat of nuclear conflict”.  Topicality/Theory/Procedurals: Generally I find limits to be the essential standard for evaluating T. I find "predictability" and "grounded in the literature" to be important as well. I also don't feel like there has to be articulated abuse to win. Other than that, spec, and condo I don't know why winning a theory argument means you win the round. Conditionality is generally good, but the more advocacies there are, the lower my threshold becomes for voting on condo is bad. If you go for it in the PMR, make sure the MG was large enough on it. Critiques: They’re fine, but anyone who knows me knows that I do not prefer to evaluate this debate. The only problems I could possibly have with a criticism are a result of a lack of clarity.  A clearly articulated framework and an explanation of the alternative following it would be awesome.  I will evaluate the criticism is a world absent fiat – but that may mean you don’t get links to your criticism and may mean alternative solvency is rough.   Competition and the Permutation: A theoretically legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan/alternative implemented simultaneously.  If you go for the perm (which I think is generally a good strategy choice), I think it needs to be the cornerstone of the PMR strategy and an articulation of why it makes the alternative or CP uncompetitive.    Remember – winning a permutation does not mean you win the debate, it just means that the alternative or the CP is uncompetitive.  This means that it is the disad v. the aff – make arguments assuming that difference. PICS: Love them, a well thought out and well researched PIC is damning. I think theory can be convincing if they pic out of a non-mandate of the plan. An example: If the plan was to go to space, and the counterplan was to go to space but to use the Windows 7 OS as opposed to the Mac OSX, I think that the aff will probably win that the perm is justifiable. Language and Word pics: Eh. They're alright, but you have to be able to win that language or reps matter, this is an all-or-nothing thing to me unless you convince me otherwise. I also think these should be contextual, generic pics are unconvincing (that doesn't mean I won't vote on them). Also, I don't think you should be able to pic out of things not in the plan text. Severance only happens from the plan, not the rest of the speech. Case debate: Fantastic, I love a good case debate. Really do. You'll get brownie (speaker) points if you're good on your case, or good on someone else's. I feel like most the time people undervalue this Defense:  "This is just defense" isn't a response. Diversify your defense.   Politics: They’re fine, but know, if the debate comes down to whether or not some obscure piece of legislation is on the top of the docket or not, and I haven’t heard of it, the decision will not be favorable for you.  I also think people go way too fast through politics – uniqueness in particular. Counterplans: Do whatever you want here, just make sure it's competitive. The negative has fiat. I don't think that's unfair, sorry. Perms: They're checks of competition. If you think you're tricky, and it comes out in the 2AR that you're advocating the perm, I will be sad. If it is, articulate that in the 2AC. If this is done, and the negative doesn't read theory against this in the block, I may slam my head on the table. A theoretically legitimate permutation in my book is all of the plan and all or parts of the alternative. Framework & Performance: I generally think that you should defend a plan text enacted by the government via fiat. However that doesn't mean that I'm not open to performance debate or any alternative frameworks. I'll vote for your movement, but with that being said, I find that many of these debates frankly go over my head and beyond my limited knowledge of the lingo and tricks that are associated with these forms of debate.  If your primary strategy is performance, I may not be the judge for you.  Framework is a way to evaluate impacts.

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!

Bill Neesen - Long Beach

Bill Neesen Cal. State Long Beach/IVC Years Judging Debate: 22+ Years Competed in Debate: 7 What School Competed at: Millard South/ OCC/CSU- Fullerton Section 1: General Information I think that debate is up to the debaters in the round. They the privilege of defining what debate should look like, but also the responsibility to defend that interpretation. I like Case debate (this is a lost great art), CP, DA, K and performance (but I really hate performance that is bad). I will listen to and vote on theory but you have to make it clear. Other than that I would say that debate is a game and I always play games to win and would expect you to do similar things. Also while I do not think that any judge can be truly non-biased and not intervene at all, I think intervention is a bad thing that the judge has a duty to try to resist as much as possible. Other things to think about: some people think that I am a hack for the K. While I have coached many great K people (or performance) I was a CP/DA/Case debater. This really does mean I love to see it all. I am a very fast flow. I hate lying in debate and would suggest for people to try to get facts straight. I do not vote against people who lie or make bad arguments (I leave it up to the other team to do that) but your points will reflect it. Well I do not mind critical arguments and think everyone can run them no matter the side. I treat them the same as every other argument. If they have a framework argument I will start there and see how I should frame the debate (and do not think I default crazy, many great debaters have won policy making in front of me). Once I decide how to frame the debate than I use it to evaluate the debate.  As far as contradictory K positions with counterplans I do not like it if the K works on a level of discourse as a reason to vote for the k. I have a hard time with the whole language is most important and what we learn in debate is best, followed up by someone using bad rhetoric and saying the other team should not use it. I do not just vote for it but I do find the whole you contradicted it so either you lose or the K goes away persuasive. I would give some warning before I talk about Crazy in debate. 1. There is a winner and a looser in each debate, just because you were doing something crazy does not mean you get to avoid it. I have very few things I get to do and I enjoy the power (I give winner, looser, and speaker points). 2. Bad performance is not only horrible to watch (which kills speaker points) it also is easy to turn if the other team know performance or makes simple logical arguments. This means that it needs to be prepped and practiced it is not normally something that just comes to you in prep and if it does you might want to resist it because they go bad on the fly. Having said all of it I have seen some amazing performances over the years and it was cool when they were good. I have an old school approach to T. I do not mind it and while it does not have to have in round abuse it is always better to have it.  To vote on it you need to win that there is a reason why what they did is bad and in the round the best thing would be to drop the AFF. As far as competing interps go I have a little rant. I do not know what else there is but competing interp. I mean both sides have their interp and the standards they use to justify it. In the end to win T you would have to prove your interp is the better one (hence the winning interp from the competing interps) and that topicality is a voting issue. I have no idea why people say t is about competing interps (because it always has been and will be) and I have no idea what that argument gets them in the round. I love counterplans. I have heard very few counterplans that are not pics (and they were really really bad). Topical counterplans are the best for debate and policy making because they are honestly the heart of most of the literature.  If you plan on kicking the CP I would put the status in the cp because otherwise you run the risk of the PMR getting angry about the kick and it is always messy for the judge at that point. Perms need to have text unless it is do both (because the text is literally both). Types of competition are interesting text seems a little weaker than functional but both can be good and lame too. I want to remind you here that even though I have told you about what I think about theory arguments I still vote on them all the time.  Even the silly argument that you only get one perm and it is always advocated (Yes cheesewright I am insulting you :P). I also think conditionality bad is a smart argument even if I don’t always get to vote for it. MPJ: My recommendation for teams is to pref me based on the people they are debating that weekend. I see people who are not fast or cannot handle the K (or defend policymaking) well and that is sad because they ranked me an A. You should rank me biased on what is most likely to win you rounds and I would never be offended by this.

Brent Nicholson - McKendree

This philosophy should give you a look into the way I think, but I believe that it will be totally sufficient given my outlook on debate. In the past, I’ve tried to be comprehensive, but I think that that lead to folks misinterpreting my thoughts on debate. Do not take my brevity to mean that I don’t have thoughts about debate, but rather that I think my own opinions ought not matter to you as a debater – this is, after all, your activity. My goal as a judge is to adapt to the round that the debaters have. This may seem to be empty to y’all, and that’s fine, but my goal as a coach and judge is to facilitate debate rounds that debaters want to have. I feel capable of judging any debate and would encourage you to do you when I am your judge. With that said, you’ll probably want a few things that I start off with to keep in mind. - I assume all negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. - I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts. - Give your opponents’ arguments the benefit of the doubt. They’re probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning. - Role of the ballot arguments do not make sense to me: if you have to win that the aff/neg does something good to meet the role of the ballot, it seems like you’ve already won the regular-old impact debate. Keep trying! But be aware that I was probably already voting for you if you won an impact.

Cory Freivogel - McKendree

CORY FREIVOGEL JUDGE PHILOSOPHY Hi! My name is Cory Freivogel. I did four years of policy debate in high school in the Chicago area. After that, I spent four years doing Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate at McKendree University. I’m currently the assistant coach there. I will preface this philosophy in the way that most people do - I think you should debate however you debate best in front of me. That being said, I obviously have certain biases and I think you should be familiar with them. Some general notes…. 1. I think debate is first and foremost a game. I think you should do whatever it takes to win that game, and I respect people who play the game with a lot of heart and lot of intensity. 2. I like people who do work. This doesn‘t mean that I won‘t vote for lazy, trite strategies - I have no problem doing that. It just means I respect people who put in extra effort to develop or update sweet arguments. 3. I like people that talk pretty. I certainly don’t think you should ever sacrifice strategy and execution for eloquence, but if you can give a smart speech that’s funny and engaging it will bode well for you. Also, don’t try to be funny if you’re not. 4. Don’t dismiss defensive arguments. Of course I think you should be making a wide variety of offensive arguments, but do not assume you’ll be fine by saying that 9 smart, defensive answers to your affirmative are just defense. DISADVANTAGES I like these arguments a lot. Running well-researched disadvantages with a diverse set of link arguments and huge probable impacts is the easiest way into my heart. Generic disadvantages like politics, business confidence, etc. are fine as well so long as they’re specifically tailored to the affirmative and properly executed. Similarly, I think smart negatives (and affirmatives as well) will do a great deal of work comparing impacts. If you do not do this I will make my own determination about the probability and magnitude of a disadvantage’s impact. I am also probably more concerned about probability than some other judges may be. I am not often impressed by massive impacts that are highly improbable and under-explained. Phrases like “even a 1% risk of our impact outweighs the entire risk of the aff” are typically code for “our impact is absurd and our disadvantage barely links.” COUNTER PLANS These arguments are sweet as well. I typically err negative on arguments like PIC’s bad, conditionality bad, etc. I will vote on these arguments, but it will be an uphill battle. The argument that I should reject the argument rather than the team is usually a winner. I think condition, consultation and other silly process counter plans are of questionable legitimacy and I can definitely be more persuaded to drop teams on theory if they’re extending these arguments. That being said I like counter plans of all shapes and sizes and think that if you aren’t reading one or straight turning the affirmative, then you’re probably in trouble. KRITIKS I am not as hostile to these arguments as most people probably think I am. I am, however, probably as unlikely to understand these arguments as most people think I am. I have not and probably will not ever read any traditional or post-modern philosophy unless someone requires me to do so. I’m not trying to dog on anyone that does, but it’s just not my thang. This is mainly meant as a word of caution. If you run the kritik I will listen, flow and do my best to make a fair decision. But, I am not the best critic for you. If you somehow find me in the back of the room and you have nothing but your criticism, it will serve you well to slow down and eliminate all the jargon you imagine I may be familiar with. That being said, if you’re an affirmative answering these arguments do not assume I will let you get away with answering kritiks poorly. If you mischaracterize the criticism, concede framework arguments, or rely on defense then I’ll probably notice and you’ll lose. TOPICALITY I like good topicality debates a lot. If you are affirmative, then you need to meet the interpretation or you need a counter interpretation. Absent one of those things, you will probably lose. If you are going for or answering topicality you should be comparing standards and voting issues in the same way that you compare impacts. If you do not compare standards, it will make it very difficult for me to make a good decision and it will be bad for everyone. I am also more persuaded by arguments about ground than limits. I could care less if your interpretation “explodes the topic” given that the topic will only exist once and you don’t have to do any research in the future. ASPEC / OSPEC / FSPEC / BILL NUMBER SPEC / COMMITTEE ORIGINATION SPEC / BLAH BLAH SPEC…. These arguments are really not my cup of tea. This is mostly because I don’t like giant pieces of shit in my tea. I understand the strategic utility of introducing these arguments in the LOC, but I cannot understand why one would choose to extend them in the MO unless there was some incredible example of abuse. It is difficult for me to imagine giving any higher than a 27 to even the most persuasive extension of a generic specification argument. THE CASE People forget about the case all the time. That makes me sad because I love a good case debate. If you’re the LOC and you don’t have an incredible counter plan, then you should be putting a lot of offense on the case. Similarly, the MG should be extending and utilizing the case throughout his or her speech. It frustrates me to no end when affirmative teams assume they can entirely ignore the case until the PMR when it suddenly becomes the focus of the debate. Personally, I think you should have to extend the affirmative throughout the debate. POINTS OF ORDER I keep a pretty decent flow and think I can detect new arguments on my own. That being said, they are allowed by the rules and if you think there is a particularly egregious example of an abusive new argument feel free to call it. However, if I know an argument is new I will protect the opposite team regardless of whether or not you say it's new. If you call a bunch of unnecessary points of order on teams just to disrupt their speech or be funny or whatever I will be very unhappy. I hated when teams did that when I debated and I imagine I will hate it even more as a judge. Don't do it. POINTS OF INFORMATION I think as a general rule you should probably accept two of these per speech. I could pretty easily be persuaded to pull the trigger on a "they didn't take any questions" type of procedural. Also, no means no. If someone won't take your question don't yell that question or jump around waving your hands like an idiot or yelling "Please!! Just one!!" The only exceptions to this are in instances when you need to know the status of a counterplan or to have a text repeated / handed to you. I don't think you should have to raise your hand to ask for those things. Maybe there is no legitimate justification for that, but that just happens to be what I think. COVERAGE - I wanted to make a point of discussing this because at some point late last season I found myself voting on weak impact prioritization arguments and extinction claims that others chose to disregard. I’ve found myself doing this more and more. I believe that Claim + Warrant = An Argument. Whether that warrant is fantastic, idiotic or just okay is not for me to decide. Conceded arguments are true arguments - no matter how stupid or abhorrent they might be (I‘m looking at you “Dehumanization outweighs everything!“). If you ignore a potentially round-changing argument because you thought it was dumb or you just missed it, you’re probably going to lose.  Some judges don’t vote on these types of arguments because they are not thoroughly explained, they aren’t “fleshed out” or they aren’t given priority in the rebuttals. I understand and respect that philosophy, I just don‘t share it. I am constantly pushing myself to keep a flow that is as organized and detailed as humanly possible. In the context of debate, I find few things more resplendently beautiful than an immaculate flow. There are no computers, blocks or prep time in this game. As such, It is impossible to become a great debater without first mastering the art of the flow. I refuse to reward debaters that do not excel at the fundamentals. Perhaps it is unfair of me to push my dorky fetishization of the flow onto you, but I'm going to do it anyways. You should be aware of that.  DISCLAIMER: I love good, smart debates with dope strategies on both sides. Please DO NOT use this philosophy to justify ruining the debate with a whole mess of garbage arguments. I’ll probably give you a 17 or have Ben Reid wring out his sweat-soiled clothes on you.

David Dingess - CU

David Dingess - University of Colorado-Boulder Saved Philosophy: n/a Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy. Experience: 4 years of policy in high school. 3 years of parli at William Jewell. 1 year coaching/judging at Jewell. 1 year coaching/udging at CU Boulder. I have judged high school policy sporadically. Some Background Stuff: I value clarity in the arguments read in a debate. When I was judging last year I saw many debates where teams intentionally read muddled positions to obfuscate the debate. I think there is a big difference between reading a clever argument that someone happened to not anticipate and being purposefully unclear to try to get a less clever position answered poorly. I will not vote against people just for being unclear sometimes but I do expect you to make a good faith effort to engage your opponents with clear arguments. If I notice you purposefully obfuscating the debate, you will get, at best, mediocre speaker points from me. I also will not fill in argumentative gaps that were unclear when arguments are read. - All constructive speeches must take a question - You should read texts twice - Interpretations on procedural positions should be read slowly and clearly - The more you can make your theory arguments specific to the given resolution/plan text/etc. the better - Permutations are tests of competition. -A legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan - RVI’s are silly. Do not run them. - Speed K’s are equally silly. Do not run them either. - Use smart defensive arguments. - I feel like many judge philosophies that I read place emphasis on the need to prioritize warrants and clarity over speed. I definitely agree with these sentiments - Sarcasm is great. Rudeness is lame. Be respectful of your competitors. - I like it when the case is not ignored after the PMC. This means making case argument on the neg and utilizing the case to answer disads/effect impact calc on gov. The case shouldn’t disappear in the MG. - I will protect for new arguments but I understand the strategic utility of points of order. That said, please do not excessively point of order people. I’ll dock your speaks for it. - Don’t read fact or value cases in front of me. - You should state the status of your counterplan/k. If someone has to ask about the status, that does not count as a question Topicality I enjoy good T debates. My default is that topicality comes down to competing interpretations but I am willing to entertain arguments about why competing interpretations is a bad way to evaluate T. I am very skeptical of critiques of topicality. That doesn’t mean I won’t ever vote for them but just know that I am skeptical and it may be more strategic to try other arguments/just talk about the topic. I will be less likely to vote for spec/vagueness arguments than I will be to vote for T but that doesn’t mean I would not vote for a poorly answered spec argument. DA’s Please try to have warranted internal link and impact stories that have some propensity of actually happening. Otherwise, disads are pretty great. CP’s I will let the teams argue about conditionality. Just know I am usually not too friendly towards running multiple conditional advocacies. Last year I never voted against a team who had just one conditional advocacy. (This does not mean I always think condo is good, just that most people challenged it poorly) Delay/Object Fiat/Process CP’s are all bad. Consult is slightly less bad but you could definitely get me to vote on theory against consult cp’s. PIC’s are generally good but I am willing to listen theory that criticizes PIC, especially if the interpretation claims that PICs are bad for a specific type of resolution. Advantage/Alt Agent/Topical Cp’s are all good. Counterplans should be functionally competitive. Critiques I did not utilize critiques often when I debated. I am certainly open to hearing criticisms but I may be better prepared to evaluate policy debates. I think K’s basically should have a very clear explanation what exactly it is you are criticizing and why that is the biggest impact in the round. Please avoid appeals to/attack on authors when debating criticisms. When people run K’s in parli they don’t have to defend everything that their author ever wrote. Also, I probably may have not read your author and even if I did this K is your interpretation of a text so don’t just appeal to the author in place of warrants. Full Disclosure: last year I voted for a fair number of K’s during the year, however, I voted for very few K’s at NPTE. Take that as you will. Try and make your K’s specific to the resolution and case. This will help in the perm debate. Have fun!

Dena Counts - ACU

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

Dylan Brugman - ACU

TL;DR version: I don’t think that my job is to define for you the way that debate should be done. You should debate what you’re good at, not what I did/liked as a debater. **The only caveat: Please read interpretations/plan texts/and alt texts twice. That is the best way for me to get them down. Texts would be even better, but do what you want there. Longer version: General: I think that debates are won on offense, and I think that debates are won on strategy. I think that debate is capable in some ways of being a tool of liberation and expression, but I think that it is primarily a game to be played by two teams. The educational aspect of debate is nice, but if debate were about education, I would expect both teams to read textbooks to me about calculus or something during their speech. Win however you can and in whatever way you can. Speed: Hardly ever an issue. Clarity and argument depth often is. The way I flow is: I flow the claim and then flow the warrants underneath them. If I miss the claim, I flow the warrants and infer the claim from those warrants. If I miss both, your arguments are not warranted enough for me to write them down, and I will tell you to slow down. If you are unclear, then I will yell clear. Your options are to either become more clear, or slow down until you are clear. Or keep mumbling I guess. Theory/T/Procedurals: Run them. I default to competing interpretations, and that is the best way for me to evaluate theory, because it comes down to whoever debated it best and requires (arguably) the least intervention on my part; however, if I am given arguments as to why potential/proven abuse is good reason to pull the trigger, or why I shouldn't evaluate T, and the other team fails to provide an adequate answer, I’ll bite. Topicality is a voting issue, it is not a reverse voting issue. It's your fault if you let T become a time-suck. SPECs are generally for bad debaters. The Criticism: Can be run on the aff or the neg. Affs can be topical or not topical (as long as you win that you get to run a non topical aff), and affs can use fiat or not use fiat. A note about the criticism: If it is general/you assume that both teams understand it, I don’t need a thesis. If you are running something that I’m not familiar with/is super complicated, I would run a SHORT thesis. Most of the criticism’s that I ran were environmental, fem, and queer. I understand race pretty well, but if you start into post-structural, European philosophers like Baudrillard, Agamben, Derrida or the like, I need some indication of the thesis of the argument. For some reason, reading a bunch of leftist white academics wasn’t a thing we did at ACU in my undergraduate. That being said, I like hearing new things, if they are explained to me. I debated the criticism a lot as a debater, but in my old age, I prefer a Disad/CP debate. I also like DA/CP/K debate a lot if the negative can win condo. Criticisms/Turns of language in the PMC/LO/MG are generally ok. They are arguments that force the other team to spend time answering, which is always a good thing. Sometimes they make the other team look silly too, that can’t hurt your chances, right? On narratives/performance: Do it if you want, but when you introduce your own stories and experiences into a competitive environment, you make them competitive, and weaponizing identity doesn't help anybody in my experience. Do not physically hurt yourself or others in front of me (I cannot believe that I have to put this in a judging philosophy now). We should protect our activity and the people in it, and physical violence, I'm afraid, is not a good way to do this. Permutations are good to run on the aff. So are impact turns, and so is framework. And if you want to run a framework that policymaking is the only way to evaluate the round, I’ll evaluate that. Framing them out of the round is a good way to win. In general, I default to seeing permutations as tests of competitiveness, but will gladly hear all of the arguments about why they’re more than that. In general, when answering the criticism, do anything to win. Conditionality/multiple worlds: I don’t mind voting for a conditional argument, I also don’t mind voting on condo. I don’t care if you run three counter plans and a K, I don’t care if they conflict, and I don’t care if you collapse out of all of them into case turns. You should be the best condo debaters you can be though, because if you lose on condo or multiple worlds, I’ll vote against you. My favorite opp strat to watch as a judge is DA/CP/K debate. But each team should have one strategy that they're going for in the rebuttals. Opposition, you should go for one sheet of paper in the block (unless its a Disad/CP combo). Don't you dare stick to both disads. That is so bad. It's like the worst part of debate. Trust me enough to vote in the direction that you tell me. Disads: Are good. I like them to be big, and really like to have “burnt, dead bodies” in a disad. Dehume impacts are fine, and so are value to life arguments. With all disads, specificity is key (especially with politics). Lazy debaters are rarely rewarded, and many disads are lazy. Counterplans: Run as many as you want and run whatever you want. If you’re on the aff, run theory and run disads to the Counterplans. Also, permutations. Those are always a good thing. Case Debate: Offense is better than defense, but I think that impact defense (or impact turns) can be a pretty powerful tool. A note on impacts: I like impact calc, and I think it makes things easier for me. I default to extinction outweighs Dehume, but I am also very open to hearing impact frameworks that prioritize certain impacts over others. Everybody should let Ben Campbell teach them how to do impact calc, because that's the exact way that I feel about it. Speaker Points/Etiquette/etc: I don't call the house to order, I don't even know how to do that. I don't particularly like thank yous, but go for it I guess. I don't care if you talk to your partner or prompt them. I don't care if you stand or sit. You should wear some kind of clothing, but beyond that, you do what you want. I pretty much roll out of bed every morning. I don't care if you stand or sit, if you say "point of information" or not, or if you do the little teapot shin-dig when you ask a question (you know the hand on the head and the other one outstretched? Yeah, that's pretty silly). I always liked it when I felt that debaters were friendly to me, and I always disliked debaters that were not friendly to me. I think that for a lot of teams, being welcoming to them is important, inside and outside the round. Last year, I felt that my own RFD's were kind of mean spirited, and I'm trying to be more helpful in giving debaters an RFD that seems well justified. Because of that, I'll always flow on paper, but I'll probably open up my laptop afterwards and type up my RFD to read back to you. This is the best way for me to lay out the round and make the best decision possible. In addition, I promise to be respectful of you in my decision, and will always say something that is honest, but also encouraging. That being said, during the debate, I'm not very expressive, and may even look a little perturbed. I'm not, I promise, that's just the way that my face looks. I like jokes and references from Dungeons and Dragons, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Warhammer 40k, Firefly, Isaac Asimov books, The Sopranos, The Wire, The West Wing, Slavoj Zizek, my main man Barry-O, Kim Il-Sung/Jong-il/jong-un, and other weird things. Speaker points: My speaker points were a little lower than average last year, so I tried to change that this year, and create a more reliable/valid scale for speaker points. It is as follows: if I give you a 27, I think that you are a good debater, if I give you a 28, I think that you should be breaking, if I give you a 29, I think that you should be getting a speaker award, If I give you a 30, I think that you should be in finals. You want good speaker points? Then your rebuttal should be my RFD.

Emily Halter - McKendree

Emily Halter McKendree University General Information: I debated policy for 4 years in high school (which I understand is largely irrelevant now, but who knows), and then I did parli for 4 years at Lewis & Clark College, located in the lovely Portland, Oregon. I currently am an assistant coach for McKendree University.  This is my first year coaching and judging. During my debate career I read a variety of different arguments so I am at least familiar with many various arguments and styles of debate.  If I had to choose, I would say I am definitely more comfortable with straight up counter-plan disad style debate.  However, I would also say that I am open to you doing whatever you want in front of me as long as you explain it well.  I expect debaters to tell me what is important, and how I should vote. The only other bit of general information that I will add is that if you are debating a younger or perhaps more experienced team please remember that debate is an educational activity.  I do not look favorably on absolutely face crushing younger teams because that just isn’t necessary. Acknowledge that someone may perhaps not be as familiar with speed or critical arguments, and act accordingly. Answer questions and slow down when asked in these situations. One more thing, debate is fun so debate like you actually care and want to be there.  If you are miserable and sound miserable, I can guarantee that I am miserable listening to you. HAVE FUN!!! Specifics: Speaker Points: Obviously, since I have yet to judge a tournament, I don’t have a speaker point range.  However, I would expect 26-29.5.  That’s a rather broad range, but I guess we will find out once I start giving them. Critically framed arguments: I am fine with criticisms run on the aff or the neg.  I also think that you can read a K with DA’s.  I don’t, however, think you can critique debate as a whole and then read procedurals and disads.  That doesn’t make any sense to me. I am familiar with a variety of criticisms and ended up running them in a decent number of debates, but please don’t confuse that with extensive knowledge of critical literature because that I don’t have.  I understand the K and a have a shallow understanding of authors, but if you read something incredibly nuanced or confusing, please be sure to explain it.  I guess that goes for any criticism; I don’t think it is good debating to confuse the other team with philosophical jargon, and truthfully, there is a good chance you confuse me also.  So read Ks all you want, just please explain them well. As of now, there is no criticism that I really don’t want to hear.  That may change, so as of now I have no preferences. Performance Arguments: I became more comfortable with performance-based arguments during the second semester of last year, as my partner and I read one a few times.  However, I am still much more comfortable and familiar with more “straight-up” debate.  I will listen to performance arguments, and please feel free to read them, but please don’t think that I prefer or am more familiar with this style of debate. Topicality: I would not say that I am a T-hack, but I also would not say that I have a high threshold when it comes to topicality.  I really enjoy good topicality debates when they are technical and clean.  That being said, if a T argument is dumb or insanely counter-intuitive, what a waste of time! I also do not think in round abuse is necessary.  I think that prep skew is a very real thing. If you tell me to evaluate based on reasonability please tell me what that means.  If you just say reasonability without a definition of reasonability, I will not consider that a way to evaluate topicality because I don’t know what that means according to you. Counterplans: Counterplans are beautiful.  I have always loved the counterplan/disad debate.  I think that I would be willing to listen to any counterplan.  That being said, I do think delay counterplans are super cheater.  I will listen to them, and I would never do anything like auto vote against them, but I will be incredibly amenable to a delay bad theory position or perm do the counterplan. In terms of status, I think it is probably the job of the affirmative to ask the status of the counterplan, but it would surely be nice of the negative to incorporate that into the reading of the counterplan “thus the unconditional/conditional counterplan is ….”  Either way I guess.  I don’t have a status preference, just be prepared to justify conditionality if questioned.  That being said, you will have a hard time justifying multiple conditional counterplans or multiple conditional kritiks, because I think that’s dumb and cheating.  Let me clarify, I don’t’ mean you can’t read a conditional counterplan with a conditional kritik.  I mean, that you probably shouldn’t read multiple conditional counterplans or multiple conditional kritiks. Even though I don’t have a problem with conditionality, I have no problem voting on condo-bad if that’s what the debate comes down to. PICS ARE THE BEST THING IN EXISTANCE. I think that a good PIC is probably the most fun part about being negative, and I love to hear them.  That being said, I am FULLY sympathetic to aff teams reading PICS bad, and I strong suggest that they do.  I think PICS are awesome, but they are also probably pretty stinking abusive in many cases, so I am not more likely to vote for a PIC than I am to vote for PICs Bad, all things equal. Sharing flowed arguments: I have never really been in any situation in which this happened.  I guess that’s up to the debaters to do their thang.  I’m not the one debating so it doesn’t really concern me. Order of evaluation in making a decision: I like to think that I will evaluate the arguments the way in which the debaters tell me to evaluate things.  I will default net-benefits, but just tell me how you want me to vote on what position and why.  For the most part, I will evaluate the arguments in the order that they are prioritized by the debaters.  I think the answer to this question is it will largely depend on the round. Comparing abstract impacts: The only noteworthy comment that I have here is that unlike some other people, I don’t think that value to life is the end-all-be-all impact.  I think that if you drop a value to life claim, you can easily recover.  I treat more abstract impacts like any other impacts.  If you read an abstract impact, I need you as the debater to do impact comparison and tell me why the particular impact is more important than nuclear war or whatever. Please just come up and ask me if you have any questions.

Glenn Prince - TTU

n/a

Jacob Stutzman - OKCU

22 years in debate, HS policy, NFA-LD, but mostly NPDA (judging for the last 14 years).  This year I’ve been in tab a lot, so I haven’t judged many rounds. I want the debaters to decide the form and substance of the round.  I’m not opposed to any particular argument or strategy that you feel fits the purpose of the debate. Framework debates are good, but rarely dispositive. Absent a specified framework for viewing the round, I default to whatever makes it easiest for me to render a decision. I get very frustrated by debaters who do not think their way through the round. This shows up when debaters don’t make connections between positions or go after obvious deficits in the other team’s arguments. If you can’t compare solvency of the plan vs. the CP or give me specific link analysis on the K, then something is wrong. On the flip side, debaters who do those things usually make it easy for me to vote for them. Smart debaters are the ones who take the easy ways out of the round. I’d like a copy of plan and CP/alt text. Perm text too, if possible. I tend to prioritize probability in impacts, so tell the better story on your positions. Regardless of how fast you’re going, I’ll let you know if you’re not clear. Please take into consideration the size and shape of the room and any other atmospheric factors that may complicate my hearing you. I prefer that you only call points of order on arguments that are likely to be very important to my decision. Calling points simply to disrupt the speaker or to contest minor arguments will be given very little leeway before I start docking speaker points. Absent punishment for that sort of stuff, exclusive language, or otherwise improper behavior toward your opponents, speaker points are usually 25-29, very rarely above that, and are decided based on the amount of enjoyment I get out of your participation in the debate round. Make smart choices and explain those choices to me well, and you’ll come in at the top of that scale. Don’t assume I know your lit on the K. Explain the warrants to me and make the links very explicit.

Jared Bressler - TTU

n/a

Jeremy Christensen - Washburn

Name: Jeremy Christensen School: Washburn University (Hired) 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. My approach to judging relies upon the round I will judge; or, in short, I try not to decide a round before I enter it. In the follow pages, I explain some things I lean against or am less likely to vote for, that does not mean they are excluded; it means you will have to do more work to win them. With that said, as much as I try to let the round be yours and the arguments be yours, if I am given the choice between sensible and less sensible, I will likely default to the sensible. My sensible may be different than yours. I could be wrong. In nearly thirty years coaching debaters, judging debaters, and competing in debate in every format (excepting Public Forum), I can say I have made a few mistakes. I am honest (I do not rep out); I listen impartially (as long as you don’t attack me or members of the other team); and I want you to have the best educational and competitive experience possible while debating in front of me.  Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Please describe your approach to the following. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 2.  My typical speaker point range is between 25 and 30, although particularly boorish behavior – swearing at a competitor, insulting me, insulting the other team’s college or the college with which I am affiliated, using racist or sexist slurs – will  minimally earn zero speaker points and the latter two issues will result in a report to the tournament director. Frankly, I really don’t expect any of that to happen, but there is the worst case scenario.  3. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Critiques are great when they are developed as more than non-unique disadvantages. With that said, I should point out a couple of things. First, I believe you need some alternative. That alternative may emerge as a framework, at which point you expect me to interpret the round through another lens that points beyond dead bodies, but that constitutes an alternative framework. For me that means you are advocating a different view. Second, I can be sold on something as simple as “reject the Affirmative,” but ultimately you need to tell me what that rejection gets me and what it is I embrace. Unless the framework is a Heddigerian nothingness or a Derridian deconstructivist mode, then I’m unclear where rejection leaves me. (Both of those frameworks would need to be fully explained.) Therefore, with your capitalism K, for instance, I would rather see some advocacy from Judith Butler or (gasp) even something from Marx, that suggests a new worldview or course of individual action gets me outside the mental or physical box of the Affirmative advocacy. Perming critiques is absolutely acceptable, although I think one needs to move beyond “I can can think and act,” permutations. To boil it down, I understand critiques as something along the lines of advocating a proposition of personal policy; e.g. “You should reject capitalism.”  The criticism requires no mechanism of coercion as would an agent of systemic policy, but does require a problem (implication) cause (link) and solution (alternative). With that in mind, the alternative becomes the plan and solvency for such a proposition, which means that the Affirmative can perm the critique just as they perm any other counterplan. That also means that I’m very sympathetic to arguments that say the absence of an alternative skews ground, so specification arguments on the criticism would come prior to the criticisms implication, unless, of course, the framework for the criticism can anticipate the objection and in some way mute the specification.  4. Performance based arguments… Strike me if this is your strategy. I do not understand them. That is not to say I find them invalid, it is just that I don’t see how the performance can engage straight refutation without some serious intervention on my part. You don’t want my intervention, as I will likely defer to an aesthetic standard driven by my background in critical theory and literary studies. Based on many of the performances I’ve seen, they would not fair well under the scope of those lenses. In the end, I appreciate your effort, but I am not the person to give the argument fair assessment. 5. Topicality and other procedurals. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? With the exception of topicality, I see procedurals as being viable only when a team can show in-round (meaning during the exchange of arguments), articulated abuse, especially with spec arguments. (See more on this in the flowsheet section.) Topicality, on the other hand, can be won on jurisdiction. I don’t necessarily have to see abuse, although I’m open to whatever on that discussion. Competing interpretations wins topicality debates, so the standards debate controls the internal link to the violation. This does not mean the Affirmative needs to generate counter-standards, if their interpretation meets the given standards better (what is the standard for that?) than the Negative. Also, counter-definitions may be unnecessary. As hard as this may be to believe, on occasion, Negative teams run crummy topicality arguments that the Affirmative actually meets. So, in those cases, a good “we meet” pretty well takes out the link to the violation, which means topicality goes away. This goes for spec as well. Win the standards, and you should be good to go. 6. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? Counterplans can be run as unconditional or dispositional without any challenges from me, although I strongly urge the Affirmative to clarify what the Negative means by dispositionality; e.g. what are the conditions they understand as being valid ground upon which to kick the position. Without that clarification, I’ll assume dispositionality means Negative can only go for one CP or the Status Quo or a procedural; however, I do not understand dispositionality as “whenever I feel like it, even with a perm on it” (that, I would understand as conditionality). A perm on the CP means, just like a turn on DA (which is functionally a Status Quo CP) means offense and the Negative needs out of that before they kick it.  Feel free, however, to make any arguments that dispo is bad; I’ll listen to them and keep my prejudices in check. Conditionality is not totally out of the realm of possibility, but the Negative needs to win the theory in a big way. As far as permutations are concerned, perms test competition, but do not constitute an advocacy. With that said, if the Affirmative keeps telling me they get “double solvency,” I will happily vote for double solvency unless the Negative points out that this perm constitutes an intrinsicness or severance permuation. Often I find teams kick out of part of plan to delink the DA, which would make for a severance perm, as well.  Perms are controlled by the negative at the level of uniqueness on the net-benefit. That means if the Negative can demonstrate how post-plan the impact from the DA exists even if the counterplan could be done later, first, in parts, etc., then the Negative wins the net-benefit and unhinges the perm. In short, I default to net-benefits to determine whether or not the perm is legit, but the negative and Affirmative teams need to do the work here. Finally on this point, develop a more articulated perm than “do both.” Run multiple permutations if you can and make them as clear as possible. Textual competition and functional competition – Given the nature of the format – limited preparation – my prejudices would move me toward a textual competition, (in almost any prepared format I would consider this bogus); however, there are a few exceptions. For instance, if plan does not specify Congress or Executive Order, then one would understand that the function of the plan would through normal means use only one option. (Clearly a bill passed by Congress and signed by the President would not also need an executive order.) Consequently, the Affirmative, like the Negative, gets one advocacy either Congress or XO. Whatever world they do not pick becomes competitive Negative ground insofar as the net-benefit to the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the Affirmative advocacy. As for consultation, which would include an other country or other countries, regulatory negotiation (doubtless a strategy for the environmental topic), mediation, etc., the fundamental structure remains the same. To keep the problems from amassing, clarify the plan in a question or ask for a copy of the plan and then clarify. You already know your CP option based on the disad shell or, hopefully you will prior to standing up, so ask a question or two that will narrow down the Affirmative advocacy and open the space for the CP. 7. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)?  I could care less about this. Share if everyone agrees. By definition, however, if a team coerces another team into surrendering their flowsheet, then it is no longer sharing. For example, one would not see this use of the term “sharing” as viable:  Iraq shared Kuwait’s oil in 1990; the United States Federal Government shared the Black Hills with the Lakota, etc. For the round, if someone declines to share a flowsheet, then the matter is over and I will not be inclined to vote on a tattle-tale procedure (TT spec.):  “Uh…the Negative didn’t give me a copy of their CP text, DA text, procedurals texts” etc. so that was unfair. Too bad. I will not participate in the co-option of the Negative or Affirmative’s physical and intellectual property. With that said, given the importance of the plan text for the debate, I will expect the Affirmative and the Negative to yield to questions that both repeat the plan text and allow for further clarification of the plan text.  Without CX (hopefully that will change some day), there has to be some mechanism for explaining the central concerns of the plan. If the Affirmative and Negative find it more time beneficial to hand the other team a copy of plan text than to repeat it, then great. That should leave more time for clarifying questions and the Affirmative or Negative to generate the position. If either team should refuse to slow down and provide the plan text orally or give a copy, then I would be most interested in a criticism. 8. 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?)? In the absence of a clean debate, I will defer to the frameworks for each position – the criticism against the procedural – and then make my decision. If that doesn’t work, then I will consider the procedurals first, particularly topicality, and make may way through the rest. If my answer seems confused now, imagine how confused it would be during the round. Just avoid confusing me. 9. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? I intervene when debaters do not explain things or weigh them out. Dehumanization sounds pretty awful to me, so depending upon the way people die in the scenario, I might be inclined to vote for dehumanization; e.g. nuclear conflict kills a million versus dehumanization of three million. Of course, it could go the other way, I might feel at that moment nuclear war is worse. It would be exactly how a normal person (not a debate judge) would operate on any given day. Is this bad given what I know and the present circumstances? Is this bad? Hmmm. Avoid putting me in the position. If no one impacts the arguments, tells a story, etc., then I cannot see how they could object to virtually any impact calculus I bring to the table.

Joe Allen - Concordia

Generic information: I do not wish to impose my views on the activity through my ballot. What I mean by this is that I think you certainly ought to debate in front of me in a fashion consistent with what you're best at--and allow me to adapt to you. I fundamentally believe that nearly all aspects of debate are negotiable, and certainly a multitude of different kinds of strategies can be fun to watch and fun to do. I believe those who insist on debate conforming to their view of the activity are narcissistic and don't get the point. I also think that the notion of the inevitability of intervention does not remove the responsibility to evaluate issues in a fair and honest fashion--in fact it strengthens this obligation. I will do my best to make decisions which are not informed by my predispositions but rather a serious evaluation of the issues as they were debated. My burden of striving for non-intervention will not prevent me from passing judgment. This ought not be confused. I will make a decision based on judgments I make (clearly) but I will not be dishonest about the objective flow of the debate in order to cater to my own debate ideals. I am a debate nihilist (you might say), I begin with the assumption that what you can do in debate is only limited by your imaginative capacity to justify your argumentative choices. There is no strategy that I didn't try as a debater--who would I be to tell you that you can't do the same? Specific information: Despite my strong belief that our predispositions should have no effect on the outcome of our judging, I must admit that I obviously do have predispositions about this activity. I've spent enough time doing it, and even more time thinking about it, that I am not a clean slate. I'll put my slate away for the sake of fair deliberation, but here's a glimpse of what my slate looks like.  Topicality: Unless argued persuasively otherwise, I default to assuming that topicality is both a voting issue and an issue of competing interpretations. I truly believe that affirmatives who make a good faith effort to support the topic (even if for a very abstract or nuanced reason) are the most strategic. Even some of the most strategic critical affirmatives I've ever seen affirmed the topic. I suppose a good general rule is that if you're not trying to be topical, you should have an exceptionally good reason why. I have never heard a definition of reasonability in my entire life that made more sense to me than competing interpretations (doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility). I believe that the specificity of the standards and how effectively they are compared (T debates are impact debates like everything else) is often the decider.  Counterplans: I tend to assume that counterplans are a very useful strategy available to the negative. I am not predisposed against conditional counterplans, and frankly I'm also not predisposed against multiple conditional counterplans. Do not mistake this with an unwillingness to vote for condo bad if you can’t justify your instance of condo. Surprisingly perhaps, I also am not strongly against counterplans which don't compete textually (particularly if they are authentically within the scope of the topic). The reason I think textual competition is usually a good limit is precisely because most counterplans which textual competition limits out are those which detract from topic education. If yours doesn't and you can justify your counterplan you're fine. If you say there's a textually competitive version of the counterplan I will know if you're lying (just so you know). It's really all about what you can justify. The quality of your solvency evidence is generally a great indicator of how smart your counterplan is.  The kritik: We shouldn't be afraid to have kritik debates because they serve as a way of making sure that our assumptions can be justified. That being said, our assumptions can be justified, and I appreciate people who do in fact engage critical teams and make an effort to defend the perspectives which inform their arguments. A few uphill battles critical debaters might find with me are that I often think critical framework arguments do not particularly limit the affirmative very much. There is no part of debate that isn't already a performance, and there is no part of debate that isn't already representational. It's about the desirability of those representations. Another roadblock critical debaters might find with me is that I have no problem signing off on topicality or evaluating the framework debate against the kritik. I'm not opposed to framework if you cannot justify the way your kritik is framed. If they're responsible for their representations why aren't you? I don't like the fact that kritik debaters uniquely have to have a sheet of paper justifying the existence of their argument right out of the gates, but if you cannot win that your argument should exist I think you should find a different argument. I also am a sucker for sophisticated and clever permutation arguments. Perhaps this is why I think the best kritiks are topic specific and turn the case.  Theory: I think theory serves a vital role in regulating debate trends, like a filter. Sometimes a strategy is a winning one precisely because it's not crafted in a fashion that is fair. Sometimes a strategy is antithetical to education to a degree that merits its total exclusion. Again, these questions are answered best through a framework of competing interpretations where sophisticated impact calculus happens at the level of the standards debate. If you can justify it, you can do it. Theory debates are one of the best tests of whether or not you can justify your given strategy. For this reason, I take it seriously and think it should be evaluated first. I will not evaluate it first only in the circumstance where you lose the priority debate (which sometimes happens). My default assumption is that fairness and education are both good, and keep the activity alive. This does not, however, remove the obligation to demonstrate why something is theoretically objectionable to a degree that merits the ballot. I also tend to fall further on the potential abuse side of the spectrum than the real abuse side. Just because you don't perform abuse (in the sense of how much of their strategy has in-round utility) does not automatically mean the way your strategy is positioned is suddenly educational or fair.  Disads: A well argued disad can be a beautiful thing. If you can't outweigh the case, read a counterplan that pairs well with your disad. If you want, read two. You could also surprise me and debate the case effectively (I will appreciate this). I do not dislike politics disads, but those which do not have any real link specificity annoy me a bit. Sometimes the politics disad is the right choice, sometimes it's not. Depends on the topic. The greater the specificity and applicability the happier I'll be. I love a well crafted topic disad. If your disad authentically turns the case, then I'll probably be inclined to thinking it's a good disad. Be prepared to debate all levels of disad uniqueness (not just top level) including link uniqueness, internal link uniqueness, and impact uniqueness.  Things that really annoy me:  1) Process disads. If your disad relies on the process of the plan passing, rather than the outcome of the plan, I will not like your disad. If you say things like "the plan will be horse-traded for x" or "the plan will move x off the docket" I will be utterly dissatisfied with your lazy and bankrupt disad. To be clear, it is the job of the aff to identify how absurd your disad is. I will not hesitate to vote for shitty process disads if the aff fails to correctly answer them, but it'll make me feel bad about myself and the state of debate. 2) Theory debates which begin in the PMR. Sometimes really egregious things happen in the block. In this case, I may very well vote for theory which begins in the PMR. Example: the negative splits the block. However, I am more often than not wildly uncomfortable with theory debates in which the negative has no opportunity to contest your argument. The best example I can think of here is that the MOC should take a question. My intuition is that you get the last word, and so you should have the upper hand in dealing with these situations without putting me in an awkward position. This is one of my least favorite debate arguments.  3) Spec arguments or T arguments which have no resolutional basis. If your spec argument has no basis in the topic, or requires the aff to be extra-topical in order to meet your interpretation, I will think it's a bad argument. E-spec is a good example of such an argument. This is especially egregious in instances in which T arguments have no basis in the topic since T is supposed to be explicitly premised on the language of the topic.  4) Floating pics. Alternatives should not include anything resembling the plan. They should especially not literally include the plan text. If they do, and you do not win the debate on perm: do the alternative with appropriate theory arguments about how nonsense it is for the alt to include the plan I will be pretty sad. The negative should have to make alt solvency arguments in order to demonstrate why the alt solves the aff, and the aff should be entitled to argue that the aff is a disad to the alt. If the alternative does not enable this debate to occur, it's more than likely theoretically bankrupt. I would hope that the aff would identify this. A good question to ask the LOC when they read their alternative is whether or not the plan can pass in a world of the alternative. 5) Incorrect permutation strategies. For every silly nonsense counterplan which shouldn't exist, there is a solid permutation text which makes such counterplan look pretty silly. I really appreciate it when the aff correctly identifies the appropriate permutation, and conversely, I really don't like it when the aff fails to problematize bad counterplans with the appropriate permutation. I am not principally opposed to severance or intrinsic permutations, but appropriate applications of them have a high degree of difficulty. Theoretical objections to them are a reason to reject the permutation, not the team, unless argued persuasively otherwise. 6) Failure to offer impact comparison. It is up to you to ensure that the debate is resolvable in a way that doesn't require me to compare things myself. I will always decide debates based on what occurs in your own words. I will not put the pieces together for you. I will not assume your position to be a priority if you fail to demonstrate this for me. Impact calculus is the centerpiece of how you can accomplish this.  7) Failure to identify things which are theoretically bankrupt. What bothers me the most about asinine strategies is when I'm put in a position to have to endorse them with my ballot, and I absolutely will if you fail to allow me to do otherwise. It is your responsibility to filter out irresponsible debate trends with sound objections to them. Take your responsibility seriously so that I don't have to make decisions which I know endorse things which are not good for the activity.  Summary observations: I suppose my views on the ideal strategy are almost always informed by the topic. The best K's turn the case and are topic specific, and the same can be said for the best disads. The best counterplans have very quality solvency evidence and a sensible net benefit. The best critical affs affirm the topic and discuss issues pertinent to the topic literature. There's always a good strategic option for a given topic, and it's up to you to find it. I will not be a hindrance to that process. Whatever you think is situationally best given the strengths of yourself and your opponent should be what you go with. I'll adapt to you. You'll probably debate better when you do what you're best at. Almost all debate is fun, it should be a question of what's the most situationally strategic option. One last thing: I am a very expressive judge. 9 times out of 10 you will know what I think of your argument. I will shake my head at you if you say something really absurd, and I will nod for arguments that I agree with. I can't really control this very well (I've tried). On very very rare occasions I will verbally declare an argument to be silly during the debate. Do not take me too seriously. I vote for silly arguments when I would be intervening otherwise, and not all smart arguments are round winners. If it's very difficult for you to deal with non-verbal reactions to your arguments or this is very distracting for you, don't pref me. I literally could not possibly be less interested where I end up on your pref sheet.

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark

Joe Provencher – Lewis and Clark   The Quick hits for Prep time:   Unless told otherwise, I default to net-bens/policy making.   If you want me to evaluate topicality via competing interpretations, slow down a bit through your interpretations so I have the text exactly as you intend it. You should also probably take a question on your definition/interp if it's particularly long/nuanced/complex/crazy.   I used to tell teams I believed all advocacies in round should be unconditional. However, a lot of the conditionallity debates I saw were really terrible, and probably had PMRs going for the theory without really understanding it, and then expecting me to vote every time for the aff as a result of my philosophy. So I'll try my best to explain it more below, but for your quick evaluation of me now, know that I don't really think conditionality is necessary (maybe not even good), but will do my absolute best to be open to the theory arguments made in round.   I think that counter-plans must compete via net-benefits or mutual exclusivity. Other CP theory arguments are going to be an uphill battle for my ballot.   I don't think I'm biased one way or another on the kritik. I think good K debate is good, and bad K debate is bad (and good theory debate is good, bad theory debate is bad, etc, etc). Just get small in the rebuttals, one way or the other, and pick your winning argument. Like any argument, if you suspect I may not be 100% familiar with the literature you are using, then make the tag line very clear so you can read your warrants as fast as you want.   Take some points of information. Be cordial. Call as many points of order as you want, but it should be limited to the individual calling the point of order, and a response from the opposing individual making the argument. There should never be a debate, or any back and forth, about whether an argument is new. Make your point, respond to it.      Some further reading for your strikes:   On conditionality: I would never explicitly tell a team not to run a certain argument in front of me. However, out of all the reading I've done, and rounds I've seen, I can't imagine a world in which the MG puts out a good Condo bad shell, the PMR goes for it sufficiently, and I do not vote for it. Maybe the reading I've done is insufficient, but I'm not convinced yet, and the limited condo debates I've seen have been bad ones that only reinforce that opinion. However, I'm trying to stay open to furthering my education in the activity and would encourage anyone to come find me and talk (maybe outside of round) so we can keep the discussion going.   On topicality: I believe that T is a discussion to find the best definition of a word in the resolution. The standards debate is a debate about why a particular definition is very good. A lot of times, especially with teams yelling about ground to DAs they're supposed to have, I think that focus gets lost. If a plan doesn't link to your DA, it might not be because they have mis-defined a word. It might just be that the DA is not good. Consequently, the claim that NEG can read DAs is not a reason your definition is good. That just means they can run DAs. Most debaters are good enough to come up with some kind of offense on the spot.   In general: Good debate gets small at the end of the rounds. Rebuttal speeches should be deep and specific, and focussed around why I must prioritize a single given story. Do that, you win.

Joseph Hykan - Whitman

TL:DR (skip it if you’re reading the whole thing) I think you can mostly do what you want in front of me.  I try to be objective, and I think I’m willing/capable of evaluating most all of the different strategies people like to go for.  I am not the fastest flow, the fastest debaters should slow slightly in front of me, I will attempt to issue verbal slows or clears as needed, but it’s difficult to do in round.  I place a very high value on depth and on argument interaction.  You must return to the big picture at some point, compare competing claims, discuss the importance of the arguments you’re winning, and weigh impacts.  I find I’m most likely to sit or to make a decision that one team is upset about when the work isn’t done in the block/PMR to put the pieces of my decision together for me.    I’m probably more amenable to voting on theory and to give heavy weight to defense than is the norm.  There are many critical affs that I like, but I do want a clear explanation of what the aff advocates/defends, and why that is a reason to vote for them.  While I really don’t like voting on cheap shots I do find it hard to just waive them away, so you need to cover your bases against all the little things.  I aspire to be an objective and hyper-detailed evaluator of the flow, and a judge that everyone feels comfortable doing their thing in front of, but I do have preferences/flaws/peculiarities and that’s what’s in the long version.  Updates New for Nationals -Regarding cheap shots (this is a significant change):  There are at least three rounds this year where I have voted on arguments I think were “cheap shots”.  Arguments with little warrant/analysis that are not very good, but when conceded change the outcome of debates (i.e. perfcon is a voter, you must give us a perm text).  I think so far this year I have been more willing to vote on these arguments than is the norm.  I think this practice is not in line with what I value in debate, and I want to handle these arguments differently at nationals. I’m going to be willing to dismiss arguments that don’t meet a minimum threshold of warrant/logic, especially if they were only very brief blips in the LOC/MG that were blown up later in the debate.  I can’t specify an exact threshold, and I still want to limit intervention, so it still is important that you cover your bases against these arguments.    - If I’m asking you for the order, I probably don’t actually care. I’m trying to politely tell you to stop taking prep.  -I think you should make the choice to either cede a debate round to have a conversation/forum/whatever, or you should contest the ballot.  I do not think it’s fair to ask your opponents to not engage in a competitive round, while still asking for a coin flip or otherwise hanging on to a chance of picking up the ballot. Experience I debated for four years in high school in Colorado, mostly LD.  From 2009-2013 I debated at Lewis & Clark in NPDA/NPTE. General philosophy I want you to have fun, and debate the way you like to debate.  I’ll evaluate the arguments made in the round within the framework offered, and hopefully resolve conflicting claims with comparisons and reasons to prefer that are articulated by the debaters. I want to limit my intervention in the debate, and I am not interested in imposing my own views about the truth of arguments or about what debate should look like.  However, I do have opinions about debate and about particular arguments, and I think it’s only fair to advise you of them.  Do not interpret any of the following as, “I won’t/will vote for x argument”, I still don’t plan to intervene; this is just an effort to share information and make this philosophy useful. Answers to common questions -Clarity/Speed.  I reserve the right to issue a verbal slow if you get too quick for me.  Honestly, if you are one of the fastest debaters on the circuit, you should probably go slightly below your top speed in front of me.  Especially if you are moving quickly between claims and leaving me little pen time. I also reserve the right to ‘clear’ you, although clear doesn’t necessarily mean you need to slow down.  If you were too fast or too unclear for me I will not spot you the argument, I will only evaluate what I have flowed.  -Regarding the K.  I like the K.  I tend to prefer, but not require, framework’s that include a clear interpretation, rather than a laundry list of method good/policy bad arguments that fail to tell me how to evaluate the round.  I think critiques are better when teams are clear and specific, and do not rely on author names or buzzwords.  I really don’t like when teams intentionally obfuscate what they are critiquing, or how the other team can respond.  I do not like Kritiks that are non-falsifiable, psychoanalysis K’s tend to be some of the worst perpetrators.  I believe that the most effective way to answer a K is by directly indicting the logic of the argument itself, and not relying on a bunch of generic perms/alt arguments, or framework.  Similarly I believe that the best K teams defend their arguments in the block, instead of trying to shift and run away from MG offense.  (obviously a strategic shift/collapse is good, but refusing to answer arguments that truly are sticky is not) I’ve said this in post-round almost every time I have watched a critique this year, so I’ll put it here too.  I do not think that Generic perm net benefits like the double bind, or juxtaposition, or generic alt arguments like “the alt is totalitarian” tend to be effective.  Good MOs have no trouble with them, and for these arguments to have real teeth you probably need to be winning other more central arguments against the critique.  I think you’ll be most likely to win my ballot by reading offense to the core of the critique, and contexualizing any of your more generic arguments as much as possible to the specifics of the kritik and the aff.    -K aff’s are fine too.  I’d prefer that they be germane to the topic (and in the right direction), but I’ll listen to your framework your and K of T should you choose to run them.  Clarity is particularly important on framework here.  What is your advocacy, and why does that advocacy mean that you ought to win the debate?  Clear interpretations that provide some level of brightline for me to assess who wins the round would be helpful too.     -Performance/”project” arguments.  (Sorry if these terms homogenize arguments in a way that isn’t ideal, but I need a way to refer to them).  These arguments are good, and important.  I want to support folks who want to run them.  That said I’m still working out exactly what I value in these debates, and how I feel about them.  Some bullet points of things I would prefer you do. -Be clear on what exactly your advocacy is.  -Explain clearly how the debate should be evaluated -I think setting up this debate in a way that allow opponents to engage on the method level is desirable -I won’t enforce this on my own in any way.  But I think there’s a strong case to be made that if your advocacy is totally unrelated to the topic that you should disclose it to your opponents in prep time.  I think forcing your opponent to prep for your performance and a policy aff generates a huge advantage for you, and renders parlis limited prep incoherent.  -Be clear about what your performance does and why that’s sufficient.  If you create real change tell me how and why that change is good.  If you simply expose problematic structures tell me that that’s sufficient. Answering Performance/”project” arguments.  I won’t say that there isn’t a framework shell that I would vote for, but you’ll have to be nuanced for that to get you anywhere.  I’m most likely to give high speaker points to folks who engage on the method level.  I will not be very interested in hearing you complain that this style of debate is inherently unfair. -Conditionality.  No strong feeling here.  But I will note that I believe many parli teams defend condo poorly.  I think ‘we’ll kick down to one argument in the block’ and ‘hard debate is good debate’, are especially bad arguments. -CP theory.  No big predispositions here. I think the more specific the interp/counterinterp, the better you’ll generally do on a position.  Generally speaking I’m open to hearing CP theory, but I think some allowances have to be made for the fact that parli has no back side rebuttal, and that the aff has a second-line monopoly on mg theory.  That doesn’t mean I won’t pull the trigger, but it means PMR second lines aren’t automatically golden, and that their quality has to be compared to that of the MO arguments and justified by the quality/depth of the mg shell.  -Text Comp: I’ll listen to it, but I think it’s just a lazy way of making Pic’s bad and other arguments, and not a coherent interpretation of what a competitive counterplan is.  Veto/cheato bad and delay bad: They aren’t autowins, but you’re in a very good spot. States: I think states is a far more abusive argument than people tend to believe.  PIC’s bad: I think this can be a very persuasive argument if the interp is specific to rounds in which the affirmative must pass the entirety of an existing bill.  -Regarding Spec.  I do not think these arguments tend to be any good.  They’re almost always normal means/solvency debates, which are not procedural/voting issues.  However I’m also not a fan of the trend of swearing at people for making these arguments and refusing to answer them.  Just read your answers. -Topicality.  These are fine debates, and I think people should go for them more often because they seem to frequently be answered poorly. I default to competing interpretations, and I think potential abuse is plenty.  I do not like arbitrary interpretations e.g. Military force means boots on the ground.  No it doesn’t.  Topicality is about the meaning of words in the resolution.  I think ground/education and fairness are poor standards as well, unless made in the context of the meaning of words in the resolution.  I think the Israel debate is fair and educational, but it’s obviously not the topical debate in every round.  The, uh… Trichotomoy? (is this still necessary?) I do not want to hear “value” or “fact” debates.  If you want to have to have these debates you probably should not pref me. -Speaker points. I plan on giving speaker points on the following scale; I think it will make me on the lower end of the spectrum, but I’m trying to limit that effect.             -26 Poor             -27 Below average             -27.5 average             -28 Above average             -29 Excellent             -30 Near perfect.     Bullet point things to know *New: I don’t like strategies where one team deliberately holds back on making their argument until the member speech (e.g. plan text in the PMC then sit down, than a new Nietzche shell in the mg).  I think these arguments are anti-educational, unfair, and really indicate a team is unwilling to have a real debate. I won’t intervene against these arguments, but I’ll be extremely compelled by responses indicating these strategies are unfair/uneducational/pointless.  -I find a lack of depth is a consistent problem in the debates I watch, including debates with very good teams.  If I am to consider an argument coherent, I need a clear claim, and a warrant, and an impact.  You must explain coherently the impact a claim has on the debate, or I will be forced to do that work myself.  A good example would be if an MG says on politics "Link Turn: Republicans like plan".  Unless the LOC link argument was "Republicans don't like plan" the mg needs to do more work contextualizing the importance of plan's popularity with republicans and explaining why that is in fact a link turn.   -Please slow down for theory interps, and repeat them. -Please also slow down for top level of politics disads, details really matter there too.  -Speakers must take and substantively answer a question if asked in the PM or LOC, and I will almost certainly vote on the procedural if you don’t (if there’s flex/cx the procedural ground is worse).  Generally speaking I like when people take and legitimately answer a few questions, but that’s tough to enforce. -You must give your opponent a copy of any and all advocacies.  And they shouldn’t have to wait for your partner to write it out, just have it ready before your speech starts. -I will protect against new arguments, but points of order are fine.  When calling points of order don’t be rude, excessive, or repeatedly wrong. -I am likely to give more weight to defense than I think is the norm.  If you’re really far behind on the link and internal level of a disad I’m not likely to just grant you ‘some risk’ and move on (absent you also being pretty far ahead on magnitude first impact calc). -I don’t consider arguments dropped if they are intuitively answered by other arguments in the round, although there is obviously some limit to what you can get away with.  Example: If someone drops a link turn on a china relations advantage, but extends the PMC link arguments as reasons why China loves plan, I think it is fairly clear that the aff has not conceded the debate about how china perceives plan.  The PMR can’t newly answer the link turn, but it’s ok to compare the strength/warrants/responsiveness of the turn and the link argument.     -The way we use the term dehum in this activity makes it largely meaningless, be specific about it if you want it to be important. -I have a pretty strong inclination to buy death > dehum, life is the internal link to value to life. -Etiquette: I love good natured banter, and I think tactful and respectful clowning/posturing is awesome.  I understand debate is a game, and one we want to win badly, but do not be a jerk.  Do not bully your opponents.  Do not be nasty, or personal.  If you’re debating a team that is much less experienced/capable than you, feel free to win handily, but do not excessively humiliate them or beat up on them.  -Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies.  If your opponent reads an illegitimate perm than your advocacy is competitive, but that is not a reason to vote for you..

Julian Plaza - CC

Kevin Calderwood - Concordia

Quick Notes ---I prefer policy arguments.  ---You must take at least one question in every constructive. ---All advocacies in the debate are unconditional. ---All texts should be written down for the other team and repeated at least once. ---Framework is never a voting issue; it's a lens to view the rest of the debate. ---Topicality is always a voting issue, and is never genocide.  Spec arguments are never voting issues.  Permutations are tests of competition. ---I vote negative more times than affirmative.  ---I will err affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory (delay, consult, conditions, normal means, textual competition etc.).  Ask, and I am sure I can clarify this for you. ---Although I do not have a predisposition towards these arguments in debate, I find that capitalism is typically the best and most fair economic system, and that the forward deployment of American troops and the robust nature of American internationalism generally make the world a better place.   Additions to my philosophy (2014-2015): ---I tend to think that teams should not have to disclose.  My teams would prefer not when asked to disclose.  ---I believe it would be unwise to read delay counterplans in front of me.  ---I am flowing on paper from now on.  I find that it keeps me more engaged in the debate.  I might not have a complete record of the round, but research demonstrates that the ability to comprehend concepts greatly increases when taking notes by hand.  ---Teams that provide a warrant that connects their claim with their data are more likely to be successful.  This is really basic, but I think it is something that is done poorly at the moment.  Telling me that a minimum wage increase would reduce GDP 2% does not tell me why the reduction would occur.  Too often we are missing this key element of basic argumentation.   Additions to my philosophy (2013-2014): ---Be responsible and use the restroom before the end of prep time.  This means you use the facilities on YOUR time, not after prep time expires when you get to the room.  ---In critique debates, I would prefer that the MG answer the critique in either the same order, start someplace and work your way through, or just read your arguments as a frontline.  I flow the critique on one sheet of paper.  For example: answer the framework, links, impacts, and then the alternative; OR, answer the alternative, framework, links, and then the impacts; OR frontline your arguments (1: Alternative does not solve, 2: Link turn, 3: Fiat good, etc.). ---If you read a politics disadvantage that is not “the issue of our time” then you should specify the bill’s status and give some background about the bill at the beginning of the disadvantage.  On several occasions this year, I have heard politics disadvantages that were apparently on the “top of the docket” that I have never heard of before.  I consider myself well read on the news, and I doubt the veracity of all, or nearly all, of the claims I have heard about the “top of the docket”. ---I still believe that you must take one question one question in each constructive.  However, for me to vote on the (true) procedural that “you must take a question”, you must make a “good faith” effort to actually ask a question.  This would involve verbalizing that you have a question, and the other team categorically refusing to answer a substantive question about the debate.   Additions to my philosophy last year (2012-2013): --I like teams that spend a significant amount of time lighting up the case in the 1NC.  --I still think that I err affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory, but I have grown tired of the textual versus functional competition debate. I think that the legitimacy of counterplans I tend to dislike (process, delay, anything that changes the nature of fiat) is better resolved through objections specific to the counterplan in question (i.e. delay bad, etc.) ---I think teams spend too little time on the link story and spend too much time developing their impacts. This isn't to say that I don't think that having a developed impact story is important, but very little of it matters if the extent of your link is "GOP hates the plan, next..." ---I think that systemic impacts are underutilized, especially in economy debates. Recessions are bad.  Unemployment is bad.  These events have a life long effect on your physical and mental health that is ignored in debate in favor of improbable impact scenarios like resource wars, etc. ---I think that fairness is the most important impact for me to consider when evaluating theoretical issues (including topicality).  It is very difficult to convince me that education should come before fairness.  Not being topical does not lead to the collapse of debate, but for me, this is first and foremost a competitive activity, and thus I am most persuaded by claims about fairness.   Background: I am entering my thirteenth year of either competition or coaching in academic debate.  I have judged hundreds of debates in almost every format.  However, my approach to judging parliamentary debates is quite different, based mainly on structural differences.   As an undergraduate I studied international relations, and would classify myself as a liberal hegemonist (I believe that the United States should use its expansive power to establish free markets, promote democracy, and maintain peace).   In graduate school, I studied presidential rhetoric, with a focus on environmental communication.  I wrote most of my term papers dealing with the environmental justice movement, climate change rhetoric, democratic social movements, and Monsanto’s crisis communication strategies I will default to judging the round as a policymaker, and I generally prefer these debates to critical ones.  However, the best debates happen when debaters argue what they are best at.  If this means you are awesome at performance, then you are more likely to win than if you stumble through a CP/DA debate.   Working hard is the easiest way to win in front of me.  This means working hard in your preparation before the tournament and during the debate.  I expect you to be well read in the arguments you are running.  Lazy debaters are more often than not those that intentionally obfuscate the debate to confuse their opponents.  I reward hard work, and it’s really not difficult to identify those that work hard. I use should a lot in my paradigm.  This is a list of my preconceived notions, intended to help guide you in winning my ballot.   All of these considerations are how I think debate ought be, not what it is, so, they are obviously up for discussion. Offense/defense: Defense is the most underutilized tool in debate.  However, I still believe that the uniqueness controls the direction of offense in nearly every instance.  This does not mean that you cannot nullify the disadvantage or reduce its risk with effective defense, but I do not believe that you will win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate.  There are two scenarios where I think you can win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate: (1) The impact to the disadvantage is systemic.  Poverty exists in the United States.  If you win that the plan increases the economy and decreases poverty, then this is a tangible, offensive impact.  (2) If you add a systemic impact as a part of your link turns.  If you lose the uniqueness debate on helping the economy where the impact is nuclear war, you will not win offense.  However, if you contextualize your link turn with an argument that any increase in the economy helps reduce poverty, then you can theoretically make the link turn an offensive argument.  Argument comparison is necessary in all debates, but I cannot stress how important they are in nuanced debates like I just described. Framework: I find these debates boring and overly dogmatic.  Framework is a lens to view the rest of the debate; a filter for the judge to determine which impacts should come first and what their role is as a critic.  Framework, by itself, is never a voting issue.  It consists of three parts: (1) an interpretation of what your framework is; (2) what the role of the judge is (i.e. policy maker, intellectual, etc.), and (3) competing modes of impact calculus (i.e. utilitarianism, methodology, ontology, etc).   Debates are not won or lost on framework.  If you lose the framework debate, but win that the plan breaks down capitalism (link turn), or that capitalism is good (impact turn), you will still win the debate.  I find arguments like “fiat does not exist” quite sophomoric.  Most arguments placed in framework are really just hidden link/impact/alternative arguments that have no place in the framework debate.  Losing one framework argument most likely will not lose you the debate.  In fact, it is not necessary to have your own framework or even answer the other team’s framework to win.  Overall, I generally dislike “clash of civilization debates”, and prefer debates on the more substantive aspects of the criticism.  Critiques: I voted negative on the critique last year quite a bit.  I am much more versed in critical theory now, but if your argument is something you do not think I would be familiar with, take care, slow down, and be sure to explain everything a little bit better.  I have found it much easier to understand things the first time I hear them as a judge, but it’s still an important consideration.  I am not in the “alternative doesn’t matter” camp.  Having a real world alternative is important, especially if you do not win framework arguments regarding language and discourse.  If you win those types of framework arguments, then alternatives that rethink/reconceptualize/problematize the status quo are more persuasive.  Critique debates are more likely won by isolating that the critique impacts/alternative solve the root cause of the affirmative impacts as opposed to winning a silly framework argument that unfairly seeks to exclude the other team.   Counterplans: A counterplan or good case arguments are necessary to win.  Counterplans should be unconditional.  You should write a copy of the counterplan text for the other team.  You should take a question about the text of your counterplan.  Your counterplan should probably not mess with fiat (delay, veto/cheato, consult, etc.)  I believe I will generally err affirmative on counterplan theory in parliamentary debate (this is different than policy debate where the affirmative has more pre-round prep time, in-round prep time, and a literature base that limits down the number of predictable counterplans).   With that said, I am very much in the textual competition camp, largely concerning issues of fairness.  Case specific/topic specific counterplans are more effective, but I certainly understand the utility of agent/actor counterplans.  Permutations: A legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan.  Intrinsic and severance permutations are bad unless you win their legitimacy through a lens of textual competition.  Permutations should never be advocacies.  Multiple permutations are fine because there are a finite combination of legitimate permutations. Disadvantages: This section will focus mostly on politics because I do not have issues with any other disadvantages (that I know of).  Politics is generally boring and not well researched.  Links that are based on the process of the plan (i.e. focus, delay, using political capital) make no sense since fiat assumes the plan happens immediately.  Links based on the outcome of the plan (i.e. popularity, backlash, gaining political capital) are legitimate.  Defense is very important against politics disadvantages since they most likely contain small risk/high magnitude impacts.   Disadvantages alone are unlikely enough to win a debate, but those that both turn and outweigh the affirmative case are preferable.  Theory: All theory positions should have a stable interpretation, violation, reasons to prefer, and voting issues.  I find most theory in parliamentary debate to be behind the times (no negative fiat, permutations should be advocacies, etc).  If it has an interpretation/is an advocacy you should read it more than once to ensure that I have it written down.  I will not vote on a speed criticism except in the event that you are markedly better than your opponents and are using it as a tool of exclusion as opposed to a strategic tool.  Reverse voting issues are for lazy debaters. Topicality: This argument is probably not genocide.  It should be a voting issue.  I will judge this debate either through an evaluation of the standards debate or through a lens of reasonability.  Your interpretation should be grounded in a definition from the literature (or a dictionary) and should not be just an “interpretation” of the topic, like “back down = must be the WTO”. Specification: These debates are better conducted through a discussion of what normal means is.  Instead of defaulting to lazy debate by simply “out teching” another team on theory, you should engage in a substantive debate about what the most likely normal means mechanism of the plan is.  This is what we call a link.  I will vote on these arguments, but if you look at any policy backfiles and memorize those answers I do not see myself voting on these ridiculous arguments. Speaker Points: I will give you between a 25-30, unless you say/do offensive things (i.e. racist/sexist/homophobic, etc. language).  I start at a 27.5 and work my way from there.  My average was somewhere right around a 27.8 for the year. As a final note, I really hate cheap shots.  I also dislike having to decide debates on dropped arguments.  Most parliamentary debates are won or lost on the technical aspect instead of the substantive aspect.  I think this is unhealthy for the activity as a whole, and I will reward debaters who are willing to engage in the debate at hand instead of cowardly sidestepping in favor of a cheap shot.  I can’t stand “knocking” and find it completely disruptive.    Have fun, respect your opponents, and work hard.

Kevin Kuswa - Whitman

HI all, I look forward to judging.  I value explanation and reasoning with an emphasis on argumentation as a form of education instead of trickery.  Ultimately, though, you should do what you want to do and I will follow your lead.  I have no inherent problems with very traditional legislative debate, very unorthodox performativity debate, or anything between the two.  Theory debate is always more appealing with examples and comparisons and I generally favor arguments with multiple warrants regardless of what genre those arguments occupy.  if you have reasons and analysis behind your arguments, you are in the right vicinity.  My background is in policy debate, but I am enjoying Parli debate and I do like the variety of topics and styles available.  The two most important concepts you should keep in mind for me are specificity and clash.  Please treat your opponents with generosity, respect, and kindness.   • Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year , etc . about 60 rounds judged this year, competed in policy. ) • Approach of the critic to decision - making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock - issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) • no Relative importance of presentation/communication skill s to the critic in decision - somewhat--argument comes first making • Relative importance of on - case argumentation to the critic in decision - making • depends on the neg. Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks • well-explained Preferences on calling Points of Order. no

Kevin Thompson - TTU

n/a

Kyle Dennis - Jewell

Name: Kyle Dennis School: William Jewell College     I record nearly all of the debates that I judge on my MacBook. During the debate, you will see me creating position/answer markers so that I can easily recall any portion of the debate during my decision. I have developed a basic system to govern the conditions under which I will review the recording— (1) if I think I have missed something (my fault) I will note the time in the recording on my flow, (2) if there is a question about exact language raised by the debaters in the round, (3) if there is a Point of Order about new arguments in rebuttals, (4) I will review the exact language of any CP/Alt Text/ Theory Interp. Outside of those circumstances, I typically will not review recordings.   This new process has had a couple of important impacts on judging. I don’t miss arguments. I will take as much time to review the debate afterwards if I believe that I’ve maybe missed something. It has made my decisions clearer because I can hold debaters accountable to exact language. It does, however, mean that I am less likely to give PMR’s credit for new explanations of arguments that weren’t in the MG. It also means that I’m more likely to give PMR’s flexibility in answering arguments that weren’t “clear” until the MOC. I don’t provide the recording to anyone (not even my own team). Within reason, I am happy to play back to you any relevant portions that I have used to make my decision.   If you have questions about this process, please ask. I encourage my colleagues to adopt this practice as well. It is remarkable how it has changed my process.   If your team chooses to prefer (or, in the case of the NPDA, not strike) me, there are a couple of promises that I will make to you: I understand that the debaters invest a tremendous amount of time and energy into preparing for a national tournament. I believe that judging any round, especially national tournament rounds, deserves a special level of attention and commitment. I try not to make snap decisions at nationals and it bothers me when I see other people do it. I know that my NPTE decisions take longer than I will typically take making a similar decision during the rest of the year. If you spend 4 years doing something, I can at least spend a few extra moments thinking it over before I potentially end that for you.    I flow on paper. I find that I am more connected to the debate and can deliver more complete RFDs if I am physically writing down arguments rather than typing. When I watch my colleagues multi-tasking while judging debates, I am self-conscious that I used to do the same thing. You will have my complete attention. I can also guarantee you that my sleep schedule at tournaments will not hinder my ability to give you my full attention. I have made a substantial commitment to wellness and, if I am being honest, I have seen/felt significant improvements in my life and my ability to do my job at debate tournaments. Once again, you will have my complete attention.   Finally, I can tell you that I have come to a point that I am unwilling to categorically reject any argument. I have voted for negative teams with a 1NC strategy of a K, CP, DA, and case arguments (who collapse to an MO strategy of the criticism only) more times this year than I ever thought I would. Smart debaters win debates with a variety of strategies—I don’t think that I should limit your strategy choices. The debate isn’t about me. If we can’t embrace different styles of argument, this activity gets very annoying very quickly.   If I get to judge you, there are a couple of promises that I want you your team to make to me: Please slow down when you read plan texts, theory interpretations or perm texts unless you are going to take the time to write out a copy and provide it to me. Please do not get upset if I misunderstand something that you read quickly (an alt, for example) if you didn’t give me a copy. I will review exact text language on my recording, if necessary.   Please do your best to engage the other team. I like watching critique debates, for example, in which the affirmative team engages the criticism in a meaningful way rather than reading common framework or theory objections.   Please make all of your interpretations on theory as clear as you possibly can. This isn’t exactly the same as asking you to read it slowly—for example, a PICS Bad debate should have a clear interpretation of what a “PIC” is to you. I have generally come to understand what most members of the community mean by “textual versus functional” competition—but, again, this is a theory debate that you need to explain clearly.    Finally, please do not assume that any of your judges are flowing/comprehending every single word that you’re saying at top speed. As long as I have been involved in this activity, the most successful debaters have recognized that there is an element of persuasion that will never go away. I think that the quickness/complexity of many of the debaters have far surpassed a sizeable chunk of the judging pool. I often listen to my colleagues delivering decisions and (in my opinion) many struggle or are unwilling to admit that portions of the debate were unwarranted, unclear, and difficult to understand.   I have often observed an undue burden to make sense of 2-3 second blips placed on critics by debaters—this activity doesn’t work unless you help me to understand what is important. I have the perspective to acknowledge that if a critic doesn’t vote for one of my teams, that there is something that we could have done better to win that ballot. I would simply ask that you dial back your rate of delivery slightly. Understand that there are times that slowing down makes sense to put all of the arguments in context. The most successful teams already do this, so I don’t imagine that this is a very difficult request.   Other notes: I flow the LOR on a separate sheet of paper. My speaker point range is 27-30. I don’t give out many 30’s, but I am happy to give quite a few 29’s. I will protect you from new arguments (or overly abusive clarifications of arguments) in the rebuttals. I will be involved in all aspects of prep with my team. Regardless of what I would disclose, for me, clarity is your best bet. I generally advise my teams to assume that your judges don’t know what you’re talking about until you tell them. I generally try to remove my previously existing understanding from the debate as much as possible.   TL, DR: I want to make the best decision that I can, given the arguments in the debate. If I’m going to end your NPTE, I will do so thoughtfully and with my full attention—that’s a promise. Make the debate about you, not me. I love this activity and all of the people in it. I make a conscious effort to approach decisions (especially at nationals) with respect for the activity and the people in the debate.

Lauran Schaefer - TTU

n/a

Lauren Knoth - Washburn

Currently at Penn State working on my PhD in Criminology with an emphasis on actuarial risk assessments at sentencing and victimization. Currently judging for: Washburn University Debate is a game. Each team will play it differently and ultimately you should stick to what you’re comfortable with. However, if you’re running identity/performance based arguments, you should strike me. Often I think these arguments replicate the types of violence they are attempting to solve for, they make far too many assumptions about the people in the room, and they are deployed in the wrong forum. More often than not, I will vote for framework arguments against these positions if you do choose to read them in front of me. My general preference is for a debate that embraces the topic. This does not preclude criticisms, but suggests that I would prefer topic specific criticisms. With that said, this philosophy is to make you aware of how I see the round in general, but the bottom line is if you win the offense in the round and can clearly explain this using warrants and interacting with the opponents positions, you’ll win my ballot. I also prefer debates to be civil and without any ad hominem arguments. If this occurs, it will be reflected in your speaker points. Preface on speed: this should be no problem; however if you are ridiculously fast, you may want to knock down to your mach 7 or 8 speed instead of mach 10. Clarity is most important, and if I can’t understand or follow you, I won’t hesitate to say clear. Developed, warranted arguments are also more important than a million unwarranted blippy arguments. Advocacies/Interpretations: two options – (1) provide me with a written copy of the text (preferred) or (2) slow down when you read the plan/cp/alt and read it at least twice. This is also important in theory debates. Too often a team has lost because they didn’t understand their opponents original interpretation OR the judge didn’t catch the entirety of the interpretation (Just ask Joe Allen). Really I do think the proliferation of texts is a good thing. Topicality: I need a framework for evaluating this argument, and without one I am likely to default to competing interpretations. Any other framework (i.e. reasonability) needs to be explained well. Other than that, I enjoy a good T debate and when done well I think it can be strategic. Theory: Overall I think there needs to be a discussion of the different interpretations, and like T I need a framework for evaluating the argument. It is up to the debaters to tell me if the particular theory argument is a voting issue, or a reason to reject the argument. One important distinction – thanks to my years being coached by DD, I do think there is an intimate relationship between aff and neg flex that often is ignored. Theory should be used to justify why you get to read specific arguments, not just reasons those arguments may be good or bad in general. For example, situations with large aff flex (insert whatever reason why) may justify the use of multiple conditional strategies (read: neg flex) for the negative. Including discussions of these critical issues is more likely to persuade me one way or another on a theory position. **One theory argument I am particularly compelled by is multiple worlds. I dislike when teams read multiple conditional strategies that contradict each other. At a minimum, if I’m not voting on this theory argument, I think it does justify severance perms from the aff (again read: aff flex). For example, if the neg reads a war with NK disad and a security K based on the representations of a war with China Adv, I think the aff should be able to “perm: pass the plan without the security representations in the adv.” If the neg is able to severe out of their discourse and reps with the NK disad, why shouldn’t the aff be allowed to do the same thing? Multiple conditional strategies can be deployed without these large contradictions.** Disads – yes please. Particularly if they are intrinsic. I understand the strategic choice to read politics in some instances (ask Calvin Coker); however, with topic areas and specific resolutions (i.e. pass X policy) I am more likely to be persuaded by a topic specific, intrinsic disad. CPs - Love them. I don’t care if they’re delay, consult, enforcement pics, adv cps, etc . I think each can be strategic and justified through NB. I am more persuaded by functional competition than textual competition. You can have this theory debate if you want, but I think your time is better spent beating the CP and NB. Ks – also fine. The biggest problem I have with K’s is the common assumption that everyone in the community is familiar with X author and everything they’ve ever written ever. This is certainly not the case for me. Criminal theorists I can get behind since I am immersed in this literature frequently; however other authors I am likely to need additional explanation for. This may be as simple as a clear concise abstract or thesis at the beginning of your K. This is also important if you are using author specific language that isn’t common knowledge. It may be strategic to slow down in the beginning and make sure that important terms or concepts are made clear early. Intrinsic k’s are preferred to the always linkable cap etc., but I am willing to listen to any of them. See the intro to this philosophy about identity based/performance K’s. ***Important*** I need to have a clear explanation of what the alternative does, and what the post-alt world looks like. Stringing together post-modern terms and calling it an alternative is not enough for me if I have no idea what the heck that means. I prefer to know exactly what action is advocated by the alternative, and what the world looks like after passage of the alternative. I think this is also necessary to establish stable solvency/alternative ground for the opposing team to argue against and overall provides for a better debate. Good theory is nothing without a good mechanism with which to implement it, and I'm tired of this being overlooked. Perms (CPs/Ks) As may be obvious by some rounds I’ve debated in, I love a solid perm debate. Perm texts need to be clearly articulated – slow down a bit and perhaps read them twice especially if it’s more complicated than “do both.” Do both is fine for me as a perm text, but you should explain what that means or how that happens. One last thing – IMPACT CALC. The last thing I want is to evaluate a round where I have no idea what should be prioritized over what, how disads interact with case advantages, and I just have a bunch of arguments randomly on the flow with no story or explanation. Rebuttals should serve to write my ballot, and if you’re lucky my RFD may be a quote from the LOR or PMR. I think impact calc is undervalued, particularly by negative teams. Probability, Magnitude, and Timeframe are all strategic tools that should explain why I’m voting for you at the end of the round. These also serve to clarify the offense in the round and provide a succinct explanation for your overall strategy.

Logan Emlet - Puget Sound

I want to judge like the improbably torporous Jame Stevenson wants to judge, but in twice the time. This will be my seventh year in parliamentary debate, but this is my first year as a coach/judge, so you are encouraged to observe all of the usual hesitancies regarding first year critics. I have judged at every tournament attended by the Puge this year.    I appreciate well-warranted, nuanced, and creative strategies that are executed with class (not the socioeconomic sort). I have no strong predisposition against any structure of argument. To be clear, most of my career was spent reading plans, politics, Agamben-esque kritiks, and avoiding extinction, but you don’t have to read a plan. You just need offense.   Some possible idiosyncrasies:   <ul> <li>I quite like the politics DA, but please make sure that your scenario is at least marginally plausible. I am not a fan of lying about top of the docket or ultra generic links.</li> <li> </li> <li>Due to the structure of Parli debate I am inclined against MG theory and kritiks. This is not to say that I will not vote for these arguments - CPs should be textually competitive - but I find that I give the Neg extra-creedence on many theoretical questions (e.g. Condo) and late breaking kritiks.</li> <li> </li> <li>I think that framework in the 1NC of the kritik shell is often unnecessary and unhelpful at resolving the question of the how the judge should understand the interaction of the two teams in the round. I think that this discussion is often more fruitful in the context of the alternative, and that the object of the kritik in terms of what “level” it operates is easily established in the thesis.</li> <li> </li> <li>I flow the K straight down on one piece of paper. </li> <li> </li> <li>I appreciate well-researched critiques that are evidently understood by the team that is reading them. I am less than compelled by nonsense.</li> <li> </li> <li>I like neg flex. I am baffled by the current hate that conditionality receives in Parli debate. I tend to think that conditionality is a coward’s argument. That said, have the debate if you think that it is strategic. I also don’t think that some internal inconsistencies in the neg strat liquidate any possibility of fairness or education.</li> <li> </li> <li>If slowing down will help you add warrants to your speech, please do so.</li> <li> </li> <li>Case args are dope.</li> <li> </li> <li>Call Points of Order if you want.</li> </ul>   In my mind, a 30 means a perfect speech. Speeches are never perfect. I will start at a 27.5 and move from there. A 28 means that you should be in out rounds. A 29+ means you should be receiving a speaker award. I don't know how people standardize their allocation of tenths of points.   Let me know if you have any questions before the round starts.    ***SPECIAL NOTE FROM JAMES STEVENSON: I'm not Logan, but I'm willing to bet that well-placed references to "Yacht Rock" will get you bonus speaker points. For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkizL1oyYQc&list=PLBEB75B6A1F9C1D01&index=2

Marlin Bates - Pacific

ection 1 – General Information Dr. Marlin Bates University of the Pacific Years judging LD:  I judged your coaches. Years coaching:  I coached your parents. Decision calculus:  I will generally decide where and how I am instructed to decide by the debaters themselves.  I am generally open to any arguments.  However, in my old age, I have determined the following: <ol> <li>This is a communication event.  Communicate. Speed is discouraged.  I am fully capable of flowing any speed demon.  However, I choose not to. </li> <li>Cross-examination is binding & important.  You should address your questions and answers to the critic, not each other.</li> <li>Be polite and have fun.</li> </ol> Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters.  Please be specific and clear.  This may include your background, delivery preferences and general thoughts on paradigms (stock issues, policy maker, tabula rasa, etc). Section 1 – General Information Dr. Marlin Bates University of the Pacific Years judging LD:  I judged your coaches. Years coaching:  I coached your parents. Decision calculus:  I will generally decide where and how I am instructed to decide by the debaters themselves.  I am generally open to any arguments.  However, in my old age, I have determined the following: <ol> <li>This is a communication event.  Communicate. Speed is discouraged.  I am fully capable of flowing any speed demon.  However, I choose not to. </li> <li>Cross-examination is binding & important.  You should address your questions and answers to the critic, not each other.</li> <li>Be polite and have fun.</li> </ol> Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters.  Please be specific and clear.  This may include your background, delivery preferences and general thoughts on paradigms (stock issues, policy maker, tabula rasa, etc). If someone wants to run a procedural, I will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round.  As with ALL arguments, I have no pre-existing prejudices. In general, I think critiques discussed at high rates of speed are antithetical both to the event and to the subject matter under discussion, but, as I just said, I have no biases to vote for or against them. Stand up when speaking.

Matt Gayetsky - UT-Tyler

Matt Gayetsky – The University of Texas at Tyler Judge Philosophy Revision 2015-16 Season Hi folks, Another year of judging, another attempt to try to capture how I feel about debate. Most of the things remain the same from last year, although with a year of NPDA experience I feel like I’m in a better position to nuance some of my claims. The short version remains the same – You should probably make arguments you’re comfortable making rather than trying to adapt to any of my particular preferences. If you think that debate should be about a topical plan clashing with the status quo or a competitive counterplan, make the debate about that. If you think debate is about the best methodological techniques to confront interlocking oppression, make the debate about that. If the teams disagree about what they think the debate should be about, tell me why your version of debate is better, and why you win in that world. The longer version – I coached and judged CEDA/NDT debate for 8 years, and have 1 year of NPDA experience. I’ll still keep calling speeches by their policy debate analogue. Life is hard sometimes, and inertia is a thing. I’ve coached alongside a tremendously talented and diverse set of colleagues over the years, and have osmosed as much as possible. The overriding claim I would make, though, is that I am less concerned with the form your argument takes than I am with the way you make clear how your arguments relate to your opponent and the resolution. Sometimes this means that the disad/CP combo is going to be the best response, as there is an obvious solvency deficit. Sometimes it means the unconscious desires of the 20 minutes of PMC prep manifest and structures their affirmation of the resolution, and you believe that this is a prior question that must be addressed prior to their policy action. I don’t care about the arguments you make, insofar as you are able to provide a framework for evaluating your impacts and explain why this means you should win the debate. Debates are won or lost in the trenches of impact calculus. This isn’t restricted to your classic probability-magnitude-timeframe discussions of a nuclear war vs. poverty claim, but instead abstracted to consider how all arguments have an impact of some sort. Tell me about how the impact to some link argument intersects in a meaningful way with uniqueness or impact claims at other parts of the flow and I’ll be a happy camper. Stories that are sophisticated and compelling are good ones. Tag-line extensions of arguments, even if they’re conceded by your opponent aren’t. Just because something your opponent makes a mistake by not answering things, you need to do the work to tell me why it’s important that this was unanswered, and how it impacts things in the round. I don’t reward lazy debating. The personal biases: We’ve got them, but they can be broken, but know that you might have an uphill battle. This is probably most important for theory arguments. I tend to default against those teams that introduced the argument. That means PICs are probably more likely to be good, and that your aff is more likely to be topical. Plus, your perm is more likely to be theoretically legitimate, but so is their K alt. If you’re going to go for a theory argument, go for the theory argument, but you need to impact these arguments and spend some significant time winning each part of your argument. I think that conditionality is good. If you’re going to argue that conditionality is bad, you’ll need to explain to me why, as a policymaker, if I am confronted by a bad option and a worse option, why the logical policy maker wouldn’t say “Hey folks! There’s a status quo over there, why don’t we just stick with that thing?” After a year of judging, I’ve yet to see why the absence of backside rebuttals meaningfully changes this. The block collapses to one thing, rather than the 2NR. Nothing is broken. BUT if I’m not a policymaker, well, game on, I have no reason conditionality must be good here. The most important part of me evaluating the debate is about impacts, and that’s all about storytelling. Whether it's that the disad turns the case and the EU CP avoids the link, or why your experiences with prejudice informs your understanding of policymaking, the story is what is important. Since it’s all about telling stories, this probably means all debate arguments are a performance. So rather than saying your opponents are cheating, you should probably consider how these ‘framework’ arguments are instead net-benefits to your performance. It’s probably strategically better, and benefits from being more inclusive.   So tell me, why does your story justify rejection of the other team?    After reading lots of judging philosophies talking about how speaker points are arbitrary, I wonder, “Yes, but why is this such a bad thing as long as they are consistently applied?” I think that the problem is that they are arbitrary AND opaque. I feel obligated to do this because I find that my points are often a lot lower than other people. So for the sake of clarity, this is what my points mean: 30 = That speech should be in the finals of NPTE. 29.5 = One of the top 10 speeches I expect to hear this season. 29 = That speech was awesome. Pat yourself on the back. 28.5 = That speech would win you some elim debates. 28 = Mistakes were made, but there’s more good than bad. 27.5 = We’re all still learning! We can build from this speech. 27 = We’ve got to start somewhere! X<27 = That was rough. You did something to really frustrate me. Let’s talk about it sometime soon and find ways to improve.

Mike Selck - SIU

Judge Philosophy- Quick Notes: The less comparative impact calculus you do, the more you leave it up to me. I keep up on the world and expect you to as well. No one has ever won a debate round because they cussed. Similarly no one has ever won a debate round because they were disrespectful to an opponent. Think about where you are investing your time.   History/ Experience: I did 4 years of policy in high school and 4 years of parli with SIU. During that college career I won 18th tournaments, the NPTE, and the NPDA. This is my second year coaching and my 10th year in debate.    Delivery: Speed is not an issue but clarity often is.  It’s important for judges to be honest, rather than intimidated, if they simply cannot understand a debater because of a lack of clarity. “It is better to speak remembering we were never meant to survive.” bell hooks.  Also, if an opponent asks or requires you to reduce your speed in round your points become contingent on your acquiescence. Those vacuous speed good warrants rarely, if ever, take into account the type of body they are demanding performance from. I am highly receptive to arguments about accessibility in debate, particularly regarding disability.   Argument Selection: My argument preference is diversified I read the K a lot and policy strategies just as often. I won’t list all the authors I have or haven’t read. Here are some schools of thought I work with or enjoy: post-modernism, modernism, deconstruction, post-structuralism, existentialism. Here is what I am less familiar with or do not enjoy: post-humanism, theology, psychosocial/psychoanalysis, neoclassical theory. Feel free to perform or read a project in front of me. When you do, you assume a certain level of risk because I have only been formally trained in traditional methods of debate. I study performance at SIU so I enter into that discussion with a background, but it is fairly disconnected from debate. You simply must dedicate a responsible amount of time in your performance citing my role as a critic, and how I evaluate the debte. Impact framing is the difference in highly technical debates. I grew up a member of the offense/defense school of hard knocks. Though, I do not rule out the possibility of terminal defense. Although completely arbitrary I am sometimes persuaded by teams that calculate a percentage of possibility to the impact they are reading defense against. Topicality: I enjoy a good topicality debate. I think that is rare though. I come from the Todd Graham school of approaching topicality which is probably radically different from the way you currently understand T.  There is fundamental misunderstanding about what constitutes a standard and what constitutes a voter. Standards are how you determine which definition of a word is best. Voters are why meeting that standard is important for debate.   Procedurals: I dislike specs and find that they serve much less utility than the community might believe. There is not a substantial time trade off, especially against a well rehearsed MG. The time wasted on specs will always be better served on the case debate.  That being said its not as if I refuse to listen to them. Must take a question began at SIU and holds a place distinct from specs.   Counterplans: CP’s are smart. Permutations are only ever tests of competition. I think I have seen every type of counter plan out there. PIC’s, process, agent, actor, consult, advantage. Etc.  Slow down for your texts, especially if they are complex. Your opponents should be provided a text of your counterplan at the least, I don’t think I need one provided you have slowed down. Theory:   In parli I generally believe that the negative team gets one unconditional advocacy or the squo.  That being said I am not going to dismiss your speech or advocacies because they are conditional. It is the affirmatives job to win the condo debate or beat back the advocacies. I don’t particularly believe in text comp. There are much more preferable standards to determine competition. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. The debates I remember most vividly are not always the ones where I won, but usually the ones where I was actually having fun.

Seth Fendley -

Debate Experience: 1 year Parli/1 year IPDA at Arkansas Tech University Judging Experience: 4 years Policy/Parli/LD/IPDA in both high school and college Education: B.A. Speech Communication/Public Relations (ATU)/ 2nd year M.A. Student in Communication Studies at ASU (ADOF)   Overall Philosophy: I typically vote on case. That being said if you read below you will find when I vote based on other issues and my overall decision process. I Will Not vote based off evidence not presented in round. It’s unfair to you as the debater and the overall educational experience.   Speaker Points: I start out in the middle. If you provide a flawless speech you will receive perfect speaks. That being said a bad round will not mean you receive low speaks. I typically only drop below 50% on speaks for people who forfeit rounds, don’t make arguments, or are otherwise jerks in round.   Rate of Speech: I would prefer to experience a traditional Parli round. This seems to be an unrealistic expectation. I need to be able to flow your case in order to completely judge your round. I can tolerate a decent paced speech but if I cannot write down your entire argument then I’m unable to offer a cohesive decision. In this manner ensure that you clearly signpost and tag your points. Doing this will generate positive speaker points and can result in a ballot in your favor.   Argument Structure: Please ensure that all arguments are informed and based. In this manner there should be clear links, brinks, and impacts for each point. If an argument does not have an impact then I have no way to determine if the argument is warranted and thus will be unsure how to vote.   T-Case: I do not appreciate teams that always run T as the OPP. T is meant for teams who have been completely defined out of a round and have no ground for debate. I should be able to clearly see that a T-Case is needed for me to see it as a valid issue.   K-Case: I prefer that K-cases have a direct correlation to the resolution. Both the government and opposition teams can run a K-Case. However, the K should be warranted and clearly explained in order to be considered on the ballot.   CPs: Counter plans are not needed for the OPP to win. Counter plans are a great opportunity for the OPP to show that the status quo should be changed. Counter plans should be unique and completely explained why they are more beneficial in order to be warranted a win and not be permed by the government team.   Perms: If a counter plan is non-unique then it should be permed. The government should be careful to explain why the plan is not competing in order to successfully perm a case. As the opposition adequately show how the counter plan is unique in order to avoid the perm.   Performance Debates: In over 200+ debates given and judged competitively I am yet to experience a performance round. Running a performance round can be effective. Explain the concept and it will be considered on the ballot based on the performance and understanding of the argument presented.   Overall Decision: I vote Topicality -> Solvency -> Kritik -> Harms. Solvency and Kritiks are interchangeable depending on where they are placed in the case. If a case is ran straight up I will vote based off the arguments presented in the case. In the event that none of the above mentioned things happen then I will vote for the opposition based on presumption. I’ve only had to do this once though and that was in a high school round with novice debaters.

Steve Doubledee - Washburn

Debate is a game of strategy and persuasion. Those who can strike the perfect balance between these two will always win my ballot. Things I prefer... 1.I prefer debaters embrace the topic... Topic specific Aff, DA, K, CP, Politics-(specific links), Case, T, Specs etc...are all appreciated. I also understand sometimes you have to run a critical aff via poor ground for the Aff.If you like running identity based arguments I am probably not the judge for you but I will listen. 2.I prefer debaters give impact analysis via timeframe, probability, and magnitude. I will always privilege high probability small impacts over low probability big impacts. 3.I prefer debaters not attempt to speak at a rate they cannot handle. Things I demand... 1.I want a written copy of all texts Plan, CP, Alts, Perms etc... if overly complicated...if plan is the rez then no need. 2.Be kind to each other. If you are rude it will hurt your speaker points. I am not a big fan of cursing in debate rounds. Theory thoughts...All theory arguments are fine. Below is my only "theory pet peeve". Conditional strategies are fine but should be justified through the lens of Aff/Neg flex. So many times debaters want to list off all the advantages of conditional strats but fail to justify why they deserve the right to conditionality in the first place---Aff/Neg flex is how you do so. If the Aff has high flex--(meaning a lot of possible Affs, bidirectional resolution etc...) then the Neg probably has some good justifications for why they need the reciprocal right of conditionality to counter the Aff's use of parametrics.. If the Aff has low flex--(meaning one possible Aff) then the Neg probably will have a harder time justifying why they should have the right to conditionality....Seems like a PIC would be better in this instance. peace dd

Steve Woods - WWU

Debate Background: 14 years at WWU Coaching since 1987 overall (K-State, Florida State, Vermont, Wm. Jewell) Overview: I tend to default to a policy maker framework. However, I am open to a variety of paradigms if explicitly introduced and supported in the debate.  As such, I do NOT automatically dismiss an argument based on its "name" (DA or Kritik for example), BUT I do put a premium on how well the argument fits the context of the round.  Often, policy arguments are incredibly generic and poorly linked to the PMC, and critical approaches may be well linked and appropriate (and vice versa).  So, concentrate on the substance of the issues more than the "type" of the argument.  I can tolerate high rates of delivery, but clarity is your responsibility. I also find that high rates of delivery are a cover for a lack of strategy rather than a strategy.  If you go fast, have a reason.  Specifics: Topicality--I tend to give Govt extensive leeway on topicality. Proceduerals/Spec arguments--must be more than plan flaw issues and show real in round abuse. Solvency--I do weigh case versus off case, so Solvency is a part of the overall decision factor.  While it may be tough to "win" on solvency presses and mitigation, good case debate is useful to set up the link directions for the off case arguments/case turns. Disadvantages--HAVE TO BE LINKED to Plan text.  Generic positions tend to get weighed less likely. Counterplans--Issues of competition and permutations neeed to be clear.  I don't need perm "standards" and the like, but clear delineation between the policy options is required. Critical--Acceptable if well linked and relevant.  I tend not to be impressed by appeals to philosophical authority.  Team introducing has an obligation to make argument understandable. How to get High Points: Be polite and collegial to your opponents.  Use clear structure (labeling and signposting).  Have a good strategy and display round awareness.  Generally strong substance is more rewarded than speaking performance.  However, the combination of both is appreciated :)  Good rebuttals and clear strategic choices that make the RFD your work instead of one I have to concoct will help you.  Humor and good will are always appreciated as well. Strike or No Strike? I feel that I am pretty tolerant of a variety of styles and approaches.  I have a policy background but have coached parli for 13 years, so I have seen a lot of different styles and approaches,  I try to be tabula rasa to the extent both teams seem to be in agreement for the paradigm for the round--but do reserve the right to be a "critic of argument" when issues are left unresolved by the debaters, but I do try to limit intervention in those cases to a bare minimum.

Tyler Gillette - MoWestern

Disads- I am fine with any disads. I do not think that there is always a risk, the affirmative can win that a disad either does not link or that it is terminally non unique. With that said offense is still better and probably easier to win. Politics disads would be the only iffy ones in my book, I have never heard any politics debater ever prove that the aff plan would have to be pushed by the president and i think a lot of the time the internal link level on a politics scenario is severely lacking. If you can debate politics well that is fine I will vote on it. Counterplans- Totally ok. I usually err negative on cp theory, but there are some instance in which cps are probably bad (i.e. word pics). Conditionally is usually ok but the more conditional advocacies you read the more sympathetic I am to the aff. Consult cps are probably bad and probably not competitive. T-Isn’t really my thing. I will vote for T if you win it. I usually think reasonability is a good way to view T. I am also fine with affs that are not topical if they can justify it. Kritiks- I am fine with them just do not assume that I know as much about you literature as you do, I know a fair amount of K literature but not all. The advocacy of the K should be clear; this does not mean that there has to be a text. A good K will either solve or turn the aff if your k does not to one of those you are probably behind on it. You should have a clear articulated link to the aff just saying they do not do something is not a link, for example just because they do not break down capitalism does not mean they link to your cap k you should prove how they either increase or prop up the capitalist system. Framework is probably just as reason as to why I should weigh policy impacts against the criticism, not a reason to vote aff. K affs- I am fine with whatever you want to do whether be a performance or anything else you can think of just make sure you can justify what you do and why it means you win. I do not think that an aff has to have a plan text. I am not a big fan of framework, I will vote on it if you clearly win it just may be a little harder to get me to believe that an aff has to have a USFG than it my be for some people. There are many better things to say against performance or any other type of kritikal aff than framework. I am a way bigger fan of things that actually engage the aff than I am just saying they should be excluded. Theory- Do not just blip through these args at top speed slow down on your blocks. Like all arguments theory should have clear link and impact. I generally view theory has a reason to reject the argument not the team but can be persuaded otherwise. I think that covers just about everything, If you have any questions do not be afraid to ask.

2014 Georgia B Bowman Debate Tournament