FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Abi Richardson - MoWestern

Adam Blood - UNL

n/a

Ailey Pope - Wiley

n/a

Al Arviso - EPCC

n/a

Alyssa Sambor - TTU

n/a

Andrew Hart - Missouri State

Experience: 3 years of high school policy debate, 5 years of NDT/CEDA debate at Miami University and Missouri State University.    I am open to most positions, but I usually default to in round argumentation, analysis and clash over other factors that might occur in a debate. I generally have few biases about how a debate should go down and what few I have I will do my best to lock away during the round.    Most of my experience in debate was on the policy side of thing. That doesn't make me uncomfortable with kritiks, but I  also wouldn't say I'm familiar with much of the critical literature base.  Even more so than in policy rounds, solid evidence analysis and application is very important for me to vote on a critical issue on either the affirmative or the negative. For critical affirmatives, I do think it's important to answer any topicality or framework arguments presented by the negative. For kritiks against these types of affirmatives, I think it's important to contextualize the philosophies and arguments in each in relation to the other side. Maybe even more than in policy v critical debates clash here is very important to me.    On the policy side of things, I love to see a good case debate, and think that evidence analysis(of both your own and your opponent's evidence) is of the utmost importance in these debates.  I love a good discussion and comparison of impacts.    I'm also open to most counterplans, especially if they have a solvency advocate. In terms of CP theory, I will probably default to rejecting the argument rather than the team in most instances if the affirmative wins the theory debate. On conditionality, the affirmative must have a pretty specific scenario on the negative's abuse in the round for me to vote on it. I much prefer the specificity of that distinction over the nebulous "bad for debate" generality.    Cross-X's importance, I think, is usually undervalued by most, and an effective use of CX time is very important. I will likely not flow it, like I would a speech, but I am more likely to note important concessions or admissions made in CX.     Speed is fine, but I think clarity is far more important that showing me that you can read a bunch of cards.

Bill Sheffield - Barton CC

n/a

Bill Lucio - Kansas State

n/a

Blair Waite - KWU

n/a

Brin Walters - Henderson

n/a

Brock Ingmire - Kansas State

n/a

Bryan Brooks - Marshall

n/a

Chad Meadows - WKU

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

Chris Medina - Wiley

Chris Outzen - Truman

Judging Philosophy: NFA-LD I take the position that any form of public communication, including debate, is an audience-centric endeavor. The role of each debater is not to convince each other of their rightness in an isolated box at the front of the room; it is to convince the judge that they are the more right debater in that round. To that end, adaptation of strategy and delivery of argument necessitates consideration of both your opponent AND the experience of the judge. To that end, the following are some of my expectations and constraints as a judge. Judge’s General Debate Experience: I am the primary IE coach at my program and this is my 2nd year judging LD regularly. I have 1-semester college policy experience from and undergraduate class, so you can expect that I will understand most debate terminology but that my flowing and listening speed will not be up to par with those who have been in the debate community consistently for years. Speaker Speed: I believe that LD inhabits a unique position where both argumentation and strong speaking skills can be valued. However, I have noticed with the advent of digital files and including judges in sharing chains that these are treated as permission to spread, even in front of judges without years of spreading/flowing experince. At this point, we reduce debate to a comparison of evidence, not a speaking and oral argument exercise. Therefore, I am fine with a faster than conversational rate of speaking but I have no tolerance for true spreading you might see in NDT/CEDA or some parli formats. If you are looking for a brightline, consider the climax of a Poetry Interpretation. A little faster than that would be fine, but not much more. If agreed to by both debaters, I’m willing to alert you in-round if you are going too fast for my comprehension. Argument Explanation: You are welcome to run any arguments you wish in front of me in varying levels of complexity. However, remember the audience-centric principle. Your audience/judge may not be familiar with every aspect of this topic. Thus, your debate is not just debating; it is a teachable moment where you can give information about the topic in order to justify your win. This means you should be practicing breaking down complex concepts and providing strong links between the different pieces of your argument. Ethical Speaking: Engaging in unethical or obfuscating behavior, including misleading card cutting, deliberate spreading against judge preference, ignoring the audience as consumers of your message, or styling your arguments deliberately to be overly complex/dense, are not acceptable as a speaker. You are also expected to grant your opponent the same ground/courtesy as you expect. Example: If you cut off their answers in CX to move on to your next question, do not talk over/ignore them when they do the same thing in their CX. Topicality-I’m open to T arguments. Proven abuse is the best course to win a T argument, but I’m willing to consider potential abuse if the possible abuse is of a significant magnitude. Kritiks-I’m open to K debate. However, I expect K-affs to pass the test of Topicality; make sure you can explain how it links to the resolution. Additionally, do keep in mind that K debate is still a growing area of argumentation in the LD community, so please consider the principles laid out above with regard to Argument Explanation if you run a K on either side of the debate. To summarize, I'm open to all forms of argumentation on the premise that a) They are understandable and follow basic ethical guidelines; and b) They are justified by you as fitting in the round and resolution.

Christen Moore - Missouri State

Clara Adkins - Marshall

n/a

Courtney Hensley - Sterling

n/a

Daniel Hogan - Sterling

Danny Ray - Marshall

n/a

Darrel Farmer - Henderson

n/a

David Bailey - SBU

n/a

David Bowers - Sterling

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

Deion Hawkins - Wiley

n/a

Eric Morris - Missouri State

I primarily judge in NDTCEDA (which I enjoy), but operate under different assumptions when judging in NFA-LD (if you want to read my NDT CEDA philosophy to understand how I think, it can be found here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_account_id=6383). I like NFA-LD because it is more novice-friendly, and most of the community prefers DA-case debate. I don't dislike CP's (or K's that refute the plan) outside of the novice division, but direct refutation is refreshing to me. I tend to prioritize probability (strength of link and internal link) when two impacts have a large magnitude. Uniqueness is rarely 100% either direction (although it can be).  Explicitly non-topical affs or K's which refuse the topic entirely have a huge presumption to overcome.  I have a presumption for NFA-LD rules, but you need to apply the specific rule. There is often room for counter-interpretations (including mine). Use them to help you refute arguments instead of making a bunch of independent voters. Thus, stock issues may be a place for debate more than "voting" issues - since negative often minimizes them instead of completely refuting them.  I like that NFA-LD is not as fast as NDT (for access reasons), but the line of "how much is too much" is hard for me to judge. I want debaters to negotiate this before the round - the round should be no faster than the preferences of either participant (including others judges on a panel).  Although I lean negative on many T questions relative to the NDT community, I'm not a hardliner on effects T. I think the literature base is relevant to how much is "too much" on extra T. I think T arguments should be grounded in clear definitions/interpretations, and I lean aff when there is uncertainty about the violation. I think spec arguments are best handled as CX questions, and generally have a strong presumption against theory voting issues - reject the argument not the <debater> is my leaning.  If you share evidence via email chain (the best method), my gmail is ermocito. Given quick decision times, I prefer to get a copy of all speeches in real time (even if by flash drive) so I can double check things during prep time and CX.  I will flow closely but often my RFD for the opponent could be reversed with better application of your argument to theirs, or better readings of their evidence to support your argument. Those things are excellent debating.

Gary Harmon - KWU

I have coached a long time.  I am familiar with theory and practice.  I believe argumentation is a search for the probable truth and not game playing.  I believe arguments should be prima facie when presented.  I don't hear as well as I used to.  It does affect my ability to listen to speed.  If you are clear, I can handle a pretty fast rate.  However, use speed only when you have so much to say that you need it to meet time restraints.  Speed plus poor use of time is not good.  Procedurals should only be used when there is abuse. I enjoy good argumentation.

Glenn Prince - TTU

n/a

Jason Roach - Webster

n/a

Jennifer Torres - Doane College

n/a

Jeremy Hutchins - Tx State

n/a

Jessica Kershner - SBU

n/a

Jessica Furgerson - WKU

Joel Anguiano - EPCC

n/a

John Carney - Truman

Jon Carter - UNL

n/a

Katelynne Cox - Mizzou

In order to fairly judge a parliamentary debate round it is key that a judge maintain objectivity  and allow the round to be decided between the opposing teams, without allowing personal opinion or knowledge to cloud the decision, it is key that the judge presents oneself as a Tabula Rasa. Secondly, a debate round is above all else an intellectual discussion centered around proper communications skills. While speed debating for the sake of spreading the opposition's  burden of argumentation is not in of itself wrong, it is important that it not come at the sake of clear communication. Regardless of rapidity a debater should always speak crisply and clearly, minding enunciation and emphasis. Third, all debaters should be respectful of rules and format. For example, continuing to speak past one's allotted time, to excess, should result in the penalization of the offending speaker. Debaters should also be respectful of their opposition as to allow for a civil and meaningful discussion.   Next, a government's case should allow room for fair debate. Should a government present a case that is unfairly specific, or "tight," it falls to the opposition to properly argue the tightness and therefore unfairness of the case. It is NOT for the judge to make a decision about case tightness on their own without the opposition presenting a valid argument. Should the opposition make a valid argument against a tight case, the government must either agree to a compromising, more open case, that the debate may continue fairly, or attempt to refute the opposition's argument regarding case tightness. Should the government fail to compromise in the face of a valid argument by the opposition, and fail to refute the oppositions argument, the government  must therefore lose the round. Also, it is crucial to remember that a proper debate revolves around two sides presenting logical points and counterpoints in an effort to prove or disprove a government's case, all judged by an unbiased observer. To this end it is important that a judge remember that while even the most whimsical of arguments must be addressed by the opposing side for them to be dismissed if it has any logical pertinence to the round, this does not mean that a judge cannot disregard obviously spurious arguments and logical fallacies out of hand, as it would simply be degrading to the value of the round to force the opposing team to address these. Lastly, it is important that a judge give fair review of the round afterwards, including the reasoning behind his decision. A debater should not only be encouraged for their strengths, but helped to improve by offering constructive criticism. It is the judges responsibility to offer the debaters of the round the tools with which they may better themselves.â€‹

Kelsey Abele - Kansas State

n/a

Kevin Minch - Truman

Kevin Thompson - TTU

n/a

Kristin Wright - Truman

Lauran Schaefer - TTU

n/a

Mark Turner - KWU

I have judged for a long time.  My children debated in high school, and I have judged since.  I mainly judge individual events. I look for the message being sent by the performer and look for consistancy and support.  I expect normal presentation skills.  I like to be entertained as well.

Miranda Bowman - KWU

n/a

Nancy Jackson - Marshall

n/a

Nathaniel Wilson - Doane College

n/a

Rebecca Godsey - SBU

n/a

Sara Gronstal - EIU

n/a

Sarah Collins - Cameron

n/a

Shanna Carlson - ISU

Background: I competed in parliamentary and LD debate for Washburn University for five years. I am currently the assistant debate coach at Illinois State University. I believe that the debate is yours to be had, but there are a few things that you should know: 1. Blippy, warrantless debates are mind numbing. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. This usually occurs at the top of the AC/NC when you are trying to be "clever." Less "clever," more intelligent. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence. 2. I don't really care about speed--go as fast as you want as long as you are clear and warranted. I will give you two verbal "clears" if you are going too fast or I cannot understand you. After that I quit flowing and if I do not flow it I do not evaluate it. 3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not like moral obligations as I do not believe that they are usually warranted and I caution you in running these in front of me. I do not believe that all impacts have to go to extinction or nuclear war, but that they should be quantifiable in some manner. 4. Run whatever strategy you want--I will do my best to evaluate whatever you give me in whatever frame I'm supposed to--if you don't give me the tools...I default to policy maker, if it's clearly not a policy maker paradigm round for some reason I'll make something up to vote on...basically, your safest bet is to tell me where to vote. 5. If you are rude, I will not hesitate to tank your speaker points. There is a difference between confidence and rudeness. 6. I am not the best with kritiks. I will vote on them, but you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative, and alt solvency (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like and how my ballot functions to get us there. 7. If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow. 8. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round. 9. Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. 10. I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision. Really, I'm open to anything. Debate, have fun, and be engaging. Ask me any questions you may have before the start of the round so that we can all be on the same page :)

Sierra Weber - Webster

n/a

Smokey Hager - Marshall

n/a

Sohail Jouya - MoWestern

Overview of my philosophy: Over my short, fickle debate experience I have adopted some general concepts of how I view debate rounds. These are ever-evolving notions that debaters have the ability to change. I feel like I’m quite open to a lot. 1. I default to a policy-making paradigm. This is not rigid and I am very open to alterative frameworks of debate although I do believe you should justify your methodology. I have always been very fond of kritikal debate and appreciate the challenging of norms that can make our activity a home for so many. Regardless, I tend to view things in an offense/defense lens.       NOTE - Please don't take this to mean I'm keen on obfuscating resolutions into different tiers of methodology for argumentation. My thoughts on trichot are that resolutions are propositions of policy - this encapsulates plan, value, and facts. If you want to engage in value debate, try a kritikal approach. If you want the round to be evaluated in the lens of fact debate - I must admit that this isn't a concept I like; it leads to bad debate and abusive theory assumptions.  2. TRUTH > Tech This implicates how I view rounds in a number of ways: -I do believe there are evaluative assertions on certain arguments or positions. This probably means I won’t be as keen on morally abhorrent positions like “Racism/genocide good” whereas a more tabula rasa critic would be convinced. (Malthus/Wipeout is fine, but why would you want to?) -Also, I believe that this means you might have to work harder with more generic positions. A lazy Relations or Politics DA that has an underwhelming link or something of that sort probably has a very low threshold to be beaten, and I’ll also allow smart, true analytics to be weighed equally against a card. -This probably means I take "prior question" issues more seriously than many critics. -Don’t be too confused by this; I don’t believe there is an absolute tension between truth and tech – in fact I think true tech is great. Furthermore, a dropped argument in my eyes is a conceded claim that requires a debater’s “spin” in order to make it meaningful in the round. If there is a lack of analysis/impact on any argument (dropped or otherwise) you’re essentially requiring me to independently assess its validity/meaning.   -I feel that debate organically started as a role-playing concept but the evolution of the activity into a game of sorts that values technique. I am fine with this evolution but I do believe there are times where the more sophisticated tactics usurps inclusion and at those points I keep an open mind to a variety of styles. I am of the Ryan Wash camp in that debate should be a home for it’s competitors and if personal advocacies are part of that approach, great. 3. Speed is fine. It would probably be in your interest to slow down a bit on tags or distinctively intricate warrants. If clarity becomes an issue I will indicate so once. If I feel like I need to do it more than once I will probably just stop flowing. I must say that speed for the sake of talking fast and to sound “circuit-y” isn’t as effective as using speed as a tool to capitalize on word economy. Spreading’s true measure is contingent on the amount of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team. That being said my experiences with the activity have shaped me to believe that the game should be played in a certain way, though I am very receptive to criticism about the game itself. I like and appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable or feel obligated to compete in a manner that you are so unfamiliar with that it inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. Chuck D said it best: "Do you" and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has be to believe the following: T/Procedurals/Theory: Don’t need articulated abuse, it’s what you justify not necessarily what you do - but of course in-round abuse makes your argument stronger. Activism is underutilized as a voter; I believe that is an incredibly important value that operates as a massive impact (maybe event the most important) in theory discussions. I believe it’s your job to tell me WHY I should value competing interpretations/reasonability. The same is true with the voters as well, rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a counter-voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact. I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. I view theory to be the floodgates that grant access to fiated implications. That being said, I’m not totally sold on a lot of specification stuff. Consider specification if it’s an absolutely abhorrent plan text or if you need it to prove an air-tight link into some other offcase. Like I said, be tactical. If you’re running 6 minutes of spec that’s probably less strategy and more desperation. Disads: These are fine and I enjoy a good, true disad that spells out a good story that’s rooted in good lit. I've been pretty geeked out on teams that display mastery of DA stories. Politics is fine if you’re playing the policy-making game, but I find them to be pretty useless if there’s an Aff with a kritikal component to it unless you deal with some framing issues first. Kritiks: I know enough to understand that kritiks are not monolithic. I am very partial to topic-grounded kritiks - in all reality, I find them to be part of a policy-making calculus. I especially like kritiks that deal with the root cause of harms brought up in the 1AC and that functionally turn case. (I ran Orientalism a lot). I am very interested in critical race theory and I’m open to Race K’s of just about any variety. Post-modern genres of kritiks that rely on cutting-edge philosophical concepts are still fine by me, but I’m sure you’ll hear this in most philosophies: ensure that your thesis is digestible to me. Philosophy was one of my majors in undergrad so I feel like I have a decent understanding of Foucault, Nietzsche, some Heidegger and continental philosophy, Jabermas, and a few others. Not too familiar with Baudrillard or D&G tho. This isn’t really post-modern, but I hate Objectivism to the point where I’ve deleted it from my team’s backfiles. I am working on the dissonance I have about K’s needing alternatives, but as of now I’m not entirely certain that they need them. That could be because I haven’t thought critically enough about Neg fiat. (But yes, "Reject the Aff" is an advocacy and does do something) In our small, local regional circuits a few teams have attempted to take advantage of my affinity for K’s by reading generic stock stuff and even doing a poor job on the link level. I’ve voted several of these teams down not because they were looking for a cheap win but because they had serious issues addressing the framework of the K they were running in comparison to the Aff. Don’t make the same mistake. CPs: I’m fine with them. They don’t need to be untopical. PICs are fine. Consult/Delay probably isn’t. Please keep in mind that CPs need to be competitive. Many CP debates for me come down to weighing the Aff solvency versus the deficet with the potential of evaluating any net-benefits as well. Perms: Severance is bad. Intrinsic is probably bad. Timeframe perms are usually bad. I probably differ from a lot of judges because I do not believe that perms can “solve” for anything. They are tests of competition only and that is litmus for linkage/exclusivity rather than a question of solvency. Nontraditional debate: Definition of "project" ::::: "A project is a temporary endeavor with a defined beginning and end (usually time-constrained, and often constrained by funding or deliverables), undertaken to meet unique goals and objectives, typically to bring about beneficial change or added value."  Based on this definition every 1AC is a project. In addition, not all performance teams are the same. Some kritik debate itself. Others kritik the resolution, some kritik the USFG, while others have a plan text or advocacy statement that is a policy implementation, the performance is just the method in which debaters make their arguments. I've had a good amount of kritikal debate experience, I’m very much interested in them and I’m fascinated by what they bring to the table. Every speech is an act of politics (personal or otherwise) and thus, a performance. Discourse matters and so does shaping our social construct in a positive/inclusive manner. Disagree? Fine...but don't try to sell me on "real world" on framework to give your DA with the high magnitude impacts more weight. I have coached an Urban Debate League program for three years and that has very much help shape my beliefs on what inclusivitiy in debate should mean. Thoughts on Framework: I had a lot of dissonance about this position. A lot of people who are far more well-versed in debate and who are much smarter than me find framework to be unjustifiable and incredibly offensive. I understand those concerns but I have come to the belief that Framework is a winnable argument that’s the equivalent to procedurals/theory. Justifying an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by more kritikal teams. It is worth mentioning that I would rather teams engage with kritikal approaches and maybe take up a discussion about methodology but the round is yours, not mine. On the flippity-flip: I won't hesitate to pull the trigger on turns onto Framework. Worth noting: - I believe condo is good. Of course, if you say it’s bad and it’s unrefuted you’re probably in good shape. Just know that “condo bad” doesn’t take a lot for me to err Neg. - If you try to perm anything without an alt text, I won't like that. Test of intrinsicness are not the same thing as permutations. - I believe the Neg gets to challenge the Aff in mutliple, unlimited fronts. So yeah, I don't really buy RVIs and I typically don't default to voting down the Neg on Perf Cons arguments. - Over the years the Aff has tried to seize presumption from the Negative and I’m not sure how I feel about it. Hearing “Risk of solvency” in the 2AR/PMR really makes me cringe but I have reluctantly voted on it when the Neg doesn’t win a big enough risk of offense. I do believe in terminal defense so if the Neg has no offense it’s simply Try or Die. -I prefer numbered signposting/referencing to “next/and”. I have been known to give great speaks to 2ACs that do this and 2NCs that do things like “In response to 2AC-3 where they say "x", we have 2 responses. First, "y". Second, "z"” -Open CX is fine so long as everyone’s cool with it. <s>-Don’t steal prep. I might call you out on it if it keeps happening. *</s> Not Parli specific -I don’t feel comfortable injecting in CX in order to clarify anything. I know several critics who do this and I understand the motivation but I don’t feel like that’s my place. - I won't vote for warrentless arguments or even arguments where I don't know the warrant. Don't be a PMR that extends an incredibly blippy non-unique from the MG because you said it was dropped in the block. I'm not sure if this is a tactic nowadays but what I've noticed is that debaters will extend their partner's arguments that have been uncontested not because they're good arguments, but rather because no one is certain what was said or why it matters. -2A/NRs/PMRs should essentially be what you want my RFD to be. Tell me where and how to vote, keep me out of it as much as possible. A significant amount to time should dedicated to impact calc.  On Speaker Points: I've been coaching more national circuit/urban debate league policy at the high school level and those norms have shaped by range: 25-30, usually with decimals to indicate specific levels of mastery. NOTE - I take my team to local regional tournaments where many critics believe a 20 is "a lot". If that's the case I will be forced to arbitrarily adopt a similar standard to protect my debaters. If I give a floor of 25 and I'm the only judge in the pool to do that, I should probably adopt the local community standard (whatever that means).  Want good speaks? Be a solid, clear MG that properly signposts or a PMR that gives great impact calc with a solid narrative of why I should vote for you. Or conversely, a 1NC that smartly puts a cohesive strategy. I like clever neg strats so long as they aren't abusive. LORs, don't just repeat what the MOC says, give impact calc. Quick worthwhile tidbit: I often take my team to local circuits that openly embrace what is often considered the "origins" of Parliamentary debate and some of those mannerisms are on full display. I actually debated at the Oxford Union and let me tell you: no one wastes their speech time thanking everyone in the room. You don't need to either, especially if you're wasting time to thank me just for the capacity to breathe. Also, please don't knock. I find it annoying and distracting. If it's the first time I've judged you, I'll let that stuff slide. If I judge you again and it's problematic or time-consuming, I will dock your speaks. (Does that grate against my attempts to be inclusive to all styles? Maybe. But I don't like tension with my ability to evaluate the round in a timely fashion,) I'm a big fan of debaters with swag (not to be confused with rudeness/arrogance) and I will reward it with higher speaks.  Don't know what I mean? Then you probably ain't got it...

Steve Hagan - McKendree

Susan Taylor - WKU

Thomas Herring - Webster

n/a

Tom Serfass - Webster

n/a

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.

Will Cooney - UNL

n/a

2014 The Missouri Mule Swing Speech & Debate Tournament