Alex Cunningham - MVC

n/a

---

Alexandria Andrade - Carnegie

n/a

---

Alyssa Slana - Carnegie

n/a

---

Andrew Hart - MoState

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=35837

---

Andrew Eick - Carnegie

n/a

---

Angie Juarez - Carnegie

n/a

---

Anna Clare Baldwin - Carnegie

n/a

---

Bailey Rung - WKY

n/a

---

Brian Lain - UNT

---

Brian Swafford - NW Mo St.

n/a

---

Brian Anderson - WKY

n/a

---

Brigitte Tripp - Lewis & Clark

---

Chad Meadows - WKY

n/a

---

Charlie Clark - KCKCC

---

Chris Outzen - Truman State

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 to convince the judge that they are the more right debater in that round. Adaptation of strategy and delivery of argument necessitates consideration of both your opponent AND the experience of the judge. To that end, I submit the following paradigm:

Judge Experience: DOF at Truman State University since 2015. I hold an MFA-Forensics, have been involved in college forensics since 2007, and have been coaching/judging forensics since 2011. Primarily IE oriented, but with knowledge of policy debate terminology and consistent LD judging experience since Fall 2015. Listening and flowing speed will not to the same level as career policy judges and coaches.

Speaker Speed: I disagree with the trend of increasing speed in LD debate. I believe that LD inhabits a unique position where both argumentation and strong speaking skills can be valued. I take the position that increasing speed of delivery to maximize argument quantity is antithetical to effective public communication. It is also a performative border which keeps those outside policy debate experience from engaging with our activity, which I believe to be a fundamental error in ensuring support for our activity as relevant and valuable.

To that end, debate which is a bit faster than conversational is ok but I will be listening for the deployment of strategic vocal variety to enhance your communication within your quick pace. As a judge who does not have decades of flowing experience, I cannot keep up with true spreading. If you are a traditional spreading debater, consider this an exercise in audience adaptation skills. Failure to adjust appropriately may result in lost speaker points or even a lost round. Spreading does not guarantee a lost round, but it does increase the likelihood I will miss critical components of your case. Extreme cases of spreading or the clear abuse of speed against another competitor may impact my final decision. I will not tell you to slow down mid-round unless I am directly asked to do so. 

This position on speed is related to audience adaptation. I expect and encourage ALL debaters to adapt to other judge's speed preferences and the other competitors, as warranted in each individual round. This is simply my personal position from which I will be judging my assigned rounds.

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. Debate can be a teachable moment where you can inform us 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 but not limited to 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 on two conditions. 1) K-Affs must pass the test of topicality, linking to the resolution. 2) Kritik arguments are often dense and highly specialized. Those who run K arguments have an elevated burden to educate in your arguments. Do not assume we are all well-read in the highly specific literature of your kritik.

Judge Intervention: I would rather see you make the arguments and guide my thinking through strong transitions, roadmaps, etc. I typically do not believe in intervening as a judge in debate rounds to complete your arguments for you and hold myself to that standard to the degree possible. However, I will intervene in issues of a) Overt racism, homophobia, sexism, and/or other forms of hate speech; b) Lies about rules or anything which was clearly said in round by either competitor; c) New arguments in non-constructive speeches (as defined by NFA-LD rules), especially in the final AR.

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. Arguments should be presented in a way which reflects is accessible to the judge in question.

I will assume that students  who do not ask me questions about my paradigm I will assume have read it. It is the job of the students to make sure they understand how the judge will engage with the round. 

---

Christine Rogers - UCMO

n/a

---

Christopher Thomas - Park

n/a

---

Craig Hennigan - Truman State

Updated for LD judging

Craig Hennigan 
Truman State University

TL/DR - I'm fine on the K.  Need in round abuse for T.  I'm fine with speed.  K Alts that do something more than naval-gazing is preferred.  Avoid running away from arguments. 

I debated high school policy in the early 90’s and then college policy in 1994.  I also competed in NFA-LD for 4 or 5 years, I don't recall, I know my last season was 1999?  I then coached at Utica High School and West Bloomfield High school in Michigan for their policy programs for an additional 8 years. I coached for 5 years at Wayne State University.  Now I am the Assistant Director of Forensics at Truman State University in my 2nd year running the debate part of the program. 

I think of myself as adhering to my flow. Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat, and bonus if it’s a messy round and you are able to clean up my flow for me. Saying this, it’s a good idea for debaters to have clear tags on their cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence. If it blends together, I do not do well. 

With regard to specific arguments – I will vote seldom on theory arguments that do not show significant in-round abuse. Potential abuse is a non-starter for me, and time skew to me is a legit strategy unless it’s really really bad. My threshold for theory then is pretty high if you cannot show a decent abuse story. Showing an abuse story should come well before the last rebuttal. If it is dropped though, I will most likely drop the argument before the team. Reminders in round about my disposition toward theory is persuasive such as "You don't want to pull the trigger on condo bad," or "I know you don't care for theory, here is why this is a uniquely bad situation where I don't get X link and why that is critical to this debate."

 

I don’t like round bullys. Especially ones that run a very obscure K philosophy and expect everyone in the room to know who/what it is saying. It is the duty of those that want to run the K to be a ‘good’ person who wants to enhance the education of all present, rather than roll eyes because the opponents may not be versed in every 19th century philosopher from the highlands of Luxumbourg. I have voted for a lot of K's though this season so it's not like I'm opposed to them. K alternatives should be able to be explained well in the cross-x. I will have a preference for K alts that actually "do" something.  The influence of my ballot on the discourse of the world at large is default minimal, on the debate community default probably even less than minimal.  Repeating jargon of the card is a poor strategy, if you can explain what the world looks like post alternative, that's awesome.  I have found clarity to be a premium need in LD debate since there is much less time to develop a K.  This being said, I look hard for argument mutations.  If the K alt mutates into something else in the NR, this is a pretty compelling reason to vote Aff.  (Or in the opposite of the person running the K for that matter).  Failing to explain what the K does in the 1AC/NC then revealing it in the 1AR/NR is poor form.  

Never run from a debate.  I'll respect someone that goes all-in for the heg good/heg bad argument and gets into a debate more than someone who attempts to be incredibly tricksy in case/plan writing or C-X in order to avoid potential arguments.  Ideal C-X would be: 

"Does your case increase spending?"

"Damn right, what you gon' do about it? Catch me outside."  

I will vote on T. I typically don't vote on T arguments about capital letters or periods. Again, there should be an in-round abuse story to garner a ballot for T.  This naturally would reinforce the previous statement under theory that says potential abuse is a non-starter for me.  Developing T as an impact based argument rather than a rules based argument is more persuasive.  As potential abuse is not typically a voter for me, I'll strike down speaker points with great vengeance toward RVI's based on theory.  Regarding K's of T, there are better ways to garner offense, like say... your case. 

Anything that you intend to win on, it's best to spend more than 15 seconds on it. I won't vote for a blip that isn't properly impacted. Rebuttals should consist of focusing on the arguments that will win you the round. It should reflect some heavy lifting and doing some real work on the part of the debater. It should not be a laundry list of answers without a comparative analysis of why one argument is clearly superior and a round winner. 


Performance: Give me a reason to vote. And make sure to adequately respond to your opponents arguments with the performance.  I do not see that many of those rounds in the first place.  If you win a framework debate, you're more than halfway there to a win.  I think there are lots of ways that framework can be run that isn't inherently exclusive to debate styles.  However I think there are framework arguments that are exclusive too, which isn't very cool.  The main issues that I voted on in those rounds were dropped arguments.  If a team running an alternative style aff/K is able to show that the other team is dropping arguments then that is just as valid as the traditional style making claims that arguments are dropped and should be weighed accordingly. The fact that you did a performance is not an independent reason to vote for you.  I am seldom compelled that my ballot changes anything outside the debate community or outside the room.  If you have specific evidence to why it does, then I have listened to and voted on those arguments (Think Giroux type evidence on pedagogy).  Most of the time though, the idea that my ballot changes anything places too much importance on me.  I'm just a ham and egger.  However if there's things in the room that are going on that can be remedied by my ballot, I'm definitely listening.      

Speaker Points  - 

 Upon entering the LD community, I was informed that my previous speaker point distribution was akin to Santa Claus on a meth binge.  It has now been revised. This rating system is subject to a "level of difficulty."  Meaning if you're totally outmatching your opponent, you're going to earn speaker points not by smashing your opponent, but rather through making debate a welcoming and educational experience for everyone. 

Floor-  25 - you might have said something offensive about the other team or my family.  I may have had to think about whether or not to stop the round.  You didn't complete a speech and conceded.  You were racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic and unapologetic. 

26-26.5 - You made me feel like a qualified judge.  (There were noticable and glaring flaws in your strategy.  You went for Condo Bad without a unique reason why I should vote and there was only 1 K and 1 CP in the round.  You have problems with fundamentals of making arguments)

26.5-27 - I had to think and do work, but also had to send you a message that I'm not a good judge.  (You made some tactical errors that I noticed perhaps went for the wrong NR, or you asked a bunch of questions in C-X that never came up in the speech.  Or you lacked confidence, you looked like you were behind. You dropped a lot on the flow.)  

27-27.5 - Meh.  Middle of the road.

28 - You made me pay attention to my flowing.  At one point I was hoping you would not go for the PIC because I had no idea what was happening on that flow.  (Odds are you made the correct strategic decisions, outcarded your opponents or did not drop round-winning arguments and tooks advantage of your opponents dropped arguments.  You should get a low-mid speaker award)

28.5-29.5 - I would give you a cigarette after the round if asked if I still smoked.  (You have noticed a double turn or a speech act by your opponent that is a round winner.  You also have reminded me of items in my paradigm for why you are going for the items that you are.  I quit smoking so don't ask.)

29.5-30 - Would you like to do my oral defense for me?  (I could not find a flaw in your performance to incredibly minor flaws that there is little way to realize that they even happened)

 

Card Clipping addendum:

Don't cheat.  I typically ask to be included on email chains so that I can try to follow along at certain points of the speech to ensure that there isn't card clipping, however if you bring it up I in round I will also listen.  You probably ought to record the part with clipping if I don't bring it up myself.  Also, if I catch clipping (and if I catch it, it's blatant) then that's it, round over.  

---

Daniel Plott - JCCC

n/a

---

David Bailey - SBU

---

David Bowers - MVC

n/a

---

Derek Pritchett - Carnegie

n/a

---

Ethan Putman - Carnegie

n/a

---

Gabby Tijerina - UNT

---

Gina Jensen - Webster

n/a

---

Heather Walters - MoState

 https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

---

James Spry - Carnegie

n/a

---

Jason Roach - Webster

n/a

---

Jeff May - Carnegie

n/a

---

Joe Gantt - Lewis & Clark

 

---

Joe Getto - JCCC

n/a

---

John Carney - Truman State

n/a

---

John Parker - Carnegie

n/a

---

John Williams - WU

---

Johnathan Christy - Truman State

n/a

---

Jordan Compton - SBU

I competed in NPDA and IDPA for four years.  I've coached NPDA, IPDA, and PF for 10+ years.  

I'm a communication guy.  That will never change.  I'm much more of an IE coach/judge than a debate coach/judge but I should be able to follow along with most anything.

I loathe speed.  See the line above.  I'm a communication guy.  

I try to be a flow judge as much as possible.  It's your job to tell me where to flow your argument.  If you organize for me and tell me what to do, I'm going to do it and I'll probably like you more for doing that.  

I will not do the work for you.  You need to explain your argument super clearly.  And like I said above, you need to tell me where to put that argument on the flow.  

If you give me a criterion that's what I'm going to use to help guide my decision.  If you give me a criterion and then fail to use it throughout the debate, you're probably going to lose.  (If you say we're doing CBA and then don't give me any costs/benefits, what's the point of the CBA criterion?)

NPDA/LD

Not a huge fan of Ks but I'll listen.  Remember everything I said above about being clear and organized.  That goes triple here.  

I like case debate.  

I'll listen to a good CP.  

I'll vote on T if abuse is articulated well.  

In Parli, I will not flow any argument from a partner who speaks when it's not their turn to speak.  I kind of hate when this happens.  

I'm happy to answer specific questions before a round, but I probably won't go into great detail.  My usual response when asked what I like to hear in debate is, "Don't suck."  

---

Justin Kirk - UNL

Justin Kirk

Director of Debate at University of Nebraska-Lincoln

20 years judging experience @ about 40 rounds per year

"I believe I have an obligation to work as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates." Scott Harris

General philosophy Debate is primarily a communications based activity, and if you are not communicating well, your arguments are probably incoherent, and you are probably not going to win many debates in front of me. It is your responsibility to make quality arguments. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Evidence supports argumentation, it does not supplant it. However, analytic arguments and comparative claims about argument quality are essential to contextualizing your evidence and applying it to the issues developed throughout the debate. Quality arguments beat bad evidence every time.

I flow every debate and expect teams to answer arguments made by the other team. You should also flow every debate. That does not mean start flowing after the speech documents run out. Cross-examinations that consist mostly of "what cards did you read" or "what cards did you skip" are not cross examinations and do you little to no good in terms of winning the debate. If you have questions about whether or not the other team made an argument or answered a particular argument, consult your flow, not the other team. The biggest drawback to paperless debate is that people debate off speech docs and not their flows, this leads to shoddy debating and an overall decline in the quality of argumentation and refutation.

Each team has a burden of refutation, and arguing the entire debate from macro-level arguments without specifically refuting the other side's arguments will put you at a severe disadvantage in the debate. Burden of proof falls upon the team making an argument. Unwarranted, unsupported assertions are a non-starter for me. It is your responsibility is to make whole arguments and refute the arguments made by the other side. Evaluating the debate that occurred is mine. The role of my ballot is to report to the tab room who I believe won the debate.

Online Debate - everyone is adjusting to the new world of online debate and has plenty of burdens. I will be lenient when judging if you are having technical difficulties and provide ample time. You should record all of your speeches on a backup device in case of permanent technical failures. Speechdrop is the norm for sharing files. If there are bandwidth problems, I will ask everyone to mute their mics and videos unless they are talking.

Paperless Debate You should make every attempt to provide a copy of the speech documents to me and the other team before the speech. Disclosure is a norm in debate and you should endeavor to disclose any previously run arguments before the debate. Open source is not a norm, but is an absolutely preferable means of disclosure to cites only. The easiest way to resolve this is through an email thread for the debate, it saves time and the risk of viruses are decreased substantially through email. I suspect that paperless debate has also led to a substantial decrease in clarity and corresponding increases in cross-reading and clipping. I have zero tolerance for cheating in debate, and will have no qualms about voting against you, assigning zero speaker points, and speaking to your coaches about it. Clarity is a must. You will provide me speech documents to read during the debate so I may better understand the debate that is occurring in front of me. I will ask you to be clearer if you are not and if you continue to be unclear, I will stop flowing your arguments.

Topicality Is good for debate, it helps to generate clash, prevents abusive affirmatives, and generally wins against affirmatives that have little to no instrumental relation to the topic. Topicality definitions should be precise, and the reasons to prefer your topicality violation should be clear and have direct relation to your interpretation. Topicality debates are about the scope of and competition generated by the resolution. I usually default to competing interpretations, as long as both sides have clear, contextual, and well warranted interpretations. If your interpretation is missing one of these three elements, go for another argument. Reasonability is a winnable argument in front of me as long as you offer specific and warranted reasons why your interpretation is reasonable vis- -vis the negative. I vote on potential abuse and proven abuse.

Kritiks Should be based in the resolution and be well researched with specific links to the affirmative. Reading generic links to the topic is insufficient to establish a link to the affirmative. Alternatives should be well explained and evidenced with specific warrants as to the question of link solvency. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by negative teams where they have failed to explain the link debate or alternative adequately. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by affirmative teams when I am judging are ones where the affirmative failed to sufficiently argue for a permutation argument or compare the impacts of the affirmative to the impacts of the criticism sufficiently. I firmly believe that the affirmative gets to weigh the advantages of the plan against the impacts of the criticism unless the link to the criticism directly stems from the framing of the Affirmative impacts. I also believe that the affirmative can usually win solvency deficits to the alternative based upon deficits in implementation and/or instrumentalization of the alternative. Arguments that these solvency deficits do not apply because of framework, or that the affirmative has no right to solving the affirmative, are non-starters for me.

Counterplans Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans. NR counterplans are an effective means of answering new 1AR arguments and add-ons and are fair to the affirmative team if they are responses to new 1AR developments. I believe that counterplans are the most effective means of testing the affirmative's plan via competitive policy options and are an effective means of solving for large portions of the affirmative. Counterplans are usually a fair check against new affirmatives, non-intrinsic advantages, and affirmatives with bad or no solvency evidence. If you have a theoretical objection to the counterplan, make it compelling, have an interpretation, and win offense. Theoretical objections to the counterplan are fine, but I have a high threshold for these arguments unless there is a specific violation and interpretation that makes sense in the context of competitive demands in debate.

Disads Yes and yes. A likely winning strategy in front of me usually involves going for a disadvantage to the affirmative and burying the case with quality arguments and evidence. Disadvantages should have specific links to the case and a coherent internal link story. It is your job to explain the causal chain of events that leads to the disadvantage. A disadvantage with no internal links is no disad.

Case Debate - Is a lost art. Most affirmatives are a hodgepodge of thrown together internal links and old impact evidence. Affirmatives are particularly bad at extending their affirmative and answering negative arguments. Especially new affirmatives. Negative teams should spend a substantial portion of the debate arguing why the affirmative case is problematic. Fewer and fewer teams invest any time in arguing the case, at the cost of a criticism or disadvantage that usually isn't worth reading in the first place. Time trade-offs are not nearly as valuable as quality indictments of the 1AC. Spend those three minutes answering the advantages and solvency and don't read that third criticism or fourth disadvantage, it usually doesn't help you anyway. Inidict the 1AC evidence, make comparative claims about their evidence and your evidence, challenge the specificity or quality of the internal links.

Evidence - Qualifications, context, and data matter. You should answer the evidence read in the debate because I will read evidence at the end. One of the largest problems with paperless debate is the persistence of reading cards to answer cards when a simple argument about the context or quality of the evidence will do. It takes less time to answer a piece of terrible evidence with an analytic argument than it does to read a card against it. It is useless to throw good cards after bad.

Speaker Points - Are a reflection of the quality of speaking, arguments, and strategic choice made by debaters in the debate no more, no less.

One final note - I have heard and seen some despicable things in debate in the past few years. Having a platform to espouse your ideas does not give you the right to make fun of other debaters' limitations, tell them to die, blame them for other's deaths, threaten them with violence (explicitly or implicitly), or generally be a horrible person. Debate as an activity was designed to cultivate a community of burgeoning intellectuals whose purpose is the pedagogical development of college students through a competitive and repetitive engagement of complex ideas. If you think that something you are about to say might cross the line from argument into personal attack or derogatory statement do not say it. If you decide to cross that line, it is my interpretation of the event that matters and I will walk out of your debate and assign you an immediate loss.

---

Kelsey Barnes - Truman State

n/a

---

Kevin Minch - Truman State

n/a

---

Kristen StoutHart - MoState

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

---

Lora Cohn - Park

n/a

---

Louis Petit - UNT

---

Mackenzie Malewicki - Carnegie

n/a

---

Madison Ward - Carnegie

n/a

---

Mark Turner - KWU

---

Matthew Moore - UCO

n/a

---

Matthew Gilmore - Carnegie

n/a

---

Maureen Mwendia - Carnegie

n/a

---

Meg Burns - SBU

---

Michael Lostritto - Carnegie

n/a

---

Mikayla Throne - SBU

---

Nadia Steck - Lewis & Clark

Nadia here, I am currently the Coach for Lewis and Clarkâs debate team I graduated from Concordia University Irvine where I debated for 2 years, before that I debated for Moorpark College for 3 years. Iâm gonna give you a TL:DR for the sake of prep time/pre-round strategizing, I want my personal opinions to come into play as little as possible in the debate round. I want the debate to be about what the debaters tell me it should be about, be it the topic or something totally unrelated. I am fairly familiar with theory, policy, and critical debate. I donât have a strong preference for any one of the three, all I want you to do is not be lazy and expect me to backfill warrants from my personal knowledge of arguments for you. If you donât say it, it doesnât end up on my flow, and thus it doesnât get evaluated. There arenât really any arguments I wonât listen to, and I will give the best feedback I have the ability to give after each round.

For out of round thinking or pre tournament pref sheets here are a few of the major things I think are important about my judging philosophy and history as a debater

â?¢I hate lazy debate; I spent a lot of time doing research and learning specific contextualized warrants for most of the arguments I read. It will benefit you and your speaks to be as specific as possible when it comes to your warrants.

â?¢I did read the K a lot during my time as a debater but that doesnât mean I donât also deeply enjoy a good topical debate

â?¢I did read arguments tethered to my identity occasionally; if you want to read these sorts of arguments I am sympathetic to them, but I believe you should be ready to answer the framework debate well.

â?¢As far as framework and theory arguments go, I am open to listening to any theory argument in round with the exception of Spec args, I honestly feel like a POI is enough of a check back for a spec arg. I have yet to meet a spec arg that was justified much beyond a time suck. If youâre In front of me, I give these arguments little credence so you should respond accordingly.

â?¢As far as the actual voting issue of theory, I by default assume they are all Apriori, as theory is a meta discussion about debate and therefore comes as a prior question to whatever K/CP/DA is being read. When it comes to evaluating the impacts of theory, please please please do not be lazy and just say that fairness and/or education is the voter without justification. These are nebulous terms that could mean a thousand things, if you want to make me really happy as a judge please read more specific voters with a solid justification for them. This way I have a more concrete idea of what you mean instead of me having to insert my own ideas about fairness or education into the debate space.

â?¢As far as policy debates go, I default net bens, and will tend to prefer probable impacts over big impacts. That being said, I am a sucker for a good nuke war or resource wars scenario. My favorite policy debates were always econ debates because of the technical nuance.

â?¢Go as fast as you want, just make sure if your opponent calls clear or slow you listen because if they read theory or a K because you didnât slow down or speak more clearly I will most likely vote you down.

---

Naomi Semb-Lovejoy - Carnegie

n/a

---

Payton Stillman - MoState

---

Raymundo Justin - Webster

n/a

---

Richard Tews - UNI

n/a

---

Ryan Louis - Ottawa

n/a

---

Ryan Kelly - WU

My Background: I debated for four years NPDA/NPTE circuit for Washburn University. I debated for four years in high school policy debate, LD, and PFD. Graduated in 2017 from Washburn with a BA in International Business and Marketing with minors in Leadership Studies and Communications. I currently attend law school at the University of Kansas.

?· Highlights:

o ***First, before all else. When you read a text, interpretation, or anything in that ilk, please slow down and read it twice. I think that the text is important and it will only help you to make sure everyone has it down correctly. Thx buddies.***

o Generally, I believe that debate is a game. (?Do what you can justify? ? Doubledee.) But, within that framework, if either team raises the argument that debate is more than just a game for certain bodies or purposes, I think that type of framing for the debate round is valid and I will weigh that. I think that framing can certainly be used to weigh certain impacts as more important than others when done well. I do believe, though, that framing argument should come with robust warrant/grounds--meaning, explain why debate is more than just a game, the benefits to that outlook, etc. Absent this, my general default is that debate is a game.

o I have a preference for unconditional advocacies, but if you want to debate condo, I won?t vote you down right away or anything like that.

o Familiar arguments/debates: politics, hegemony, queerness/heteronornmativity (most familiar here), feminism, anthropocentrism, whiteness, anti-blackness, and other identity arguments. I am also familiar with militarism, cap, and overconsumption. I read Agamben quite a bit my frosh year and am familiar with Lacanian based arguments?¦.a bit. My critical knowledge is more based on identity type arguments, though.

o I think that if your argument is very complex, a thesis at the beginning will help out with my understanding.

o At the end of the day, the most important line of argumentation to me is what the post-world of the negative and the affirmative look like, and weighing between the implications of those two worlds.

o I place a high emphasis on the LOR. It was my favorite speech to give and I come from the school of Lauren Knoth in believing it can arguably be the most important speech in the debate, or a huge waste.

?· Identity/Performance/Critical Arguments

o I am fine with these types of arguments and I think that they can lead to very valid discussions in debate.

o I think that these types of arguments are most persuasive when they have an advocacy. This advocacy can be a metaphor, poem, alternative, or even the lack of an advocacy if that is explained well. Kaitlyn and I read a metaphor for our narrative affirmative, and Ian and I read a critical affirmative without an advocacy, but had justifications for that implicit in the argument. Thus, do what you can justify.

o I believe that it is important to explain the post-AFF world in this situation, just the same as when a K is read on the negative. Even if the post-AFF world is supposed to be a change to the debate space, explain what that change is and why your AFF can achieve that.

o That said, I also think that Framework can be used as a response, if it is done appropriately. I think that Framework is most valid when read as a counter-method by the negative, rather than based more in the procedural impacts. I think there is a distinction between Framework and Topicality, and you are less likely to win my ballot if you read T against an AFF in this category rather than Framework.

?· Flowing/Speed

o I should be able to keep up, but I?ll let you know if I need you to slow down, likely by saying ?slow.? (To me, there is a distinction between ?slow? and ?clear?. If your speed is fine but I can?t understand the words you are saying, I will say ?clear?. If you are going too quickly, I will say ?slow?. I?ll try to keep those two as distinct as possible to help.)

o I will likely flow on paper, but may flow on a computer. Either way, give some pen time and time to switch pages. (I was not great at remembering to do this when I was a debater, so I understand that it?s hard to remember when you just want to move to the next argument, but do your best to remember to allow time. J ).

o On the topic of speed, I enjoyed very fast debate. I thought it was a fun skill that is unique to the activity. Despite this, do not use speed when you do not need to. I think debate is about actually having a debate. If you spread someone out of a debate, are you really debating? In my opinion, not really. Engage with the other team as much as you can to facilitate an actual debate. Also, you do not have to be able to spread to win. Ian Mikkelsen is a great example of this. He never went very quickly, but his slow spread was just as effective. Through limiting your word economy and making your speech as efficient as possible, a ?slow? speaker can make more arguments than a ?fast? debater any day. But, I liked fast debates when I debated, so I don?t have a problem with them whatsoever.

?· Procedurals/Theory/T

o Repeated from above, please repeat your interpretations slowly and twice. This is especially important here.

o I am a fan of a good T debate. I think that collapsing is critical in those debates. I also believe the LOR should give a full speech when the negative goes for T/Theory. That LOR time is not just prep for the PMR if it is done correctly.

o RVIs ? I think that you should make an RVI if it is strategic. (Hold your shade about RVIs?¦to me, they are a tool just like anything else). I doubt that you will win my ballot on an RVI, but I definitely see the utility of making the argument.

o A pet peeve of mine is when debaters arrive at the voters section and simply say ?and this is a voter for fairness and education.? In fact, I?m not even sure that I would evaluate those as voters. Explain your voters?they are the impact to your theory argument.

o I am usually most persuaded by theory arguments when they are applied to parli specifically.

o MG theory is fine by me, as long as it doesn?t make the debate a mess to deal with. I see no point in spreading yourself out with a litany of small theory arguments. In my opinion, your time is better served making more offense elsewhere.

?· DA?s

o Topic specific DA?s are great! As are other DA?s.

o I have a high threshold for Politics DA?s because they were one of my favorite arguments to read and research. The link analysis should be very specific, hopefully including vote counts and other specifics such as that.

?· CP?s

o I think counterplans are underutilized in debate (by myself included when I was debating with Kaitlyn?emphasis on Advantage CP?s, sorry for letting you down Brent Nicholson). We always wished we would?ve read more of them.

o Functional competition is most persuasive to me, but I can also understand arguments about textual competition.

?· Ks

o I think the K is a great argument in debate and I welcome it. (I also like policy/topic debates, don?t think you should just read the K right away if I judge you.)

o I need a clear alternative. If you have an alt that includes lots of specific, high-brow language in it, please have solvency points that explain those terms.

o To me, the most important part of the K is the explanation of the post-alternative world. What happens after the K?s alternative is accepted? Paint me a picture of that world. I think a K without a well explained alternative is just unending criticism, and I am not sure that is enough to overwhelm an affirmative?s change to the status quo.

?· Perms

o Stolen form Kaitlyn?s philosophy, because I feel the same (it?s like we were partners or something): ?I really enjoy perm debates. I think that the text of the perm is critical and must be clear in the debate. Slow down, read them twice, and/or give me a copy of the text. You don?t have to read the entire plan text in K debates and instead it is sufficient to say, ?do the plan and x?. My definition of a legitimate perm would be that they are all of the plan and all or parts of the CP/Alt. IE: the alternative is to vote negative to recognize the dehumanizing struggle of indigenous populations. The perm in this case could be to do the plan and recognize the struggle of indigenous populations (thus picking out of the word dehumanizing and reading net benefits/disads to the use of that word). I think that perms serve as tests of competition.?

o Test of competition: The way I view the permutation is that it is a hypothetical test of competition of the two advocacies happening together (generally, I know there are other permutations sequences). I think that if there are net benefits to said hypothetical test that outweigh its absence, then those net benefits can be used to say there is not competition because there is only net good that occurs from the world of the two things happening in concert.

?· Also, have fun! Be nice to one another, while still being competitive. If you have any questions, please ask. J

---

Sam Begley-May - Carnegie

n/a

---

Samantha Callaway - Carnegie

n/a

---

Shanna Carlson - ILSTU

Background: I competed in parliamentary and LD debate for Washburn University for five years (2005-2010). I freelance coached and judged for three years. I have taught high school and college debate camps for the University of Texas-Dallas, ISU, and Kyushu University in Japan. I am currently the Director of Debate at Illinois State University.

DISCLOSURE THEORY IS LAZY DEBATE AND I WILL GIVE YOU NO HIGHER THAN 15 SPEAKER POINTS IF YOU RUN THIS POSITION (this means at best you will get a low point win).

I am unable to flow too much speed due to an issue with my hand. I will give you 2 verbal "speed" warnings before I just stop flowing all together!

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 believe that the speed at which you go should be accessible to everyone in the round, this means your competitor and other judges on a panel. I am open to voting on accessibility and/or clarity kritiks. SPEED SHOULD NOT BE A TOOL OF EXCLUSION!!!!!!

3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not evaluate moral obligations in the round (if you say "Moral Obligation" in college LD Debate I stop flowing, take a selfie, and mock you on social media). This does not mean I will not vote for dehumanization is bad, but I need a warrant outside of just telling me I am morally obligated to do something. Moral obligations are lazy debate, warrant out your arguments. HIGH SCHOOL LD DEBATERS- IGNORE THIS

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, snarkiness, and rudeness.

6. When running a kritik you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative text, alt solvency, and role of the ballot (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.

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" or "And" 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. It also makes it easier for me to make a decision in the end.

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.

11. If you advocate for a double win I automatically vote for the other person, issue you 1 speaker point, and leave the room. This is a debate, not a conversation. We are here to compete, so don't try to do something else.

12. Wilderson has stated that he does not want his writings used in debate by white individuals. He believes that the use of his writings is contradictory to what he overall stands for because he feels like you are using his arguments and black individuals as a tool to win (functionally monetizing black individuals). So for the love of all that is good please stop running these cards and respect the author's wishes. If you are white and you run his evidence I will not evaluate it out of respect for the author.

13. I will give you auto 30 speaker points if you read your 1AC out of an interp black book with page turns.

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 :) I also believe this activity should be a learning experience for everyone, so if after a round you have any questions please feel free to approach me and talk to me! I truly mean this because I love talking about debate and the more each debater gains from a round will provide for better rounds in the future for me to judge. If you ever have questions about a comment or RFD please ask. My email is sjcarl3@ilstu.edu

---

Shawna Merrill - IC

My competitive background is mainly in parli, but I judged LD throughout the 17/18 season and am currently head coach of a program competing in NFA-LD.

Debate is ultimately a communication endeavor, and as such, it should be civil and accessible. I’m not a fan of speed. I can handle a moderate amount especially as I follow along with your docs (I want to be included on speechdrop, email chains, etc.), but at the point that you’re gasping for air, I’m over it. Using speed as a strategy to spread your opponent out of the round is not okay for me.

I’m not a big T person. While I prefer proven in-round abuse to vote on T, I will vote for competing interpretations if it’s done well. Basically, if you run T, you’d better mean it. Don’t use it as a time sink.

I will vote on Ks if they address the topic/refute the plan. I enjoy a good critical argument, but don’t assume I’m familiar with all of your literature.

My favorite types of rounds are ones that engage in direct clash and cover the flow. Attend to the link stories and connect the dots as to how we get to your impacts. I’ll vote on just about any argument as long as it’s clearly explained and defended.

Bottom line: don’t try to get too fancy. Run arguments you understand and do what you’re comfortable with.

---

Stephen Hagan - McK

---

Steve Doubledee - WU

---

Tagan Trahoon - Carnegie

n/a

---

Taylor Corlee - MoState

---

Tom Serfass - Webster

n/a

---

Tyler Behymer - UNL

Hello friends!

Experience: I debated for 3 years of policy in high school, and did 4 years of NFA-LD in college. I am now an assistant coach at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. In my experience as a debater, I primarily focused on policy arguments but did some K debate as well.

Speed: Speed is fine with me, but please be clear, and please respect the wishes of your opponent. I won't drop you for continuing to spread if your opponent asks you to stop, but I will dock your speaks.

Evidence: Obviously skipping in between lines when highlighting is fine, but if you change the intent of the author, or highlight the evidence in such a way that ignores grammar (incomplete or incoherent sentences, subject-verb disagreement, generating entirely new significations, etc.) I won't be happy. Changing the intent of the author is cheating and is sufficient ground to drop you if pointed out by your opponent, and poor-highlighting practices make me inclined to ignore that piece of evidence, or listen to theory about how your evidence practices are abusive/anti-educational.

Framework: Stock Issues don't matter much to me. I evaluate the debate through an offense-defense paradigm unless you tell me otherwise. I'm very open to you changing the frame of the debate, so don't hesitate to do so.

Impact Framing: Please do. If you don't, I will intervene and evaluate the round in terms of the relative probabilities of 'something bad' happening, so it comes down to the risk of the aff solving something bad vs. it creating something bad. If you don't do impact framing, and I 'intervene' in a way that you disagree with, that's your fault.

K: K's are persuasive to me. Please read framework in the 1NC if you wish to change the frame of the debate (ROB, ROJ, etc.). I'm generally comfortable with K lit, but there are definitely some lit bases that I'm less familiar with, so be sure to ask me before round if you have any questions regarding my expertise or whatever. Alt debate is important, and you should probably spend a fair amount of time here, but its not necessary. If you kick the alt but win the framework and link debate you can still get my ballot. The perm is a test of competition, but you can talk about the perm in terms of an 'advocacy' in order to stress test the links. In other words, talk about the perm as if it 'goes into effect' in order to imagine if the perm resolves the links. If there are conceded links to the aff, its much harder to vote on the perm, but I could still do so if it sufficiently resolves the links.

CP: Cool with me. The CP just needs to be a competitive option of action compared to the aff. The perm is a test of competition.

T: T is persuasive to me, especially toward the beginning of the season. You don't need in-round abuse for me to vote for you, but I do find it persuasive, and you need to internal link potential abuse arguments out to your voters. I probably default to viewing the T debate through competing interps, but I will vote on reasonability if you win the framing question. On reasonability, note that I view it operating in conjecture with the counter-interp. Reasonability means that if the aff provides a 'reasonable' counter-interpretation, and meets it, then I don't drop the aff on T. Reasonability does not mean 'I reasonably meet my opponents interp,' so don't frame it this way.

Theory: T is more or less persuasive to me, depending on the abuse/fairness/education story. If an argument is clearly abusive, or operating on sketchy ground theoretically, then make a theory argument. Here's some specifics:

Condo: If the opponent reads 2+ conditional advocacies, condo is more persuasive to me than if they just read one.

PICS Bad: Not overly persuasive unless the PIC is uniquely abusive, but I'll always listen to it.

Vagueness: Probably the least persuasive to me. The plan/cp/alt has got to be really vague for me to vote here. Once again, I'll always listen to it.

Intl Fiat/States Fiat: I will definitely listen to theory args here. I don't think that either type of fiat is inherently abusive, but they have the potential to be.

Do nots: Don't be racist/sexist/transphobic/etc. Don't tell your opponent to harm themselves. Don't flagrantly insult your opponent. I'll drop you.

---

Will Wheeler - SBU

---