FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alex Martinez - Biola

Allen Nelson - George Fox

n/a

Andrea Johnson - George Fox

n/a

Andrew Hahn - George Fox

n/a

Ann Lawson - George Fox

n/a

Arlene Galarza - Azusa

Background: I competed in parliamentary debate and NFA-LD for three years in college. This is  my first year helping to coach in parliamentary debate and LD. I have judged around 70 or so rounds this year. Decision Making: I do not have a strict and set decision making philosophy. Stock-Issue is a very strong way to present a case in parliamentary debate, but for the most part I try to be very open and wait for you to tell me how you are going to run the round. Presentation/communication skills: Debaters should be dressed in business attire, if you’re not, I will-unconsciously- take you less seriously. In this past year, I have spent more time with the Speech side of Forensics and I do tend to pay more attention to the way you speak and overall presentation. Although the way you speck is not as important as what you say, it does hold some weight on my ballot.  In Round: Competitors should be polite and respectful of one another. Being condescending, rude, or laughing at your opponents- no matter how ridiculous their arguments may seem or are- is not okay! This semester, I have dropped a team for this kind of behavior.  If you are the second speaker, you need to extend across your partners responses and arguments or else they are dropped arguments. Arguments should all be impacted to a terminal impact. Please, always call points of order in the last speeches or I will flow them. Please time each other, just to make sure everyone stays honest. I like two world scenarios and 2-4 clear voting issues. I don’t time road maps. Organization and sign posting is key to winning. Tell me exactly where to flow your argument and responses, or else I will just quickly guess and put it anywhere, which is not good. Procedurals: I will vote on Topicality and other procedurals (tricot, vagueness press) but you need to show articulated abuse. You show articulate abuse by running your Disadvantages and then having the Aff de-link them. I do not like RV's, I think it is the neg’s ground to run theory arguments.   I tend not to vote for topical counterplans in parli, but I will listen to all arguments. If you are planning to run a counter plan don’t run it in the last 30 seconds of your speech. An effective strategy for running a counter plan is by first running a disadvantage that the Aff bites and that your plan doesn’t, and additionally, counter plan must solve for the entire Aff case. You should take any POI’s after the counter plantext is read. I also, tend to dislike K’s because, usually I hear K's that are just non -unique disadvantages, and they just do not offer any real world solvency.  Speed: Don't do it! Debate is a fundamentally an educational activity, therefore, everyone in the round should be able to understand all of your well-structured arguments.  Additionally, if your opponents “clear you” or ask you to “slow down” and you don’t – I will be upset and drop you! Time management is important, if it is a round with few arguments and you feel like you have effectively covered everything you don’t need to spend 5 minutes just repeating your arguments. But, if you need the time, please use it! Ultimately, I will try to keep my biases and prejudices away from the round and I will listen to any and all arguments. Lastly, have fun and actually being funny is always a good thing!

Barbara Harmon - KWU

I have judged individual events and debate for a long time.  I still consider myself as a novice judge in that I am not an expert on the language and theory involved.  I have heard a lot of excellent presentations in every event and and have a good idea of what a good presentation should sound like.  I enjoy this activity.

Barry Regan - Grand Canyon

Ben Wood - Liberty

n/a

Blair Waite - KWU

n/a

Cade Hamilton - LRU

My debate background is in policy. I debated in Dallas/Fort Worth for three years in high school and debated for the University of North Texas for two years. Since competing, I have been coaching for a number of years now - one year at the University of Central Oklahoma, two years at Wichita State University, one year at Johnson County Community College, three years at Kansas State University, and now this is my second year with Lenoir-Rhyne doing parliamentary debate - primarily NPDA and IPDA.  Evaluating debate is much more about the participants establishing the preferred parameters than my own predispositions. I would like to consider myself "tabula rasa," or at least as much as I can consciously make myself. My inherent predispositions are towards technical argumentation and clash. Most debaters would be well received by doing impact analysis that utilizes the internal components of the debate and contextualizing those arguments through the "agreed upon," or rather debated, means for how I as the critic should evaluate this specific debate. I think cross-examination and points of information should be used more for strategic purposes than clarification. I think credibility matters, but believe the debaters should tell me how and what credibility means in a given context. I think civil, level headedness is valuable, but I would gladly listen to arguments to the contrary. Humor is always a good thing for me, but be good at it. Display confidence and find your voice. Beyond that, please feel comfortable to ask me more specific questions.

Caleb Rawson - CCU

"My background is that I competed in parli for multiple years in college and now do some assistant coaching on the weekends while I get my PhD in Business. I’ve been told I am a very expressive judge so feel free to utilize that to your advantage. I hold to a very ideological view of debate, especially that access to debate (both as a competitor and as an audience member) should be open and non-discriminatory. This manifests itself in some of the following points.   -Courtesy. Both teams need to not only be polite with their words, but also with their nonverbal signals. If an opponent asks a question (and they should ask, and you should answer) be polite with your answer. Dramatic sighs or eye rolling will result in a significant drop in speaker points.   -Speed. Having debated I know that a fast speaking speed can be beneficial. However, your speed must be at an understandable pace for everyone in the room (including audience members). I will not flow anything I cannot understand and I will not call “clear” or tell you to slow down. If you talk fast you must pay attention to my nonverbals (i.e. do not read directly from a page at a fast pace and expect me to flow everything). -Probable Cause. Impacts, K’s, and abuse must be probable, not just possible. -Generic Politics Argument and Resolutional K’s. See above point. I don’t care if you “feel” the resolution is discriminatory or unfair, you must prove that it is. -Use rebuttals to actually refute your opponents and show why you win instead of using them like a constructive speech. That’s why debate has rebuttals in the first place…. I like to have fun as a judge and I like my competitors to have fun."

Charlene Mossman - CCU

n/a

Charles McBurney - LRU

This is my second year judging parli. I tend to be the type of judge that could be classified as tabula rasa, but I do tend to err towards creating a debate space that is built around respect and inclusion. I am receptive to procedural arguments, critiques, and counter plans. I would ask that you clarify technical jargon and make the debate about your vision.

Chris Leland - CCU

Debate has always been and always will be an academic lab for the articulation of good argumentation.  I have competed, judged and coached programs at the university level in IE, CEDA, NDT and Parli.  As such I am not a novice to debate, but I am relatively new to some forms of theoretical arguments and especially the more recent lingo that surrounds them.  I have been out of coaching for 14 years, but have been putting into practice the debate skills in the public forum against philosophers, theolgians, cultural critics, politicians, free thinkers, etc.  So I have seen what debate does in the "real world."  As such I am not yet convinced that some of the culture of debate doesn't force us into a box that is really pretty particular to our little world.  I say that to say,  I am not opposed to T or "Kritique" (which I guess is the hip postmodern spelling) or any other theoretical arguments but I can say I would much rather see clearly articulated and communicated arguments that are well constructed and well thought out.  It is fair to say I have a much higher threshold for those types of arguments.  Debate, I recognize, is also about strategy, but not at the expense of solid argumentation.  Having coached CEDA and NDT and now Parli for the last couple of years, I can flow.  Have to use my glasses to see what I wrote, which is different from the good ol' days, but ...  I will say that the thing that has shocked me the most this year is the casual way in which language is thrown around.  I fully don't expect it at this tournament, but there is no room in academic debate (even with the idea of free speech in  mind) for foul language.  It is unprofessional and rude.  Might be considered cool for some, but it is not accepted in any of the professions for which we are training up this group to move onto in the future.  Otherwise, I am excited to be back in the debate realm the last couple of years.   Chris Leland, Ph.D. Asst. VP for Academic Affairs, Professor of Communication & Director of Debate Colorado Christian University

Colin Dowd - George Fox

n/a

Colleen Hare - George Fox

n/a

Courtney Gammariello - Biola

Dan Bidstrup - George Fox

n/a

Denise Thomas - Liberty

n/a

Derrick Green - Cedarville

n/a

Diane Badzinkski - CCU

n/a

Dianne Waite - KWU

n/a

Donald Roth - Dordt

Overview: I come to parli from a non-technical background.  I did not compete in debate as a high school or college student; however, I was trained as an attorney and am passionate about good oral advocacy.  I am familiar with much of the jargon and terminology of debate, but I only see its usefulness in how it can serve to facilitate a more clear and effective debate.  I am decidedly not in the camp of those who favor quantity of arguments over quality.  I will flow the debate, and both having several arguments and being broadly responsive are features of a good debater, but a flurry of mediocre arguments will not stand up against a handful of good ones.    I also tend to respect debaters who are able to think creatively within the constraints of what they’re given.  That is, I prefer government cases that tackle even a leading resolution head on (rather than trying to come up with a clever alternative interpretation) but then push to anticipate opposing arguments and develop a nuanced, creative position.  Similarly, I favor an opposition that is able to use clever turns on the government’s arguments or rises to the challenge of a government plan that backs the opposition into a corner.   What I like to see: <ol> <li>Good signposting and organization in speaking</li> <li>Debaters who can differentiate between major and minor issues that have arisen and address each appropriately</li> <li>Good clash</li> <li>Inventive (but valid) argumentation, I love it when debaters make subtle arguments that result in, for instance, a clever turn</li> </ol>   What I don’t like seeing: <ol> <li>Rounds that run off down a rabbit hole and confuse everyone</li> <li>Teams taking an unusual or metaphorical read of a resolution solely for the purpose of throwing the other team off (largely because of the tendency for this to result in 1)</li> <li>Unnecessary topicalities.  Argue it if it’s appropriate, but don’t hang your hat entirely on my belief that a position can’t be opposed, as I’m unlikely to buy that.</li> <li>Overly argumentative PM and LO rebuttals.  These are like closing arguments in a trial, and too many students can’t resist the temptation to extend the debate rather than wrapping it up in a nice package.</li> </ol>   My stance on: <ol> <li>Speed: Moderate speed is best.  Some people are naturally faster talkers, and that’s fine, but quick fire delivery tends to de-emphasize the importance of quality of arguments over quantity, and that’s a bad thing.</li> <li>Kritiks: I’m happy to hear them, but I prefer a good clash.  Don’t hang your hat on this line of argumentation unless unusually necessary.</li> <li>Preferred Resolution Types: I tend to prefer policy over value, mostly because it’s rare that a value debate avoids getting convoluted and tangential.  Fact cases are hard to argue well, but I find them interesting when both sides address it well.</li> <li>Topical counterplans: I don’t mind them, but they need to be competitive and should not be pursued to the exclusion of opposing the government’s case.</li> <li>Topicality: When it’s appropriate, you get points for bringing it up, but it should never be the sole theory (or even main theory) that the opp. team relies upon.</li> <li>Warrants: I want solid warrants in argumentation.  I believe that it is fair to ask for a general citation of evidence if it seems fabricated or overly specific.  I don’t favor the tendency of some debaters to invent information for debate, and I don’t like it when students give in to the temptation to use their smart phones for more than timekeeping if the internet is off-limits during prep.</li> </ol>   Voting Issues: It’s very important to consider these.  I ultimately select the side who gives me the best reasons to vote for their side.

Eric Argenbright - KWU

n/a

Eric Beach - CCU

n/a

Erin Reynolds - George Fox

n/a

George Talavera - Grand Canyon

Janet Black - CCU

n/a

Jason Edwards - GCC

n/a

Jeff Yeates - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Jenna Fisher - LRU

Jenna Lopes - George Fox

n/a

Jessica Samens - Bethel Univ

Jessica Samens, ADOF - Bethel University Debate Judging Philosophy <hr /> Years judging Debate – 6 Number of Rounds judged – 50 + Tournaments judged – 25 Average Speaker points - 27 <hr /> While I am a relatively new Parli judge, I have a strong grasp on what I like and dislike in a debate round.  I have worked hard to become a respected judge on the circuit and have proven myself to be such. Overall, I want this to be a good learning experience for all involved, which translates into what I like and dislike. <hr /> I like a round that is civil, well set up, and easy to understand. While I expect students to stand firm in their arguments, I do not tolerate being rude to the other team. Sarcasm, being disrespectful, and bullying do not make me happy. I also like a debate that is well presented and follows an organized fashion set out by the Gov. This way I don’t have to make the decision if you dropped arguments or not, plus it makes it easier for everyone to follow (especially the judge who will be making the ultimate decision).  A messy debate forces all involved to make a lot of assumptions. I also like a round that is easy to understand – I fully admit to not always following the news as well as I should.  Please explain arguments for the sake of the judge and the other team. <hr /> Speaking of Topicality, I am fine with you running this as long as it is justified.  However, don’t spend precious time arguing it hurts the education system and is abusive.  I know what the grounds are and do not want you to waste time you could be spending on the case.  I am accepting of counter plans as long as they are not just the gov plan modified – I also need to see they are justified by the opp.  I feel the same out K’s, etc – impress me with your debate skills. <hr /> In order to win my round, I want to see that you have learned something about debate and fought a clean round. When teams are equally paired, I am fine with a little humor and sarcasm to each other (while this may seem to go against my earlier claim, I do appreciate the spirit of debate when done fairly),  but not when you are the stronger team – you take away from the other team's ability to learn. Also, be sure to tell me why you win – I appreciate voters in the rebuttals to tell me why you are the winning team. Never leave the debate in the judge’s hand, there is a lot of information going back and forth and you don’t want me to miss the main arguments you have provided. <hr /> Happy Debating!

Jessica Johnson - FC

n/a

Joan Rogliano - George Fox

n/a

Joannie DeBrito - CCU

n/a

Jon Loging - Bethany

<h2>Jon Loging - Bethany Lutheran College</h2> Question 1 : Please provide significant details on how your approach and evaluate debate rounds. Especially helpful are details about approaches or arguments that you either enjoy or dislike. Years of competition in Parliamentary Debate - 4 Number of years coaching/judging Parliamentary Debate - 14   I firmly believe Parliamentary debate is an excellent Communication activity and should be carried out with that intention.  I like to observe all the formalities that go along with Parli.  Delivery should be clear, well paced, and organized.  Debaters should use logic, wit, examples, and style to convince a person that their perspective of a resolution is the correct one.  Overall, I want you to persuade me on the issue presented in the resolution.  I don't want you to stand up there and tell me the other team is stupid.  Stand up there and tell me why I should vote for you.  Persuade me!  Don't simply bash the other team. Technical debating does not impress me.  I don't care how many levels you have for your topicality argument if the Government team was topical.  If the Government team goes way off base with their case, then a simple explanation of why they are not topical is called for.  DON'T tell me that they are decreasing the educational value of the debate.  Using the same old, tired arguments is what is decreasing the educational value of debate.  Meta-debate is a fun activity, but when we are talking about cutting taxes, I don’t want to hear argumentation theory; I want to hear why we should or should not cut taxes. I dislike "road maps".  In normal public speaking, a preview is incorporated into an introduction.  When you start speaking, I start timing.  When my timer says you are done, I stop listening.   I judge a round based on the quality of debate, not quantity.  Some arguments might be dropped by the other team.  That is not a reason that they should lose.  It might be they spent time on the arguments that mattered and not the 12 disads you sped through in 1 minute.   Other idiosyncrasies:  I don’t flow rebuttals.  Anything you bring up in a rebuttal should have been talked about in the constructives.  Anything brought up in a constructive is fair game in the rebuttals.  I don’t care if it wasn’t touched by their partner.  (Read the rules of debating, I have!)  I dislike “conversational” debates when everyone decides to speak.  The person at the podium has the floor and should be the only one speaking unless a point of information is raised.  (By the way, points of information can be a question or a statement.) At the end of the round I ask the question:  Who did the better debating on the resolution at hand?  That is the team that will get the win.

Jonathan Christian - LRU

Josh Kammert - Azusa

Background I have coached for five years; formats have included Lincoln Douglas, Parliamentary, and IPDA. I competed for four years prior to that in LD, Parli, and one tournament of CEDA. This year I have judged something like 60 rounds. None of this should really matter to you except to clarify that, yes, I am intimately familiar with the rules of debate. Approach to Decision-Making General Concepts I have a niceness paradigm; this means I can -and will- drop someone for being a jerk to their opponent. Obviously ad hominem is a definitively poor choice, but I'm looking for enlightening discussion not destructive manipulation -and there is a difference; in fact, if I'm your judge, just be as polite as you can to your opponents and the topic; I'm your audience, adapt to me. I loathe speed; I find it detrimental to an activity that is supposed to be focused on effective communication when there is literally no other moment in life where speaking at 250+ words per minute will be of benefit (it will, as a matter of fact be of great detriment since people will just tune you out). For me, Debate is a classroom, not a game; it is meant for education on a topic, not for being manipulative to achieve a win. Yes, I know I just annoyed 85% of you, I'm good with that. :) Argument Specifics As far as arguments go: I will buy just about anything, though I have yet to hear a Kritik that was not a non-unique DA in disguise, and that's bad. Don't run non-unique DA's and call them K's, I won't buy that. I'd also like to echo the words of Gary Ribold when he says, "I disapprove of the tactic of pushing automatic privileging of any postmodern theory as the superior position, possessing the moral high ground over all other arguments (especially since I am a Christian)." Oh and here's a big one: NO TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS; if you are both arguing to do as the resolution says, then I am only left to vote to affirm which means the Neg may have won the debate but the ballot will go to the Aff because the Neg convinced me to vote for the resolution to pass! I love Stock-Issue Debate and On-Topic Debate, Meta-Debate is boring. That said, if you truly feel you're being abused, feel free to run procedurals, but there had better be articulated abuse. My goal in every round of debate is twofold: Have Fun, and Learn Something. Do that while keeping to the above recommendations, and we'll get along famously.

Joshua Wade - George Fox

n/a

Joy Johnson - CUNE

n/a

Joy Clarkson - Biola

Judith Case - George Fox

n/a

Karl Cline - George Fox

n/a

Katelyn Ridenour - George Fox

n/a

Katherine Mullaney - George Fox

n/a

Kathleen Trigg - FC

n/a

Katie Lucas - PLNU

Keith Green - Biola

I strongly prefer K debate. Be warned: if you run a K with Marxism, Biopolitcs, Orientalism/ Po Co you will have to go deeper then a shell.    History: i have coached with Biola for two years, and I competed in Parli debate for two years with Biola University. I also did speech with them for one semester. I also competed for 4 years in STOA and NCFCA Voting: I vote on what you tell to me, provided you’ve put in the work on it. Eg, if you run a really horrid T, that is missing most of its parts, saying “a priori ” doesn’t mean you win.  On Procedurals: if you’ve lost ground, prove it to me. Otherwise, I default to competing interpretations. I will usually not vote on vagueness and unpopular procedurals except if they are really, really, necessary.    On K’s: I LOVE K’s. PLEASE RUN EXPERIMENTAL K’S IF YOU HAVE THEM. The way to make me happy is to have a unique K, with a CITED LIT BASE, a INTERESTING ALT and run by teams who understand the K they are running.      On Alts: I understand that reject alts are really common and do fit the average criticism, BUT if you run an alt that is more than just reject, it greatly increases your chances of me picking you up. (provided you can defend it)hint: non-violence can be very effective. I like project K’s, I really dislike.  THEORY and LIT bases: I have read extensively from Foucault, Butler, Spivak, Saide, West, Saussure, Derrida, Althusser, Marx, bell hooks, Nietzsche, Barthes, Bhabha, Beauvoir, Edelman, Segwick, Wilderson, Sexton,  Baudrillard, Jameson, Zizek Fannon, Fiere, Chomsky and Bell, and Ghandi.    I am familiar/have read the following schools of theory: Femm, Queer, Po-Co, Marxist, Critical Race Theory, anti-blackness and afro-pessimisnm, Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, reader response, intersectionality, and Eco-Fem. I do not like Deep Eco, and I do not enjoy psychoanalytic. I DO NOT LIKE ANTHRO K’s. Other kinds of lit bases I am not as well versed in which means you may have to a run a specific thesis block. I enjoy personal narratives as advocacy provided you make it clear how to weigh them IN ROUND. Same goes with performance debate.    On Speed: gotta go fast! I can follow nearly all CLEAR speed. If you mumble I will not flow it.  On Trichot: I will never vote for you on a fact res. The first person to say the word fact loses. Period. Same for value. Just run policy or I will be mad. Impacts: I like them to be clear, well warranted and realistic. Running nuclear war as an impact is bad, and any good team can beat that. I will vote on critical impacts if you actually terminalize them. Saying their imperialist is not an impact. You need to explain to me the pre/post fiat impacts.  I love GOOD WARRANTED impact scenarios. Just saying “econ improves therefor JOBS” is a good way to lose. Do impact calculus EVEN FOR YOUR CRITICAL IMPACTS. Warrants: have them for important aspects of your advocacy. Preferably for everything. Calling out NO WARRANT is not an argument, it is at the very least, poor defense.. Points of Order: you should call them. I will try to protect as much as I can, for new arguments, but I will miss some. Don’t abuse POO though. CP: I agree with Sean Hansen: “I think PICs are a good strategy decision, while delays and 50 states tend to be lazy strategies unless specifically justified. I think topical CPs are not only theoretically legitimate, but also probably the only way to allow NEG reciprocal access to the round (though I’ve picked up AFFs who have argued otherwise). I am also open to conditional CPs, and even multiple conditional positions, but allow AFF theory responses equal weight. My openness to CPs generates a corresponding openness to good perm debates, although I tend towards the perspective that legitimate perms use all of AFF text and some or all of CP text (unless severance is somehow justified, which can certainly be done, but is a hard theory battle to win). Perms should have a net benefit, and should usually be run with solvency deficits / turns to the alt.” Speech: I start at 30spks, and go down. If you get lower than 26 you pissed me off. Interpreting my non- verbal’s : 1. If I knock that I means I like your argument. 2. If I laugh, that’s means something funny has occurred. If you can’t figure out what it is, its probably you. 3. If I stop flowing, that’s bad. Give me things to flow. 4. If I stare at your team during rebuttals I’m listening to a new argument, and wondering if you are going to call it. 5. If I shrug that means I’m not impressed but I can buy it. 6. Nodding quickly means I agree with what you are sating. Speaking of things that piss me off: 1. Any kind of racist, sexist, homophobic, transist, bi, ablest, imperialist, classist, ethnocentrism, exceptioanlism, patriarchal, and jingoist statements as well as generally being unaware of one’s privilege will KILL your speaker points, and may cost you the round. 2. Repeating arguments. 3. Interrupting speeches. 4. Not taking ANY questions. (taking at least one won’t hurt you) 5. Lying about what the other team has or has not done. 6. Being rude. (don’t tell me their DA is crap, I’ll know) 7. Looking at your competition, unless it’s a diag/expo round.

Kyle Usery - CCU

n/a

Kym Davis - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Lacy Larson - Bethel Univ

Larissa Bloom - CCU

n/a

Leah Smith - CCU

n/a

Lisa Witt - CCU

n/a

Lorina Schrauger - PLNU

Judging Background             While I am new to the debate judging experience, I am not new to the overall activity.  I was an IE coach and judge for Biola University for 4 years and am currently a coach for PLNU.  In another life, I would want to be a debater, but for this life, I have been working on understanding this activity by observing real rounds in past tournaments and critiquing practice rounds at PLNU practices.   Judging Philosophy             In light of my background, I view debate as a showcase in good storytelling as well as an exercise in sound logic and argumentation.  So, tell me a coherent story: how do the elements of your case (plan/CP, ads/DAs, Ks or whatever you decide to run) show that you’re winning the round?  Tie everything together; give me the big picture.  I also like to hear clear concise <a name="_GoBack"></a>claims, evidence of research, breadth and depth of knowledge, use of logic.  If you decide to run something complicated, tell me why this is going to win you the round.               Organization is important.  Tell me the exact location on the flow that you are addressing.  Don’t expect me to bridge any gaps in your argumentation.                 Be communicative.  From the rounds I have watched, I have learned that I’m not a fan of speeding.  Speak conversationally.   Use humor.               Argue with ethos—be professional.  Not just with your opponents, but also with your partner.  Being a shmendrik will not win you points.

Luke Paulin - CCU

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.

Matt Lenell - CCU

I’m a recent graduate serving as an assistant coach, with 5 years competition experience in high school and collegiate debate. As with anyone recently changing sides at a tournament, I understand the difficulty arising from the vast differences in judging paradigms. I’ll listen to any reasonably sound arguments you want to make, but I do judge through the lens of logic.   Don’t make up facts; I’ll probably know…   I tend to be mostly flow based and tabula rasa when I can stifle my personal opinion. Sarcasm is acceptable, and persuasion is a must. I will vote on whatever criteria and voters you offer within reason. Whatever you do, don’t run a procedural half-heartedly. Example: NEG offers T and claims education as a standard/ voter, NEG then proceeds to adapt DA’s to apply to on case; BAD IDEA, you just delinked your own T. Debate lingo is fine. Spread debating is not. I’m looking for quality ideas. Adding metaphors to explain link stories is also a plus.   Any other paradigm Q’s may be asked in round.   ML

Matt Johnson - FC

n/a

Michael Marse - CBU

I am a traditional debate theorist.  I have coached and competed in Parli, NFA L/D, and CEDA for more than fifteen years.  I have been a DoF and taught Argumentation full time for 10 years. What I do not like: Kritiks - I have never voted for a K, because nearly every one I have ever heard is a non-unique DA dressed up in the shabby clothes of an intellectual argument.   Topical Counterplans - I have a resolutional focus, not a plan focus.  If the neg. goes for a topical counterplan, I vote in affirmation of the resolution regardless of who "wins" the debate. Speed - Going faster than quick conversational rate robs the activity of many of its educational outcomes, though not all.  It is good for winning in some instances, bad for education in many others.  Therefore I will allow you to go as fast as you would like, but I will vote quickly on any claim of abuse on speed.  Asking a question in the round like, "Do you mind speed?" in such a way as to really ask, "Are you going to be a stupid judge?" is going to annoy me.  The emperor has no clothes, many debaters are afraid to say anything for fear of looking stupid in rounds.  Same goes for most judges who are proud of their ability to flow quickly.  The best you can do if you spread in a round is to win with very low points. What I do like: Topicality Arguments - The deeper into linguistic philosophy, the better.  Have bright lines, don't kick-out of T without demonstrating how they have truly clarified their position since the 1st Aff. speech.  Otherwise, it is a timesuck and I will vote on abuse in those instances.  My opinion on T comes from my resolutional focus.  I don't believe it is good debate theory to argue that the affirmative plan replaces the resolution, since that would lead to more pre-written cases and a devaluing of the breadth of knowledge required to be an excellent citizen after graduation. Negative going for a win on stock issues - If it's a policy round and the negative wins (not mitigates, but wins outright) any stock issue, they win. Collegiality - I believe in debate as a tool of clarity and invitational rhetoric.  If you are mean, or deliberately use a strategy to confuse, you will lose.  Common examples are affirmatives not taking any questions to clarify on plan text in Parli, using unnecessarily academic terms without given adequate synonyms, etc.  If you win on the flow, but demonstrate unethical practices, you lose in life and on my ballot. To conclude: The proper metaphor for debate is not "a game", but is instead "a laboratory".  The laboratory is looking to achieve truth, and have proven methods for getting there.  We should be experimenting, and in some cases pushing boundaries.  We must also be able to deal with the failures that sometime come with those experiments.  The point of debate is not to win rounds, but to produce good people who know how to think and speak effectively after they graduate. Please feel free to ask and question to clarify these statement, or anything I might have missed.

Michael Dreher - Bethel Univ

Michael Dreher Director of Forensics, Professor and Director, M.A. in Communication, Bethel University Number of debates judged             (2013-2014): 6                (2014-2015): 10 Number of parli debates judged      (2013-2014): 5                (2014-2015): 10   Speaker point average - 2013-2014 NCCFI: 26.63, sd = 1.40 No. of years judging parli: 21; 32 years of being active in debate in one form or another (that makes me feel really old). In 2013-2014, I only judged parli at two tournaments because I was in tab a lot (15 out of 18 tournaments last year). Please don’t confuse my lack of rounds as a lack of interest/being around debate (as witnessed by this really long philosophy). I’ve judged quite a number of parli, LD and policy debates, but only 1 IPDA debate, so if I’m somehow in the pool for IPDA, then know that I’m not as familiar with the format. When I judged it at the 2014 NCCFI, I didn’t have any idea of the rules – so while I may be slightly more familiar with the rules now, as we all know, there’s a difference between knowing rules and being familiar with how those rules are practiced and interpreted. We simply don’t do IPDA in our part of the country. Know that I’m more likely to follow the letter of the rules rather than actual practice when those two concepts are in conflict. I assume that the IPDA ballot style is the way in which I’m supposed to vote. I’m not sure how much of what I write below applies to IPDA (it’s more so for parli/LD), but it’ll give you a sense of how I process arguments. Specifically, when it comes to quantity vs. quality of arguments: Yes, I do flow. You’ll recognize me - I’m the one who uses the really giant sketch pad. I’ve used large sketch pads for 32 years. I write big – it’s Biblical (see Galatians 6:11). I use the flow as a guide to help me remember; that doesn’t mean you’ll necessarily drop the round if you miss the 8th point off the third subpoint on the impact scenario. What it does mean is that I look to the reasonability of both positions before determining whether that matters. “Lump and dump” done well is just fine with me. If you can cover everything by grouping, go for it. There is a need to strike logical, structured argument along with persuasive abilities. Many people come into parli with a policy background, which is fine.  What separates the top parli (and for that matter, NFA-LD) debaters is their ability to adapt to whatever kind of audience they have. You’ll find that I tend to default to a policymaking paradigm unless the debaters argue otherwise. I’ll listen to other kinds of debates (fact, value, etc.), but I’ve heard quite a few teams that have terrible criteria when it comes to weighing value or fact rounds. If you’re going to run fact or value – give me very clear criteria as to how to weigh the arguments – I’ll filter all the arguments through whatever becomes the criterion. And please (for all that is good and holy) don’t run preponderance of evidence as a fact criterion. Those rounds just lead to unwarranted speed and bad, blippy arguments. Opp in fact/value rounds shouldn’t be afraid to bring up countervalue/countercriterion, but opps can still win even through the gov criterion. If you’re a big fan of tiny brink, large impact DA’s, I’m probably not your type of judge.  I’m not likely to buy that a $10 million increase in the budget deficit will lead to nuke war. Remember the trinity: probability, timeframe and magnitude; I tend to look at the three in that particular order. Speed: I tend to prefer moderate speed in large part because I’m a “deep flow” judge. I don’t flow only taglines; I flow the underlying warrants and backing underneath the taglines. So, the more I hear (not in a speed sense, but rather a “what I understand” sense), the better I understand your arguments, and that means more that you give me to think about for your side at the end of the round. Accordingly, I tend to take a long time in terms of rendering the decision. I’m likely not to tell you my decision right away not because I am anti-disclosure, but I find that writing my way through the arguments in the round helps me to clearly articulate why I end up voting a certain way. I’ll be happy to chat about the round right away and give you some helpful advice, but it does take me a few minutes to work through your arguments. You can find me later and I can talk about round specifics in more detail. Know, though, that your ballots won’t just have “see oral disclosure,” and your ballots will have a strong sense of how I understood and weighed your arguments. Case side vs. DA’s/Kritiks: I think case side debates are underutilized, and dissecting a gov case can be a thing of beauty. I still vividly remember a Creighton-Grove City round from NPDA several years back where Creighton basically tore apart the entire case without a single DA or T argument – because they could. K’s need impact, and a clear story of how they apply to the gov case, which includes the alternative and a sense of whether the K is pre or post-fiat. Many teams forget to weigh out their DA’s adequately – make sure that you tell me why your DA is more important than any accrued or potentially accrued gov’t advantage. Don’t just rely on “cross-apply the DA to case” – really show me how the DA’s intrinsic analysis outweighs the government’s specific case side analysis. Topicality: I’ll vote on it. My quirk is that you don’t need to give me a long abuse block. Tell me the violation(s), and why they’re violations, and move on! Either I’ll vote on the violation or I won’t. I’ve never seen a round won on “Gov decreases education.” If I’m a one-judge panel and I hear a huge abuse block, I’ll probably stop flowing and start to get annoyed. If I’m on a 3-judge panel, I’ll live with it, but don’t be surprised if I stop flowing. As far as citation of evidence in round is concerned, I'm not the world's biggest fan. However, if someone does ask you where you found some information, I'd hope you would have an answer. I’ve already had to adjudicate one evidence challenge this year; as a result, I'm a bit more sensitive to made-up arguments/sources.  Plan text: I don’t need a copy unless you’re really fast, and in that case, I’m probably having other problems keeping a deep flow. Do make sure that we all understand the plan text though. Give the opp a chance to clarify plan and you won’t bite into a spec argument. I have been known to pull the trigger on spec a time or two, but that comes from my policymaking paradigm – if I don’t know whose job it is to deal with plan, then I’m not sure why I should accept that policy. I don’t have to know every specific, but I do need to have a general sense of how the plan functions. Not answering a legitimate question about plan only increases the propensity of a spec argument. Performance arguments: The reason I tend to have problems with them is that they essentially run as privileged narratives, which makes it really hard for the opp because the ground is so skewed. Arguments based on personal history violate Section 4B of the NPDA Rules of Debating, so for me, there's even a higher threshhold in terms of why someone would break rules everyone has agreed to by entering the tournament.  New arguments/points of order: I do protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals. So POO’s aren’t necessary. Run 'em if you want or if you’re afraid I’ve missed something. Offense/Defense: Defense is underrated. If a team can mitigate the effect of an argument, that can often be the most time-efficient strategy available, particularly if the other team’s argument didn’t have much of an impact scenario anyway. Tag-team debate: I’ve accepted that it’s now part of the activity. That said, one of my roles is to evaluate you as a speaker. If your partner keeps answering all your POI’s for you, or becomes a significant part of the speech, then I have no choice than to give the speaker points to your partner. NFA-LD rules: I follow the 2014 rules. In particular, they do tend to limit study counterplans. One last thing – NCCFI is a special tournament. While not all of us share the same Christian commitment, I would hope that we can agree on a few common beliefs: a) civility, b) respecting other’s interpretations of faith, even if we don’t necessarily agree with those interpretations ourselves, and c) helping to keep the NCCFI a special place. I’ve been here since the beginning (when NCCFI didn’t conflict with Novice Nats, which I directed for a few years).  I worry that over time, I’ve seen less and less difference between NCCFI and other tournaments. Debate is one of the best places to show that, while we can use debate to “sharpen iron,” as it were, we can do it in a way that is ultimately a blessing and an honor to God and each other. The 2014 tournament brought me a bit of hope in this area. I hope that the 2015 tournament will continue to expand on that hope.

Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Molly Brown - ORU

n/a

Monica Cutler - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Patrick Bunn - George Fox

n/a

Randy Densmore - George Fox

n/a

Rodney Wren - KWU

n/a

Ruby OConnor - George Fox

n/a

Ryan Dicovitsky - SHU

n/a

Sarah Swygard - Covenant

n/a

Savannah Sanburg - George Fox

n/a

Sean Hansen - Biola

Philosophy as follows:    TLDR:  I will pursue objectivity as much as I can while admitting my own unique subjectivity. I will vote for whatever you tell me to vote for on the flow, and accept any framework or paradigm therein. <ul> <li> I have no problem with procedurals, Ks, performance, or whatever else you want to run, as long as you give me a solid way to interact that paradigm with the other arguments in the round. </li> <li> That also goes for good policy debate; I will always prefer well-warranted positions and I will be looking for good clash and impact calculus in both constructives and rebuttals. </li> <li> I dislike being forced to do my own impact calculus, so please do so at least in the rebuttals to make my decision easier.   </li> <li> My easy cheat philosophy is that turning case / advocacy and controlling root cause is probably the easiest way to my ballot. </li> <li> I despise fact debate and have similarly volatile feelings towards value, so please run either policy or critical argumentation. </li> </ul>   Otherwise, run what you want and give justification for it and I’ll have fun too! â&tilde;º For other preferences (admitting my own subjectivity), please see below:   Procedurals and Theory: I'm a bit of a theory nerd, so few things get me more excited than good procedural theory debate, but nothing can make me more bored than bad procedural debate. <ul> <li> I default to the belief that T should be examined under competing interpretations (as evaluated by the offense under the standards debate). </li> <li> Even if you run articulated abuse, I always look to the standards debate to prefer one team over another, and think that your standards should include substantial impact framing for offense. </li> <li> I would always prefer if NEG runs competing interp or even potential abuse and then ran case turns rather than articulated abuse, which then requires me to sit through an additional 7 min of arguments that don't link (see delivery notes on me being bored). </li> <li> That being said, if you just run apriori fairness and education as voters, I will default to articulated abuse and look for the requisite arguments. </li> <li> I also think good theory usually has a clear brightline for the interpretation that the other team can meet / violate. </li> <li> I admire creativity in running new responses to procedurals, but am familiar with traditional responses as well. </li> <li> I don't vote on RVIs for T, because I don't think being topical is inherently a reason to vote for the AFF. I may consider RVIs on other procedurals if they are well-warranted and impacted, but time skew arguments in general usually indicate that either you or your partner misappropriated time during your speech to allow for the skew.  </li> <li> Not a fan of spec arguments, but you could always change my mind by reading one that doesn’t sound unnecessary. Bear Saulet says it best: “Your Spec argument is presumably to protect your normal means-based link arguments, so just read those arguments on case.” </li> </ul>   Case debate: <ul> <li> LOC’s that allocate time and effort to the line-by-line on case make a happy Sean (although if you have awesome off-case that require more time, then you make the strategical choice – it won’t hurt ballot or speaks if you win on the flow). </li> <li> Especially great if it clashes over controlling uniqueness and link solvency. </li> <li> I think impact defense is a lost art and can grant you unique strategic ground in the round. </li> </ul>   CP: <ul> <li> I think PICs are a good strategy decision, while delays and 50 states tend to be lazy strategies unless specifically justified. </li> <li> I think topical CPs are not only theoretically legitimate, but also probably the only way to allow NEG reciprocal access to the round (though I’ve picked up AFFs who have argued otherwise). </li> <li> I am also open to conditional CPs, and even multiple conditional positions, but allow AFF theory responses equal weight. </li> <li> My openness to CPs generates a corresponding openness to good perm debates, although I tend towards the perspective that legitimate perms use all of AFF text and some or all of CP text (unless severance is somehow justified, which can certainly be done, but is a hard theory battle to win). </li> <li> Perms should have a net benefit, and should usually be run with solvency deficits / turns to the alt. </li> </ul>   K: I am a huge fan of good critical debate, and enjoy hearing new arguments. <ul> <li> Your framework should give clear indications of weighing arguments in round, as this is the first place I look to evaluate my decision. </li> <li> Since I think critical argumentation can be some of the most important argumentation to happen in our league, I also think your alt and alt solvency need to be solid. If you tell me to vote for you to uphold a certain ideology and win that I should do so, be assured that I will do whatever your alt asks, so make it worthwhile. </li> <li> Solvency needs to clearly articulate what it solves for and how. Blipping “Solvency 1: the personal becomes the political. Solvency 2: radical change is the only solution” are lazy arguments and can be answered with an equal lack of verve. </li> <li> I am most familiar with the literature base for rhetoric and media studies, post-structuralism, post-modernism, persuasion, and liberal education studies, but I love to learn new perspectives and ideas, so by all means run a project in front of me. </li> <li> In the last year, I think my ballots in K rounds (either given from AFF or NEF) tended to be split evenly for and against, so I’m just as open to any type of answers to K. </li> <li> You should probably explain how perms of methodological advocacies with policy plan texts function (and as always, provide a net benefit) </li> <li> I like clear Role of the Ballots that are read twice so I can be sure what my interaction is with the critique. </li> <li> As per procedurals, I do enjoy creative responses to Ks that provide depth of thought and clash. </li> </ul>   Performance debate: Quite honestly, I have similar judging paradigms and habits when judging performance / project / narrative positions as I do judging critical positions, so you can mostly see above for my preferences. I do find that the framework and theoretical debate becomes significantly more important in these rounds. I am open to hearing theory blocks or alternative advocacies from the opposing team in response.   Impact Calculus: <ul> <li> Good impact comparison MUST happen in order for me to resolve debate, including prioritization (with standards) of magnitude over probability, timeframe over reversibility, etc. </li> <li> Must happen at least in the rebuttals, is probably also a good idea in the constructives. </li> <li> I tend to prefer impacts of probability and timeframe over magnitude and reversibility, and have found myself voting more and more for the most proximal impacts (which are usually systemic in my mind) if no clash happens to tell me which I should prefer. </li> <li> If no calculus happens, I will prefer the “worst” impact, but at that point I think your rebuttals aren't doing a very good job because I have to assert more of my own assumptions into the round.  </li> </ul>   Delivery / Speaker Points: <ul> <li> I don't mind speed, as long you are articulate enough for me to understand you. </li> <li> I will call clear if you are inarticulate, but that has happened exactly once, because I had a sinus infection and couldn’t hear out of one ear. </li> <li> Speaker points tend to be focused on your argumentation, with considerations of your delivery proper a secondary concern. </li> <li> I generally reward between 23-30 <ul> <li> A 23 usually looks like: weak argumentation, poor strategy, inconsistent articulation / trying to speed when you can’t, and bad time allocation. </li> <li> A 30 usually looks like: exceptional refutation that combines great defense and offense, top-notch time efficiency, clarity, and outstanding strategy / round awareness. </li> </ul> </li> <li> I rarely protect against new arguments unless it’s an outround; I will be flowing, it’s your job to call arguments to my attention (plus I think that points of order can be of significant strategical value as well). </li> <li> I think partner communication is not only desirable but vital in this sport, so by all means communicate in-round with your partner. I will only flow what comes from the designated speaker’s mouth. </li> <li> I am trying to work on my nonverbal expressions in round so that you can keep track of how much I like / dislike your arguments before I release my RFD. <ul> <li> If I think you are going for the wrong argument I will be frowning at you a lot, with lots of furrowed eyebrows and extended eye contact (unusual since I’m usually looking at my flow). </li> <li> If I drop my pen, it’s usually because I think you’re repeating an argument and hope that you’ll move on, otherwise I’ll get bored. </li> <li> If I’m really Really REALLY bored, you will see lots of dropping of my pen and looking around the room. </li> <li> If I look at the team who isn’t speaking during the rebuttals, I probably think the speaker is making a new argument and I’m waiting to see if someone will call it. </li> <li> A quick head nod means I like your argument; a continuous head nod means I understand and you should move on. </li> </ul> </li> <li> I don’t care whether you sit or stand; I will (usually) be looking at my flow. </li> </ul>   Things that I don’t enjoy / make my decision harder / lose you speaker points: <ol> <li> Being rude / racist / patriarchal / homophobic / etc. in your rhetoric. </li> <li> Neglecting impact calculus in the rebuttals (AUGH). </li> <li> Politics DAs that assume your bill is “top of the docket” without any reason it should be. I’m going to quote K. Calderwood’s philosophy on this: “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 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”. </li> </ol>   Again, a caveat to all the preceding observations and a return to the overview: I will vote for you if you win on the flow with well-warranted offense and good impact / framework calculus.

Shane Pech - George Fox

n/a

Sierra Williams - George Fox

n/a

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

<h1>Skip Rutledge                                                                 Point Loma Nazarene University</h1> 25 +/- years judging debate                                                    14+ years judging NPDA Parliamentary 6 +/- years as a competitor in policy debate (college and high school)   Academic Debate Background: Competed 6 years +/- in team policy in High School and College (NDT at Claremont). Then coached and judged at the high school level for a number of years as a part time volunteer.  Returned to academia and have coached since 1989 in CEDA, we switched to Parli in about 1995. In addition to coaching teams and judging at tournaments I have been active in NPDA and helped at Parli Summer Workshops to keep fresh and abreast of new ideas.  I have also tried to contribute conference papers and a few journal articles on debate.  I love well reasoned and supported theory arguments where debaters are aware of the foundational issues and prior research on topic.   Judging Paradigm: For lack of a better term, I embrace what I know of as the Argumentation Critic paradigm, but certainly not to the exclusion of appreciating strong delivery skills.  I encourage fewer, well-developed arguments with clear claims, reasonable warrants, and strong evidentiary support to back up those warrants, rather than the shotgun method of throwing lots of claims out, hoping something slips through the others’ defense.  That probably makes me more of a big picture critic, rather than one that gets fixated on the minutia. I do recognize too, that big pictures can be defined by small brushstrokes, or that details can count heavily in proving big arguments. I don’t hold Parli case/plans to the same level of proof that I might in CEDA/NDT since they are constructed in 15 minutes without direct access to deep research, so spec arguments are not very compelling in many cases.  Disadvantages, solvency arguments, or counter-plans share the same burden of proof that the government does. Impacts are very important, but the establishing the links are critical. Debaters should be well read in current events, philosophy and especially political philosophy.  Poorly constructed arguments and/or blatant misstatements will not prevail just because someone happens to not respond to them.  While I attempt to minimize intervention, claims like “200 million Americans a year are dying of AIDS” does not become true just because it might be dropped (taken from an actual round).  I think your word is your bond.  If you say it with conviction, you are attesting that it is true.  If you are not quite certain, it is preferable to frame a claim in that manner.  The prohibition on reading evidence in a round is not carte blanche to make up whatever unsubstantiated claims you think may advance your arguments. I enjoy case clash, smart arguments, exposing logical fallacies, using humor, etc. . .  I dislike rudeness, overly quick delivery, or presenting counter warrants rather than engaging case straight up.  I will try to make the decision based the content of the arguments and also rely on delivery for determining speaker points.  It is not uncommon for me to give low point wins.  I also think it is the debaters’ job to debate the resolution, not my own views on styles of debate I prefer to hear.  If a resolution has strong value implications, please debate it as such. Likewise if there is a strong policy slant, debate it as such.  Additionally, I do not feel that there is only one way to debate.  I will not try to implement unwritten rules such as the Government must argue for a change in the status quo.  They certainly should if the resolution requires it, but may not have to if it does not.  I think the resolution is key to the debate.  This does not negate Kritiks. It invites sound logic and framing of Kritiks and alternatives. I do have some a priori biases.  I believe the resolution is what is being debated. That has implications on counter plans.  My a priori bias is that they should not be topical and should be competitive.  Just because the negative team finds another, perhaps even “better way” than the affirmative chose, to prove the resolution is true, does not seem to me to automatically warrant a negative ballot. I am though open to good theory debates, You should first know my beginning basis of understanding on this issue.  And although I enjoyed debating in NDT and CEDA, I think the speed of delivery in that format was built around the need to read evidence and specific research to back up the claims and warrants.  The absence of such evidence reading in NPDA should invite more considerate and slower argument analysis, not provide opportunities to shotgun out many more, less developed arguments.  I believe the reason for not allowing researched evidence briefs to be read in this particular format of debate was to encourage public focused debate, which implies a slower rate of delivery and genuine consideration of case.  The gamey technique of negatives throwing out lots of flak, or obfuscating issues to throw off governments time use, only to collapse to a few key arguments, does not seem to advance strong argumentation development, a fair testing of the resolution, or solid speaking skills..

Steven Vaughn - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Terra Ryan - George Fox

n/a

Victor Rose - CBU

Kritik – I’ll listen and give reasonable ground, but the framework and alternative need to be incredibly solid otherwise I just hear complaints that are unstructured without a reason to vote, I believe in their legitimacy and value but often times execution is lacking Topicality – Excellent, linguistic challenges offer new perspectives D/A – Impact calculus and two world alternatives in the last rebuttals are the most persuasive types of policy/value arguments Speed – Definitely get through your speeches and finish your arguments, if your opponents or myself have trouble following you that is no bueno, yes opposition and myself will clear you Sportsmanship – We’re all here as members of the same community, be polite, enjoy the tournament, and create a positive environment that fosters education

Yemisi Egbewole - George Fox

n/a

Zachary Noriega - Whitworth Univ

n/a

jay bourne - cumberlands

Background of the critic: Debated policy 2 years in high school, CEDA and NFA LD in college, coached at Asbury College for 8 years, where we competed in IE, NFA LD, and Parli, and coached past 9 years at University of the Cumberlands, where we do mainly parli,  IPDA and IE's Rounds judged this year- 50 + Judging/ Coaching - 20+ years (CEDA 2 years, NFA LD 6 years, 15 years NPDA) Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I am a flow judge. I don't subscribe to the tabula rasa approach- I think that everyone has preferences and biases, overt or latent. However, I attempt to remove any of my personal beliefs from the debate round (try to have metaphorical horse blinders) and let the debate be what the teams construct during the round . Personally, I fit best with a gaming paradigm, where everything is pretty much fair within the basic debate framework and guidelines. I do believe that there are other formats to debate than just policy, so yes, I am open to the trichotomy. For me, resolutions of fact are a legitimate form of debate- although I prefer a detailed level of analysis more than an example war with that approach.. If teams want to take a resolution of fact with a policy res, and the other team clashes, then that is fine with me. Since I also have a background in CEDA, value debate is legitimate also. Policy is what I judge most often in rounds, and I am very comfortable with that format. Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making : Minimal in decision of win loss. Does factor into speaker points. I dislike cursing. Speed is not a factor for me with CEDA background, but I don't believe parli was a format meant to be done at CEDA speed- that it should be at least a bit slower. Ideally, parli can cover a variety of issues at a good clip and throw in a good joke or two whereby a general audience could understand most of what was said, save for procedural jargon.   Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: whatever provides clash is fine with me. Ideally, opp will have a lot of on case argumentation in their speeches, but sometimes gov frames the debate poorly, so the round makes more sense and can be more organized off case. I prefer it when gov teams don't ignore their entire case argumentation after the PMC. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: Kritiks are fine with viable alternative frameworks provided. I have voted on them a few times, but to be honest, it seems they often were run as a time suck or an attempt to snow the other team with debate jargon. I guess I am old school.   I really don't go for performance styles, or using debate as a platform to discuss an issue that may be of great importance to you personally but does not fit into the framework of the resolution. Any additional comments: <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:24.1pt; margin-left:.25in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 0in left .25in; text-autospace:ideograph-numeric"> 1.I prefer NOT to intervene- make my decision for me. Tell me how to vote. <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:24.1pt; margin-left:.25in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 0in left .25in; text-autospace:ideograph-numeric"> 2.If I nod my head during the debate, it means "I got it"- so if you want to move on fine- if not, fine also. Nodding my head does not mean I buy your position, just that I understand your argument. <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:24.1pt; margin-left:.25in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 0in left .25in; text-autospace:ideograph-numeric"> 3.I prefer nontopical counterplans 4.One of my majors in college was philosophy, so I prefer in depth argumentation. Give warrants, don't just blip responses 100% of speaking time. Tell me why your argument is better, impact it out.   5. Regarding POI's, I will give everyone plenty of time to make the arguments they wish, don't interrupt each other here.  Usually you will do best in defending yourself by exactly pointing out on flow where you think you addressed the issue or where you are cross applying previous comments made.

justin durbin - cumberlands

n/a

2015 National Christian College Forensics Invitational