FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Testerman - Lewis & Clark

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

Andrew Dorr - UWash

Experience: 4 years of high school debate (LD and Policy) and 4 years of NPDA debate. General: Like most judges, I will do my best to evaluate the round objectively and without intervening. I like teams which clash well while showing strong reasoning, clear warrants and specific impact weighing. I can usually follow speed (if you are clear) but if I can’t, I will yell clear. If you go fast, just make sure it’s because you have a lot of good arguments to make and not simply for the sake of going fast. Overall, I really enjoy debate and I think it is important that everyone has fun. I know that rounds can get competitive and that sometimes things get heated, but just remember to “leave it on the field” and stay friendly before and after the round. Specific Arguments: 1.    Theory/Topicality- I have a fairly high threshold for theory. If you want me to vote on theory you should probably spend a lot of time on it and tell me where specific real abuse happened. If there isn’t real abuse, I am not likely to vote a team down. I don’t like it when debaters drop a bunch of jargon in their standards and then don’t explain it. Basically, theory can be interesting but if you are going to divert the round away from the topic then make sure there is a good reason to do so and explain your arguments why this is true. 2.    Counterplans- Counterplans can be very strategic for the negative, and often give them access to better offense then a disad alone would grant them. I am open to any kind of counterplan, but can also empathize with affirmatives that have their entire case stolen by tricky negative shenanigans. If you as the affirmative think this is what happened, then see my opinions on theory and decide what to do from there. 3.    Kritiks- I personally do not run kritiks very often but I am willing to vote for them if they are clear and well run. I am moderately well read but you should still explain your arguments in a way that doesn’t rely on jargon/name dropping. I appreciate it when teams slow down for their thesis and accept questions if they are raised. If you try to win by confusing your opponent, then you will probably get low speaker points. Despite all of this, I do really like good criticisms that are well explained. I am impressed by arguments which teach me something and kritiks can definitely do this. 4.    Disadvantages/Case- I love creative “straight up” arguments and think that teams that can generate offense of the other side’s positions are very compelling. I generally look at these arguments from an “offense/defense” perspective and obviously prefer offense.

Andy Larson - Whitman

I think it will be most instructive to list my preferred 2NR strategies (these also tend to be strategies that I am most qualified to judge): 1) DA + Case 2) Adv CP + DA + Case 3) CP + DA 4) Ks with links to the plan + Case 5) Anything that requires zero topic research   K Affs: I think you should have a topical advocacy even if it is not a “plan” in the traditional sense.  I tend to lean neg on framework issues, but I will judge these kinds of debates as fairly as possible.   Kritiks: Buzzwords do not help me, especially if your preferred philosopher has made up this word (this includes words not used in their dictionary sense, and words that are an amalgamation of several other words).  K overviews help me only insofar as they provide me with a thesis and some impact calculus, assuming that I will understand your "embedded clash" from the overview is a risk. I would prefer that you debate the K like a DA, doing good line by line.  I will NOT turn a 2NR or 2AR that does not refute the other team’s major offense directly, into a slayer impact turn for you in the post round.    CP Theory: I lean neg on most CP theory questions with the major exception of competition.  I think that CPs should be both textually and functionally competitive.  Conditionality should be limited to around 2 or maybe 3 advocacies.  I will judge kick counterplans assuming that SQ is a logical option is an argument made.   T: I usually lean toward reasonability when evaluating T; this has become less true for me every year I have remained in the activity.  Spec is not a winner in front of me unless it is nuanced and supported by the literature, if you think this might not be the case, I suggest you read a real strategy instead.    Other Things: Personal attacks are not cool, in any context (this applies to both sides in K debates and will be enforced with substantial deductions of speaker points).  I like jokes and points of connection, they are important for high speaks.

Ben Dodds - Oregon

Name: Ben Dodds School: Oregon Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. 2014 NPTE 100% rewrite -- read me even if you know me I think honesty in philosophies is one of the best ways to advance the activiy. Let me be perfectly clear what I am trying to accomplish by writing this: I want to be the top preferred judge at every tournament that I go to. I have judged every NPTE since 2009, and attended each since 2006. Seriously, I want to judge all the debates, all the types of debaters, and I want to judge seniors one last time before they go save the earth. I enjoy nothing more than seeing people at nationals when they are at the top of their game. I will stay in the pool until the tournament ends, Oregon debaters left in or not. That is a promise that may be relevant to you filling out your form, I'll stay till the end like a hired judge.  While, there are people that I don’t think I am an ideal ordinal #1 for, I work really hard to make sure that I get better at whatever flaws are the reason for that, so give me a shot to be your #1. I will proceed to explain why I think I am a good judge in most all debates, and why you may want to consider me for your ordinal #1. The exact question: what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you – I did policy debate for the majority of my career. I ended with a few years of parli at Oregon. I think flowing is a very important judging job that I try very hard at. I will use my flow as the official scorebook. I think letting the debaters use their arguments to win is important, so I try very hard to keep my own thoughts out of the debate. However, where there are thoughts that I think are better served by the debaters knowing them, I will let them know them. In my opinion, the number one reason I should be your number one judge is that you will know how I feel about your arguments far earlier than other judges will let on. I will try my absolute hardest to make sure I have communicated to you what I am thinking about your arguments as you make them. I will use verbal and non verbal communication to get this information communicated. This season I have:  Asked for things to be repeated, asked for acronyms to be broken down, asked for things to be written, asked for people to be clearer, asked for people to be louder, asked for people to have more distinct tags, given people obvious signs to move on or told them to move on, and used other obvious nonverbal to verbal communication like: laughter and smiles, head shaking, exaggerated nodding and knocking, and even flat out telling folks that “I don’t get this, explain it better”. Do not be astonished if I ask you a question like that mid speech. I do all of this because I love you all and love good debates. I want to you be in my head with me the whole debate. I don’t think it is valuable for you to invest 25 min in something that I can’t vote on because I couldn’t hear. Similarly, I don’t want anyone spinning their wheels for 20 min when I got it in two. So, I really want to be your top judge, and should be because you will not have a question about where I am at during a debate, but if you would rather debate in blissful ignorance, I’m not your person. Also, there are things that I will not pretend to know about the world. I took the classes I took. Learned whatever I learned, I remember whatever I remember, but not more than that. There are issues that you, as undergraduates, know more about than I do. If there is a confused look on my face or I seem to asking for more explanation a lot, you have hit on something that I don’t understand. You should not just read this argument to me, it should be clear to you that you have to teach it to me. These two things are not the same. Your ability to know the difference is the greatest skill of all. Reading the audience and dialing your message to their knowledge base. If you have not educated me well enough on your magic fission technology, don’t get mad at me for voting on the argument that it won’t work. Still sound like magic to me, that’s on you. Any judge not willing to admit that there are things that they do not know about the world is lying to themselves, and to you. Strike them, pref me, and teach me your argument. I flow things in columns. I prefer to flow from the top of one page to the bottom of it. I'll be on the laptop, so '4 pages or 1 page' is up to you. Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Please describe your approach to the following. 1.         Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 27-30 I have given 10-20 30s in competitive debates of consequence in my career. Most of them are at NPDA/NPTE. Every year there are one or two people spitting pure fire that weekend, so no, I am not the "never seen perfect" type. Debate is subjective, while there might not have been a perfect speech yet; I have seen people debate without a flaw that was relevant to the debate many times. If that is you: 30. Beyond that, I will say that reward good choices higher than pretty choices. I’d rather watch you explain the double turn for 3 min and sit than explain it for two and then go for your DA for two. I don’t like contradicting arguments being advanced in rebuttals, unless there is some explicit reason for it. I won’t floor people at 27 or lower unless they are repugnant, and as articulated above, you’ll get to know from me verbally before I let you just bury yourself in bad. It is very unlikely that you will get poor speaker points from me, because I will let you know what you are doing that I like mid debate. I am like the bowling bumpers of non-verbal communication. You should be able to score pretty well here. 2.         How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Anyone can do whatever they want. I think this is the right forum for debating about things with claims, warrants, and impacts. I am not scared of arguments based on the titles or format that they are delivered in. No on can make any argument without a claim, warrant and impact. If you have those three things, I don not care what you title it, how you structure it, or really anything more about it. You do you. As I stated above, I don’t like hearing contradictory arguments advanced in rebuttals, as by that time, I prefer to hear one strategy that is consistent being advanced, but I will hold out for a well-explained reason that contradictions are ok. Not my favorite, but certainly a winnable argument, just like all arguments are and should be. If you claim that contradictions are ok, and have a warrant and impact, you have made an argument. If you win the debate over that argument, you will win that argument. If you win an argument, I will filter the debate through that won point. 3.         Performance based arguments… Do whatever you want. I think I would be a good judge to try new things with. I have voted for all manor of performance debate as it has come into parli. I have seen parli evolve from the K being a fringe argument to performance being acceptable. I understand the theory that is in play in this debate as well. I am down to vote for either side of every issue on this discussion I am your judge for a new performance that Ks debate, but you’d better be ready to answer debate is good, because I am your judge for that argument too. I reject the notion that the argument framework: Ks cheat, or the argument framework: fiat is bad, are all that different. Just two sides of a coin, I am totally into watching a debate about those two things against each other. I’ll also entertain Ks vs performances, performance affs vs. performance negs, or whatever other arbitrary dichotomy you have to make between schools of thought. They are all just claims, warrants and impacts to me. 4.         Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I require a full shell to vote on T. The neg needs to prove they have an interp that should be preferred, that the aff does not meet that, and that I should vote on T. I will default to that interp until there is a counter interp and/or an argument that says that I should not evaluate interps against one another (reasonability). I will default that T is a voting issue until the aff convinces me otherwise. However, no, I do not require “in round abuse”, because that is arbitrary. Competing interpretations debate resolves this entirely, if that is how T is evaluated, then the interp is good or bad in theory, not practice, ergo, in-round abuse is irrelevant. If the aff wins reasonability, and has an interpretation of their own, that is usually a good enough out. Now, don’t get confused, the reasoning for arguments about in round vs out of round have a place, its just in the reasonability debate, not just drifting in the ether of T is not a voter. Competing interps might be bad because they don’t force the judge to evaluate in round abuse over potential abuse. See, just a claim, warrant, and impact, placed somewhere relevant. I think case lists make good topicality standards. That encapsulates your ground and limits claims well. This works for the AFF and NEG. 5.         Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? This question is silly. You all determine all of these things for me. Do I have opinions on these issue, yes, and I will list them here, but they are hardly relevant to the debate, because theory is not a hard issue for me to just listen to you debate about and vote on. This is totally up to you in the debate, I promise I have voted on the exact opposite of everything I am about to say about how I feel about theory. PICS – Arbitrary distinction. Can’t be good or bad if it is actually impossible to define. This argument usually boils down to complaints like you should not get that CP, or you should not get that many CPs, both are ok arguments to me, just not likely a reason why PICs are good or bad. There is likely another, better theory argument that your claim, warrant, and impact would fit under more intuitively. Perhaps the problem is that the CP is only a minor repair (CP - treaty without one penny)? Perhaps the problem is that the CP is competing through an artificial net benefit that only exists because of the CP (CP - aff in 3 days)? All arguments are conditional unless otherwise specified. While the neg should state this, and I could vote on the claim (with good warrant and impact :P); "vote AFF, they did not specify the status". Or better maybe, "err AFF on condo bad, they didn’t even specify." This form does not ask my opinion on the actual statuses of CPs, but you are getting them anyway. I don’t believe that conditional advocacies are bad. This is the status I think is best: an advocacy that is competitive should have to be advanced. If there is a perm, the NEG should be able to concede it to make their CP go away. A non-intrinsic, non-severance perm to an advocacy is 100% the same argument as no link. If the AFF and NEG advocacies can exist together without repercussion, the NEG advocacy is testing no part of the aff, and is irrelevant. However, this is just my opinion, you do whatever you want. I have, and will vote on condo bad. If it has a claim, warrant, impact, it’s a winnable argument. If the impact to the voter is reject the team, so be it. A legitimate permutation has all of the aff and part or all of the neg advocacy. I will not insert my opinion on that meaning that the function or text of the CP in your debate, again, that is for you. My opinion is that text comp is an arbitrary tool made up to limit otherwise unfair feeling CPs that debaters have not been able to defeat with the appropriate theory arguments. Text comp and PICS bad are actually basically the exact same argument. They both arbitrarily eliminate a bunch of CPs to try to rid debate of a few. Artificial net benefits are bad is the argument that both of these poorly conceived arguments are trying to get at. You should not get the save a penny CP, but that is not a reason that we must use text comp or that we must reject CPs that include the plan in them. That is a reason to reject save a penny CPs, they are just hard to define. There is the rub on all theory, interpret the rules to restrict the exact set of argument that you intend to. 6.         Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Yes. 7.         In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? This question is just sad. It should read, if the debaters you are watching fail to debate, how will you choose? Well, here goes. I will order things: some Ks, some theory, other Ks, some AFFs, other theory, DAs and other AFFs. Don’t do this to me. Either make it clear that you all think the debate should be ordered the same, or debate about the order of these thoughts. If you let me choose, you have not completed the debate, and the decision will be based on something arbitrary, like me ordering issues on my own. 8.         How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? I won’t. I also don’t think the things listed are as abstract and concrete as the question leads on, nor are they necessarily diametrically opposed. In any case, this question, as phrased, is another example of something you should not do to me. Either, make it clear that you all think the debate should be ordered the same, or debate about the order of these thoughts. If you let me choose, you have not completed the debate, and the decision will be based on something arbitrary, like me ordering issues on my own. I think both of the things listed in the question, death and value of life, are important. I could be compelled to separate them based on number of people affected. I could be compelled to separate them on the time the impact occurs. I could be compelled to separate them based on the likelihood of each occurring. I could be compelled that one of these impacts is reversible while the other is not. I could be compelled that one affects other policy choices while one does not. If there was none of that for me to sort it, I would say death is bad, because that is what I think. If you let the debate get down to what I think, rather than something you said, you failed.

Carly Johnson - Whitman

Background: --3 years high school LD  --4 years Parli debate for Whitman --I've been out of the activity since 2013 NPTE/NPDA, so please be clear when you are spreading --I am well versed in gender and queer theory   General things:   --I want to involve myself as little as possible in the round, so please provide warrants and synthesize your own arguments (though I will do it for you if I have to) --Please do not be rude to each other --I will dock your speaker points if you use gendered/racist/sexist language --Have fun!   Arguments --I don't really care what you run, so long as you are able to provide clash and defend your position  --I believe that conditionality is good --I will default to net-benefits if not told otherwise --Impact calculus will be the first thing that I look to in the round, so rebuttals should pick only a few arguments and tell me why they are the most important (especially true for Ks) --If you make impact prioritization, please explain why I should do such rather than just asserting it --Theory is fine, I will vote on it, but you must compare standards for me as well. Please read your interpretation slowly and preferably twice --I went to Whitman, politics is a-okay

Chris Pierini - UWash

Background: I debated 4 years in high school, 2 years LD, 2 years Cross X. I debated Parli at UW for 2 years. I'm now head coach at UW and been coaching the team for 5 years. This will be my 15th year involved with debate. In General: ·         My flow is strict and speed is fine. ·         I default “net benefits” if no other framework is engaged. ·        Read any textual advocacy twice (PMC plan, perm, K alt, CP, T violation, ect) or have your partner give me and your opponents a copy of the text during your speech. The last thing I want to judge is a theoretical argument predicated off of text I don’t have word for word. ·         I’m willing to do a “gut check” on absurd arguments to protect the academic value of the activity. If Gov makes an argument that a country does not exist to no link a relations DA that argument is not going to fly. I want to vote for intelligent and strategic arguments. ·         Terminal defense: Sigh…..at some point I guess defense can win you the argument/round. A “we meet” on T or 0 solvency because of a plan flaw, come to mind. 0 risk of a link is just hard to prove. Defense combined with offense is a much easier way to win my ballot. In fact I think defense is undervalued in most debates. ·        If you and the other team have agreed to specific terms before the round like say “we will provide a written copy of CP text if they provide a written copy of plan text”. I must know about it before hand, those ethical debates are nearly impossible resolve. ·        I think debate is fun. Don’t put me in a position where it’s not fun.  ·         POO's: Call them but I'll probably just take them "under consideration".  ·         POI’s: You should probably answer a question or two. If a team can not engage your argument because it’s unclear (usually I’m thinking of a T violation or wtf the K alt means) and you refuse to answer a question….I'm probably going to give a lot a weight to any theory coming your way.  ·         If you have a question please ask, I’m more than happy to answer it. chris.pierini@gmail.com Section 2: Specific Inquiries  1.      Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? ·         26-29.5 standard range. ·         Points are awarded on the basis of strategic decisions made in round. ·         I will only go outside of this range if you are horrifically rude to me, your partner, or your opponents. 2.      How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? ·         The “level” at which the K operates is dependent on the framework. ·         Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? That’s for the debaters to engage or not. ·         Kritiks are like any other argument, they can be run poorly and they can be run well. ·         If you start throwing out hyper specific buzz words (especially in your alt text) OR a melding of 16 different authors it would be prudent to define/terms and explain your argument more than going for laundry list links and impacts. 3.      Performance based arguments… ·         I will evaluate every argument made in round.  Isn’t all debate a type of performance? ·         I will vote for performance based arguments…if you win the performance should win you the ballot.   4.      Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? ·         My threshold for pulling the trigger on a theoretical argument, I would not consider high or low. However, you must have all of the right components to warrant the trigger being pulled. Winning your interp and standards without winning a voting issue pretty much means I’m not voting for the argument. ·         Make sure you’re going for and impacting to the correct voting issues. You should probably have reasons why education/ fairness/ abuse/ jurisdiction/whatever is an impact-able argument. ·         I don’t require competing interpretations to vote for T but it’s probably helpful. ·         I don’t require in-round abuse but it’s probably helpful.   5.      Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? ·         CP’s they are an argument. ·         I have zero bias for CP theory. What arguments are run is purely a question of strategy. ·         I think solvency isn’t necessarily binary. You can solve better or worse in a lot of instances. This means CP vs Case solvency is really important for weighing impacts.   6.      Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) ·         Absolutely   7.      In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? ·         Theory (either throw out the argument or reject the team) then I do straight net benefits: K or/and CP or SQ impacts vs Case impacts….in general. ·         If your losing a K framework without articulating how your K operates in the Gov framework I’m probably going to reject the argument as it no longer functions in a decision making calculus. ·         If you have specific scenarios, I’ll do my best to answer them but with the variety of how arguments interact I can’t reasonably explain every permutation possible.   8.      How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? ·         Without argument interaction, PMs and LOs will be punished in speaker points ·         I have absolutely voted for positions like DeDev which went for value to life outweighing the nuclear war deaths and voted against when the warrants were not present. ·         If things are so diametrically opposed with ZERO argument interaction then my gut tells me I would default Gov as the Opp hasn’t presented a compelling argument to reject the Gov case. This has NEVER happened to me. Someone makes an argument which demonstrates impact interaction which I will evaluate because at this point judge intervention has become necessary to resolve the debate. I will intervene using arguments on the flow not my own personal bias. Basically, the better warranted or more logical argument will win out. ·          I give a lot of weight to specific scenarios vs generic impacts for reasons of probability.

Colin Patrick - WWU

Colin Patrick WWU   Overview: I believe that the round is ultimately the debater’s to control. I will default to Net-benefits unless otherwise told to do so. The best way for you to win my ballot is to compare impacts in the rebuttal. Also, I would like a copy of all plan, counter-plan, perm texts. I’ve had multiple rounds this year where teams have referred to the plan text when making arguments and running procedurals/plan flaws off of misspellings and abbreviations on the written out copy. I feel that this is necessary in these hyper-technical debates. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given. Anywhere between 25-30, but usually around 26.5-28, unless something extremely offensive is said, or there is general meanness exhibited. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I’m open to all K’s run by either side. That being said you will have an easier time winning my ballot if you properly elucidate on how your alternative solves. Unless otherwise told so, I believe that the Neg can run conditional contradictory positions. Performance based arguments… Again, I am open to all arguments, just be clear. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? In-round abuse is not necessary for me. The reason for voting on topicality should be made by the debaters. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? The legitimacy of a CP should be debated out. Unless otherwise told so, I believe the CP is conditional. If you want to lock the Neg into something, then ask a POI. Perms are always a test of competition. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Don’t care. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? The order of argument importance should be set up by the debaters. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? I will default to Net-Benefits unless otherwise told to do so. If you want to win on a dehumanization impact, then argue why that is the most important. If you want to win on a nuclear war impact, then argue why that is the most important. If this is not done then I will probably have to intervene somewhere.

David Airne - U of M

4 years HS Policy; NDT 3 years and 1 year LD in college Coached HS Policy, HS LD, HS PF  NDT/CEDA, LD, IPDA and Parli for +10 years.   Upadated: January 2018 and also on Tabroom.com The quick overview to my judging is really simple. I judge things on what happens in the context of the round and it is up to those in the round to write that ballot for me. If you do not write it for me then you leave it up to me and I do not really want to intervene in the round, so write the ballot for me. So use the rebuttals to write my ballot. Asking me what arguments I like is silly, run what you want and if you are winning it then I vote on it. If you run things I happen to not like that just means you might have a higher threshold needed to win it, but if you are winning it then I vote for it. I typically default into a policy maker, but I am happy to vote wherever the round takes me. Finally, I will openly admit I do not give the highest of speaker points when compared to others (26-28 is pretty typical) but good debate warrants higher speaks when it occurs. Any specific issues you want to know about continue reading or just ask me since I am happy to tell you. However, note I teach, research, and publish in political communication (campaigning) and gender (masculinties, in particular). Those issues are difficult, at times, for me to step away from and while you are not debating against me as the juege, it can make it more difficult for me to evaluate the argument because it those issues are ingrained in my head and I see them in different ways that you may be arguing those issues (especially in Parli since we do not have access to evidence, but in evidence based forms that is different). That does not mean that you cannot run those certain positions, but they get a differnet listen than other arguments due to my work in the area. Framework: If you have a framework be sure you explain how it functions for me in the round. Remember, I tend to default to policy maker so without a clear explanation of it I will use that lens in the framework. So you have to tell me how the AFF/NEG views compete with each other. Critical Stuff: Never have had any problem with it other than I do not like them run poorly and I am not a fan of running them in the 1NC with other contradictory positions so that you can pick which arguments are your winners. It does need to be well developed and explained, especially in forms of debate where there is no evidence that I get to read after the round. Otherwise, feel free to run whatever critical arguments you want but be sure you explain how it compares to the AFF or NEG so I see how it operates in the world. Doing those things make critical arguments always great to hear. Traditional Policy Arguments: All are fair game. Be sure that you give me some way to evaluate the impact and show me how it relates to the AFF/NEG. However things like "RVI", or "T is a voter for fairness and education" do need some form of explanation. Your unsubstantiated claims are not going to work so well against one that is supported and explained. Parli specific notes--Points of order: You are welcome to call them, but just know that they are all under consideration and that is how I will answer to all of them. I tend to feel that me ruling on them has to potential to provide some unfair advantage for the team and it feels like a form of intervention since now you know how I "feel" about an argument so I just default to the under consideration answer to avoid that perception/advantage one side might get from the argument. Any specific questions you have please feel free to ask and I am more than happy to answer.

Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell

General information: I did LD in High School, CEDA in College and now coach NPDA.  I have been coaching for 8 years and have been involved in the activity for many more. I don't keep track of the specific number of rounds I have judged this year. More than 40. I am open to a variety of forms of debate.  Each round should take on its own form.  Any form or strategy is fine as long as everyone is the room can communicate.  I attempt to bring as little to the debate as possible although no judge can be totally tabla rosa. Arguments matter to me more than style.  I judge in a clear order. Kritik (if they are in the round) then procedurals (again, if they are present in the round) then case (government must prove that it is worth attempting plan) then weighing advantages against disadvantages.  Specific information: Topicality: I appreciate strategic interpretations of resolutions and will give a fair amount of room for the government to interpret the resolution.  They key is that everyone has some ground and some ability to debate.  I will also give a fair amount of room for novices to work on format and learn the rules.   Counterplans: CPs are great.  Condo is ok if well argued.  Disclose condo or no condo in the first speech.  My strong feeling is that it should not be about tricking the other team but going after a higher level of argumentation. I am not a huge fan of PICs. I would be open to argumentation on the issue. Points of Order are fine. The kritik: Kritiks are great--aff or neg.  Make a good, well-reasoned argument and have a reason for the K.  Then make sure to engage.  Theory: Great.  Go nuts. Disads: Cool.  Link them.

Drake Skaggs - Puget Sound

Background: I competed in parliamentary debate for four years for Whitman College on the national circuit. This is my first year as a coach. As a debater, I read a lot of politics and CP/DA strategies, blippy textual competition and T shells, and Neitchzx,.ej,we and Neoliberalism bad Ks. General Information:  I strive to be the kind of judge that I wanted in the back as a debater: flow-oriented, without proclivities for/against certain arguments, and willing to answer questions at the end of debates.  I am fine with speed and if I cannot flow you/understand you I will tell you to slow down or clear up.  I believe that debate is a game and you should use whatever tools are at your disposal to win the game.  You are best served going for strategies you understand and are capable of executing instead of complicated arguments that you think make you sound smarter. Debate to your strengths and you have a higher chance of picking up my ballot. Just because I read text comp and Neitchzizekwekljmk doesn't mean you should, especially if you don't understand the argument. One of the most important things for me is impact comparison and contexualization. At the end of the debate, I should have a good idea of what offense you are winning and why it is important. Discuss your impacts in terms of the opponent's impacts (i.e. DA outweighs and turns case impacts because...). While I will vote just as easily on generic strategies, specific strategies are better for education in debate and also much more interesting. I will reward you with better speaker points if I think your strategy is unique and interesting. I love warrant comparison. Tell me why your warrants are more specific, predictive, etc. in later speeches instead of just extending your partner's arguments. I will protect you from new arguments if I assess them to be new. If you think the other team is about to get away with a new argument and its critical to your strategy, go ahead and call the POO. I think debaters should slowly read and repeat all plan/CP/alt texts and theory interps for the judge and provide a copy to the opposing team if asked. Jokes are great and will get you extra speaker points. +.5 speaks if you make 3 good pokemon references in one speech (limited, of course, to the first 151 pokemon. -1 speaks for any reference to pokemon after Mew). Other favorite topics for jokes include anyone involved in the Whitman debate program, how bad/how much of a hipster James "First Place" Stevenson is, and how much Lubbock sucks. Speaker points range is subject to variance as a result of the above comments about jokes, but is generally between 27-29.5 Theory: If you are reading topicality and you think there is a chance you will go for it, you should slow down on your interpretation and read it twice, same when you’re answering as the MG. Far too often T debates come down the exact wording of interpretations and the LOC/MG was unclear/too fast for the judge to get every word. I will listen to your T debates happily, though I prefer to hear substance debate if it’s a viable strategy. I would say my threshold for voting on T is lower than many in the community; if you’re winning a controlling standard and effectively arguing why it’s the controlling standard, I have no problems pulling the trigger for you. I am amenable to all other theory arguments except spec unless you didn’t get a question, in which case you should read “you have to take a question” as a procedural instead, I’m much more likely to vote on that. It’s an uphill battle to win that one conditional counterplan is bad. Abusive PICS should have PICS bad/textual competition read against them. Kritiks: While I enjoy the K debate, I understand it better from a debate point of view than a literature point of view. I might even be worse read than Nick Robinson. What this means is that you need to be clear in the shell of your criticism, especially the alternative. Don’t assume I know what Heidegger says about Being, because I don’t. This doesn’t mean I’m stupid; I can grasp philosophical concepts as long as they are clearly explained. Real-world examples and big-picture moments will make me much more likely to vote for your K. When responding to the K, I think you are best off reading impact and alt solvency turns, and I love a good perm debate. Counterplans: CPs are good. Conditionality is fine. Make sure you have case-specific solvency. As an MG, make sure you create a substantial solvency deficit to the counterplan. I will assess that counterplan has durable fiat EVEN IF the aff reads arguments that say counterplan would never happen IRL (e.g., aff reads USFG should send Jimmy Carter somewhere, neg reads non-US organization should send Jimmy Carter somewhere, MG response "Jimmy Carter is usually associated with US policy and wouldn't travel with non-US organization" is not a responsive argument). DAs: DAs are good. Make sure your story is comprehensible coming out of the LOC shell; a good way to do this is to have summary phrases explaining the general thesis of the Uq/L/IL/Impx every step of the way if you think the DA is more complicated than normal. DAs that turn case are a good idea. DAs that are only competitive because of your PIC out of a tiny portion of the aff are a less good idea. I am in favor of more complete explanations of the status of bills in Politics scenarios, by which I mean I want you to tell me where the bill is (i.e. passed the House, in Senate committee etc.).

James Miller - Oregon

Jess Reynolds - U of M

Background: 4 years H.S. policy, 4 years competing in parli at the University of Montana, 2 years coaching H.S. policy, 3 years coaching parli at Texas Tech University.   General Preferences:  Speed is fine and I am fine with pretty much any argument as long as it is well-supported.  As long as you give me good internal link stories and weigh the impacts for me, it should be fine.  If the debater’s don’t do that work, I default net benefits and try to weigh everything equally based on timeframe, magnitude, and probability (timeframe is less important to me, however, unless you’re talking about 1 day versus 100 years, for example).   Specific Preferences: 1. Speaker Points: average is 25-30, largely based on quality of arguments, usually only lower if the speaker is exceptionally rude or offensive. 2. Critical/Performance Arguments: I like critical arguments, just support them and for Ks I prefer you provide a really good alt.  Also I have voted for performance, but I am not a huge fan of it.  Just make sure if you run a performance in front of me, you do some work explaining it. 3. Topicality/Procedurals: I’m fine with T, I vote for it, it can be strategic.  Just please explain your voters; dropping fairness and education at the end of the shell makes it harder for me to weigh it.  I don’t require in-round abuse, but if there’s not, my threshold for voting for it is higher. I also vote for spec arguments, but if the majority of the strat is dropping every procedure you can think of into the mix, I am less likely to vote for the procedurals. 4. CPs: I’m fine with any kind of CPs and CP theory. 5. DAs: I like them a lot, but DA’s are less convincing to me if you need 10 internal links to get to impacts.  So, if it takes you that many to get to nuke war, maybe go for a different scenario. 6. Other stuff: call points of order if you want, I don’t take new arguments into consideration, but if you feel it could be unclear, call it anyway (just not every 10 seconds).  Please take at least one question in your speech, please repeat your plan text twice or give me the text, and I can’t think of anything else right now, so ask me about any other specifics.

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark

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

John Nelson - Whitman

Jon Agnew - Boise State

Saved Philosophy: Last updated: 24-March-2018 I have been involved in competitive forensics for 13 years. I am cool with speed as long as tags for claims are not cumbersome and difficult to flow. I’m cool with just about any argument as long as it is well warranted. I won’t want to hear “genocide good” “rape good” or similar arguments. Moreover, I’m not sure of all the preconceived biases I have about judging debate. I know I am more inclined to prefer probability and timeframe arguments over magnitude. But overall, the game of debate is however you want to play it. Just play it well and play it by the rules. Last thing, as a critic at the end of the round I prioritize arguments that have been denoted in the debate via jargon or argumentation as most important. I always try and work through these arguments before working through the rest of the debate. What I mean by this is questions of: a priori, decision rule, RVI, framework, role of the ballot, role of the critic, theory sheets….I try and resolve these kinds of questions before resolving other substantive issues in the debate. Question 1 : What is your judging philosophy? Background: I debated 4 years in at Hillcrest High School in IF, Idaho. I did 3 years of LD, 1 Year of CX/PF, and speech. I debated Parli/IPDA for 4 years at Boise State and I.E.s. I have been an assistant coach at Boise State since 2013. And this will be my 13th year involved in competitive forensics. Other Background: <ul> <li>I will default Net-Benefits/Policymaker unless told otherwise.</li> <li>I try to be as Tabula Rasa as possible. I don’t want to involve myself in your debate. I don’t have any preconceived biases about what arguments or strategies should or should not be deployed in any given round.</li> <li>I will vote for arguments I do not ideologically agree with every time IF they are won in the round. </li> <li>I am relatively okay with speed. I have difficulty flowing overly cumbersome or wordy taglines. Plan texts, Interpretations, CP Texts, K alts, perms, T vios need to be read slowly twice OR I/your opponents need to be given a copy. I find it difficult to judge textual questions in a debate round when I don’t have the text proper written down word for word.</li> <li>I am lenient to “no warrant” or “gut check” arguments. I don’t want to do the work in your round. I do not want to fill in the blanks for your scenarios. In saying such I will always evaluate a developed warranted impact scenario over a generic one, IF the arguments are won in the round.</li> <li>I think offense and defense are necessary to win debate rounds. I am also relatively lenient on terminal defense. If you win the argument that there is absolutely no risk of a link or impact I will evaluate it strongly. I want to hear intelligent, sound, strategic arguments in every debate round. The aforementioned claim strongly influences my speaker points.</li> <li>My high school coach used to always say “debate is a game you play with your friends”. I identify strongly with the statement. In saying such, please do not put me in the situation where debate is not fun, where any individual (partner, opponents, myself) feels berated, and please do not deploy obscene/vulgar arguments.</li> <li>POO’s: please call them. I usually reply “under consideration”. I’m not lenient on new argumentation in the rebuttals. Honestly, I feel this is important. I tend to flow everything in the debate round. Even if the argument is new in the rebuttal. I feel it is important to call these arguments. I don’t know how well my paradigm works with multiple judges. But ya, POO are ok and encouraged to call.</li> <li>POI’s: please do not get excessive. Teams should probably always answer a question or two. I will give weight to in-round argumentation regarding “you should have taken a question” on any sheet of paper.</li> <li>Speaker points: I tend to give between 26-29.5 at tournaments. 30s definitely occur. So do speaker points below 26. I tend to evaluate these via sound, strategic, intelligent arguments. Delivery/style is not the most important factor for speaker points. I have never looked but I feel like I give higher speaker points than most.</li> </ul>   Case: I’m cool with any type of affirmative strategy (mini-affs, K affs, performance, comp-ad). However, I want to know how your case functions in the round. Framework/RAs are very important. Advantages must have uniqueness, link and an impact. Aff’s should solve for something. Plan texts should be read twice or I/opponents should be given a copy. If you are running performance or a critical affirmative I need to know how it engages the round and resolution. For example, if you are criticizing—topicality, language, semiotics—I need to know how to evaluate these arguments with your opponents. I find these types of debate engaging/fun to judge, but I have often been put into a position where I do not have a clean and accessible framework to evaluate the rhetoric and argumentation in round. Additionally, I have always felt somewhat icky inside when my personal identity or the competitors has been attached to the ballot. If this is important to the round. Framework is everyone’s friend. I want to be as much as a blank slate as possible.   T/Procedurals: I ran a lot of procedurals arguments in college. I feel in order for me to vote on this position I need a clear interpretation explaining how the debate should occur, a violation explaining specifically why your opponents do not meet your interpretation, I need standard(s) to detailing why your interpretation is good and/or why your opponents do not garner/violate them, and a voter(s) demonstrating why I should vote for the argument. Again, please read your interpretation/violation slowly twice or give myself/opponents a copy. I really really enjoy watching good T debate. And vote on T relatively often. Kritiks: my partner and I ran a lot of kritiks in college. I need a clear and accessible thesis. Arguments that tend to be stuffed into kritiks (no value to life, K Alt solves aff, X is root cause of violence) should be well developed. Please engage these arguments on the case debate as well. I am familiar with a lot of the K literature (POMO, Frankfurt School, Lacan). However, I’M NOT AN EXPERT. I think a kritik needs a framework, link, implications, alternative. I am a fan of good kritik debate. I am persuaded by well warranted impact turns to K’s or compelling arguments regarding how the K engages the assumptions that inform the PMC. Please do not prove the “K’s are for cheaters” club by deploying confusing/absurd, and blippy arguments. CP’s: I am not very familiar with the ins and outs of CP’s. Functional CP vs. textual CP debates are usually educational for me. I say that because, I again, am not nearly as familiar with CP debates then K debates. I am not biased on any type of CP theory. I will listen to all types of CPs (consult, agent, delay, multi-actor, multiple, PICS). In saying such, some of these types of CPs are subject to very compelling theoretical arguments about their fairness and educational merit. I think solvency is very important for CP vs Case debates. I like to hear arguments regarding how the CP/Case solves or does not solve each advantage or net/benefit debate. Therefore, if the debate comes down to case vs. CP/NB/DA…solvency is very important for weighing impacts. DA’s: need uniqueness, link, impact to be evaluated. Please explain why the status quo changes post the affirmative plan. I enjoy listening to strategic DA debates. Well-developed impact and link turn arguments make for lovely debate rounds. Defense and offense is usually important to deploy in any DA debates. I find the interaction of these arguments critical in deciding the round. Please explain these relationships in regards to impact calculus. Like I said earlier I tend to evaluate probable scenarios over their magnitude. Politics debates are fun to listen to. I like well warranted scenarios. Additionally, I’m not a fan of perceptual IR DAs (they tend to be under-developed and lack warrants) but nevertheless I will definitely listen to them. If you have any other questions please ask. My email is jonagnew@u.boisestate.edu

Joseph Hykan - Whitman

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

Kevin Kuswa - Whitman

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

Korry Harvey - WWU

Background/Experience I debated a lot (CEDA, NDT), and have coached and judged even more (CEDA, NDT, NPDA, NPTE, Worlds). I teach courses in argument theory, diversity, and civil dialogue, and I am heavily involved in community service. While my debate background comes primarily from a “policy” paradigm, I have no problem with either good “critical” debates or “persuasive communication”, and am willing to listen to any framework a team feels is justifiably appropriate for the debate.   I think that debate is simultaneously a challenging educational exercise, a competitive game of strategy, and a wonderfully odd and unique community – all of which work together to make it fun. I think debaters, judges, and coaches, should actively try to actually enjoy the activity. Debate should be both fun and congenial. Finally, while a written ballot is informative, I feel that post-round oral critiques are one of the most valuable educational tools we as coaches and judges have to offer, and I will always be willing to disclose and discuss my decisions, even if that may involve walking and talking in order to help the tournament staff expedite an efficient schedule for all of us.   Unique consideration I am hearing impaired. No joke – I wear hearing aids in both ears, and am largely deaf without them. I think most would agree that I keep a pretty good flow, but I can only write down what I understand. I work as hard as just about any of your critics to understand and assess your arguments, and I appreciate it when you help me out a little. Unfortunately, a good deal of my hearing loss is in the range of the human voice – go figure. As such, clarity and a somewhat orderly structure are particularly important for me. For some, a notch or two up on the volume scale doesn’t hurt, either. However, please note that vocal projection is not the same as shouting-- which often just causes an echo effect, making it even harder for me to hear. Also, excessive chatter and knocking for your partner can make it difficult for me to hear the speaker. I really want to hear you, and I can only assume that you want to be heard as well. Thanks for working with me a little on this one.   Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) Although I don't see absolute objectivity as easily attainable, I do try to let the debaters themselves determine what is and is not best for the debate process. Debaters should clarify what framework/criteria they are utilizing, and how things should be evaluated (a weighing mechanism or decision calculus). I see my role as a theoretically “neutral observer” evaluating and comparing the validity of your arguments according to their probability, significance, magnitude, etc. I very much like to hear warrants behind your claims, as too many debates in parli are based on unsubstantiated assertions. As such, while a “dropped argument” has considerable weight, it will be evaluated within the context of the overall debate and is not necessarily an automatic “round-winner”.   Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making As noted, clarity and structure are very important to me. It should be clear to me where you are and what argument you are answering or extending. Bear in mind that what you address as “their next argument” may not necessarily be the same thing I identify as “their next argument”. I see the flow as a “map” of the debate round, and you provide the content for that map. I like my maps to make sense.   That said, good content still weighs more heavily to me than slick presentation. Have something good to say, rather than simply being good at saying things.   Additionally, 1) although I think most people speak better when standing, that’s your choice; 2) I won’t flow the things your partner says during your speech time; 3) Please time yourselves and keep track of protected time.   Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making I find that good case debate is a very effective strategy. It usually provides the most direct and relevant clash. Unfortunately, it is rarely practiced. I can understand that at times counterplans and kritiks make a case debate irrelevant or even unhelpful. Nevertheless, I can't tell you the number of times I have seen an Opposition team get themselves in trouble because they failed to make some rather simple and intuitive arguments on the case.   Openness to critical/performative styles of debating See above. No problem, as long as it is well executed – which really makes it no different than traditional "net-benefits" or "stock issues" debates. To me, no particular style of debating is inherently “bad”. I’d much rather hear “good” critical/performative debate than “bad” traditional/policy debate, and vice versa.   Topicality/Theory While I try to keep an open mind here, I must admit I’m not particularly fond of heavy theory debates. I think most debaters would be surprised by just how much less interesting they are as a judge than as a competitor. I realize they have their place and will vote on them if validated. However, screaming “abuse” or “unfair” is insufficient for me. I’m far more concerned about educational integrity, stable advocacy and an equitable division of ground. Just because a team doesn’t like their ground doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have any. Likewise, my threshold for “reverse voters” is also on the somewhat higher end – I will vote on them, but not without some consideration. Basically, I greatly prefer substantive debates over procedural ones. They seem to be both more educational and interesting.   Parliamentary procedure While I have no problem with them, I tend not to follow much of the traditional stylizations or formal elements of parliamentary practice: 1) I will likely just “take into consideration” points of order that identify “new” arguments in rebuttals, but you are more than welcome to make them if you feel they are warranted; 3) Just because I am not rapping on the table doesn’t mean I don’t like you or dig your arguments; 4) You don’t need to do the little tea pot dance to ask a question, just stand or raise your hand; 5) I don’t give the whole speaker of the house rap about recognizing speakers for a speech; you know the order, go ahead and speak; 6) I will include “thank yous” in speech time, but I do appreciate a clear, concise and non-timed roadmap beforehand.   I lean toward thinking that “splitting the block”, while perhaps theoretically defensible, is somewhat problematic in an activity with only two rebuttals and often only makes a round more messy.

Kristen Stevens - WWU

Kristen Stevens Western Washington University Background 3 years policy, 1 year LD in high school. 3 years NPDA/NPTE style parli at Willamette University. I majored in political science and minored in philosophy. This is my 4th coaching for Western Washington University. General information and comments: - I will vote off the flow - The team that makes the most sense will probably win my ballot, so please, make sense. - I will default to a net-benefits framework unless told otherwise - Neither of us wants me to intervene, so please clearly tell me why to vote for you, and not for the other team - Please read all texts and interpretations slowly and twice - Please give me a copy of your plan/cp/alt text - Speed is generally not an issue, but if you’re one of the fastest debaters in the country, slow down a bit. I want to understand your aguments as you go, not just transcribe them. - Reiterating the thesis of each position throughout the debate will greatly benefit you. Do not assume that I totally understand your story coming out of the PMC/LOC. MO regional overviews are a beautiful thing. - Please prioritize and weigh impacts and evidence/warrants. - I prefer policy-oriented debates to K debates, but will vote for a K if you’re winning it (see below for specifics). I love DA/CP and good case debate relevant to the topic.    (From the NPTE Questionnaire) How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?             I am okay with critical arguments, and will vote for them on aff or neg if you’re winning them. However, I prefer policy-oriented DA/CP or case debates, and often find K aff versus K neg debates difficult to evaluate. I also much prefer critical affs that are topical, as opposed to, “we talked about x issue first and therefore win.” That said, if you’re at your best when reading a project, I will vote for you if you’re winning. Don’t expect to win your K on the neg if you haven’t tailored your links directly to the plan/aff during the PMC. If you fail to contextualize your argument to the aff and just read the generic links you thought up in prep time, I will probably end up voting on the perm. On either side please give me a clear interpretation of how to evaluate your arguments, and apply this to the arguments present in the debate (ie. indicate in rebuttals that your framework excludes x arguments). That said, I do not care for neg K frameworks that straight up exclude the aff and strongly dislike the specific role of the ballot arguments I’ve been hearing this year that tell me to vote for the team that best does something super specific that only one side is prepared to engage in. Instead, use those justifications to weigh and prioritize your issue in the rebuttals like you would normally.  Give me a little extra pen time for long/wordy alternatives (or give me a copy). Condo usually resolves any issues of “contradictory” positions, although the aff is welcome to make arguments about the implications of a “contradictory” neg strat. Generally, I think perf con arguments should be justifications for the perm. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?             I normally stay between 27.5-29.5, but I usually give at least one 30 per tournament. Being funny and making clever or creative arguments will increase your speaker points. Being rude, offensive, or exclusionary to other debaters, will decrease your speaker points. Performance based arguments…             Haven’t encountered these much as a debater or judge, so if this is your thing I might not be the best judge for you. That said, I will vote for a performance if you are winning it. Just please give me an interpretation for how to evaluate your performance within the context of the round. So if you want to tap dance during your speech time that’s cool, just make sure you tell me why that means you win. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?             Please read your interp slowly, and twice if you want to be sure I have it word for word. I think T is always a voting issue, and will default to weighing the argument under competing interpretations if not told otherwise. I will also assume T is an apriori voter unless told otherwise. Under a competing interpretations framework, in order to win T you must win an offensive reason as to why your interpretation is best. That means clearly connecting and winning at least one standard to the voting level. In round abuse is not necessary to win my vote, but helps tremendously. It’s cool if you want me to use another framework to evaluate T such as reasonability, please just explain what that means. Also voters such as fairness and education should be terminalized, and I prefer this out of the LOC. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?             As mentioned earlier, please read the text slowly and twice (or give me a copy). I think most questions of counterplan theory are up for debate. Personally, I think condo is good, but have no problem voting for condo bad. I will vote for PICS bad (or any other counterplan theory) if you win it, however I strongly prefer to hear substantive arguments over theory on the counterplan. Please specify whether winning theory means the other team loses, or whether that means the counterplan just goes away. I will default to the latter. If you are going to run counterplan theory, please don’t stay at the theoretical surface level. Prove that THIS particular use of the counterplan given the res and plan is bad. Also, tell me explicitly how CP captures case out of the LOC. I’ve been astounded at the number of debates I’ve seen in which this is never explained. Perms are tests of competition. Opp should probably specify status. If not, POIs should be used for clarification. If this is never established I will assume the counterplan is conditional. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)             Sure. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?             Procedural issues come first. After that I will default to the impact analysis present in the round. Unless otherwise told, I will evaluate kritiks second, and then case/other impacted issues. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?             Death is of higher magnitude and thus outweighs dehum.  Other Issues: Delivery: I can flow a pretty good pace, but if you consider yourself to be one of the fastest debaters in the country, you should slow down just a little bit for me. If you’re not sure if you qualify in that category, then probably err on the safe side. Or come ask me – I’m usually wandering around trying to find snacks. I’m also pretty expressive as I judge so just keep an eye out. Also please don’t lose clarity for the sake of speed. It makes me feel bad when I have to yell “clearer” at people. Disads: Run them. Topic specific disads that turn case, or politics. I can’t say this enough, MO/LOR/PMR overviews that reiterate the thesis of positions will help me enormously. Your line-by-line analysis will make a lot more sense to me if I have a firm understanding of your posititons.    Spec: I will vote for it if you’re winning it, but POI’s probably check. Points of Order: I will do my best to protect, but call them anyways. Etiquette and Misc: No need for thank-yous. Speak however is comfortable for you – sit, stand, lay on the ground, whatever. Take at least one question in your speech. Don’t be mean to each other - I love this community and want it to stay strong.

Matt Gander - Whitman

Matt Gander Judging Philosophy  I will listen to any argument you want to read with an open mind attempt to reconcile its conclusions with the arguments presented by the other team. I will reward arguments that engage the substance of the resolution and demonstrate thorough research. The most important part of debate is having fun, so you should do whatever makes that happen for you.  As a general disclaimer, I have not done debate research since March. My news reading has been confined to the Huffington Post IPhone app and random news articles on Facebook. In college I studied History, Political Science, with a minor in Art History. I am currently a Masters candidate in the UO Conflict and Dispute resolution. I am most confortable with debates surrounding international relations, the American judicial system, the EU and political philosophy. I know a lot of random stuff from debate, but you should understand that a large part of my scientific knowledge base has been formed/corrupted by John McCabe. You can get into deep science/tech debates, but don’t expect me to be able to resolve them on their technical merits. Sorry. That being said, there were very few debates in college that I thought were beyond my ability to generally comprehend. I think you should be able to explain anything, but understand that going too far in one direction leaves you vulnerable to my ignorance. Feel free to ask before the debate.  I stole this from Zach Tschida because I think is perfectly phrased and get to the heart of how you will win my ballot.  As a rule, I appreciate debates and debaters that exhibit: 1. Nuance. I enjoy nuanced strategies, nuanced execution, and nuanced comparison between arguments (both in terms of line-by-line on each position and between different arguments). Ultimately, I am more persuaded by arguments that present a nuance that complicates the way the other team has portrayed the world. 2. A clear distillation of complex thoughts. As a rule, I believe that a speaker’s ability to convey and explain an argument is indicative of their understanding of that argument. Consequently, I think that a successful debater should be able to simplify potentially convoluted ideas in a manner that resonates with the audience. 3. Humor and civility. It is refreshing to see a debate that reminds me that this is a collegial activity in which all participants dedicate a significant amount of time and effort. I understand that it is difficult to balance civility and humor and I hope you will err on the side of humor. Please be nice. I understand if there are some teams/debates where that isn’t going to happen, but I think debate should be a place where everybody feels welcome to express their opinion. I would much rather you engage the other team productively than see you rub their face in the dirt. Debate is fun largely because you make friends, being overly adversarial is not conducive to making friends. I assure you that being mean will only hurt you chances of winning in the long run.  Speed I think speed is appropriate and beneficial to many debates, but it also detracts from many debates. Use your own judgment, but I would much rather hear 6 great answers to a position than 10 underdeveloped ones. I also don’t think you should use speed as a form of exclusion. Feel free to spread out any team ranked in the top 60, but I will be very upset if you use speed to confuse a team that you are probably going to beat anyway. I think this also holds true for strategic decisions, if you want to read 6-7 off against a decent team; I have no principled opposition to that. However, I doubt 6-7 off is conducive in a preset debate against two new debaters. Given the way I debated, I have very little room to tell you that you shouldn’t good too fast, but I can say from experience that it is not right for all debates.  T I think the affirmative team should attempt to be topical. Predictability, fairness and education are all good values to strive for, but I don’t think they need to be enforced as strictly as many other judges on the circuit. I think topicality is like apple pie and hand grenades close is good enough for me. I think debate theory is an important theoretical framework to understand the general responsibilities of each team, but I am not compelled by the argument that one side should lose because their arguments don’t conform to your ideal version of a debate. I will default to a framework of reasonability, but I am more than confortable voting down people that go beyond my interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable interpretation of what somebody can/should do in debate.  Framework  I really enjoyed debating the criticism and think it is an argument that should be in every team’s toolbox. I generally found that critical debates were most interesting when they attempted to interact with the topic and the arguments presented by the other team. However, I will be very reluctant to ignore the arguments presented by the other team purely on the basis that they are presented within a problematic framework. I think it is important to engage arguments on their own terms and attempt to create the best synthesis between competing truth claims because it is very difficult to win that your opponents arguments are entirely false.  Critical Debate  My reading of critical literature is spotty and you should not rely on me to understand the literature base surrounding your argument. I think good critiques in parliamentary debate attempt to directly engage the advocacy of the affirmative. I will be very reluctant to use your framework arguments as a stand-alone reason to reject the affirmative. Links are important, but there is no reason you can’t substantively engage the knowledge presented by the affirmative. I also think there are many debates and topics that conform poorly to critical debates. I prefer critical affirmatives to critical negative strategies. CP I think CP’s are good. I don’t think they have to be run unconditionally and I am unlikely to vote for PIC’s/Condo bad. I am more interested in theory arguments that speak specifically to the strategy presented in relation to the topic and the debate at hand. I don’t know how I feel about multiple conditional CP’s or strategies that overburden the MG, but like most theory arguments this will be an uphill battle. I think textual competition is irrelevant.  DA/Case Debate I have a warm spot in my heart for a good DA and case debate. I think parliamentary debate is primed for these types of debates, if they become small in the second half of the debate and reflect good research. I think Will Van Tureen was giving the most innovative LOC’s last year because every time I watched him he threw down hard on the specifics of the advantage and buttressed these arguments with a smart DA. I tend to think politics debates are silly, but it will be much more compelling for me coupled with good case arguments. These types of debates reward speakers that consolidate and compare impacts. Read whatever you want. I like link and internal link debates the most.  I tend to believe that new cross applications in the rebuttals are new arguments. There are some arguments that may be phrased in a manner that applies across specific pieces of paper. Contextualizing those within the entire debate is not problematic, but ideally the MG is doing that work. I want you to call points of order, but I will be very non-verbally expressive if I think you are calling too many. Also if you are calling POI’s to rattle your opponent, I will take it out on your speaker points.  Have fun and feel free to ask any questions.

Miranda Morton - Whitman

Miranda Morton Section 1: General Information   In High School I was a mediocre LD debater. I went on to 4 years of Parliamentary debate at Whitman College ending in 2013. I was the MG/LO I studied history at Whitman, now I work in the craft beer industry. See how far a degree can get you? ALERT: Although I was around debate quite a bit during the last four years, I have only judged at one tournament (L&C) in the 2013-2014 season. Beyond that one tournament, I have only watched myself loose rounds on YouTube. FOLKS, that means I have only judged ONE college-level debate tournament EVER. The following is a meager attempt to guess what I care about as a judge. Feel free to ask me any questions not answered here! Specific Inquiries    Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? <ul> <li>I would guess between 26.5 and 29.8. But alas, I could be shocked higher or lower.</li> </ul> How do you approach critically framed arguments?   <ul> <li>Critical debates are best when they are nuanced, clear, and interact with the specifics of the topic or affirmative. Critical debates that are messy and generic are upsetting.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I am inclined to think that the affirmative gets to weigh the impacts of the AFF against the impacts of the K unless told otherwise. Given that inclination, I think it is a pretty smart idea for a K to try and internally link turn the affirmative. Or solve the case with the alt. Or, you know, the neg could answer the case.</li> </ul>   Can affirmatives run critical arguments?   <ul> <li>Sure, run whatever you would like.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>OPINION: Affirmative Ks sometimes use the element of surprise, not debate skill, to win. That does not mean that I am against them. What it does mean is that I am somewhat open to a negative that suggests, either though argument or through theory, that a topical plan passes in the world of the K.</li> </ul>    Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   <ul> <li>Definitely.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li> I assume this question is really asking about the number of “worlds” I think is acceptable in a debate round. The question of conditionality comes later, but generally speaking I believe that the world of the SQ, the world of a negative policy action, and the world of a K are all open territory for one negative strategy. Of course, this is up for debate, and seems like a surefire way to link into your own criticism.  </li> </ul>   Performance based arguments…   <ul> <li>Are rarely as thought provoking as I wish they were. They seem exceptionally difficult to evaluate, and necessitate a VERY clear framework. See my comments on AFF criticisms for more thoughts on the element of surprise.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I debated at Whitman College. Take that as you will.</li> </ul>    TOPICALLITY   What do you require to vote on topicality?   <ul> <li>Ugh. I can count on one hand the number of T debates I thought were interesting. And most of those were only good because I got to be in the same room as Zach Tschida’s hair.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li> In round abuse is the most likely way to get me to vote for you on topicality and not be ticked off about it.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I think reading topicality well will put your chances of winning close to 50-50 with me. Even in the best T debates, I find debaters do not give a frame to evaluate impacts… So I never have any idea if education or ground or whatnot is most important.</li> </ul>   Do you require competing interpretations? <ul> <li>Yes. I can’t think of a case where I wouldn’t require competing interpretations, but I’m sure it’s out there.  </li> </ul>  Counterplans –   PICs good or bad?   <ul> <li>PICs are strategic.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Consult counterplans are probably cheating unless there is a very good reason, rooted in the lit, that consultation is valid.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Tiny PICs tend to make debaters feel smug. I don’t like smug.</li> </ul>   Should opp identify the status of the counterplan?   <ul> <li>Yes.</li> </ul>   textual competition ok?   <ul> <li>Up for debate. See info on Perm texts and functional competition.</li> </ul>   functional competition?   <ul> <li>Yes please. The right of the AFF to perm with just “do both” should check non-functionally competitive but textually competitive counterplans. Boy is that a mouthful.</li> </ul>   Perms: <ul> <li>A perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. </li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I think “Perm: do both” is fine in the place of perm text. If your perm is more nuanced than “do both,” don’t say “do both.”</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>It’s great when teams explain how the perm solves the AFF and NEG, It’s even better when there is independent offense to the perm.  </li> </ul> Issues regarding counterplan status: <ul> <li>Conditionality is up for debate. I read multiple conditional advocacies all the time when I debated. But when other people did it, I would get all huffy and angsty. Why? Because it makes the NEG’s job a tiny bit easier, and the MG’s job much harder.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>While I do not have a set-in-stone threshold for number of conditional advocacies, I do think that the quality and strategic utility of each one diminishes after 2 (maybe 3).</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Does anyone actually know what dispositional means? There are enough different interpretations of this status that it is worth explaining if your position is going to be dispositional.  </li> </ul>   Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) <ul> <li>Sure, but they don’t have to.</li> </ul>  In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? <ul> <li>The negative should (almost) ALWAYS collapse to EITHER theory or substance by the end of the debate, preferably in the MO. This keeps the debate smart, and keeps me from having to do the calculus mentioned above.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Otherwise: I automatically assume a NB framework unless I am told not to</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I revert to this order if no order is given: <ul style="list-style-type:circle"> <li>Proceedurals</li> <li>The impacts of the K versus the impacts of the case. I would not consider the K before the case unless I am explicitly told to.</li> </ul> </li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I hope this never comes up.  </li> </ul>     How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? <ul> <li>Diametrically opposed claims: I have no problem throwing out arguments that do not meet a basic threshold of understandability or fact. If both claims are semi-logical, I will generally evaluate the analysis of the claim’s effect on the debate over the number of warrants behind each claim.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Impacts: I would pick the best explained, most logical impacts. In this situation I could also see myself being very moved by claims in the later speeches about how the plan solves the impacts to the disadvantages, or how the SQ or CP solve the advantages.</li> </ul> Things not covered: POOs: <ul> <li>I’ll protect within reason to the best of my abilities. That doesn’t mean that you can’t call them. It’s your debate, and if it makes you feel better to point them out, please do.</li> </ul> Talking Pretty/Looking Pretty: <ul> <li>Speed and Clarity: I will do everything in my power to keep up with you. It is a rare case that speed is a reason I do not catch an argument. If you are not clear, however, it is likely I will miss something.</li> <li>Clothes: are important. Wear them.</li> <li>I always thought standing up helped me speak loudly, clearly, and quickly. But you can do what you’d like.</li> </ul>

Sean Wang - Lewis & Clark

Stephen Moncrief - WWU

Statistics (2012-present): Median speaker points: 27.8 AFF/NEG split: 50% AFF, 50% NEG over 70 open division prelim rounds Tournaments judged this season (2013-2014): Jewell, Bellevue, Lewis & Clark, UPS, Linfield, Mile High Tournaments judged last season (2012-2013): Jewell, Bellevue, Berkeley, Lewis & Clark, UPS, Mile High, WWU, PLU, Whitman, NPTE, NPDA Debate Background: 2.5 years of coaching NPDA at WWU (2010-11, 2012-present) 3 years of NPDA  (2007-2010) 3 years of high school policy debate (2004-2007)   Education Background: M.A., Political Science, University of British Columbia (Vancouver, BC, Canada) B.A., East Asian Studies & Political Science, WWU (Bellingham, WA) My research background is in security studies, with special focus on civil war and terrorism. I have virtually no background in critical approaches to the social sciences. I was trained to understand conflict and cooperation from a rationalist (as opposed to a constructivist) perspective. Overview: I aim to be as transparent in my decision-making as possible, and during my RFD, I will identify the specific arguments that informed my decision and explain my understanding of them. I am not very shy about admitting that I don’t understand an argument as you have phrased it. Everybody in this activity has gaps in their comprehension of some positions, and that is true for me too. I promise you my best effort at understanding and fairly evaluating your arguments. In return, I expect your best efforts at delivering them. I feel comfortable with the stylistic and strategic trends of contemporary parli. I have no problems with speed or extinction impacts. With a few exceptions (see below), there is no argument that I will not listen to. Of course, I have my biases and opinions on technique and strategy, so what follows is a modest attempt at describing my dispositions as a critic: My Proclivities:  To do well in front of me, remember two words: CAUSAL MECHANISMS. This means that your internal link and impact arguments need to be clear, linear, and well warranted with relevant empirical analysis, as opposed to plausible-ish chains of claims you threw together in prep. USE EXAMPLES. I think that relevant historical examples to illustrate past patterns of individual and/or institutional behavior are under-utilized in this activity. Your use of historical evidence will help me understand your positions much better than I might otherwise. EXPLAIN INCENTIVE STRUCTURES. Positions that describe a clear model of how actors can be expected to behave based on material incentives are very helpful to me, and are more likely to win. CITE SOME SOURCES. Knowing where you got some of your information can often help me understand the context of your claims. I think we have a terrible tendency to take facts out of context in this activity, and some of our debates end up inane as a result. Citing the work of authors when you borrow from their ideas greatly enhances your credibility in front of me. I look more favorably on smart defense than poorly warranted offense. I think that during my first year out, I was too quick to give credence to under-warranted arguments simply because they were phrased as offense. That was unfortunate, and I'm now comfortable giving badly warranted offense considerably less weight than really smart defense. I flow rebuttals on a separate sheet and follow the extensions/cross applications from the constructives. I listen to the rebuttals very carefully, so you should take great care to isolate your voting issues and explain them clearly. Arguments I will not vote for:  In some ways, it seems like this activity has an odd way of gauging which arguments are acceptable and which are repugnant. For example, “war with China good” seems to be prevalent, but “classism good” is not okay. So I will say this: I will not vote for any argument (even one run in irony) that suggests that the domination of one person or group by another is acceptable, especially if that domination is based on immutable physical characteristics, gender identity, or some other element of social location. More concretely, I will never vote for things like “racism okay” or “patriarchy good." Also, I will not vote for RVIs on procedurals. Behavior external to your in-round strategic decisions that will negatively impact your speaker points: STEALING PREP. It does not take 30 seconds to set up a podium or organize your flows. There are usually only about six to eight relevant sheets by the time the member speeches start. Dig deep and apply your organizational skills. If you fill up more than 15 seconds with paper shuffling or forced-sounding banter, I will just start your time for you. Also, if you are more than five minutes late to a round, I will drop you and turn in my ballot.  HOSTILITY. I really appreciate teams that are polite, and I like good-natured humor in the round. Snark, bullying, and other forms of discourteousness make the experience uncomfortable and unpleasant. NOT TAKING A QUESTION. You should allow the other team to ask at least one question during the constructives. More Specifics: Impact prioritization: death > dehumanization, absent excellent warranting to the contrary. I find the tendency to categorize as "dehumanizing" any impact short of death to be immensely annoying. Critical debate: time for an update on this issue. Last year, I voted for the criticism approximately one out of every three times the NEG went for it. I have found myself voting for criticisms less and less frequently, often because the mechanisms by which the alternative solves are too vague for me to feel comfortable evaluating. Although I pursued critical debate as a competitor, I have no formal training in critical theory/culture studies, and put simply, my interest in critical debate is declining relative to my interest in topic-specific disad/counterplan debate. Of course, if you choose to read a critical position in a round I'm judging, I will do my best to understand it to the fullest extent possible. To that end, here are some things that will increase the likelihood of your success with a critical strategy:  Excellent critical debaters phrase their arguments clearly and succinctly, show the intuitive appeal of their position, and specify its observable implications. While I think that the AFF should be able to weigh their case against the criticism, I also think that if the NEG has to defend their framework and their representations, the AFF should be held to the same standard. I'm not persuaded by "Ks are for cheaters"; if you represent political interaction in a particular way, you should be held accountable for those representations. For example, an AFF with a colorful array of balancing scenarios should be able to defend the assumptions underlying realist visions of IR. I prefer an alternative that goes beyond "Reject the AFF". I think you should have to defend a different and reasonably well-defined course of action, and you should have a significant solvency contention that explains how your alternative works. If I don’t understand what your alternative means, you are unlikely to win. If you are interested in pursuing a critical affirmative, I am certainly open to that. In my experience, critical affirmatives usually need a detailed series of arguments explaining how to understand the position in relation to the resolution, since critical affirmatives often appear untopical on face. Counterplan debate: I recognize that conditionality has become common, and that trend is unlikely to reverse. I am fine with conditionality, although I will certainly evaluate theoretical objections to condo. I am much less sympathetic to theoretical objections to dispositionality. I suppose that, ideally, counterplans would be both textually and functionally competitive. I have no strong feelings on the value of textual competition, although I am disinclined to vote for delay and consult counterplans. Please have a text of your counterplan prepared for the other team. I would also appreciate one, although it is not a necessity and I understand that your prep time is very limited. I believe that my understanding of permutations is pretty mainstream: alegitimate permutation is limited to all of the plan text plus all or part of the counterplan text. Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies Theory & Procedurals: These positions are fine, but consider yourself forewarned: I find these debates incredibly boring, and evaluating competing theory arguments is not my strength. Slow down when you read your interpretations, and explain very clearly to my why your interpretation garners your standards, and explain why your counterinterpretation is competitive. Also, please impact your procedurals with voters, and explain the voters with some depth. "It's a voter for fairness and education" is not helpful. Explain to me why I should care about something like fairness, which is both hard to quantify and impacted by a variety of other variables. Points of order: I am confident in my ability to identify new arguments in the rebuttals, and I will shield you from them. However, you should feel free to call points of order when you feel that an argument is new. More than two or three is usually excessive and becomes tiresome.

Steve Clemmons - Oregon

Steve Clemmons University of Oregon Rounds Judged in 2013-14 30ish   Experience: HS policy and LD, 4 years CEDA and NDT (before the merger) one year NPDA Coaching Experience College: First year at Oregon, 12 years at Santa Clara, 4 years at Macalester I have coached NDT LD, Mock Trial and parliamentary Coaching Experience DOF HS: Skyline, the Harker School, St. Vincent, Presentation HS Coaching Experience HS: Leland (CA) New Trier (IL), Hopkins (MN) Logan (CA) Richmond-Kennedy (CA) If you are reading this, I am really wondering why you are not doing NDT/CEDA.  You have just prepped in a prep room with your coaches and teammates, looking at your backfiles.  This is not a criticism, it is just an observation.  Chances are you want me to judge this like it was a policy round, but you are not in a policy round.  You are not reading evidence that I can evaluate, you are not arguing the quality of sources, you are asserting claims and hoping that I have knowledge about your kritik or your politics scenario.  The rounds that I have judged have reminded me of tagline debate.  Here are things I am not down for <ol> <li>Tag line debate where you read five words and expect that to resemble an argument</li> <li>Any of the isms.</li> <li>You claiming something that we both know is not true, like saying someone dropped something that has a bunch of ink next to it.</li> <li>Ignoring the topic.  Make me believe that you took the topic into account before you take us on some fanciful critical debate, or your CP or Affirmative advantage that is not realistic.</li> </ol> Things to know about how I evaluate rounds <ol> <li>I use the full range of speaker points.  I am totally empowered to give you a 5.  I haven’t given anything lower than about a 22 this year, but I use the whole scale. </li> <li>I prefer arguments that are about the topic, both Aff and Neg.</li> <li>I believe in some level of checking claims in the debate.  If you have some article that you read in prep time, refer to it.  I will evaluate the truth of the claims in cases of conflicting statements by looking at the referenced materials.  Do you have to read a card?  No, but let’s be honest…you probably should, which refers us back to why are you not doing policy or LD?</li> </ol> 1) I have a crippling case of SPS, or slow pen syndrome. I have seen too many debates were I feel excluded from the discussion at hand. Debaters ask for the shells and then they are passed back and forth between the debaters, but not through the judge. My pen speed is fine for most rounds, but the rounds where debaters try to push their limits are too fast for me now, mindlessly blipping through topicality or PIC answers and I just have blips I have to recreate into an argument. Now that I flow on my computer, things are better, but not entirely perfect. Your speed (or better yet, your stunning lack of clarity) still can be an issue.. which brings me to... 2) Most arguments presented are incomplete thoughts. One of the problems where SPS creeps up in on procedural issues. The phenomenon usually is started by the negative with short, underdeveloped theory arguments. The affirmative is usually just as guilty with a variety of brief “We Meet” blips that turn out to be 5-7 word sentences. I just don’t evaluate those arguments anymore. It is not my job to piece together the round by calling for the shells, evaluating the definitions and re-interpreting what the argument morphs to in the last rebuttals. I FIND THIS IS VIOLATED THE MOST!! If going for theory arguments like ISPEC and ASPEC are your bag, then you need to do the work in explaining the argument, not just assume that because I come into the round with native knowledge on the subject, that I am going to apply it for you. My teams run these arguments as well, and if they don’t explain it, then you should vote against them as well. When I tell you how I voted, you only have yourself to get upset with. 3) I SEARCH FOR THE EASY RATIONAL WAY OUT. I am not a lazy judge, but I think that clever teams find ways to win my ballot with easy to grip on, reasonable sounding stories in the last rebuttal. If that means that a reverse voter on something is it, then by all means take it. Remember, it still should meet the test above. It should be well thought out, developed rationale on where and what the abuse is and have an explained voting issue. Policy and Parliamentary debaters should steal something for Lincoln Douglas and use criterion/criteria and describe why your arguments filter though some framework and why your opponent’s arguments don’t. This should be topped off with why this means I should vote for you. 1)Topicality. Refer to incomplete arguments. I find that I rarely vote on topicality because the debate on this issue is usually pretty shallow and underdeveloped. Most teams just exchange blocks on the issue and it is dumped into the 1NR’s lap to deal with. If you plan to utilize topicality as a strategy in front of me, it should have a little heft to it. The reason why the case is non topical should be easy to understand. I am going to want to have a reconfiguration of what the topic area looks like after your interp of the resolution. Potential for abuse is usually not persuasive to me, because in the rounds that I normally judge, people rarely look to what happened in them, and I am not a debate guru that others look towards when evaluating the resolution. What could happen and what did happen are two different things. A word to the Aff : Shallow argumentation applies to you as well in the criticism of debate and topicality. 2) Kritiks. I am a big fan of consistency with your kritik and the rest of your argumentation. I think that I get typecast as a kritik hack, mainly because when I was a debater, we had a critical lens when looking at the resolution and debate as a whole. That view would slowly be growing incorrect. I really like discussions about the topic. My problem evaluating them is that most debaters assume that I come with an understanding of the argument, then they hope that I will apply my knowledge to complete the puzzle. I won’t do that, as I feel it interjects me into the debate too much. Your critical arguments should be easy to digest and have a theme that ties into whatever the Aff might be doing. The argument that the Aff uses the state, for example is not an explanation of the link to the Aff project. I am looking for a justification/link to the kritik from the Neg. Some other questions that should be answered is the question of the role of the judge in the round when faced with a kritik. This gets back to the question of criteria. Is the kritik post or pre fiat? What happens to the world of fiat when looking at the kritik? Is this criteria question a means based or a teleological/consequentialist question?  This obviously applies to critical Affirmatives as well.  I like debate about the topic at hand. I think that debate has gone too far from its roots. I have sympathy for a team that came to debate about the resolution and are prevented from doing so, because of a myriad of other issues that are not really germane to the topic. It has gotten to the point where I feel kritiks almost have to be resolutional in nature, or at least there should be a clearly defined link to something the Affirmative has said or do to trigger the impact. To ask a debater to defend the inherent racism that exists in society or the activity is counterproductive, and I give latitude for a team pointing that out. I am all for the intellectual exercise, but can we all just agree that is what it is? I am not one to believe that change can really be started from a debate round at some random tournament. 3)Political DA’s. I like them, but I think that they are not argued well enough. Everybody has lexis cards that talk about what the current climate is with TPA or the midterm elections, that is not the true problem with Politics debates. My problem comes with the internal link part of the debate. Nobody really ever talks about what causes the different policies to pass or not to pass. What are some of the reasons that the political process works the way it does? Why when President Obama passes some policy does he get either political capital or loses some capital. Take it father than winners-win or winners-lose. Develop the reasons why that is the case, and read some evidence about that issue as well. 4)CP’s. I prefer that the text be written out, both by the Negative and any permutations by the Negative. The little extra work by both sides makes it easy to judge textual competition on the CP. I can be persuaded to listen to functional competition justifications on the CP as well. Similar to topicality, I think that most theory in the CP comes out too fast for adequate adjudication on the issues. The team that usually wins on the theory is the team that takes the time out to explain their arguments. I fall on the side that CP’s are a form of advocacy by the Negative and that they should stick with them. They are part of the negative policy rationale. That is not a hard and fast rule, but it is one that I default to, without justification otherwise. 5)Overviews. I rarely flow them because they are usually generic pre-written out by the coach drivel that comes out too fast to truly be persuasive. An overview should set out the framework that I will be using to evaluate the round and it might refer to some evidence that makes that point. If you chose to read evidence in the overview and plan to refer to it again during the speech sometime, you might want to warn me about that. 6) Speaker Points I reward debaters who do some of the following things A) Dare to have a case debate on the Neg B) Clear, understandable speed, with extra love for debaters who pause a sec to allow page turning, and who don’t have wasteful overviews that really do not set up the actual framework C) Include the judge in the debate. Assume my participation in the round. Give me reasons why I should vote your way. Have a criteria D) 2AC’s that just don’t blip through the theory debate and actually explain their arguments. I prefer Depth in argumentation. Be right and have a few justifications, instead of throwing a lot of excrement on the wall and seeing what sticks. Speed mostly seems a reason for covering up a weakness, instead of building up a strength. My base starts at 24 and doing the things explained above will get you higher points. I find that I average about 26.5 as a base for my points. The scale usually extends from a top of 29 ( I have given out a few 29.5’s) to 25 ( I have given out some well deserved 23’s this year) Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? This is answered above.  I use the whole range and high of 29 low of 22 this year. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Again, this is answered above.   Performance based arguments… Above.  Should have a resolutional based link, or even better a link to the happenings in the round. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? The usual things I think people would do on a T debate.  Have some basic standard, clear violation of what the Affirmative did, prove how you were abused by this interpretation in the round and why I should vote on it.  The rest is up for debate. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? This is mostly for the debaters to haggle over.  I think that PICs should have clarity on what the net benefit is that would distinguish the CP from the case.  No, the OPP should not identify the status of the CP, because the Government should have done that during the speech. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) I have no problem with sharing.  But, the issue becomes the teams not sharing with the judge.  If you can come to an agreement on the arguments and it differs on my flow, what you think might not be relevant to how I decide the round. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? Again, this is what you would call being a good debater.  This is what should be in the final rebuttals.  I am open to persuasion on the ordering of the voting issues, but will default to the procedurals being handled first. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? However I feel on that particular day.  Debaters who do not do the previous two questions during their speech will usually be the debaters that will get 22-25 speaker points.

Steve Woods - WWU

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

Judge Philosophies

Adam Testerman - Lewis & Clark

Andrew Dorr - UWash

Andy Larson - Whitman

Ben Dodds - Oregon

Carly Johnson - Whitman

Chris Pierini - UWash

Colin Patrick - WWU

David Airne - U of M

Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell

Drake Skaggs - Puget Sound

James Miller - Oregon

Jess Reynolds - U of M

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark

John Nelson - Whitman

Jon Agnew - Boise State

Joseph Hykan - Whitman

Kevin Kuswa - Whitman

Korry Harvey - WWU

Kristen Stevens - WWU

Matt Gander - Whitman

Miranda Morton - Whitman

Sean Wang - Lewis & Clark

Stephen Moncrief - WWU

Steve Clemmons - Oregon

Steve Woods - WWU

Will Stark - Whitman

Zach Tschida - Puget Sound

2014 McSloy Classic I

Judge Philosophies

Adam Testerman - Lewis &amp; Clark

Andrew Dorr - UWash

Andy Larson - Whitman

Ben Dodds - Oregon

Carly Johnson - Whitman

Chris Pierini - UWash

Colin Patrick - WWU

David Airne - U of M

Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell

Drake Skaggs - Puget Sound

James Miller - Oregon

Jess Reynolds - U of M

Joe Provencher - Lewis &amp; Clark

John Nelson - Whitman

Jon Agnew - Boise State

Joseph Hykan - Whitman

Kevin Kuswa - Whitman

Korry Harvey - WWU

Kristen Stevens - WWU

Matt Gander - Whitman

Miranda Morton - Whitman

Sean Wang - Lewis &amp; Clark

Stephen Moncrief - WWU

Steve Clemmons - Oregon

Steve Woods - WWU

Will Stark - Whitman

Zach Tschida - Puget Sound

Adam Testerman - Lewis & Clark

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark

Sean Wang - Lewis & Clark