FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Hardy - Whitman

Alex Zendeh - Whitman

Allison Humble - Whitman

Allison Bowman - Concordia-CA

n/a

Andrew Grimalda - Concordia-CA

n/a

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.

Brandon Merrell - Hired X

Charles Kincy - Bellevue

~~(0) RESPECT THE INCREASED EQUITY CONSCIOUSNESS. Especially with your jokes and language. I don't want to ruin anyone's fun, but keep the humor harmless along lines of sexism, racism, and other frequent hotpoints of inclusivity. If you can't be "humorous" without trashing the feelings of others, then you suck at humor and should stick to business. If you feel at any point your opponents or I have acted in a way that is inappropriate, you have two options. You can immediately call a point of privilege, stop the clock, and we'll get it out in the open. That's especially important if the transgression was minor and probably unintentional, because it encourages us to talk about these things more. Or, if you don't feel comfortable with that, please explain the situation after the round to either the tournament director or the tournament equity officer/ombuds. (1) GROUND-LOSS AND ABUSE COMPLAINTS REQUIRE PERSUASIVE WARRANTS. You all know what's up in NPDA these days and you should expect anything. However, people get out of line, so you sometimes need some redress. (1a) The easiest way to warrant loss-of-ground claims is to run a speculative argument that you would've been able to run but for the loss of ground or abuse. For instance, if you're asking for a ballot on T because of loss of ground, read me the DA you should've been able to run. This allows AFF to concede a link to the DA if they're treading the line and allows the debate to proceed. If they're smart. (1b) If it's egregious abuse (eg. severe abuse of conditionality) calmly state your case and I'll evaluate it. The key thing to remember is you need to try to have a round anyway. If it's something involving social aggression (sexism, racism, harrassment, etc.), see point (0). (1c) Similarly, the biggest. pet. peeve. I have in NPDA is complaining about loss of ground in a pro-forma T argument and then reading 4 DAs with clean links. I know the game was played this way for years but I'm sick of it, and it's the kind of crap that ruins this event. STOP DOING IT. Penalty: If you do this, your opponents can simply say: "WE MEET and their DAs externally link" and I'll consider that adequate refutation of the T. (2) FRAME CONTROL IS THE NAME OF THE GAME. You’re not reading cards, so you need to project rhetorical confidence and power. You must not only tell me what issues are more important in the round, but you should also do this at the end of every non-PMC speech. (3) ESTABLISH THE FRAMEWORK BY STATING IT EXPLICITLY. This is easy--say “value is X, criteria is Y” or something similar. Opposition teams can either accept the framework and show why we should reject the topic OR provide a counter-framework and show why it is better. (4) IN REBUTTALS, ALWAYS ANALYZE CLASH OF FRAMEWORK OR IMPACTS. The easiest way to do this in the rebuttal is to crystallize the framework or impacts and say “we said this, they said that, we win because such and so.” If you need an explanatory overview, go for it. All else being equal, this will win you the round if the other team flubs it. (5) OFFENSE IS BETTER THAN DEFENSE. You can win on terminal D, but it shouldn't be your game plan. If you don’t go on offense, you won’t be able to weigh impacts. Further, you’re not reading cards, so standing for something is simply more persuasive than standing against your opponent. While I don't believe the policy debate notion of "presumption" applies to Parli, I will not vote Gov unless Gov has at least some surviving offense, which has the same effect as presumption. (6a) PRE-PROCEDURALS REQUIRE WARRANTS FOR PRE-PROCEDURALITY. You must explicitly demonstrate how the theoretical, procedural, or kritikal implications of your argument block access to your opponents’ impacts. (6b) USE WEIRD OR SILLY TACTICS AT YOUR PERIL... This includes things like performance, laughably silly stock politics DAs, RVIs, wacky existentialism Ks, K-Affs, plan-minus PICs, Ospecs, and other stuff like that. Sure I'll listen and flow it, but then I'll probably wrinkle my nose and drop you, because I'm old school like that. (6c) ...BUT I'M FAR MORE LIKELY TO ENTERTAIN THE UNUSUAL IN ROUNDS WITH BAD TOPICS.... If I feel the standard approach to your side of a topic is likely to force you to argue something absurd or offensive, I will give you a larger amount of latitude for nonstandard approaches. (Even though I will always intervene like this if I am aware of the imbalance, it's safer to point out to me that this principle should be in play.) A recent example is "USFGS mandate that blood donors cannot be discriminated against based on sexual orientation." Opposition teams are in the uncomfortable position of either advocating for discrimination or bad science if they are forced into the policymaker framework. K's and politics DAs are really the only ground they have, so I'm giving them a lot more weight. (6d) ...OR IF YOUR OPPONENTS ARE ABUSIVE. See point (0) on equity and point (1) on warrants. (7) SPEED DOESN’T KILL, BUT IT PROBABLY DOESN’T HELP. I’m probably about twice your age and don’t follow things nearly as well as I used to. A well-developed single argument wins against eight blippy and hard-to-follow ones. I’ll do the best I can, but it works better for all of us if you save your breath and show some quality of thought. (8) IF I SUSPECT YOU'RE MAKING CRAP UP, I WILL “GOOGLE IT”. I won’t entertain arguments that are patently absurd just because they are theoretically proper, and if the round comes down to a factual dispute, I will do as much research as I can in 5 minutes. If that doesn’t resolve it, I will consider the argument a wash. (9) SPEAKS. Speaks. I use something close to the last NPTE rubric. PMs and LOs start with 27. Members start with 27.5. Then you depart from there in 0.5 increments. Your speaks will be between 26 and 29 unless something highly unusual has happened. In novice or junior, these numbers measure your progress against the progress I expect from developing debaters (that is, it's much harder to get a 28 in March than in October). (10) YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? Seriously, you worry way too much about these things. If you want to know the detailed crap like whether I prefer functional or textual competition or junk like that, just ask before the round.

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.

Dustin Schneider - U of M

n/a

Hannah Pizelo - UW Bothell

Jerry Mooney - IDAHO

Joe Allen - Washburn

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

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark

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

Joel Wilson - Whitman

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.

Kristine Clancy - Pepperdine

Kyle Kimball - Puget Sound

Matthew Hogan - UNR

Name: Matthew Hogan School: University of Nevada, Reno 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. To begin, I have about 12 years experience in the activity between competing in high school policy, competing in college parli, and coaching parli for 3 years. My general approach to evaluating the debate is that the government team has the responsibility to defend the topic and their case, while the negative can challenge either of those two burdens to win the round. I believe the affirmative team should defend the resolution. This means that if you want to run a critical affirmative, you need to explain to me how this position is topical under the specific resolution. I allow quite a bit of leeway when it comes to affirmative interpretations of resolutions, so the least you can do is spend the extra 30 seconds explaining how you are topical. My only exception to this burden is a project affirmative, but I need a good framework explaining why this is more important than the topic, and probably an explanation as to why you are not running the position just to skew your opponents out of the round (ie: disclose your project if it is that important to you). Opposition Teams, your Kritik should also be topical either to the resolution or specifically to the plan text. Generic links, links of omission etc, don’t really do it for me. Link specific discourse, the plan text or the wording of the resolution. Really try to engage your opponent or the resolution with the kritik, don’t run the kritik just for the sake of running it. Also, I believe in negation theory, so you can have contradictory arguments in the round. Just make sure you parameterize down to one of the two arguments by the rebuttals. If you are going for both arguments in the rebuttal and are winning both, I don’t know what to do with the two competing claims you are winning and, thus, disregard them both (government teams should know this too). I am open to procedurals of all kinds, kritiks, diusads and counterplans. I am willing to vote for either liberal or conservative positions, so long as those arguments are not deliberately racist, sexist, etc. I am ok with speed, so far as you give a little pen time between claims, since this is parli after all. A good idea would be to give a warrant after the claim, so I can get pen time and so you can actually support your argument. Above all else, I expect both teams to be respectful to each other. Don’t deliberately be mean, rude or patronizing. I am ok with banter, sarcasm, etc, but being rude just for the sake of bullying your opponent will upset me. Not enough for me to vote against you, but enough for me to dock your speaker points substantially. Points of order should be called in front of me. If something is blatantly new for me, I will do disregard the argument. If there is a grey area, I may allow the argument unless a point of order is called. I think it is better to be safe than sorry. My idea of net-benefits is probably not traditional, where whomever has a higher magnitude wins. Unless you tell me why I need to prioritize magnitude first, I will evaluate net-benefits to my default standard which is: probability>timeframe>magnitude. My political philosophy is that high magnitude debates stagnate real action and reform, which is why I prioritize probability. That isn’t to say that I won’t evaluate magnitude first if you tell me why I should abandon my default judging standard. If you have any specific questions, feel free to email me atmchogan86@gmail.com. Best of luck to you all!!! Section 2: Specific Inquiries Please describe your approach to the following. 1.â€‹Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? â€‹26-29 2.â€‹How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? â€‹Critically framed arguments are cool with me for both teams. Critical affirmatives should be topical to the resolution (see above), and still give the negative some ground in the round. Critically framed arguments should have a clear framework for both teams that tell me how I should prioritize the position. Without a winning framework that prioritize the critical argument first, I will weigh it equally to other positions. Yes the position can contradict other positions, as long as you collapse to only one of the positions in the rebuttal. My one exclusion to this rule is that if you run a critical position based off the discourse someone uses, and then you use that discourse, then your contradictory positions can cost you the round, since you can’t take back your discourse. 3.â€‹Performance based arguments… â€‹I am also ok with performance based positions, so long as they meet a standard of relevance to the resolution. However, it needs to be clear to me that I am evaluating the performance rather than the content, with reasons why I should evaluate performance first. The opposing team should have the right to know if they are actually debate the performance or the content, instead of being excluded by a team switching back and forth between frameworks. 4.â€‹Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? â€‹ â€‹I don’t require competing interpretations. If you tell me why your opponent has a bad interpretation, I won’t vote for it. If you want me to vote for your competing interpretation, though, I need counter-standards. I don’t need in-round abuse as long as the standards and voters you are going for aren’t related to ground (ie: grammar and Jurisdiction). However if you are going for a fairness voter with a claim to ground loss, then I need the abuse to be present in round. I do give government teams flexibility in being creative with the topic, as long as they can win topicality, but I am also more likely to vote on topicality than some other critics may. 5.â€‹Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? â€‹Counterplan is assumed dispositional to me unless told otherwise. If asked about the status of the counterplan, the negative team should answer their opponent. Counterplans of any kind are ok with me, as long as you can defend the theory behind the counterplan you ran. All theory is up for debate for both teams when it comes to counterplans. My favorite counterplans are plan exclusive counterplans, but I will entertain any kind. 6.â€‹Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) â€‹Yes, teams can share flowed arguments. 7.â€‹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?)? Procedurals first, krtiks second, then net-benefits. You can easily tell me why I should prioritize differently in the debate. Additionally, if nobody is winning the theory as to why I should look to one argument first, then I will weigh procederuals vs. kritiks vs. plan/da/cp equally under net-benefits and weigh the impacts of each. So you should be winning your theory debate on your position.â€‹ â€‹ 8.â€‹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")? â€‹As mentioned before, I prioritize probability first. I will still consider things like magnitude and timeframe, I just give more weight to more probable impacts. Therefore things like dehumanization can outweigh extinction or vice versa, as long as you are winning the probability debate. The other option is give me framework reasons as to why I should prefer magnitude or timeframe first. BOLDED TEXT REFLECTS CHANGES TO MY PHILOSOPHY ON 10/29/12 Case Arguments: Fact cases generally make me upset and uncomfortable because I feel I must always intervene. Value resolutions, a little less so. I am most comfortable with policy rounds because I think it incorporates the other two types of rounds and then goes beyond; however, I will listen to the round no matter how it is formatted. Affirmative cases should be well-warranted, clear, and solvent; after all, affirmative does get the benefit of choosing their case. I think inherency is a difficult battle to win for the negative; however the link and impact debate are incredibly important. I probably give more value to solvency attacks then other critics. I view solvency/advantage links as the internal link to all the impacts I weigh for the affirmative, so for the same reasons why proving a no link on a disadvantage make it go away, I feel the same is true for solvency. Lastly, I will default to a net-benefits framework until either team provides me with a different framework in which I should view the round. Disadvantage Arguments: Generally enjoy the disadvantage debate. Disadvantages must be unique, with well-warranted internal links and articulated advantages. I hate hearing big impacts like global warming or nuke war without a clear articulated scenario of how we get there and how the impact occurs (same goes for the affirmative case). Example of a bad impact: Emissions create ocean acidity and lead to extinction in the ocean and the world. Example of a good impact: CO2+H2O results in carbonic acid, eating away the calcium shells of shellfish and coral, which are the 2nd most biodiverse place on earth and a major food source for all animals. I WILL NOT DO THE WORK FOR YOU ON THE IMPACT DEBATE. Links are very important as well, and while a risk of the link will get you access to the impacts, probability will greatly decrease, which given the right affirmative rebuttal may still not result in me voting for large impacts. Link turns are only offense if the government is winning the uniqueness debate. Counterplan Arguments: The following are my default views on counterplans; however, counterplan theory is completely up for debate, and I will listen to any counterplan if you defend and win the theory debate. I actually enjoy very clear, competitive counterplans. Delay counterplans generally are unfair and honestly quite unnecessary, since if you are winning the disadvantage, the CP isn’t required unless you have small impacts. Consult counterplans are a little less unfair than counterplans, but I feel somewhat the same towards these counterplans as I do towards delay. Consult CP’s have a little more offense, though. PICs are fine, but a little abusive (just a little J). I would just hope that you have a specific disad to the part you're PICing out of. I'm fine with topical counterplans. My default view is that perms are a test of competition, and not an advocacy. A perm is all of plan, and all or part of the counterplan. Anything outside of this, and I'll have a sympathetic ear to Opp claims of severance or intrinsicness. I prefer if you write out the counterplan and perm texts on separate pieces of paper to avoid debates about shifting perm/CP texts. I view all CPs as dispositional unless I'm told otherwise. To be clear, this means that Opp can kick it only if Gov perms it. If Gov straight turns the CP, Opp is stuck with it, unless they've declared it conditional at the top of the CP. Lastly, losing the counterplan doesn’t mean a loss for the opposition. Multiple Conditional (and usually contradictory) Counterplans will probably lose you the round, if your opponents tell me why they are abusive. They force the gov team to contradict themselves, run multiple uniqueness scenarios and definitely skew your opponents out of the round. Please do not run them. You already get the option between the status quo and/or a competing advocacy. You don’t need 3 more! (This applies to a kritik alternative and a counterplan, unless the counterplan is the alternative. Kritik Arguments: Framework of kritiks is incredibly important. Without a clear framework, I will simply weigh the kritik against the case, which generally means all you have is a non-unique disadvantage. I would much more prefer specific links to the aff case/rhetoric over resolution links (I am somewhat sympathetic to the affirmative when they don’t get to choose the resolution or side). More local impacts (personal/individual) will get you further in terms of the solvency of your alternative than huge impacts like “root of all violence”. However, I will listen to larger impacts as well, as long as your solvency can convince me that I can solve the root cause of all violence simply by signing my ballot!!!. Your alternative should be written and clarified if requested, and your solvency needs to be articulated well. Best option for the affirmative to answer the kritik is to perm, answer framework, or challenge the solvency. Impact turning something like, “the root of all violence” is risky, and chances are, the kritik probably will link in some way to the affirmative case. T and Theory Arguments: I give a lot of flexibility to the affirmative to be creative with their interpretation and affirmative case. On the flipside, I enjoy topicality debate more than most judges. I guess the two balance each other out and will result in me being able to hear arguments from either team regarding topicality. Interpretations should be clear, and preferably, written out. Ground/Fairness claims should have proven in-round abuse in order to win them; however, you might be able to convince me that prep-abuse is important too. Otherwise, in-round is the only thing that will win you a fairness debate. Other standards and voters can still win you topicality, though. Your voters should be related to the standards for your interpretation. Short, blippy, time-suck topicality will make me very sad and less likely to vote for it. If you are going to run topicality, you should be putting in at least as much effort as your other arguments if you expect me to consider it. Other theory arguments like vagueness, policy framework best, etc are all up for debate in front of me. However, theory should be explained clearly, and you should give enough pen time on these arguments, since generally there are not as many warrants for theory arguments as there are for case arguments. Approach to Deciding: Net-Benefits paradigm until told otherwise. I cannot stress enough the importance of the rebuttal for evaluating impacts. Tell me where to weigh, how to weigh, and why I should weigh the impacts the way you tell me too. I prioritize impacts in the following order unless told otherwise: Probability of impacts comes first, Timeframe second, and magnitude last. I will not vote on a try or die of nuclear war that has low probability if the other team has a 100% chance of feeding 100 people and saving their lives. This is contrary to my personal political perspective that catastrophic rhetoric can lead to political paralysis. However, if you want to go for big impacts, you can convince me to change my prioritization of impacts by arguing why I should prioritize timeframe or magnitude. Convince me why timeframe matters more than anything, or probability, or magnitude. Any of these can be enough to win you the round, even if you are losing one of the other standards for weighing. Big impacts don’t necessarily result in a win, unless you tell me. Without any weighing, I feel like I must intervene and do the work for you (which I don’t want to do), and you may not enjoy the decision I make if I do. Without weighing being done, I will default to probability over timeframe and then timeframe over magnitude. If you fail to argue why I should change the way in which I prioritize impacts, you may lose the round despite winning the line by line because I will default to a more probable impact scenario. THIS IS IMPORTANT, since most judges evaluate magnitude first and this is not in-line with my own views on policy-making. So if you are a large magnitude impact debater, you must make it clear why the magnitude should come before a highly probable, small impact advantage for your opponents. Presentation Preferences: Speed is generally fine with me. There are only a few teams that may be fast for me, and I will let you know during your speech if you are going to fast. Should you decide not to slow down, then you may not get your argument on my flow. However, I believe that this is an educational activity while also a competitive one. Therefore, if your opponents are asking you to slow down because they can’t engage, and you refuse to, you may win the round, but you may not get very good speaker points in front of me. I believe using speaker points is the best way of balancing my responsibility in making sure debate is inclusive and educational, but at the same time not being interventionist by giving somebody a loss for speaking to fast. Sitting is fine and won‘t affect your speaker points, but you’ll generally speak clearer and quicker standing, so I don’t know why you wouldn’t want to stand for your own sake. I am fine with communicating with your partner, but will only flow those arguments that are coming from the speaker. If communicating with your partner is excessive, then your speaker points may be affected. The person speaker should be answering cx questions (but you can get input from your partner). CLARITY is the most important thing in terms of presentation.

Melissa Franke - PacificLutheran

n/a

Nick Griffin - Whitman

Nick Mauer - Hired X

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="margin: auto auto auto -0.3in; border-collapse: collapse; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-table-layout-alt: fixed;"> <tbody> <tr style="height: 0.2in; page-break-inside: avoid;"> <td colspan="3" style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 495pt; height: 0.2in; background-color: transparent;" valign="top" width="825">        Nick Mauer<o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 0.2in; page-break-inside: avoid;"> <td colspan="3" style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 495pt; height: 0.2in; background-color: transparent;" valign="top" width="825">       Klamath falls, OR<o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 0.2in; page-break-inside: avoid;"> <td colspan="3" style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 495pt; height: 0.2in; background-color: transparent;" valign="top" width="825">        Unaffiliated<o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 0.2in; page-break-inside: avoid;"> <td colspan="3" style="border-width: 0px 0px 1pt; border-style: none none solid; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(0, 0, 0) gray; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 495pt; height: 0.2in; background-color: transparent;" valign="top" width="825">        <a href="mailto:nrmauer@gmail.com">nrmauer@gmail.com</a><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 22.4pt;"> <td style="border-width: 0px 0px 1pt; border-style: none none solid; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(0, 0, 0) silver; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 99pt; height: 22.4pt; background-color: transparent; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid silver .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid gray 1.0pt;" valign="top" width="165"> <h1 style="margin: 5pt 0in 0pt 0.3in; layout-grid-mode: char; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"> Philosophy<o:p></o:p></h1> </td> <td colspan="2" style="border-width: 0px 0px 1pt; border-style: none none solid; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(0, 0, 0) silver; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 5.5in; height: 22.4pt; background-color: transparent; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid silver .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid gray 1.0pt;" width="660"> I did my high school competition in the state of Washington and graduated in 87. I competed for college in 87-88, 97 and 01-03. I have some preparation. I have been in contact with, participated in or worked in, this activity for very close to 30 years. That is some preparation. If there are mistakes to be made in Forensics, there is a very good chance I have made them. If there are opportunities to be misread or squandered in debate, I have probably misread them or squandered them. With that in mind, I am very understanding of mistakes, but, I see them. Sometimes one team can do enough wrong to allow the other team to win. I rejoice in speakers doing the right things. Using structure. Really clear sign posting. Good and clear speech. I understand that it is the trend, and a perceived need, to talk faster. My motto is, “Talk as fast as you can.” When, I cannot understand you, you are unable to use persuasive tones, your structure is unapparent or you are struggling to breath, well then, I would say you are talking faster then you can. I will follow your arguments with the diligence of a thirty year veteran, who is very much, still learning. I will not buy into technical arguments unless there is a glaring abuse.<o:p></o:p> I will judge your:<o:p></o:p> · Talent, how well structured and supported is your argumentation.<o:p></o:p> · Courage, are you convincing in your argumentation, firm in your resolve, or bullied by your opposition. <o:p></o:p> · Prudence of speech, do you talk well, clearly, with good word choice. <o:p></o:p> · Attitude and persuasiveness, do you have presence, are you filling the room, do you, “Sell,” your position, is your decorum appropriate, are your tones pleasing.<o:p></o:p> · Spirit, this is a college activity of the highest standards and history. You are representing yourselves, partners, teammates, teams, coaches, schools and the activity as a whole. Do you represent? <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 32pt; page-break-inside: avoid;"> <td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 99pt; height: 32pt; background-color: transparent; mso-border-top-alt: solid silver .5pt;" valign="top" width="165"> <h1 style="margin: 5pt 0in 0pt 0.3in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"> Education<o:p></o:p></h1> </td> <td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 4.75in; height: 32pt; background-color: transparent; mso-border-top-alt: solid silver .5pt;" valign="top" width="570"> University of Puget Sound<o:p></o:p> Oregon State University<o:p></o:p> Carroll College<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </td> <td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; border: 0px rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 0.75in; height: 32pt; background-color: transparent; mso-border-top-alt: solid silver .5pt;" valign="top" width="90"> 87-88<o:p></o:p> 97<o:p></o:p> 01-03<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 53.75pt; page-break-inside: avoid;"> <td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 99pt; height: 53.75pt; background-color: transparent;" valign="top" width="165"> <h1 style="margin: 5pt 0in 0pt 0.3in; layout-grid-mode: char; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"> History of Accomplishments<o:p></o:p></h1> </td> <td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 4.75in; height: 53.75pt; background-color: transparent;" valign="top" width="570"> · 86 WA AA State Champion Extemporaneous Speaking and Impromptu Speaking<o:p></o:p> · 87 WA AA State Champion Extemporaneous Speaking and Impromptu Speaking<o:p></o:p> · 87 WA AA State Champion Lincoln Douglas Debate<o:p></o:p> · 88,02,03 NIET Competitor<o:p></o:p> · 03 Second Place Coaches Commemorative Regional Speaker<o:p></o:p> </td> <td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 0.75in; height: 53.75pt; background-color: transparent;" valign="top" width="90"> <o:p> </o:p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 43.25pt; page-break-inside: avoid;"> <td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 99pt; height: 43.25pt; background-color: transparent;" valign="top" width="165"> <o:p> </o:p> </td> <td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 4.75in; height: 43.25pt; background-color: transparent;" valign="top" width="570"> <o:p> </o:p> </td> <td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 0.75in; height: 43.25pt; background-color: transparent;" valign="top" width="90"> <o:p> </o:p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 14.35pt; page-break-inside: avoid;"> <td colspan="3" style="border-width: 1pt 0px 0px; border-style: solid none none; border-color: silver rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 495pt; height: 14.35pt; background-color: transparent; mso-border-top-alt: solid silver .5pt;" valign="top" width="825"> <h1 style="margin: 5pt 0in 0pt 0.3in; layout-grid-mode: char; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"> <o:p> </o:p></h1> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 97.65pt; page-break-inside: avoid; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"> <td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 99pt; height: 97.65pt; background-color: transparent;" valign="top" width="165"> <o:p> </o:p> </td> <td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 4.75in; height: 97.65pt; background-color: transparent;" valign="top" width="570"> · <o:p> </o:p> </td> <td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); width: 0.75in; height: 97.65pt; background-color: transparent;" valign="top" width="90"> <o:p> </o:p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>   <o:p> </o:p>

Nick Robinson - Willamette

n/a

Nigel Ramoz-Leslie - Whitman

Phil Sharp - UNR

I competed in HS Policy and College NPDA. I was formerly the ADOF at WWU (3 years) and the DOF at Univ of Montana (2 years). I took two years off to go and teach debate in Korea. I am now the DOF at UNR (9 years). I evaluate the round as a flow-based policy-making critic of argument. Not a fan of the original argument being nothing but a tag with no warrant and the PMR back-filling. I hold you to the arguments you made and as a critic of argument, I will evaluate the degree to which you have warranted and convinced me of that argument. If your argument did not make sense the first time you said it, it is not likely to win my ballot. At the end of the debate, all judges must do work to make their decision. I feel that I attempt to make my involvement in the decision something I am consciously aware of as opposed to pretending that debates somehow decide themselves. In the event that the decision is not clear-cut, I will attempt to use a standard and fair method. Some things that you should know: A. I will weigh arguments through the frameworks the debaters provide. If a team wants me to vote on an Education standard on a T but they are losing an RVI on Education on the K, How do I weigh who has harmed Edu the most? Procedurals and kritiks are ultimately a request for me to employ a different paradigm in the debate (not post-fiat policy-making). B. In the event of clash, I will side with the team who has the more reasonable story and articulates the best standards to prefer their argument. In the absence of standards, I will default to the team whose argument is most intuitive as presented. C. In the event of dropped or under-covered arguments, I will vote based upon how well you warranted the argument. If a team drops a 20 second T that didn't make any sense, I won't vote on it. If you think your arguments are winners, make them sufficiently the first time you present them. Additional Considerations: 1. I DO think that an AFF should be an inductive proof of the res, but I also think that as long as they are reasonable, the NEG should be quick on their feet with arguments. I might not vote on T but I will consider how well a Neg team does when caught by surprise and give them the benefit of the doubt a little. I like creative and strategic movement within a topic area, AS LONG AS YOU EXPLAIN HOW YOUR CASE IS A PROOF OF THE RES BEING TRUE. I prefer a policy, if the res allows you to do it. 2. I think that the current policy of blipping and back-filling is yucky. I don't mind how fast you talk but I think it is intellectually bankrupt to simply spew out a bunch of buzzwords and taglines and try to win without actually knowing what your arguments mean or explaining them. Please note that I haven’t judged a ton of rounds this year and so my pen is slow. 3. A lot of debaters get lost in the minutia and don't understand the purpose of the particular argument they are making. Then they say something like, "The Uniqueness controls the direction of the link." Which is true but is NOT persuasive to hear in a rebuttal. Explain what you mean and how that affects the outcome of the debate. All arguments should be impacted to my decision. 4. Rebuttals should not be line-by-line repeatals. You must crystallize the debate and provide some guidance into my decision making given the negotiated frameworks. The less you do this, the more I have to figure out how to vote. I will flow the LOR straight down the page (like a big overview). Once the PMR is over, I will look back at the LOR arguments before I vote. 5. I find Kritiks to be interesting (if people explain the critical perspective in a way that makes sense) but I find debate to be a problematic format for them. If you run a K or performance on the aff, please provide a clear Role of the Ballot and defend the fact that you defend the topic. If you run a K on the neg, I expect to see a unique link in the debate with a functioning alternative and solvency. Case-turns from critical theory perspective often work better through the policy-making paradigm. 6. Over-reliance upon buzz words like dehumanization will not be persuasive to me. Explain what it is and why it is bad and don't say things like "Dehum is worse than death" unless you have a good reason that is true. 7. Your internal link story is more important than big, wanky impact stories. 8. I would like to be entertained in the back of the room. Judges all enjoy good intellectual throwdowns with solid clash and warranted arguments. Few of us enjoy the dry, combative, boring rehashing of theory blocks and race to the bottom that teams are choosing in an attempt to win. 9. Watch my freaking non-verbals. If you continue to say "we are the most limiting interpretation" and I am holding my hands up and shaking my head, I probably am looking for you to explain how you’re obviously under limiting interp is actually providing for better limits. 10. I am liberal. I will vote in as unbiased way as possible based on the arguments in the round and my predisposition on questions of debate theory, but I thought it was fair to tell you my political leanings. 11. Don't be rude. Avoid sexism, racism, homophobia, general inappropriate behavior and all the other isms. Be a good sport. Some of the things you say are inevitably going to be less good comparatively. Don't act like you should win every single argument.

Rachelle Harris - WWU

n/a

Sarah Hamid - Oregon

History/BG 1         Academic: I completed my undergraduate degree with a double major in Literature (focus on Gender Criticism and Theory) and Post-Colonial Studies, minor in Art History, Gender Studies, History, and Film Studies. I am currently an MA candidate in Media Studies at the University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communication. My research interests include nation branding, anthropology of the state, and “globalization”. 2         Debate: I am in my third year of coaching at the U of O’s Parliamentary Debate/Policy Debate program. I also direct our fledgling IE program. As a competitor, I spent 3 years in the NPTE/NPDA circuit, 2 of which were spent debating for the University of the Pacific in Parliamentary Debate and NFA-LD. 3         Judging: This will be my third NPTE/NPDA, and the conclusion of my third season of judging. 4         Topic Areas: I was heavily involved in the research of all 3 topic-areas, though am most versed in science/technology and the Latin America resolutions. I am comfortable evaluating deep, well-researched debates on all resolutions.   Global I believe hard, educational debate is good debate. I like to see strong research ethics, clash, and a willingness to engage a variety of methods and arguments. I do not like to see blips, claims, lies, and attitudes that seek to exclude. I recognize the participatory disparities in this activity – the diminishing voice of representation from 2-year institutions and the ever present absence of debaters of color – and tend to approach rounds with the kind of ferocious open-mindedness that will allow as many people to participate as possible.   Local 1         I have no hang-ups about voting for any ‘type’ of argument, regardless of manner of delivery or genre of argument. I have voted for and against all arguments. 2         Rate of delivery is rarely a problem; I keep a neat flow and will audible for clarity with little hesitation if needed. IMO, ideal rate of delivery is determined by what is most conducive to the pedagogic value of the round. 3         Order of operations (unless convinced otherwise): (1) framework/theoretical legitimacy, (2) solvency or “solvency”, depending on nature of advocacy and (3) impact comparison. 4         I will not vote for an argument I do not understand. I am perfectly comfortable disregarding arguments that fail to meet a basic threshold of sense and explanation. 5         Theory is rarely a reason to reject the team, rejecting the argument should solve your impact. 6         Permutations are a demonstration of non-competitiveness, not an advocacy. 7         Framework is not a voting issue – that does not make sense to me. 8         “No warrant” is an observation, not an argument. Gee wiz, I can flow too. 9         More often then not, link controls the direction of the link. I am not compelled by uniqueness ‘dumps; with no cohesion of comparative claims. 10      I do not ‘believe’ in any theory argument. I enjoy watching multiple conditional negative advocacies, and do not consider counterplans that rely on normal means for competition to be ‘cheating’. That’s silly. 11      I don’t really understand what the distinction most teams draw between ‘potential’ or ‘articulated’ abuse on procedurals, and rarely see a demonstration of abuse at all, so don’t care about how ‘articulated’ your abuse is. This ought to be resolved via impact calculus. 12      I don’t believe fairness takes primacy. I don’t believe being topical entitles you to anything. I believe that should be debated and resolved in round. 13      Terminal defense exists and I will evaluate it. 14      I will not vote on an argument as “dropped” if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech. 15      I don’t care if you call points of order, but will only allow 1 response before I deliberate. 16      Don’t split the block.   Flowing I flow Kritiks on one sheet of paper, flow the LOR on its own sheet of paper, and tend to flow answers/MG/MOC arguments next to where I am directed to do so. I am a flow-centric critic as I find this helps me check subjective bias, so will not disregard the flow unless you provide a compelling reason to do so.   RFDs This is NPTE, so I believe you can all flow and find explaining the nature and weight of every single argument that was conceived of during the debate to be a waste of time. I will do my best to clearly explain why I evaluated key arguments that helped resolve the debate for me the way that it did. If you would like to me reflect on how I felt about a certain argument, or why certain arguments did not weigh into my decision, the onus is on you to ask.   Theory You should strive to create as much of a distinction as possible between your opponents’ and your interpretation; case lists that demonstrate the nature and depth of the ground at stake are helpful. I err on competing interpretations absent being told otherwise, and will vote on the interpretation that provides the most offensive justification in its defense. I don’t care how little your interpretation/violation relates to the topic, and have no gut-checks on fairness and theft of ground. I don’t enjoy watching asinine debates, so just ask questions for clarification and avoid the spec debate entirely.   Disads Fine, no qualms.   Kritiks Fine, no qualms. Although, don’t assume I’ve read, agree with, or care about your authors.   Counterplans Fine, no qualms.   Speaker Points I am ambivalent to the practice of allocating speaker points. I have no problem with giving straight 28s. I usually range from 28-29, and will hand out a 30 every couple of tournaments if I see a particularly clever deployment of strategy.   I reserve the right to: 1         Ask for any and all texts after the round. 2         Audible when something is unclear. 3         Deliberate on all points of order, even on a panel. 4         Deduct from speaker points if your language is offensive. 5         Deduct from speaker points if you have nothing interesting to say besides generics on a given topic area; this is nationals, do research.

Simone Walter - Hired X

Steve Doubledee - Washburn

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

Steve Woods - WWU

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

Tom Schally - Oregon

Schally Doctrine TL;DR Version (NPTE '13) I've been told this is my year to be most preferred critic, so I'll keep this brief. Coach at Oregon 4 years parli/policy. I make an effort to thoughtfully evaluate and reward good debate, and help you improve it. I expect a lot but if you want your hard work rewarded then I am a probably a good critic to prefer. Thanks for reading. Since no one is tabula rasa, here are some of the things that are on my tabula: • In front of me you are almost always better off doing what you do well rather than attempting to cater to my partiality. You want to read two counterplans? Make it rain. Read a poem? Frost me. • I will not vote on an argument as “dropped” if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech. • I am perfectly comfortable passing judgment. If an argument does not rise to a minimum threshold of sense and/or explanation, I will disregard it. • Debate is a communication activity and good debaters recognize that fact – time pressures and all – they can afford to explain, be funny, and identify failures and correct them. • Rule 1 of winning debates is control the frame: is conditionality good/bad to be decided on education or fairness, is timeframe or magnitude more important, is social welfare or maximizing liberty more important? . . . These meta-level comparisons, or arguments that resolve arguments, are more important than smaller line-by-line issues in 11 out of 10 debates. • I like jokes. Even mean jokes, but not cruel jokes. Actually, even most cruel jokes. But only if everyone can agree with that they are jokes. How do you know? Social skills. It's a matter of risk/reward. I enjoy competitive debates that illustrate that this is a collegial activity. This activity is very intense, but recognize that everyone present feels the same pressures. Enjoy what you do. I suppose that honor is a bourgeoisie value, but I am a supporter.  STOP HERE! You're better off spending your time researching, but if you'd like to proceed, here's last year's NPTE philosophy. 2012 NPTE: <a href="http://www.net-benefits.net/showpost.php?p=233088&postcount=3" target="_blank">http://www.net-benefits.net/showpost...88&postcount=3</a>   Schally Doctrine NPTE 2012 Director’s Cut   Even the best classic works occasionally require modernization to match the times, yet other observations simply grow finer with time. So, here’s the new update everyone, thanks for reading.   E-harmony Blurb: This is not a game that someone wins, but rather a form of play that is successful the more people get to play, and the longer the game is kept going. I approach judging as a constant challenge for personal betterment and make a genuine effort to thoughtfully evaluate and reward good debate and help you improve it. I want to be preferred at tournaments and see the very best debates. I think that debate is unquestionably one of the best games ever crafted and embrace its eccentricities with a fair amount of jest; yet recognize its value is determined by our collective expectations and willingness to be challenged. If you demand a lot from yourself and want your hard work and practice rewarded, then I am a probably a good critic for your to prefer. Debate/Academic Pedigree: I am in my third year of coaching and judging both policy and parliamentary debate for Oregon. I have judged at approximately 12 parli and 5 policy tournaments this season and rarely get a break. I competed for three years at Western Kentucky University (don’t read into it) in both NPTE/NPDA Parliamentary and NFA Lincoln-Douglas debate (strike two, I know). I also competed in CEDA/NDT as a freshman with Macalester College. As an undergraduate I studied political science (mostly comparative and international relations) and gender studies/philosophy. Now as a graduate student at the University of Oregon, I study public policy and my major research areas include ethical philosophy, security studies, and environmental issues. About This Philosophy: Proceeding with the adage, “the only bad judging philosophy is a dishonest one,” I have made a noteworthy effort to reveal my known predispositions. Of course, (requisite judge philosophy qualifier ahead) these are purely my opinions and I can be dissuaded from them unless explicitly noted. Since no one is tabula rasa, here are some of the things that are on my tabula. Read and then get back to researching. GLOBAL THOUGHTS: • In front of me you are almost always better off doing what you do well rather than attempting to cater to my partiality. You want to read two counterplans? Make it rain. Read a poem? Frost me. • I will not vote on an argument as “dropped” if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech. • I am perfectly comfortable passing judgment. If an argument does not rise to a minimum threshold of sense and/or explanation, I will disregard it. • Debate is a communication activity and good debaters recognize that fact – time pressures and all – they can afford to explain, be funny, and identify communication failures and correct them. The Schally Doctrine addresses my musings and jest on substantive argument categories first and then matters of debate practice follow. Substantive Debate Issues: Rule number 1 of winning debates is control the frame: is conditionality good/bad to be decided on education or fairness, is timeframe or magnitude more important, is social welfare or maximizing liberty more important? . . . These meta-level comparisons, or arguments that resolve arguments, are more important than smaller line-by-line issues in 11 out of 10 debates. If you control the frame, you will almost invariably win. CRITIQUES: Providing a clear and persuasive explanation of your argument is vastly more important than advertising your mastery of a cultural studies vocab list. People seem to often lose sight of the fact that critiques are just arguments, so don’t strive to mystify your argument on either side. Don’t assume that I have read and/or understand your author(s)—this is generally a problem in K debates—where people assume that terms are packed with implicit meaning. Teams are usually better off attempting to engage the kritik than spewing down a list of “pomo ain’t good.” I would rather listen to smart analytical arguments than the standard curriculum of “not fair” and “ policy/realism good”. -Tips for Neg – Kritiks should typically provide an explanatory framework for evaluating the world or advocacy in a manner that deviates from the framework assumed by the other team. I am unimpressed by frameworks that seek to inflate the relevance of the Kritik by excluding the Aff. Kritiks should not literally exclude other impacts, but rather provide a specific mechanism for evaluating and prioritizing different types of impact claims and/or contains implications that logically make other impacts non-existent or irrelevant. Framework – Framework debates are much like theory debates to me. The explanation of your position on what debate should be, and the consequences to debate of a particular practice or position are just as important as winning specific claims. If you want to debate about debate, then you need to articulate an impact statement about what debate should be. That being said, I’ve voted both ways on most framework debates, so you should defend the debate practices that you feel most comfortable defending, and not worry about my views of debate practices. -Critical Affirmatives - I am inclined to believe that affirmatives should be tied to a topical advocacy statement. Beyond that I have no evident presumptions about critical arguments that are not equally true of the negative. -Contradictory/Conditional K’s – Although there are obvious exceptions, critiquing the thinking or representations of an advocacy do not seem exclusive with also questioning its political consequences (to me). An idea can be wrong for relying on faulty assumptions, making wrongful conclusions, or both. Similarly, it is possible to have both ethical and pragmatic objections to particular action. I can be convinced that conditional K’s are bad, but do not begin thinking they are any worse than a counterplan. -Performance – I don’t see a lot of performance in parli and when I have it was done haphazardly and mostly uninspired. I am happy to judge performance debates, but would like for the performance to be purposeful; that makes or enhances a merited argument. If you deploy an argument and debate it then you can definitely pref me, but if your intention is to be ambiguous and unhelpful with the hope that I will conjure an explanation of your argument and reason it beats the other team, you may want to stick to getting Cheesewright’s ballot. TOPICALITY: Obviously topicality is a question of competing interpretations, but it seems just as apparent to me that if the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact to topicality i.e. fairness or education, then there is no compelling reason to vote negative. So, if you win that your interpretation is marginally better in a relatively unimportant way, then you must justify why it is that I should reward you with the ballot. Within this framework if you do not “meet” any interpretation in the round then it is difficult to vote for you because you have not provided a justification for how you affirm the topic, so offer a counter-interpretation. Too often debaters neglect the “impact” of your interpretation and what their world of debate looks like, so get with it. -Topicality intuitively precedes consideration of the merits of the affirmative advocacy assuming no effort is made to change the conventional framing of these arguments (if T isn’t first, it’s last, right?). This principle does not apply to non-topicality arguments such as specification relative to theory, etc. -T is not genocide—however, “exclusion” and similar impacts can be good reasons to prefer one interpretation over another. COUNTERPLANS: I think that the “gold standard” for counterplan legitimacy is specific solvency. Obviously, the necessary degree of specificity is a matter of interpretation, but, like good art, you know it when you see it. I tend to believe that counterplans that focus the debate on substantial elements of the plan are good for debate and counterplans that rely on ‘normal means’ for competition are not. Many of the assumptions about aff bias in choosing their case and having full/infinite prep are almost always untrue in parli’s current topic area => resolution procedure, so make theory forum-specific. I rarely see teams creatively counterplan away affirmative advantages or generate uniqueness and wish this happened more often. LOC Theory – I think that negative teams benefit greatly by including a theoretical defense of their counterplan in the LOC, otherwise the debate starts in the MG and I often have a difficult time figuring out how to reconcile new’ish PMR impact comparisons on these theory debates.                                                 Legitimacy – As a general guideline, I think CP’s shouldn’t contain a world where the entire plan could happen.     I am skeptical of delay, consult, small exclusion PICs of things unqualified by the plan.             Competition – I do not think that anything is “implied” by the plan. I prefer that counterplans compete both textually and functionally, however I can easily be made to favor solely functional competition. BTW, textual competition means a counterplan is competitive based off of something explicitly in the text of the plan. It does not mean what most debaters say it does in rounds…..(IE excluding a word counts) DISADVANTAGES: In assessing risk I tend belong to the ‘link first’ school of thought regarding disadvantages. To clarify, I find that if a disad is extremely unique then it obviously requires a high magnitude of a link to trigger the impact, but on the converse, if a disad is brink’ish then the neg has to win a high magnitude of a link to distinguish the plan from the conditions that created the brink. In either case, the question is the degree to which the aff causes the link. Uniqueness is, of course, very important however I find “we control uniqueness” to be code for “our link is terrible.” I do not believe in “1% of a link” and I am comfortable saying that there is not one, you should win your link and then you may assess risk of an impact. I think that if you “link turn” a disad and control the net-direction of the link but have no uniqueness answers that the risk of the disad is probably still zero. I think that intelligent defensive answers are under-utilized in most debates that I watch. THEORY: Does topic education outweigh analytic/process driven education? Does ‘judge intervention’ have a unique impact in relation to other theory impacts? You should answer these questions. I am likely to assume that rejecting the argument solves your impact, unless persuaded otherwise. I try my best to check my biases at the door, just recognize that some theoretical arguments make more sense (to me) than do others. Arbitrary interpretations are one of the stupidest trends in debate right now. If your interpretation of debate theory is wholly arbitrary and made up it doesn’t seem very useful for me to uphold it as some new norm and reject the other team. I am likely to believe that plans that fiat a number of actors (especially private) are abusive. The argument that “the aff will be vetoed/rolled back by the Pres or Congress” is laughable. By this I mean that, on occasion, when I am depressed, I think about this argument, and I laugh out loud. Specification arguments may be dismissed with maximum flippancy. IMPACTS: Lately, I think that impact comparison is one of the least sophisticated levels of analysis in most debates that I watch, which is very unfortunate. I welcome creative ways of framing the importance of differing impacts and would like to see rebuttals employ more “tiebreaker” arguments. Defense – Smart defensive arguments are an invaluable part of any good impact debate. Impact defense is severely underrated, especially against particularly silly impacts.                                                      Silly Impact Turns – Arguments deemed “counterintuitive” are welcome, but before unloading your early 90’s backfiles you should recognize that most of these arguments are intellectually weak and require some finesse to pull off.                                                                                                                  Buzzwords – Recent judging has made me irritated with the way any impact other than nuclear war is typically characterized. “That’s dehumanization, which is the internal-link to all violence,” has become a vacuous and lazy stand-in for every non-mass death or systemic impact framing. There are compelling reasons to value/prioritize actions that address racism or poverty, so argue this some integrity. This observation has also led me to make public my following inclinations. Things that probably do not negate personhood and/or erase life of meaning: • making difficult choices • lacking universal healthcare • Americans living in conditions that people elsewhere in the world already live in • abiding by laws or conventions Things that probably do negate personhood: • death • points of order • Soulja Boy                                                     Debate Practices HUMOR: I like jokes. Even mean jokes, but not cruel jokes. Actually, even most cruel jokes. But only if everyone can agree with that they are jokes. How do you know? Social skills. I know, not high on debaters’ list of talents, but it's a matter of risk/reward. It is refreshing to see debates that illustrate that this is a collegial activity in which all participants dedicate a significant amount of time and effort. In particular: StarCraft jokes are good. Star Wars are better. Pokemon jokes (except Dewgongs) Franz Kafka College sports Hipsters and PUNS PARLI ODDITIES: Prep – All materials should have been written in prep time; apparently this is a necessary clarification. Questions – The “protected time” rule is outdated and irrelevant to me; you are welcome to accept/decline questions within your speech as you choose. Points Of Order – I do not require points of order to be made in order to exclude new arguments, however I understand the strategic utility of them and am unlikely to punish you for using something that is put at your disposal by the rules. Texts – I prefer that textual advocacies be written down in a legible and shareable format if you are not going to repeat them in your speech, so that I have a definite form somewhere. I will not however contribute to the proliferation of arbitrary procedurals concerning the “right” to a written copy of plan or counterplan; it’s a courtesy. Demand a copy of “perm: do both, perm: do cp” or any of the like and receive 26 speakers points. Ask me why and I will write you a text. Opposition Block – The LOR does not need to make explicit extensions from the MOC. However, expounding upon certain arguments can affect the relative strength of that argument when I evaluate it. I will also defer to the nuance of argument explanation and comparison offered by the rebuttals. I think that “splitting” the block is particularly unfair and probably heavily bias. If you want me to “box in” your opponents, then you should provide a good explanation of what you could not argue and why that was critical. That being said, I do not like sandbagging and I will exert close scrutiny on the rebuttals. Make better arguments and you wont have to be sneaky. New MG Args – I’m not really one to give the PMR “golden answers,” especially on the positions that came out new in the MG.  I’m perfectly willing to evaluate your arguments.  Going for something stupid in the PMR on the basis that the negative doesn’t get second lines is a bad strategy in front of me. FLOWING: I keep an excellent and detailed flow. However, winning for me is more about establishing a coherent and well-reasoned explanation of the world rather than extending a specific argument. An argument is not “true” because it is extended on one sheet of paper if it is logically answered by arguments on another sheet of paper or later on the line by line. In a close debate, I will evaluate the final rebuttal of the team I am voting against on a separate sheet of paper, to make sure I have sufficiently evaluated each argument. I also flow the LOR on a separate sheet.  I do a lot of comparisons between the PMR and the LOR.  I flow every distinct case contention and off-case argument on a single sheet of paper spaced out appropriate to what I expect to need for answers. I typically flow responses to those arguments from top-to-bottom unless explicitly told to do otherwise (and maybe even still because I likely know better). Any attempt to alter this should be purposeful. I will not move back up the page, I will write your next argument in the order it was delivered. For example, if your mg says, “framework, perm, aff outweighs” I will not move down to the alt to flow your perm and then move back and end up cramming things together. So you should reference arguments by their tag/content and respond to them in a logical order that follows the previous speech. p.s. I sometimes flow permutations on a separate page if I expect that debate to get big (i.e. if it’s “one-off”), but that shouldn’t affect anything. DECORUM: I recognize that this activity is very intense, but try to understand that everyone present feels the same pressures. If you are decisively beating a team (particularly a younger or less successful team), then there’s no need to be rude. I suppose that honor is a bourgeoisie value, but I am a supporter. DISCLOSURE: I welcome post-round discussion—even if it is confrontational—it lets me debate again.

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Hardy - Whitman

Alex Zendeh - Whitman

Allison Humble - Whitman

Allison Bowman - Concordia-CA

Andrew Grimalda - Concordia-CA

Ben Dodds - Oregon

Brandon Merrell - Hired X

Charles Kincy - Bellevue

Chris Pierini - UWash

Colin Patrick - WWU

David Airne - U of M

Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell

Dustin Schneider - U of M

Hannah Pizelo - UW Bothell

Jerry Mooney - IDAHO

Joe Allen - Washburn

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark

Joel Wilson - Whitman

Korry Harvey - WWU

Kristine Clancy - Pepperdine

Kyle Kimball - Puget Sound

Matthew Hogan - UNR

Melissa Franke - PacificLutheran

Nick Griffin - Whitman

Nick Mauer - Hired X

Nick Robinson - Willamette

Nigel Ramoz-Leslie - Whitman

Phil Sharp - UNR

Rachelle Harris - WWU

Sarah Hamid - Oregon

Simone Walter - Hired X

Steve Doubledee - Washburn

Steve Woods - WWU

Tom Schally - Oregon

Tom Hyatt - Bellevue

Tyler Griffin - Hired X

Will Chamberlain - Oregon

Zach Tschida - Puget Sound

2012 Whitman Withycombe Classic II

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Hardy - Whitman

Alex Zendeh - Whitman

Allison Humble - Whitman

Allison Bowman - Concordia-CA

Andrew Grimalda - Concordia-CA

Ben Dodds - Oregon

Brandon Merrell - Hired X

Charles Kincy - Bellevue

Chris Pierini - UWash

Colin Patrick - WWU

David Airne - U of M

Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell

Dustin Schneider - U of M

Hannah Pizelo - UW Bothell

Jerry Mooney - IDAHO

Joe Allen - Washburn

Joe Provencher - Lewis &amp; Clark

Joel Wilson - Whitman

Korry Harvey - WWU

Kristine Clancy - Pepperdine

Kyle Kimball - Puget Sound

Matthew Hogan - UNR

Melissa Franke - PacificLutheran

Nick Griffin - Whitman

Nick Mauer - Hired X

Nick Robinson - Willamette

Nigel Ramoz-Leslie - Whitman

Phil Sharp - UNR

Rachelle Harris - WWU

Sarah Hamid - Oregon

Simone Walter - Hired X

Steve Doubledee - Washburn

Steve Woods - WWU

Tom Schally - Oregon

Tom Hyatt - Bellevue

Tyler Griffin - Hired X

Will Chamberlain - Oregon

Zach Tschida - Puget Sound

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark