Alex Van Dyke - MoState

n/a

---

Alex Vore - KWU

n/a

---

Andrew DeShon - Simpson

n/a

---

Carla Kirchner - SBU

n/a

---

Dan Stanfield - IC

n/a

---

Eduardo Magalhaes - Simpson

n/a

---

Ekow Kakra - MoState

---

Eric Morris - MoState

Eric Morris, DoF - Missouri State â 29th Year Judging 

++++ NFA-LD Version ++++ 

You can see NDT version, which is different, here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6383

I primarily judge in NDTCEDA (which I enjoy), but operate under different assumptions when judging in NFA-LD (if you want to read my NDT CEDA philosophy to understand how I think, it can be found here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_account_id=6383).

I like NFA-LD because it is more novice-friendly, and most of the community prefers DA-case debate. I don't dislike CP's (or K's that refute the plan) outside of the novice division, but direct refutation is refreshing to me.

I tend to prioritize probability (strength of link and internal link) when two impacts have a large magnitude. Uniqueness is rarely 100% either direction (although it can be). 

Explicitly non-topical affs or K's which refuse the topic entirely have a huge presumption to overcome. 

I have a presumption for NFA-LD rules, but you need to apply the specific rule. There is often room for counter-interpretations (including mine). Use them to help you refute arguments instead of making a bunch of independent voters. Thus, stock issues may be a place for debate more than "voting" issues - since negative often minimizes them instead of completely refuting them. 

I like that NFA-LD is not as fast as NDT (for access reasons), but the line of "how much is too much" is hard for me to judge. I want debaters to negotiate this before the round - the round should be no faster than the preferences of either participant (including others judges on a panel). 

Although I lean negative on many T questions relative to the NDT community, I'm not a hardliner on effects T. I think the literature base is relevant to how much is "too much" on extra T. I think T arguments should be grounded in clear definitions/interpretations, and I lean aff when there is uncertainty about the violation. I think spec arguments are best handled as CX questions, and generally have a strong presumption against theory voting issues - reject the argument not the is my leaning. 

If you share evidence via email chain (the best method), my gmail is ermocito. Given quick decision times, I prefer to get a copy of all speeches in real time (even if by flash drive) so I can double check things during prep time and CX. 

 

I will flow closely but often my RFD for the opponent could be reversed with better application of your argument to theirs, or better readings of their evidence to support your argument. Those things are excellent debating. 

---

Evan Kirksey - UCMO

n/a

---

Fendrich Clark - SE

n/a

---

Gary Harmon - KWU

n/a

---

Gavin McNeely - SBU

n/a

---

Gina Jensen - Webster

n/a

---

H. M. Murtuza - MoState

n/a

---

Holly Hill-Stanford - SBU

n/a

---

Isaac Opoku-Agyemang - MoState

I'm Isaac Opoku-Agyemang, an international Missouri State University Communication Department graduate student. Before this season, my debate experience was limited to judging debate competitions outside the United States, but I've judged this season at several NFA-LD (as well as parli and IE) tournaments, mostly in Missouri.

One thing that I look out for from debaters is to be respectful to all in the room. Assuming they are, I will vote affirmative if the unique benefits of the affirmative plan (beyond what a CP could solve) outweigh the unique disadvantages of adopting that plan. Of course, if the negative wins that the plan doesn't meet the best (or reasonable) interpretation of the topic, or a kritik shifts the debate focus, then the ballot will reflect that instead.

Concerning counterplans, I'm comfortable with net benefits competition (CP avoids the DA and solves some of the case) - but with any other approach to competition or internal net benefits, you will need to be explained very clearly and directly why the CP alone is better than doing both.

Regarding DA's, I'm fine with any sort of DA (including politics), but you should not assume international students are as familiar with elected Congresspeople or US legislative procedures as you may be. Explain links, internal links, impacts, and terms of art clearly and compare it assuming the aff wins a bunch of their impact.

Regarding topicality, I start with definitions/interpretation and then move on to plan text and solvency evidence. Negative needs to clearly win the violation, but not necessarily unique abuse. Interpretation is based both on clarity of the line drawn and what it would do for both sides over a full season of debate.

Regarding kritiks, you need to clearly prove the affirmative is critically (not tangentally) dependent on the link that you critique. I'm open to the kritik framework changing the topic of the debate so long as you are clear about the alternative framework (including win conditions for both sides), starting in the constructives.

My flowsheet isn't as detailed as someone who has been doing this for a decade, and I do not recommend going top speed. If you are speaking too quickly or have clarity problems, you should be able to notice my nonverbals and correct it.

---

Jackie Worth - SBU

n/a

---

Jessica Paxton - SBU

n/a

---

Joe Blasdel - McK

Section 1: General Information

I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so ever since.

In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.

On trichotomy, I tend to think the government has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I donât see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. Iâm also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.

If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If youâre calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.

Iâm not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ânewâ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ânewâ PMR arguments.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).

Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be âcontradictoryâ? with other negative positions?

Iâm open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than your average judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, itâs important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, itâs likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.

Performance based argumentsâ?¦

Same as above.

Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position thatâs run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework â Iâm not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an âaverageâ threshold. I donât vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a âhighâ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, Iâm probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.

Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?

All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I donât have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.

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?)?

All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.

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 tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.

---

John Wallis - Webster

n/a

---

Kaila Todd - SFCC

- not a fan of speed as a weapon or spreading the opponent out of the round. I will vote on speed abuse- let's keep debate an inclusive and equitable space, so slow down if your opponent calls speed.
My personal opinion about speed: Quality over quantity, persuade me. I can handle most speed even though I don't like it. If it is too fast, I will say clear up to 2x. If you don't slow down, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. If something isn't on my flow, it's likely not going to be taken into consideration when I make my decision.

- debate is an educational activity first, and I will vote on fairness/ education voters especially with proven abuse.

- Counterplans: (1) CP shifts presumption. If you are running a CP, it needs to be competitive or I will not vote for it. (2) PIC's are rarely persuasive to me. I will vote aff on the perm 95% of the time if neg runs a PIC.

- T should be used to check aff, and not as a time suck. Really not a fan of clearly throw away arguments. Debate is a game, but there are more goals than just winning :)

- IMPACT CALCULUS. Please. Weigh the aff world and the neg world, and do the work of comparing them for me.

- Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include I will be going over my opponents case and if time permits I will address our case) After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo.

- Framework : Establish a clear framework for the debate and come back to that FW frequently. If you don't provide any, I assume there to be a cost/benefit analysis.

- (for evidence based debate) : I only pull up documents that are shared if there is evidence that I need to check. I flow the round based on what is said in the round. Don't depend on me reading and re-reading your case/evidence to understand it and make the arguments for you- you should present it in a way that I can understand it, and that persuades me.

- Extensions : don't just extend card authors and taglines or arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and compare your impacts. Extend dropped arguments asap and explain their role in the debate. Don't wait until your last speech to bring up subpoint E that hasn't been talked about for the whole debate.

- Narrative : Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story or how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents case. **Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don't know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning. This is a communication event.

- Flow judge - So PLEASE provide clear verbal organization for me during your speech.

- In your rebuttals, tell me exactly where to vote. I'm a fan of "Judge, pull [the internal link/ framework/ subpoint B] through and put a star by it. You're voting for aff/ neg here because XYZ".

- HAVE FUN! Learn something each round, and most importantly- be you :)

---

Kristen Stout - Crowder

I judge the debate that is in front of me. What format of debate I'm judging determines what should/shouldn't happen in that debate. Complete (but old) philosophy on tabroom.

---

Kylee Johnson - UCMO

n/a

---

Larry Froelich - SBU

n/a

---

Laurel Kratz - Webster

n/a

---

Lauren Medrano - SBU

n/a

---

Lora Cohn - Park

n/a

---

Manny Reyes - UCMO

n/a

---

Mariah Gilmore - Simpson

n/a

---

Mariah Barber - SBU

n/a

---

Marisa Mayo - Simpson

n/a

---

Rachel Morrow - SBU

n/a

---

Rebekah Raub - SBU

n/a

---

Shane Mitchell - SBU

n/a

---

Shawna Merrill - IC

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Sydney Crank - SFCC

n/a

---

Terri Magalhaes - Simpson

n/a

---

Tiana Brownen - MoState

n/a

---

Tom Serfass - Webster

n/a

---

Venus Van Horn - SBU

n/a

---

Zach Thornhill - UNL

Find my paradigm on tabroom

---