FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Krell - WWU

<ul> <li>Background of the critic: I competed for WWU for 4 years, and coached for them 1 season.  I have been to about 5-6 tournaments this season.</li> <li>Approach of the critic to decision-making : I do have more familiarity with policy making, but understand that many different frameworks may be employed. The key is the clarity of the framework and appropriateness for the round-not only related to subject but also the other teams positions. I strive to tabula rasa in terms of biases, but am not willing to do work for unclear or undeveloped ideas.</li> <li>Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making: Good arguments are best, but obviously communication skills matter, However I prefer smart to beautiful.</li> <li>Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: It matters if you make it matter. Often times there are significant interactions between case and off case that need developed, but also understand how defenses of the SQ may be critical to overall strategy. Token case arguments have little weight, but developed into a coherent strategy weighed in the round clearly they have more value.</li> <li>Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks: Be smart. Procedurals should be round specific and show in round abuse. Counter plans need to be competitive but neutral on the topicality aspect of them. Don't assume I have read the literature for your Kritik. If I am going to vote for it I need to understand it at the thesis level and how it works as an argument.</li> <li>Preferences on calling Points of Order: I will try to protect but understand if you call them.  </li> </ul>

Andrea Baber - NCU

n/a

Beau Woodward - UP

I am ok with meta debate arguments (Topicality, Ks, etc.) as long as they are called for.  In NPDA, I don't mind speed, as long as it is understandable. We don't pass cards so please be clear. In IPDA, speed is not encouraged because the format encourages the public to attend and judge.  I really like structure and clear links. I am not going to do work for you, so make sure you are laying out a link story that is rational.  Impacts are necessary for me to judge the round, so give them to me. I love values and critiria, and I will use any resolutional analysis you give me.  Please try to act like your opponents are people, with valid opinions and points of view.

Ben Crossan - Cal

n/a

Brandon Rivera - Palomar

Section 1: General Information I competed for Northern Arizona University and am now coaching at San Diego State University. This is my second year judging collegiate debate and my first year coaching. My background is in Political Science, Women’s and Gender Studies, and Ethnic Studies. I was a “kritik” debater in my undergrad, but I would appreciate if you did what you know best. The biggest thing for me in debate was to have a critic with an open mind and the ability to listen. I hope to facilitate this role for debaters in the community and give people the opportunity.     Quick Notes:   DO WHAT YOU DO. Just because I know critical arguments more does not mean that I want to see those debates all the time. This is especially true if a team deviates from what they are good at in order to try and please me. Whether its “first strike” or “reject white civil society”, I will vote if I think you win the round.   I vote on examples within the debate more than a certain style of argument. By example I mean a historical, social, popular culture, or another type of event that helps to describe how your argument functions. “Dehum leads to otherization and is the logic of genocide” is not an example.   “Perm do both” is a borderline acceptable perm text. If you read these perms you roll the dice, especially if the other team points out that the alt/cp says vote neg. I know it takes time to read out both plan text, but I think it makes for the most stable perm debate.   Just because its dropped doesn’t mean I have to vote. I vote for well articulated and impacted arguments. Usually when something is dropped this means the other time gets to impact out their argument and prove why that argument is the most important in the round. Simply extending a drop does not guarantee “game over”.      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)? 25-30   2.       How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   I think that this is the type of argument that I know the most. I like critical arguments, but think that they require a few levels of analysis. I require a stable interpretation on the framework in order to give me something to evaluate the round. I do not believe that you “win framework = winning the round”, but do think that the framework gives you access to the impacts of your critical argument. I also prefer to have some explanation of your method, especially when the case is much more performative. I think that the affirmative can run a critical argument. The affirmative can both affirm the topic in a critical way, as well as read an affirmative that deals with larger social issues. Regardless of the route you take as the affirmative, the framework must justify the method and the viewpoint that you want me to evaluate the round based on.   I know there is a growing trend towards arguments that “function in multiple worlds” and often contradict each other. My personal disposition on the issue is that I think “contradictory” arguments make the debate confusing and I do not get why severing rhetoric is “ok”, even it is key to competitive flex. That being said, this is debate and if you have good reasons why being contradictory is good, I will vote.   3.       Performance based arguments…   This is another type of argument that I ran as a competitor and am generally familiar with. You need to justify your position and explain how your performance functions. I generally see all debate as a performance, and therefore it is the responsibility of the team to tell me why I should prefer one performance over another.   4.       Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?   I really like theory and think that it is one of the more under utilized positions in parli. I need in round proven abuse to vote, but will also listen to arguments about potential abuse as a voter. I generally think that competing interpretations is the best way to evaluate a procedural, but am open to different weighing mechanisms. I think the most important part to theory is making sure that teams have impacts built into the standards debate, and weigh those impacts against other claims made in the debate. I do not do work for you on procedurals. If you do not provide a counter interpretation, or just “cross apply case” I will not infer what you mean by that strategically.   5.       Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?   I think that the “PIC” debate is one of those things that debaters need to resolve in round and is largely contingent on the interpretations of the theory debate. I think that the opposition should give the status of the CP regardless. I think that most perms are best when they are functionally competitive. I have a very limited understanding of what text comp is and why it is important. If this is one of your go to arguments, please clearly explain what you mean and how you think that functions.   I did not read to many counterplans in my day. This means that if I hear something like consult, delay, “cheeto-veto”, I am less prone to know why so many people in the community do not like these positions. In other words, please be clear on your theory if you think these types of counter plans are “cheating”.    On the perm I require a perm text. This is not a written copy of the perm, but the aff should read the entirety of the aff followed by the parts of the negative that they want to perm. This helps me evaluate how the perm functions and increases the likelihood I vote. If a team says perm “Do both”, and does not explain what do both means, I am less likely to vote for those types of perms.   6.       Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)   I can see this being useful, especially if a more experienced team is willing to let a less experienced team have a look. I don’t have a predisposition but don’t waste time and get me in trouble for making the tournament late.   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?)?   I will look at the framework level of the debate in order to see what lenses and prioritizations I should put on the impacts. From there I will usually default to impact comparison made in the debate round. I do not necessarily think that procedurals come before a kriticism, but if no one collapses or weighs impacts, I would probably look at the procedural first. Sorry this section is not more helpful.   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")?   If this is the situation that happens, no one will be happy. I do not have a general rule on these issues, but would probably weigh large-scale flash point impacts over theoretical concepts like “dehumanization”. I think debaters should avoid this situation at all cost, and can do so by making internal link claims in the implications. For example, if one team says that dehumanization is the root cause of all violence and the other says “nuke war”, I would vote for the “dehumanization” impact it comes before all violence.

Bryan Weber - WWU

Bryan Weber Judging Paradigm for the David Frank Tournament of Scholars   I consider myself tabula rasa and genuinely enjoy the intellectual diversity that critical theory, performance, and other non-traditional advocacies bring to debate.  Almost every facet of the round is open to debate and I'm amenable to alternate frameworks.  That said, my educational background is largely in political theory and IR.  While this shouldn't affect how I assess the round, it's to your advantage to spend more time on arguments from other academic fields or if you plan to use unconventional abbreviations or acronyms.   As an academic exercise, arguments should emphasize one's methods more than one's conclusions.  What this means to me in-round is that I evaluate warrants and link/internal link analysis before impacts.  "Risk of a link" is generally not very persuasive unless all preceding conclusions are equal and the impact calc is balanced.  Small magnitude/high probability impacts generated through specific link scenarios, especially if those are then used to turn large magnitude/low probability impacts, are devastating.  Additionally, don't expect me to flow entire arguments or schools of thought based on buzz words.  For me, good arguments occur at the warrant level and answer questions of causality and probability.    I'm generally fine with speed but will do my best to get your attention if I'm having comprehension issues.  Quantity of argument is a non-issue for me so don't feel that speed is that important either. Depth over breadth.   Topicality is a voter but usually not the best time commitment unless there are legitimate ground concerns or if used to set up a clever strategic choice.  If you go for T, don't expect me to vote on it unless you're willing to spend the bulk of your rebuttal addressing it.  If you decide to do that, standards/internal link debate is key.   Critical argumentation and kritiks do best with a case-specific link story and strong alternative.  I’m more likely to vote for a plan/CP alternative than rejection in general but am open to rejection through framework and role of the ballot arguments.   Counterplans typically boil down to specific solvency evidence on-case and net benefit/s.  For me, good solvency lit checks theory/abuse questions and keeps policy options rooted in practice.   Disadvantages are where excellent research tends to stand out, in my opinion.  The difference between generic and case-specific link scenarios is considerable when it comes to predicting impacts.  Because of this, I'm typically less persuaded by a race to extinction than by a discussion of uniqueness/link evidence and probable outcomes.   Most importantly, have fun, respect yourself and fellow debaters, and enjoy the weekend.  Feel free to ask questions before the round if you have any.

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.

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.

Jordan Cohen - CU

General information (Updated after 2015 Long Beach): I debated for 4 years of NPTE/NPDA at CU-Boulder from 2010-2014 and 1 incredibly valuable year of PF in high school and majored in political science and ecology & evolutionary biology in undergrad. Now I’m helping out coaching Boulder debate. Read whatever arguments you feel will give you the best shot at winning the round and read them in whatever manner you’d like. To be clear, I view debate as a game above all else, this informs my views on topicality and framework issues. As a debater I ran the gamut in terms of strategic choices; from straight case args, to theory, to rapping, I’m down for whatever. Regardless of the strategy you choose, I am committed to evaluating it in a rigorous and fair way. With that being said, here are some thoughts that might help with your strikes: Topicality: I love topicality; I think it’s the most underutilized strategy in debate. I think the interp/counter interp/ we meet debate is the most important part of a T debate and is complemented by nuanced, resolution specific standards. I default to T being apri ori and evaluating it on competing interps. After doing some judging and a lot of debating, I am finding that I prefer standards that have fairness impacts to abstract education impacts. This is because I think it’s easier to quantify ground loss than it is to quantify education loss. Also I don’t find “T is racist” type args to be particularly persuasive unless they are hugely mishandled or dropped in the MO. Disadvantages: Love ‘em, the status quo is usually a pretty chill place. Generics are generic for a reason. Bizcon, relations, and heg were our bread and butter. These are bolstered by nuanced case specific links that get out of common thumpers. Please don’t lie on politics. Your bill that no one in the room has ever heard is probably not actually on the top of the docket. Please slow down and explain the bill you’re talking about and who opposes/supports it. Your impacts should turn the aff in nearly every instance. Case: No off is a pretty raw strategy and one that is extremely difficult to answer as an MG. Turns and good defense is often a better time trade off than reading bad disads. I think that while defense doesn’t win championships, it can put you in a pretty darn good place in terms of impact framing in the rebuttals. On aff, use your case in the MG. Too often the aff gets put on bottom and isn’t used in the ensuing counterplan or K debate. You just read 7 minutes of free offense, use it! Counterplans: Read ‘em. I think condo is probably fine, but people are typically pretty bad at answering condo bad, so it seems like a valuable thing to read. I have no strong feelings on counterplan theory other than the most cheater-y counterplans should be the easiest to win on theory so make the argument. The K: I read the K a pretty good amount as a younger debater and I definitely see its strategic utility. I get frustrated in a lot of K rounds because I feel that the MG typically does not contain very much offense and instead goes for link D or framework args that are not typically relevant. I think the best way to engage the K is to impact turn it. Running to the right with heg good, cap good, state good type arguments was my preferred method for answering the K and I think it is the strategy that puts the MO in the toughest spot. In short, read some offense and leverage your aff. As far as critical affs go, feel free to read them, or rap them, or use sock puppets or whatever you do, just be ready to justify your method and explain how I should evaluate it. I am also very down for arguments about how nontopical critical affs are cheating. Rebuttals: Is there an argument that you would like me to consider while making my decisions? If yes then please include it in your PMR or LOR. The decisions that I am least comfortable with this year are in rounds where the PMR or LOR did not do a very good job extending and answering member arguments. Neither of us will be happy if I have to figure out the debate without this PMR or LOR analysis. Also please call points of order, I think that I keep a pretty comprehensive flow, and I’ll protect from new arguments, but if you think that a new argument is potentially round altering, please call it. Other Things: I will try to maintain an average of 28’s for speaks. I really appreciate intensity and debaters who have clearly put time into their craft. Some sort of impact prioritization claim is critical to giving meaningful rebuttals. I don’t care so much whether you use the words “timeframe” “probability” or “magnitude” but some discussion on these questions will help you immensely. Here is how I flow (in the interest of maximum transparency): I flow the K on one page. You don’t have to front line your arguments (because I’m doing that anyway) but it would behoove you not to have your MG order be “your framework, our framework, the links, ad1, impacts, ad2…etc” or do that and be sure to sign post and give me enough time to shuffle between the pages. Also I flow the LOR on a separate page and the PMR overview on the same page as the LOR and then the line by line of the PMR on the actual positions. A dropped argument is a true argument only insofar as it meets a threshold of having a clear claim and warrant. Have lots of fun and feel free to ask any questions you may have in round.

Justin Morgan-Parmett - WWU

Justin Morgan Parmett Western Washington University Judging philosophy I have been involved in Policy debate at many levels (high school, college, regional, national, novice, JV and varsity) since the mid 1990’s and have now been involved in parli debate since the beginning of this year (2014-2015). Thus far, I have enjoyed the transition and found that argument and stylistic tendencies have many cross overs.  I am still a bit new to parli so you, as debaters, may know more about procedural/ rule issues than I do at times. If this becomes critical to the debate, please explain yourself well. You will find me very open minded and above all I want people to have fun, be nice to each other and develop your arguments thoughtfully. I am competent flowing at high speed and will do my best to deliver a fair decision. Please do not hesitate to ask any questions you have prior to the round. Here is a bit more detail: My judging philosophy seems to be contextual to the round that I am judging. You can run whatever type of argument that you want to in front of me, however, I do have my preferences and they tend to be more towards the critical side of debate. I am not so likely to vote on topicality or FW arguments that are based in the assumption that this is the wrong place for the argument unless you not only win that there is some ground abuse, but also demonstrate that this ground loss is important. Do not just say that you can’t run your agent CP or your politics DA without saying why that ground is important. Likewise, I am not so likely to vote on theory arguments that say that I should reject a team for running a particular argument, usually the K. Theory arguments can operate effectively as defense, but rarely as offense for you. I prefer for debaters to be nice to each other in rounds as meanness will hurt your speaker points and your credibility. This does not mean that you will loose the debate, but if I have to do work at the end of the debate to figure out what is going on, this will come into play as to which side I do work for. Also, I am not likely to be persuaded if you tell me that I am a policy maker so I should not look at arguments that are philosophically based. This does not meant that I should not consider myself a policy maker, but that this role includes me questioning assumptions behind our actions. Basically, this means that I do not believe in the pre/post fiat distinction. I think that affirmatives have a right to frame the debate in a reasonable manner. You do not have to uphold some standard as to what the resolution is supposed to mean for everyone and I don’t see why it is productive for us all to be stuck to thinking exactly the same way about the topic. This being said, if you are going to talk about things that have nothing to do with the topic at all (I don’t know, maybe you want to talk about sports or music or something) you should have good reasons as to why you should do that. To be clear, proving that debate is structurally flawed is a good reason, but you should still ask me to vote on the argument you are making rather than the fact that debate is exclusionary. That is a start to your argument, but not the end. I could otherwise be persuaded to vote on a topicality arg in these cases. I think that this is enough to get an idea of where I stand. The debate is for you, but I also am going to be a part of it if I am watching the round. If there are any questions that you have, you should ask me at any time. Justin

Kehl Van Winkle - Lewis & Clark

“The radical questionings announced by philosophy are in fact circumscribed by the interests linked to membership in the philosophical field, that is, to the very existence of this field and the corresponding censorships.”  - Bourdieu   I understand that it can appear to be a competitive advantage to read the arguments you think I want to hear, i.e. the arguments I read as a debater. This saddens me. I'm not here for me so that I can listen to all of you just bolster my beliefs. I'm here because people before me showed up and let me say what I wanted to say to them, so now it's my turn to listen to what you have to say. Whatever that may be.   What this means - don't perform just because that's what I did. Don't read my arg book back to me just because I wrote it and must think everything in it is God's gift to debate. Of course, I'm not saying don't read it (that would defeat the purpose of making it available) just use it only if you need it. This also means that I'm not particularly persuaded by positions that say "you aren't allowed to read that in debate." While its not impossible that I would vote on such a position, if a team is able to successfully defend why they are choosing to debate whatever way they do, I will allow it.   I like to think I am at least competent enough to evaluate 98% of debates that happen. I debated for Oregon for 4 years, debated at the NPTE for 3, have coached high school policy, and am currently a coach for Lewis and Clark. I have no trouble with speed, I read very lefty performative arguments my senior year, more traditional (i.e. Marx) Ks my junior year, and I was a straight up, CP & DA debater before that.    I stipulate to the 2% because there are just some knowledge bases I do not possess and a very technical debate about those issues could fly over my head a bit. I am quite ill equipped to talk about the economy outside of marxist terminology, I don't understand stocks, bonds, the Fed, etc. at a very high level at all. I pretty much just said whatever Will Chamberlain told me to and assumed that it was correct. I have a fairly broad familiarity with critical literature with the biggest glaring hole being Psychoanalysis.    Being as objective as I can about myself, it may not be a bad idea to call POIs in front of me. I was a rebuttalist my entire debate existence, and as such, I recognize that I perhaps am a little more lenient than some when it comes to "adding nuance" in the rebuttals. I will do my best to protect, but don't assume your definition of new and mine match up. If you think it could really be a round decider, point it out. That being said, the vast majority of times I see new args in the rebuttals, it is someone grasping at straws in a round they've already lost, and excessive POIs in that instance are very unnecessary and quite annoying.   Any more specific Qs, holla at me.

Kendra Thomas - WWU

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.

Krista Simonis - UP

Kristen Stevens - WWU

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

Liz Van Winkle - Lewis & Clark

Liz Van Winkle The debater formerly known as Liz Fetherston.  I am the same person as Liz Fetherston.   I debated for the University of Oregon for 4 years, and now I coach for Lewis & Clark College.  If it’s relevant to you or if you’re curious, I’m in a M.A.T. program at L&C where I attend classes and student teach in a 6th grade classroom.     I read a lot of kritiks and performance-based arguments my senior year, but I spent my sophomore and junior years almost exclusively going for DA/CP strategies, so I have quite a bit of experience with straight-up debate and enjoy those arguments as well.   I understand that given the kinds of arguments that I read my senior year, there might be a temptation or perhaps competitive incentive to want to read similar things purely because I’m in the back of the room.  Please understand that I said the arguments I said because I believe in them.     I truly believe that debate is for debaters, and my goal is to strive as a judge to create safer spaces for the kinds of arguments that I read by being open to listening to and evaluating them fairly, but I’m not biased against you wanting to defend or do something else.  I did what I did because I believed in our arguments and our methods.  I wouldn’t want to foreclose on that possibility for you as a debater.   I gave the MG and MO, so I am usually quite protective in rebuttal speeches.  Thus, you don’t really need to call a point of order unless you’re dying to.   Specifics:   Theory - You can read whatever theory you think is relevant and know how to construct.  You need to structure theory with an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters for me to vote on it.  On T, I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.  I don’t need in-round abuse to pull the trigger, but I think it is useful, especially when you’re talking about the impacts to your standards.  I enjoy a nuanced T debate, but wouldn’t call myself a hack.  For what it’s worth, I liked going for T in the MO.   Counterplans -  I enjoy a good counterplan/disad debate and am quite familiar with it, as it was once my bread and butter strategy as a debater.  Conditionality is probably good although I’m sympathetic to “it’s bad to have multiple conditional strategies that don’t jive with each other”.  However, feel free to read as many conditional strategies as your heart desires if you think you can defend it.  I tend to think counterplan/perm theory means I reject the argument, but if you want me to reject the team, tell me so and give me reasons why.  I do think some counterplans are less theoretically defensible than others (delay, veto, consult), but that’s why theory/”perm: do the counterplan” exist.     Disads:  Because Will Chamberlain taught me how to MG, I think uniqueness has two components: awesomeness and fragility (the SQ is really great, but can change at a moment’s notice).  As an MG, I found that disads often ran into trouble when the uniqueness was missing one of these components.  As a judge, I appreciate uniqueness comparison from the MG and MO on a particular disad so that I know what things are the best economic indicators or why some country cares the most about certain things over others.   Kritiks -  I’m familiar with a variety of kritiks as they are read in debate rounds.  I am most familiar with the lit bases for the kritikal arguments that my partner and I read as debaters, but don’t let that deter you from reading something you want to, just clearly explain your thesis.  I would say the debate kritiks I’m least familiar with are psychoanalysis arguments.  Here’s some of what I read most often: Marx, biopower, security, transhumynism, CRT, CLS, Freire, Feyerabend, nonviolence, positive peace, orientalism, development, ecofeminism, and anthropocentrism.   I think kritiks are often most successful when the links are plan-specific, or specific to the other team’s discourse/reps and not just “you use the state”.  In addition, I appreciate a clear alternative text and solvency, as I believe it is both strategic to you and helps me understand how you solve the aff/why they can’t perm your alt.  I don’t think that all K’s HAVE to have an alternative, but I think that it behooves you to have one.   Disclosure:  I do not feel comfortable voting on something that did not happen in the round, in front of me.  For example, statements like “they said they were defending X, and now they’re reading Y” or “they did not disclose” make me uncomfortable and unsure what to do as a judge, because I was likely not there listening to your conversation or reading your texts or Facebook messages.

LynDel Simmons - Lane

n/a

MATTHEW LANE-SWANSON - SMC

New for the 17-18 season - looked at the poem and was like..... damn, this is old I see debate as a contest of two sides of an argument.  The aff picks the argument and the neg responds to it.  Many times, the aff will select their comments based on a resolution that is provided by a third party.  Personally, the topic and customs of the round matter not.  What is the point of me trying to enforce rigid standards of competition that are not necessarily agreed upon by the individuals participating in the debate?  As such, I see my position in the round not as a participant but as an participant-observer.  I am someone who will enter into the field of debate with you and observe/record the data you present to me.  However, unlike traditional P-O methods I would prefer for you to do the analysis for me.  At the end of the round I will render a decision based off of the arguments in the round as instructed by the participants of the debate.              To unpack this further, to perform what I consider a debate there should be two sides to the debate.  Unfortunately for the negative, the burden they are given is to refute the affirmative.  The reason I feel this is unfortunate is that I believe the affirmative needs to offer an advocacy that would be better than the sqo.  This does not require the aff to pass a policy through the usfg/state/whatever agency in my opinion.  This does not grant the aff a free ticket to do whatever.  While I may not have those requirements the negative team may and they may even have compelling reasons why lacking those concepts is reason enough for you to lose the round.  The purpose of this is to explain that the debate I am to observe is up to you to determine as participants in nearly all ways.  The only rules I will enforce are structural such as start/end round times, speaker times, and speaker order.             In my RFDs there are two things I like to cover, arguments you did make and arguments you could have.  The best RFDs I have seen starts with what people are going for in the rebuttals and they work backwards in the debate and I have tried to implement this style into my RFDs.  Sometimes I want to run arguments by you and see what you think of them.  Not because they are the “right” argument but because I respect your opinion and wonder what you have to say on the matter.  Does that mean it affects the round?  No, of course not.  However, if we assume that all learning from debate happens in the round and not after I think we are selling ourselves out.  Lots of people, the greatest people, like to ask my opinion on what I would do in whatever situation and I think it is a great way to learn a little more by asking these hypothetical questions.             When it comes to speaker points I see a 30 A+; 29.5-29.9 A; 29-29.4 A-; 28.8-27.9 B+; B 28.4-28.7 B; 28.0-28.3 B-; 27.8-27.9 C+; C 27.4-27.7 C; 27.0-27.3 C-; 26.8-26.9 D+; D 26.4-26.7 C; 26.0-26.3 D-; Less than 26 = I will be looking for your coaching staff after the round.               I feel as though there are certain places my mind wanders in a debate that I am forced to fill in for debaters and so I wanted to share some of those concerns with you.  First, impact prioritization.  I often times will have one team saying nuclear war will happen and the other talking about poverty and nobody compares the two arguments with one another.  They just claim to win their impact and that impact is bad.  What happens when the aff and neg both win their impact?  Nobody really 100% wins their impacts ever so for however likely the impact is what should that do for my evaluation of the round?  Basically, the whole two worlds theory assumes a vision of the round where your impacts do not interact with the other sides impacts.  Would an overnight economic collapse with a poverty impact make a nuclear war more or less likely to occur?  Maybe you could tell me.  Second, how to evaluate the round.  I think this comes back to a larger question of impact calculus.  I feel that teams debating in front of me who are surprised by my decisions do not generally compare their impacts against the other team’s as often/thoroughly as they should.  They know they have won their impact, poverty kills and that’s bad, but they think I will just vote on that because I have a bleeding heart.  I am not going to fill in for you so do not ask me to.  I want rich explanations of concepts, especially later in the debate.  It is not that I do not understand the concepts but it is your job to explain them to me so I can evaluate them fairly.  When you say something without a warrant I just write n0w in the next cell, my abbreviation for no warrant, and move on.  I will not fill in the warrants for you or apply arguments to places you do not.  I might talk to you about doing so after the round but it will not play a part in the round.    Previous philosophy: Thoughts from Matthew Please speak up, I am still really hard of hearing.  I do sit in the back of the room almost exclusively to make you work harder.  If you want me to not sit where I want ask me to move, I have no problem moving.   Debate has been my home since 2k When it came to competing I did OK It is 2015 and I am still here Doing something that is so dear Before you decide that I am a worth a strike Question if that is really what you would like I have yet to go Mad as a Hatter don’t you fear But some of this may not be what you want to hear   Where do we come from and what have we seen Debate is about all of these things and more if you know what I mean Debate has something to offer us all Perform it how you want that is your call But when you say “new off”, condo, I squeal with sooooo much joy… Skipping that strat is something you may want to employ   Don’t just deposit your arguments, I am more than a purse We all have our own rhyme rhythm and verse As fast or as slow before time has been met Say what you can, leave no regret Teach me these things you believe I will listen to any argument that you conceive   Many of you will pretend to be the state If you don’t it won’t make me irate Yet, I read as much of your lit as you did of mine I say this now so you don’t again hear me whine Explain what you mean and mean what you say Wouldn’t want that pesky discourse getting in your way   Do you think this is some kind of game Probability magnitude timeframe Impacts are not dead, they represent life Be aware of where you point your knife   Now comes the end of my little story Go off and live – fight for your glory I wish you the best with an open heart As a judge, my time is yours, until our ways part

Mahkah Wu - Oregon

Most fundamentally, I think aff and neg strategies exist in dynamic equilibrium with one another. When equilibrium is disturbed in one direction or another, various factors strengthen the answers to the current trends, correcting the activity back to equilibrium. As a result, I am unsympathetic to outright banning particular strategies, and I greatly appreciate innovation and creative redeployment of old strategies.   Presumably, that is not particularly helpful to you, so for the remainder of this, I’ll attempt to differentiate myself from other critics. However, I will repeat a sentiment that appears in many philosophies: I hope that you debate the way that you want to debate, rather than a way that you think I might prefer. Please do not take anything here as an attempt to dictate the content of the rounds I watch or the trajectory of debate generally.   I debated for the University of Oregon for four years, and my most influential coaches were (in reverse chronological order) Ben Dodds, Tom Schally, Sarah Hamid, and Will Chamberlin. The further a discipline is from mathematics, the less I know about it. Some particulars:   Cross Application: I believe that all arguments, regardless of page, interact in a given debate. As a result, I likely have a comparatively low threshold for accepting intuitive cross application, including in rebuttals. Essentially, I treat arguments as if I was asked to flow every speech straight down.   Points of Order: I will obviously do my best to protect you from new arguments, but given my predisposition to cross application, you should feel comfortable opening a discussion of whether or not rebuttal arguments are legitimate. I also understand that POOs have strategic value beyond pointing out new arguments, so do what you will.   Impact Framing: I think impact framing should be done early, often, and without relying on the words timeframe, probability, magnitude, and dehumanization.   Backside Rebuttals: I think this game has a serious structural problem in that every debate could be won with 2AC add-ons, CP/alt disads (in the world of unconditionality), or 2AC theory.   Case: Who doesn’t like case? Zero off or a bunch of advantage counter plans and case are the coolest strategies.   Counter Plans: A novel counter plan or clever deployment of a permutation is beautiful in the same way that a particularly elegant theorem is. Bearing in mind that we have an in round mechanism to resolve these questions, I am broadly sympathetic to the neg’s ability to read as many conditional textually and functionally competition advocacies as they please.   Critiques: These arguments usually come from literature bases that are far away from mathematics, and thus I know little about them. Like any argument, I think the quality of a critique is often directly proportional to how germane it is to the topic. Similarly, I think critique responses generally are most effective when ideologically in line with the 1AC.   Projects/Performance/Personal Identity: Perhaps because these arguments are still relatively new, we may have a tendency to exaggerate the positives and negatives associated with them. A couple little things: Remember that one team gets the last word in debate, so when one team or debater is framed in a particularly negative light, that may simply be reflective of the structure of the activity. In a similar vein, some of these debates (especially project v. project) really blow up late in the debate, leaving the critic to resolve many questions they don’t want to. Finally, I will do as told if asked not to flow, but if I’m not flowing, I might forget stuff. See also paragraph 2 and disclaimers.   Framework: Framework will rise again.   Competing Interpretations/Reasonability: Competing interpretations seems to be the default evaluation framework, but I think holding a team to the standard of finding the best possible interpretation is unreasonable. That said, reasonability does have brightline issues. Also, please have an interpretation of reasonability since there seem to be a lack of consensus on what it means.   Texts: Please have a written copy of your plan texts, counter plan texts, and theory interpretations in existence somewhere in case wording becomes an issue. It’s up to you whether or not you want to show them to your opponent, but I think it’s the sportspersonlike thing to do.   Disclaimers: I’m not particularly expressive. I have an embarrassing predilection for gimmicky strategies, but please don’t trot them out because of this sentence. If I am tired, I can ramble incomprehensibly. I have literally no idea how speaker points work, but I’m learning.   Heavier Disclaimers: If you need a trigger/content warning, I think that you are responsible for communicating that to your opponent ahead of time. Although I will not necessarily do this, I reserve the right to decide debates with personal stories about suicide according to criteria that I decide at that moment (you are entitled to read such arguments).   Inclusivity: There is some tension in making an activity built around establishing a competitive hierarchy accessible and open to everyone. Because of this, I have trouble drawing a brightline between acceptable and unacceptable behavior where these two ends come into conflict with each other. Please bear with me as I learn how to navigate these areas from the perspective of a critic.   Please feel free to ask any additional questions.

Matt Gayetsky - UT-Tyler

Matt Gayetsky – The University of Texas at Tyler Judge Philosophy Revision 2015-16 Season Hi folks, Another year of judging, another attempt to try to capture how I feel about debate. Most of the things remain the same from last year, although with a year of NPDA experience I feel like I’m in a better position to nuance some of my claims. The short version remains the same – You should probably make arguments you’re comfortable making rather than trying to adapt to any of my particular preferences. If you think that debate should be about a topical plan clashing with the status quo or a competitive counterplan, make the debate about that. If you think debate is about the best methodological techniques to confront interlocking oppression, make the debate about that. If the teams disagree about what they think the debate should be about, tell me why your version of debate is better, and why you win in that world. The longer version – I coached and judged CEDA/NDT debate for 8 years, and have 1 year of NPDA experience. I’ll still keep calling speeches by their policy debate analogue. Life is hard sometimes, and inertia is a thing. I’ve coached alongside a tremendously talented and diverse set of colleagues over the years, and have osmosed as much as possible. The overriding claim I would make, though, is that I am less concerned with the form your argument takes than I am with the way you make clear how your arguments relate to your opponent and the resolution. Sometimes this means that the disad/CP combo is going to be the best response, as there is an obvious solvency deficit. Sometimes it means the unconscious desires of the 20 minutes of PMC prep manifest and structures their affirmation of the resolution, and you believe that this is a prior question that must be addressed prior to their policy action. I don’t care about the arguments you make, insofar as you are able to provide a framework for evaluating your impacts and explain why this means you should win the debate. Debates are won or lost in the trenches of impact calculus. This isn’t restricted to your classic probability-magnitude-timeframe discussions of a nuclear war vs. poverty claim, but instead abstracted to consider how all arguments have an impact of some sort. Tell me about how the impact to some link argument intersects in a meaningful way with uniqueness or impact claims at other parts of the flow and I’ll be a happy camper. Stories that are sophisticated and compelling are good ones. Tag-line extensions of arguments, even if they’re conceded by your opponent aren’t. Just because something your opponent makes a mistake by not answering things, you need to do the work to tell me why it’s important that this was unanswered, and how it impacts things in the round. I don’t reward lazy debating. The personal biases: We’ve got them, but they can be broken, but know that you might have an uphill battle. This is probably most important for theory arguments. I tend to default against those teams that introduced the argument. That means PICs are probably more likely to be good, and that your aff is more likely to be topical. Plus, your perm is more likely to be theoretically legitimate, but so is their K alt. If you’re going to go for a theory argument, go for the theory argument, but you need to impact these arguments and spend some significant time winning each part of your argument. I think that conditionality is good. If you’re going to argue that conditionality is bad, you’ll need to explain to me why, as a policymaker, if I am confronted by a bad option and a worse option, why the logical policy maker wouldn’t say “Hey folks! There’s a status quo over there, why don’t we just stick with that thing?” After a year of judging, I’ve yet to see why the absence of backside rebuttals meaningfully changes this. The block collapses to one thing, rather than the 2NR. Nothing is broken. BUT if I’m not a policymaker, well, game on, I have no reason conditionality must be good here. The most important part of me evaluating the debate is about impacts, and that’s all about storytelling. Whether it's that the disad turns the case and the EU CP avoids the link, or why your experiences with prejudice informs your understanding of policymaking, the story is what is important. Since it’s all about telling stories, this probably means all debate arguments are a performance. So rather than saying your opponents are cheating, you should probably consider how these ‘framework’ arguments are instead net-benefits to your performance. It’s probably strategically better, and benefits from being more inclusive.   So tell me, why does your story justify rejection of the other team?    After reading lots of judging philosophies talking about how speaker points are arbitrary, I wonder, “Yes, but why is this such a bad thing as long as they are consistently applied?” I think that the problem is that they are arbitrary AND opaque. I feel obligated to do this because I find that my points are often a lot lower than other people. So for the sake of clarity, this is what my points mean: 30 = That speech should be in the finals of NPTE. 29.5 = One of the top 10 speeches I expect to hear this season. 29 = That speech was awesome. Pat yourself on the back. 28.5 = That speech would win you some elim debates. 28 = Mistakes were made, but there’s more good than bad. 27.5 = We’re all still learning! We can build from this speech. 27 = We’ve got to start somewhere! X<27 = That was rough. You did something to really frustrate me. Let’s talk about it sometime soon and find ways to improve.

Nicole Witham - RCC

n/a

Robear Mawell - Oregon

Ruben Flores - RCC

n/a

Ryan Hang - PDB

Debate Experience: I debated for UC Irvine and UC Berkeley. I debate extensively on the national circuit, cleared 3rd times at the NPTE, and finished 4th at the 2014 NPTE. It is your debate round and I am open minded to whatever you want to run (including K's, narratives, and performances) I Just need a clear framework on how to evaluate these arguments within the context of the round. Speed: I'm comfortable with speed, I think the biggest issue is clarity. I will shout clear or speed if I cannot understand you. I think the best way to be clear is to start off slower and build up your speed. SIGN POST AND TELL ME WHERE YOU ARE Theory: Slow down for the interpretation. I probably will not look towards theory implicating out of round abuse (such as disclosure theory). I understand that debate is a game and I am okay with theory used as a strategic tool, but I prefer a substantive debate. I don't have a preference for competing interpretations or reason-ability, but at least tell me what reason-ability means. (Does it mean, if I win one offense standard you look away or gut check? What does it mean?) I prefer in round abuse, and I have a very high threshold for theory if there is no articulated in round abuse. I will vote on potential abuse if you flat out win it. *I am open to non-traditional responses to theory such as K's of T. Policy Arguments: Run your Plans, CPs, DAs, K, and more in front of me. Kritiks: I think these debates are fun and enjoy the K debate. However, PLEASE slow down when you are reading these arguments and provide summaries of the argument in your tag lines. You should understand these arguments well and be prepared to simply explain these arguments to your opponent or myself during the round. Again, the more complex the argument...the more explanation I need. You probably don't really need to dive too deeply into your explanation of your Agamben K, but you probably should put more work into explaining your Lacan K. Arguments: I find it difficult to "dismiss" an argument that was dropped, simply because it was not warranted enough. If the argument was that terrible a simple "no warrant/counter assertion/this does not make any godamn sense should be sufficient," but as a debater it is your responsibility to point these things out. Weighing: This makes me happy and will win you rounds. Do it. Speaks: I’ll probably try to average a 27.5 for most rounds. You will get a 28-28.5 if I think you are generally mistake-free. A 29-29.5 means you are phenonmenal. A 30 will be rewarded for people who remind me of debaters I loved watching. If you’re a douchebag in round I will give you an auto-25. *Being honest will net higher speaks in front of me. Give me an accurate depiction of the round. Tell me why you are winning even though your arguments may be pretty weak or you may be losing on a couple of places on the flow, instead of just claiming to be dominating. (You might be and I dont have a problem with that either). World-View: I will default comparative worlds unless there is a reason provided to prefer truth-testing. If you are running crazy philosophical arguments, but you probably need to be very good at explaining them. Clear explanations of these arguments in addition to, extentions which clarify their impact to the round will do much to reduce the confusion. Don’t forget, debate’s enjoyable, so have fun. Debate is also a game so be nice and don't let anything get to personal. If you have any other questions, ask me before the round.

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.

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.

Steve Clemmons - Oregon

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

Trond Jacobsen - Oregon

Name: Trond E. Jacobsen_______ School: University of 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. • I consider the opportunity to debate and to judge debate to be  extraordinary privileges and I hope and expect that debaters treat the  moment with a seriousness of purpose and consideration for the activity  itself and for others in the activity. Debate should be fun and I do  like humor, but, on balance, I prefer debates where the participants,  including the judge, are engaged in an intellectual activity focused on  understanding the world for the purpose of considering what kinds of  changes to that world are appropriate rather than a mere game or excuse  to travel and visit with friends. Debate is not *only* a game for me  and those who treat it as such may find speaker points affected.  • My experience as a competitor and coach is extensive (Oregon, Alaska,  Vermont, Cornell) but until this year that experience was entirely in  CEDA-NDT debate and mostly some years ago.  • Treating people fairly and with respect is my most important value and I will  react to offensive behavior and am responsive to arguments that lesser kinds  of offensiveness should have ballot implications.  • My flow is reasonably strong (still) and is the focus of my decision- making. • My experience and strength as a competitor and judge was in finding,  using, and attacking evidence. In its absence I nonetheless expect  people to make arguments grounded in literature and it is acceptable to  give some reference to where your information came from and why it is  better for current purposes than where their information came from.  • You may hear me interacting during the round, for instance, I might say  “clearer” or “slower” or “louder”. Sometimes I give other kinds of feedback  and those who are observant may benefit. It is normal for me to be focused on  the flow rather than watching debaters. However interaction and adaptation  and some eye contact are important. • You are smart, so be smart. Think about what you are doing. Understand what  you are doing. Know what you know and know what you do not know and be  honest. Have a strategy and execute that strategy. Don’t pretend Senator X  opposes the plan when she doesn’t or you don’t know or you can’t prove it. • Anything contained in this philosophy that conflicts with NPTE/NPDA rules is  void. 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)? 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical  In a typical round the worst speaker will receive 26-27 and the best  speaker will received 28.5-29.5 on a 30-point scale. arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Anyone person or team can run critical arguments they find compelling  and they understand. I am under no obligation to vote for them unless  they win them and win that winning them wins them the debate. While certainly debatable, I tend to think poorly of contradictory  strategies and reward varied, nuanced, but cohesive argument  strategies. 3. Performance based arguments… All arguments are performance-based. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing  interpretations? I strongly dislike topicality in all but the rarest of instances.  I never feel good voting on topicality. I punish people who run  topicality in a cavalier way. When I vote on topicality it is because  the negative has provided a compelling definition and interpretation,  both of which are rooted in some appreciation of the relevant context  (e.g. what are field-specific interpretations, terms of art, etc.) and  have clarified meaningful in-round harms.  5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual  competition ok? functional competition? All counterplans are potentially admissible however some things about  them are required: (1) clear text, clearly delivered, especially the  “plan” part of the counterplan; (2) the counterplan competes with  the affirmative plan: It is a reason to reject the affirmative plan  (or advocacy) and not just a better idea. This means that when all  arguments are considered, the counterplan alone is better than the  plan (i.e., net beneficial) and better than all of the plan plus some  portion of the counterplan (i.e., the perm is not net-beneficial). Neg should identify CP status. I tend to dislike conditionality, am  ambivalent about dispositionality, and resolutely disinclined toward  multiple counterplans.  Nearly any potential scope of action or, range of actors, deserves  consideration depending on the strength of argument by their advocates.  Every kind of process CP, agent (from states to no states to all states  to other states), every kind of PIC, anything really is potentially  acceptable provided it meets the requirements described above. In my ideal counterplan debate, the negative introduces one counterplan  that is well-considered, consistent with other arguments, rooted  (outside of the debate) in some literature base, germane to the  affirmative discussion, and is fully developed during the debate as an  alternative, competitive course of action. I will need help to understand why textual competition is not a  pathetic argument. For one, it is a type of functional competition. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Knowledge is good and shared knowledge accumulates non-linearly. I  would prefer teams share flows rather than debate in ignorance. 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 impossible to answer in a principled way because  debaters always make some argument about ordering or weighing, I hope  explicitly, but always at least implicitly. I can answer with respect  to how I perceive judging patterns (whether these are mine or me  voting on others’ patterns is an interesting question): I rarely vote  on topicality so, that is moot. Other procedurals would tend to get  evaluated first, provided they are well developed and explained. For  instance, I hate plan-spec arguments but if they are well argued and  impacted then they might trump other considerations. The rules and  fairness are important in general. People tend to argue that critiques should proceed plan consequences  (whether because it is pre-fiat, or personal advocacy, or whatever) and  so I tend to vote in accordance with that norm. I think it reflects a  profoundly limited conception of fiat and its role in the debate and  often undersells both the value of policy analysis and the role of  “critiques” in policy-making and policy analysis. Part of my job when judging is to identify explicit or  implicit weighing or ordering based on arguments introduced  by the debaters. I will work to do that before defaulting to  my preferences. These impressions are based on years as a  participant but with those years in the past until this year. 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")? Answer essentially the same as in #7. All impacts should be made concrete through powerful argument and analysis. For me this can mean that dehumanization is a very real  impact, very concrete, more so than a probabilistic risk of a war  resulting in an indeterminate number of deaths estimated to some  rough number. On the other hand, dehumanization can be flowery rhetoric used to hide from the real world consequences of one’s  advocacy. Tell me which description fits your impact(s).

2015 David Frank Tournament of Scholars