FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

zz-bye

n/a

Aaron Donaldson - Clark CC

I have enjoyed participating in the collegiate debate community since 2000. I have watched, coached, and judged primarily NPDA/PTE debate with some bits and pieces of novice NDT/CEDA and "World's" B/P thrown in. I think all debate activities are incredibly important and equally educational. In NPDA/PTE, I consider 25 speaker points (out of 30) as "average," 26-27.5 as "outround ready," 28-9 as "see you in the final" and 30 as outstanding. I do not typically give 30's to teams who do not create a welcoming and inclusive atmostphere, as I believe those aspects of our performances in-round are most important.   I try hard not to supplement justifications or warrants for or against arguments I engage as a judge.This means bad arguments that are not responded to can be exploited for a win, it also means dropped arguments that are underdeveloped in the constructive speeches may not get much weight in the rebuttals. It does not take much to develop the "arch" of an early argument, but one or two word phrases can quickly become suspect.   I believe procedural arguments are an important part of the "real world," that many parties will exploit these arguments and that for these reasons they are an integral part of debate education. I do not see much substantive value between debates about "the issues" and debates about debate, if anything I tend to lean towards the sides which argue that the rules to the activity that we play matter more than the imaginary worlds of our advocacy. I love a good T debate more than just about anything but I do not like 1-word arguments at the voter level of these pages. I think procedural arguments need to have clear consequences on the strategic decisions of the debate (this can include prep time) and that these consequences need to be articulated not only as reasons to prefer but also assesed as examples of why I should vote. I presume procedural arguments are strategic unless they are labled a-priore.   I believe critical or "kritikal" arguments are like any other argument. As with the procedural debate, if anything I tend to believe that the consequences for our performances, mindsets, and strategies in the educational activity we are all wrapped up in are more immediate than those of the imaginary world of our advocacy but those implications still need to be spelled out and clearly developed to win my ballot. As with procedural arguments I will assume these arguments are strategic unless they are labled as a-priore.   Counter-plan and/or Alternative debate (particular debates involving the theory and/or "status" of the C/P and/or ALT) is probably one of my weaker areas. Until I resolve that "blind spot" all I can do is offer fair warning.   I think rate of delivery has proven to be one of the most divisive and potentially abusive aspects of our activity. Teams who "weaponize" speed against new debaters or against those who, in my mind, are obviously struggling to participate risk losing the debate. If your opponents are fast I have no problem with fast debate - I will say "clear" or "slow" if I am struggling to follow. If they are not I don't mind so long as you are not excessively ignoring them, mocking them, or otherwise neglecting their attempts to participate. Most speed-bad arguments I have seen break down at the standard level, there is obviously no brightline, but more than anything I feel that debate should be inclusive and rate-of-delivery, among all else, jeopardizes that. Fast debate that is only repetitive can cost speaker points, fast debate that I feel is unneccesarily abusive can cost you the ballot.

Adam Testerman - Lewis & Clark

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

Adam McKibben - Whitman

Alek Traczyk - Clark CC

Alison Reidmohr - Carroll

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.

Beau Woodward - Lower Columbia

Bohn Lattin - UP

Brent Northup - Carroll

n/a

Brian Simmons - UP

I consider my role as the judge in a debate round as being similar to that of a U.S. Supreme Court judge. Such a judge not only assess "who won" arguments between debaters, such a judge also assess the quality of arguments made "to the judge" simply becasue the arguments were brought into the round. That said, I strongly believe in the necessity for debaters to honor their opponent's arguments by directly clashing with them. I am impressed by debaters that demonstrate critical thinking--questioning assumptions, pointing out contradictions, showing how contentions don't meet stated values or criteria. I believe IPDA ought to be a highly communicative event filled with what Qunitillian might call "good people speaking well." That doesn't mean you have to talk to me like I am Forrest Gump, but it does mean that style matters. Finally, I believe there is a proper decorum and courtesy in any forensic context; be nice to each other!  FYI: My background: I was a policy debater in high school, a CEDA debater at Oklahoma Christian University, a CEDA graduate assistant at Pepeprdine University and now I coach IPDA at University of Portland where we previously competed in and I coached BP and NPDA.

Brooke Adamson - NNU

n/a

Cami Smith - Boise State

Charles Kincy - Bellevue

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

Chris Axtman - Carroll

n/a

Chris Pierini - UWash

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

Chris Reinhold - Clark CC

Colin Patrick - WWU

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

Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia

Dr. Dan Schabot Lower Columbia College Years Debating: 5 total (1 years NFL LD; 4 years CEDA/NDT ) Years Coaching/Judging: 15 Total (2 years CEDA/NDT; 13 Years NPDA)   General Philosophy: Each team should make good (well supported and well-reasoned) arguments and clash with each other. I prefer 2 or 3 in depth positions to 5 or 6 blipped positions.   Specifics: Affirmative teams:  At this point in my judging life I am no longer interested in listening to debates that do not at least make an attempt to address the topic in the resolution.  You can run any position you want as long as you explain why what you are arguing deals with the topic.   Negative Teams:  I also feel that negative teams have the responsibility to address affirmative arguments as well as presenting their own.  Positions just run for the sake of filling time (such as generic T) have little weight with me.  Each position should be part of a coherent strategy to win.   Speed and Presentation:  If you feel the need to go fast that is fine.  However, running a bunch of positions just so you can go fast is useless.  Speed as a strategy (in and of itself) will not be rewarded.     RFD:  My preferences are listed above.  I have and will vote for just about any argument type. A team must clearly explain why their advocacy is superior to other team’s advocacy to win a round.

Darren Meaney - MHCC

Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell

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

Derek Buescher - Puget Sound

Derek Buescher University of Puget Sound Judging Philosophy This is really a list of things to keep in mind about my approach to judging and parliamentary debate more so than a philosophy. 1. I have judged very few rounds over the last decade. Prior to that time I judged frequently at NPDA/NPTE and CEDA/NDT tournaments. 2. I have no true argumentative preference. I do believe, generally, but not exclusively, that the debate round is the decision of the debaters. I will be open to listening to “traditional” styles of debate (CP/tix), critical affirmatives, and performance/identity styles of debate. I believe it is the responsible of all debaters to engage arguments and propose different views/means for evaluation. 3. I am not as versed in theory anymore as you might wish me to be. What this means is that you have likely adopted a vocabulary and agreed with other debaters about the meaning and operation of certain words, terms, and concepts relevant to the debate. It is unlikely that I share this vocabulary with you. As a result, many of your short cuts will not mean to mean what you want them to mean to me. They will like, in my view, the depth and weight, you may think they carry. It is your responsibility to make such ideas clear to me, although it is not your obligation to make them clear. Just realize that I may make assumptions contrary or with less weight to an idea that is, to me less clear. 4. Clarity in argument structure and depth is central to my process of argument evaluation. Many judges that debaters tend to “prefer” do impressive analysis of the interaction of arguments. In the vast majority of cases, I will evaluate the argument interactions that debaters tell me to evaluate and am not likely to reach the level of analysis you may tend to prefer. I want arguments to have warrants and clear explication of scenarios. If you, for example, say “x leads to nuke war which is bad because nuclear winter and people die blah blah blah” I am not very likely to give the argument much weight despite its likely veracity. I am very likely to dismiss the impact outright if the opponent says anything about the problems of the argument. 5. I do believe the uniqueness of parliamentary style debate rests with the changing resolution. This means I believe, or at least would prefer, the debate engage the resolution. This does not preclude critical or performative affs, but does suggest they be grounded to the resolution. 6. I do think CPs should be competitive. 7. I am likely to be slower than you prefer. You might want to account for that in your speaking rate. Feel free to ask me specific questions.

Doyle Srader - NCU

Doyle Srader Associate Professor of Communication Northwest Christian University Debated LD/CX/NDT 1981-1992. Judged NDT/CEDA/NPDA/NFA LD/IPDA 1992-2005, off and on. Since 2007, judged mostly BP and IPDA, and once in a blue moon, NPDA. Very not current, but very caught up on sleep.     You, and your arguing   Whispering lunar incantations Dissolve the floors of memory And all its clear relations Its divisions and precisions, -T. S. Eliot, Rhapsody On A Windy Night   And I must borrow every changing shape To find expression … dance, dance Like a dancing bear, Cry like a parrot, chatter like an ape. - T.S. Eliot, Portrait of a Lady   HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME If you don't like it you can get on with it, I said. Others can pick and choose if you can't. - T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land   Our dried voices, when We whisper together Are quiet and meaningless As wind in dry grass Or rat's feet over broken glass In our dry cellar - T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men       Me, and my deciding   HERE I am, an old man in a dry month, Being read to by a <s>boy</s>, waiting for rain. - T.S. Eliot, Gerontion   I am moved by fancies that are curled Around these images, and cling: The notion of some infinitely gentle Infinitely suffering thing. Wipe your hand across your mouth, and laugh; The worlds revolve like ancient women Gathering fuel in vacant lots. -T. S. Eliot, Preludes   Would it have been worth while, To have bitten off the matter with a smile, To have squeezed the universe into a ball To roll it toward some overwhelming question, To say: “I am Lazarus, come from the dead, Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all”- If one, settling a pillow by her head, Should say: “That is not what I meant at all. That is not it, at all.” - T.S. Eliot, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock   He laughed like an irresponsible foetus. -T. S. Eliot, Mr. Apollinax     This, and the difference it makes   I saw the ’potamus take wing Ascending from the damp savannas, And quiring angels round him sing The praise of God, in loud hosannas. -T. S. Eliot, The Hippopotamus

Drake Skaggs - Puget Sound

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

Forrest Laskowski - Carroll

n/a

Howie Long - Boise State

Jacob Witt - NU

n/a

Janelle Davis - UW Bothell

General Information: I competed in Parley and LD in high school, NPDA and BP/Worlds in college, and now help coach both NPDA and BP/Worlds. I retain a respect for structure, creative and well-laid arguments, criticism of foundational worldviews, economy of arguments, and thoughtfully proposed alternate approaches to both debate and the world around us. Though I reject and find problematic the concept of a tabula rasa judge, I make an effort to see and set aside my own biases in order to judge a round based on the arguments as they are made by debaters. Specific Information: Topicality: In my view, this strategy exists to respond to blatant abuse on the part of the government and should be used to check power of interpretation rather than to avoid engaging inconvenient or unexpected arguments. As such, I consider it a court of last resort that is rarely necessary. Counterplans: An effective means of taking the offensive by rejecting false binaries in order to seek a third option. I respond well to counterplans that think about the problem and challenge the status quo in a different way. Kritik: A well-deployed kritik challenges fundamental assumptions and proposes alternate ways of approaching the world or the problem at hand. Used well, a K takes the debate to a deeper level and allows debaters to unpack the world in a way that plan/counterplan debate rarely does. If you are using a philosopher/theorist to back up your analysis, make sure you understand what they said and how others have used them, or you run the risk of looking silly and ill-informed. Ultimately, advantages and disadvantages rest on impacts, which rest on links. Calculating impacts should take into account probability as much as scale - high probability outweighs high scale as long as that probability has been demonstrated.

Jessica Moretti - Boise State

Jim Gatfield - CWI

I am a Comms judge. Make it your goal to teach me and your opponent something. This is a chief aim of debate. Approach debate as a conversation . . . not an opportunity to overwhelm your opponent. I prefer eloquence over speed.  Respect your opponent . . . respect the event . . . show me that you want to be here.    NPDA Debate I don't like K's. I don't vote on them. I view them as too generic and think they largely avoid an opportunity to explore a specific issue.

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.

Johnny Rowing - CWI

General Comments - Across Styles I will generally prefer Aff framework. I believe they have the peragotive to frame the round. They must do so fairly and in a predictable fashion. Signpost your argumentation. Help me to flow by telling me what you are entering/answering. Listen. I want you to honor your opponent by giving ear to their thoughts and arguments. On a related note, I do not like it when your arguments are mischaracterized (straw man).  Please sum up the round for me in 3-4 big picture/summation voters. I will do my level best to vote based solely upon what the summation speeches tell me to vote on.   IPDA I appreciate creative opens/salutations and courtesy. Be kind and considerate to one another. Unless the aff framework is wanky . . . I expect us to debate under their framework. It bothers me when we don't. I don't like C/Ps. If we are running a policy resolution . . . I prefer Harms Plan Solvency Advantages as the stock issues framework. I don't understand Uniqueness - Link - Impact as acceptable framework for a policy res. Please make sure that you define and describe your weighing mechanism (WM) for the round and . . . please frame your argumentation around that WM. Don't tell me this is the WM and then never mention it again until your final speech.    NPDA Open - Junior If you are a junior and/or open level NPDA debater . . . I doubt that you will like me.  I am more of a Comms judge. I do not like excessive speed. I do not like K's. I really dislike Affirmative K's. I don't like unnecessary Topicality, etc. I really prefer for issues to be explored rather than generic philosophical questions or debating about debate styles. T - I won't vote on potential abuse. I need to see actual in round ground loss.  So - if you draw me - I expect less speed (I drop my pen when you are too fast). I expect the issues to be described. I expect jargon to be defined. Novice Novice level NPDA debaters may find me as a more satisfactory judge. I don't believe K's should be ran at the Novice level. I can usually help novice debaters improve through comments on structure and the implications of D/As to case - presumption - solvency attacks - etc.    BP I will most likely be in the wing, if I am a BP judge. I have very little experience in this style. But, we now have 2 teams competing in this style and I would love to serve on a panel. Big picture - I prefer for this style to be considerate and I put an emphasis on unique contributions to the round both in the manner in which points are rebutted and the manner in which unique positive argumentation is offered.

Jon Agnew - Boise State

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

Joseph Hykan - Whitman

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

Justin Wiley - MHCC

Kat Sillonis - IDAHO

Kelly Lester - Boise State

Khai Devon - CWI

Korry Harvey - WWU

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

Kristen Stevens - WWU

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

Kyle Cheesewright - IDAHO

“All that you touch   You Change.   All that you Change   Changes you.   The only lasting truth   Is Change.   God Is Change.” –Octavia Butler, “Parable of the Sower.”   Debate is a game. Debate is a strange, beautiful game that we play. Debate is a strange beautiful game that we play with each other.   I love debate. It’s the only game that exists where the rules are up for contestation by each side. There are some rules that aren’t up for discussion, as far as I can tell, these are them:   1/ Each debate will have a team that wins, and a team that looses. Say whatever you want, I am structurally constrained at the end of debate to award one team a win, and the other team will receive a loss. That’s what I got.   2/ Time limits. I think that a discussion should have equal time allotment for each side, and those times should probably alternate. I have yet to see a fair way for this question to be resolved in a debate, other than through arbitrary enforcement. The only exception is that if both teams decide on something else, you have about 45 minutes from the start of the round, to when I have to render a decision.   Pretty much everything else is open to contestation. At this point, I don’t really have any serious, uncontestable beliefs about debate. This means that the discussion is open to you. I do tend to find that I find debates to be more engaging when they are about substantive clash over a narrow set of established issues. This means, I tend to prefer debates that are specific and deep. Good examples, and comparative discussion of those examples is the easiest way to win my ballot. Generally speaking, I look for comparative impact work. I find that I tend to align more quickly with highly probable and proximate impacts, though magnitude is just so easy.   I tend to prefer LOC strategies that are deep, well explained explorations of a coherent world. The strategy of firing off a bunch of underdeveloped arguments, and trying to develop the strategy that is mishandled by the MG is often successful in front of me, but I almost always think that the round would have been better with a more coherent LOC strategy—for both sides of the debate.   At the end of the debate, when it is time for me to resolve the discussion, I start by identifying what I believe the weighing mechanism should be, based on the arguments made in the debate. Once I have determined the weighing mechanism, I start to wade through the arguments that prove the world will be better or worse, based on the decision mechanism. I always attempt to default to explicit arguments that debaters make about these issues.   Examples are the evidence of Parliamentary debate. Control the examples, and you will control the debate.   On specific issues: I don’t particularly care what you discuss, or how you discuss it. I prefer that you discuss it in a way that gives me access to the discussion. I try not to backfill lots of arguments based on buzzwords. For example, if you say “Topicality is a matter of competing interpretations,” I think I know what that means. But I am not going to default to evaluating every argument on Topicality through an offense/defense paradigm unless you explain to me that I should, and probably try to explicate what kinds of answers would be offensive, and what kinds of answers would be defensive. Similarly, if you say “Topicality should be evaluated through the lens of reasonability,” I think I know what that means. But if you want me to stop evaluating Topicality if you are winning that there is a legitimate counter-interpretation that is supported by a standard, then you should probably say that.   I try to flow debates as specifically as possible. I feel like I have a pretty good written record of most debates.   Rebuttals are times to focus a debate, and go comprehensively for a limited set of arguments. You should have a clear argument for why you are winning the debate as a whole, based on a series of specific extensions from the Member speech. The more time you dedicate to an issue in a debate, the more time I will dedicate to that issue when I am resolving the debate. Unless it just doesn’t matter. Watch out for arguments that don’t matter, they’re tricksy and almost everyone spends too much time on them.   Before I make my decision, I try to force myself to explain what the strongest argument for each side would be if they were winning the debate. I then ask myself how the other team is dealing with those arguments. I try to make sure that each team gets equal time in my final evaluation of a debate.   This is a radical departure from my traditional judging philosophy. I’ll see how it works out for me. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. For the record, I have strong opinions on just about everything that occurs in a debate round—but those strong opinions are for down time and odd rants during practice rounds. I work to keep them out of the debate, and at this point, I think I can say that I do a pretty good job on that account.   I just thought of a third rule. Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I thought speeches are. If you tell me what speaker points I should give you, I will listen, and promptly discard what you say. Probably.   For the sake of transparency: My personal gig is critical-cultural theory. It's where my heart is. This does not mean that you should use critical theory that you don't understand or feel comfortable with it. Make the choices in debate that are the best, most strategic, or most ethical for you. If your interested in my personal opinons about your choices, I'm more than happy to share. But I'll do that after the debate is over, the ballot submitted, and we're just two humans chatting. The debate will be decided based on the arguments made in the debate.   “[Y]ou can’t escape language: language is everything and everywhere; it’s what lets us have anything to do with one another; it’s what separates us from animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so on.” -David Foster Wallace, “Authority and American Usage.”   Old Philosophy A Body's Judging Philosophy Debate has been my home since 1996— and when I started, I caressed Ayn Rand and spoke of the virtue of selfishness.   I am much older than I was. These days, I am trying to figure out how subjectivity gets created from the raw material of words and research.   I have no interest in how well you can recite the scripts you’ve memorized. Or at what speed.   I will not be held responsible for adjudicating your bank balance. And I will not provide interest on your jargon. I will listen to your stories and I will decide which story is better, using the only currency I am comfortable with: the language of land, and the words that sprout from my body like hair.   I remember the visceral intensity of the win and loss, and the way that worth was constructed from finishing points. I am far too familiar with the bitter sting of other names circled.   I think that the systemic is far more important than the magnitude. Politics make me sick. And I know that most of the fun with words, has nothing to do with limits, because it’s all ambiguous. And nothing fair.   These days, I read Deleuze and Guattari, and wonder what it means when classrooms are madhouses. And all that remains is the affect.

Leah Moore - Lower Columbia

Letha Quinn - NNU

n/a

Liz Kinnaman - MHCC

Lori Welch - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Mack Sermon - USU

n/a

Mark Porrovecchio - OSU

n/a

Matt Gander - Whitman

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

Megan Towles - Carroll

n/a

Megan Bauer - OSU

n/a

Melissa Franke - SeattleU

n/a

Micah Waterlander - MHCC

<ul> <li>Background of the critic: I competed in high school policy as well as competing 2 years in NPDA in college. This is my 2nd Year coaching, I coach both IPDA and NPDA formats.</li> <li>Approach of the critic to decision-making: I consider myself to be pretty tabula rasa and will vote for whatever the debaters tell me is important for me to vote on. I think that the trichotomy argument is a worthwhile argument, as well as most procedural arguments. I will vote on T if there is clear abuse, but I don't think the team has to only go for Topicality to show abuse. While I will listen to any argument ran in front of me I don't particularly like kritiks, especially in NPDA style debate, since any real evidence need to back up the kritik can't be brought into round. Furthermore, I think the kritik needs to show real world impacts to outweigh. But with that being said, if the kritik is necessary for your strategy then by all means run it. Also, I tend to think that a lot of debate hinges on solvency so this could win or lose a round easily. </li> <li>Communication/presentation: I'm pretty comfortable with most aspects of speed, but feel like clarity and signposting should falter because of your speed. Also I am a pretty expressive judge so if you pay attention you will know if I am getting down what you are saying. </li> </ul> <ul> <li>Preferences on calling Points of Order: I have no issue with POI being called, I think that if it is warranted you should call your opponent out on it. </li> </ul>

Michael Gifford - MHCC

Michelle Mahoney - CWI

Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Nik Vaughn - Clark CC

Norell Conroy - Boise State

I've been involved in forensics/parli for five years. I prefer real-world probability over magnitude in impact calculus, even when faced with systemic v. hypothetical if the arguments are well-warrented.  I think the k debate can be super interesting.  I will probably only vote on t if you demonstrate actual in-round abuse--most t debates are less interesting/important than others. Call points of order. Speed is fine, but to a point.  If I can't understand you, I will make it clear.  At that point, if you do not slow down so I can understand you, that is bad for you because I vote based on what is on my flow.  Also, if you don't say something, I won't write it for you--that is, I will (to the best of my ability) not intervene--however, I will hold you accountable if you make offensive claims for the sake of winning (i.e. anything advocating for things like genocide, rape, etc. because you think such an argument functions in a compelling way--in front of me, it doesn't)   Courtesy and civility are vital to this activity. You will lose if you are outwardly rude or uncivil.  Sass and humor are swell, being purposefully mean-spirited is not.

Patric Esh - Humboldt

n/a

Rachel Cossel - NNU

n/a

Robert Trapp - Willamette

n/a

Ron Price - IDAHO

Background: Did policy and LD in high school. Debated for Boise State. Have been the assistant coach for C of I for the past 8 yrs. Have been involved with this activity for the past 15 yrs or so. Please make your arguments logical and cohesive. Ok with speed, but if you are not organized or clear then your arguments may get “lost” somewhere and it’s up to you to “find” them again. Will vote on Topicality; include standards, voters, etc. Ok with critical arguments but make sure your advocacy doesn’t contradict itself. Make sure your links story is solid. A to B to C works, but A to B to Z is a no go.  Have a plausible link/ impact story (not everything has to lead to or end in nuke war and extinction). Also not a huge fan of morally repugnant arguments (i.e. all gays will psychologically damage their children when raising them) so don’t make them.   Hmmm, so basically I will vote on the most convincing and logical arguments you present in the round so make smart choices and arguments, have fun and we’ll see what happens on the flow.

Ryan Lorenz - Carroll

n/a

Ryan Rhoades - Carroll

n/a

Sara Seyller - Clark CC

I have enjoyed participating in the collegiate debate community since 2007. I have participated in, coached, and judged NPDA, IPDA, and BP debate. I think any form of debate is both fun and educational!! While I enjoy sharp, pointed styles I am averse to disrespectful treatment of competitors, and find that it detracts from the whole of the debate.   Overall, in each form of debate I am well versed in rules and expectations and hold firm to them.  They are there for a reason and ought to be respected.  This does not mean I lack flexibility, but it does mean that outright violations will be noted in nowhere else but in speaker point awards. In many ways I consider myself a hybrid, I am a flow judge with a speed govern of just short of ludicrous speed (IE spittle running down face as they gasp for air every few minutes), but I also appreciate arguments that use persuasive rhetoric and style rather than reliance on an excess of words to win solely by tabulating dropped arguments. As far as Procedurals, liked or otherwise, is becoming an important if not critical component to debating in NPDA.  As such, I am open to all forms of arguments so long as they are connected to the case, it doesn’t take much to make it applicable.  I am not a big fan of winning on dropped arguments alone unless the drop so large that the gaping hole left is enough to sink the case.  I leave it up to the competitors to set the rounds as they see fit.  In IPDA and BP there is a heavier reliance on style and persuasion rather than procedurals.  As such, I tend to be less about detailed flows and more attentive to the connections made both within the cases and through clash provided connected to the opponents case.  In these rounds, the devil is in the details.  I am most appreciative of competitors that can connect to the people in the room by explaining how it might impact us, why it matters to us, or the harms and benefits we would be exposed to should something occur.  Ivory tower syndrome, arguing so far up in the building that it become abstract concepts of competing theory, is extraordinarily hard to do given the time frame and is more often isolates competitors and judges from the argument rather than including them.

Sean Wang - Lewis & Clark

Shannon Scott - SPU

n/a

Shelby Smith - Lewis & Clark

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.

Tim Worthen - Whitworth Univ

n/a

2014 Scheller Invitational