FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Alex Lamascus - Pepperdine

My forensics experience consists of three years of policy in the high school homeschool league and four years competing for California Baptist University. At CBU I spent most of my time in NFA-LD, Parli, and limited-prep individual events.   I, just like any other critic, come in to the debate round with preconceived notions and biases. The following are relevant biases that you may find useful.   I fundamentally view debate as a learning activity for all involved, including myself as a judge. I think recognizing this as such requires three additional conclusions: 1)    I think it requires us all to recognize me as an incomplete human being. Regrettably, I do not have a brilliant mind that is capable of perfectly evaluating each and every argument in perfect fashion, and I will certainly not always make the “right” decision. It is for this reason that I prefer to view the round as a game of persuasion rather than a verbal, mechanical chess game where “this type of argument always trumps that” because it grants accessibility to individuals like myself who may not have impressive mental calculation abilities. It also functions to humanize the activity and keeps us from approaching the debate as humans striving to become purely logical machines. My incompleteness is realized in the fact that I the judge am learning from you the competitor and, hopefully, you are also learning something from me. I do take my judging very seriously, and I do believe I owe my best efforts to the competitors in every round. 2)    I think we must recognize that I cannot please everyone in every debate round. The binary nature of most formats can potentially make rounds very frustrating where there is no clear winner. This is an extension of my first point in that I recognize I am capable of making (and probably already have made) poor decisions as a judge according to the judging philosophies of others. 3)    Finally, I believe that recognizing debate as a learning activity means that we should not take it so seriously. This is somewhat paradoxical because I also believe that we should take the “learning activity” aspect very seriously. However, I believe this is manifested in our intentional actions to ensure that debate remains an enjoyable, fun experience for all of those involved. This attitude generates a comfortable environment for the thoughtful expression and evaluation of ideas.   Evaluating debate rounds: I tend to prefer evaluating a round through a particular lens, whether it is criteria, frameworks, a priori, etc. I am not married to the policymaker paradigm, but impacts are the easiest way for me to weigh a debate. It will be very hard for you to win a round with solvency presses, but they are an excellent way to make your opponents look like they didn’t do their homework, which I find very effective when paired with some impactful offense or a counterplan.   Speed: I hold two different (potentially conflicting) views on speed in debate. On one hand, I think it is excellent for our mental fortitude and an enjoyable challenge to evaluate arguments that have been given in a speedy manner. I believe that it is a healthy mental exercise and allows some talented individuals to achieve great depth of argumentation on any given subject. On the other hand, I fear that my effectiveness as a critic declines the faster the debate round is. I unfortunately was never one of those talented individuals who could craft deep, quality arguments in fast speech. I also was not especially good at debating against them. Additionally, I recall very well a period of time in my debate career that I felt speed was highly exclusionary, inaccessible, elitist, and frustrating. My best recommendation to debaters who are stuck with me as their critic would be to go ahead and spread in a round if you so desire unless there is a very dense theoretical concept being discussed, such as highly advanced debate or economic theory. I generally will not have a hard time flowing you, but if evaluating the argument requires intense use of my mental faculties I may end up falling behind and your point may not be received as intended. Do keep in mind that I am sympathetic to speed procedurals run after a competitor who feels excluded from the debate is rejected when respectfully requesting slower speaking from their opponents.   Theory: Since I spent most of my time in NFA-LD where I did not have to engage in especially theory-laden debate rounds, my understanding of extremely advanced debate theory may be somewhat incomplete. I am of course interested in continually learning about new frontiers in debate argumentation, but my evaluation of your round may not go quite the direction you were hoping if you lose me in theory packed clash. This is becoming especially evident to me in my understanding of advanced counterplan theory.   What I do not like to see: <ol> <li> I don’t really like it when a team runs a critical position that emphasizes the meaning, power, and effects of language followed by abuse of that power later in the round.</li> <li>I also don’t really like it when a team tells me that fiat is illusory, then proceeds to paste arguments on my flow that assume fiat is real.</li> <li>Outside of the actual debate, I am disturbed, given my admission of my own imperfection earlier in this post, when competitors have little respect for my decision as a judge and challenge/argue with it during my oral critique.</li> <li>I am disappointed by judges that abuse their power as a judge by disrespecting the teams with their words or attitude.</li> <li>Finally, I am appalled when coaches of teams engage in the ludicrous act of verbally disrespecting a judge’s decisions, either publicly or privately. This is inherently disrespectful to the teams, judge, and activity as a whole.</li> </ol>   All of that said, I look forward to judging your debates! My apologies to teams whom I have judged before posting this, it is difficult to argue before a judge when you are unsure of their leanings. Best of luck to you all!

Alex Smith - PDB

Updated Philosophy, 11/8/13: I debated for Berkeley from 2005-2009 and have been coaching for Berkeley (in whatever capacity I can) since then. I have always felt uncomfortable writing judging philosophies. Debate rounds are complex and dynamic, and it’s hard to boil my approach to judging them down to a discrete set of “preferences” – and even if I could, I don’t believe that my preferences (as opposed to your arguments) should decide the debate round.  Being tab is obviously just an aspiration, but it's still a worthy aspiration, at least as a default. That said, I do have some quirks and preferences, and I will try to describe them as usefully as I can.    Overview: I tend to believe that explanation trumps both technical precision and “truth,” and I do not believe that any arguments are strictly off-limits. I tend to think that most debaters make somewhat too many arguments, and way too many “filler” arguments in relation to their good arguments. I tend to evaluate debates fairly globally. I am not usually receptive to arguments like “the MO’s number 12 only responded to our first do both perm, not our third one.”  I find it difficult to evaluate a round without imposing some sort of order on the arguments that were made, and I will probably do so myself if no one does it for me. I tend to believe in offense/defense for the most part, but I also think that there are some arguments that are so dumb or fundamentally incorrect that there is zero risk of that argument being true. Since this is the “overview” paragraph, I will note that I am a huge fan of global overviews that substantively resolve central questions in the debate (particularly in the MO), but I think most of the short “we win this round for 2 reasons” overviews are totally useless.   Straight-up Arguments: These arguments are most teams’ bread and butter, and there’s not a ton to say about them. These debates tend to come down to three questions: (a) who controls the uniqueness; (b) who wins the link debate; (c) which impact should I prioritize if both sides win a link to their argument? You will do better in these debates if you don’t pretend to win every argument – you should identify the most important arguments and explain why they are more important or compelling than those of your opponents. I do believe there is such a thing as terminal defense, zero percent risk of a disad, etc. Like most parli judges, I am a sucker for inevitability/”try or die” arguments. I don’t have strong feelings about “high probability/low magnitude v. low probability/high magnitude” impacts in a vacuum. I do think that you should try really hard to explain why the disad turns the case.  I am totally fine with more "conservative" arguments (abortion bad, racial profiling good, west is best, anti-discrimination legislation bad, etc.) and think that it would behoove a lot of teams to run these types of arguments more often.    Theory/Topicality: These arguments are fine and I vote for them frequently. The most common mistakes I see include: (a) failing to identify and explain the difference between your interpretation and your opponents’: (b) not using the standards debate to isolate exactly what sort of ground is at stake, exactly what sorts of arguments each interpretation allows or disallows, etc.; (c) referring in broad strokes to “abuse,” “ground,” “disad ground,” rather than specific arguments; (d) failing to compare between standards arguments; (e) going for too many arguments and failing to explain any of them in sufficient detail. I tend to believe that some version of “reasonability” is probably correct, but it is difficult to define and operationalize reasonability in a debate speech. You can decide for yourself whether you think it is worth trying to defend it.  “This is a solvency argument, not a reason we should lose the debate” is a good and under-utilized answer to a whole host of theory arguments. I tend not to believe that in-round abuse is necessary, but would rather hear that issue hashed out in the debate.   Counterplans: Again, these arguments are fine and can be singularly devastating if deployed correctly. If you concede that the counterplan solves 100% of case, you will probably lose. I am a huge fan of “advantage counterplans” and other counterplan strategies that try to punish poor advantage selection. I am also a fan of counterplans that try to take advantage of poor plan-writing, although I suspect that some of these counterplans are theoretically illegitimate. I tend to be suspicious of process counterplans or counterplans that compete on an extra-textual basis (although I am more easily convinced that consultation is acceptable than delay, veto cheato, etc.). I am inclined to think that conditionality is acceptable but I’ll listen to arguments that it’s not. A solvency advocate and/or a literature base is pretty good evidence that a counterplan is legitimate.   Criticisms: I like these arguments. I ran these a lot when I debated and coach my teams to run them a lot (both as “one-off” strategies and as part of balanced horizontal strategies). I have read some of the literature, but don’t presume that I am familiar with the substance of your criticism because you cite an author or vaguely allude to a phrase used by an author. Most teams engage in way too much hand-waving and not enough articulation of what their criticism means. Possibly moreso than any other argument, criticisms reward teams that explain their argument well. If you are aff, you should make the negative work to win their argument. Do not let them get away with spurious claims like “critique turns the case,” “alt solves 100% of case”, “your representations make your impacts inevitable,” etc.  I think that reject alternatives are generally fine and perhaps are the only legitimate way to formulate an alternative. I generally think that most framework questions are irrelevant, except to the extent that they explain (a) what the role of the ballot is and/or (b) what arguments are included or excluded by the framework. I love ethics arguments and wish more teams made them, particularly because they free you from the burden of having to solve whatever problem you criticize.    Performance: Sure, why not? I have voted for these arguments in the past and am not opposed to doing so again. Make sure to be very explicit in explaining the role of the performance vis-à-vis the rest of your argument and make sure to engage the other side’s arguments.  All the general stuff about criticisms applies here as well.    Non-Intervention: I wanted to add a separate paragraph about this because I have noticed both critics and debaters becoming more and more dogmatic about what they will and will not vote on.   I take nonintervention seriously and really mean it when I say that I will vote on anything.  I'm not in the business of "buying" or "not buying" arguments - if I wanted to buy something, I would go to the mall, not to a debate tournament.  Saying "LOL Spec" or "LOL Trichot" is not an argument.  Feigning outrage that someone would read such a dumb or offensive position against you is not an argument.  If you really believe that a position is dumb, you should be able to think of lots of compelling answers.  It's not my job to enforce my preferences - or your preferences - against the other team; it's your job to answer their arguments, and my job to evaluate the debate based on the arguments that were actually made.    Other Things: My speaker points tend to range from 27-28.5 at national tournaments. I use .1 points liberally.  If you get below a 27, you had serious problems with argument quality and/or execution. If you get above a 28.5, it means you were outstanding and should probably get a speaker award. Getting a 30 requires either a flawless performance (I’ve given two 30’s in four years on this basis) or a truly odd set of circumstances (e.g. a novice round in which all four debaters agreed to the criterion of “what is best for Al Qaeda” and left me in stitches at the end of the round).  I flow in Excel and generally tend to flow in narrative or transcription form. I do not generally number arguments when I flow. I am extremely expressive and you would do well to look my facial expressions/body language when you debate. I appreciate points of order, but I do not want you to argue about them: the person who calls the point of order should state their point, the other team should succinctly respond, and I will either rule on it immediately or take it under consideration.  If you can reference specific arguments from the MG or MO speech, you will have much better luck on a point of order than if you merely assert “that’s new!”  I don't have a problem with speed, sitting down, partner communication, or anything like that. I am personally of the opinion that exclusion in debate is inevitable and that most things that people label "exclusionary" are simply the byproduct of competition and inherent differences in skill, but that doesn't mean you should go out of your way to exclude your opponents, and it's not an excuse for being a jerk.  Don't hesitate to ask me questions about my decision or challenge me if you think I'm wrong; I'm not going to change my decision once I make it, but I don't think I'm a perfect judge and often these sorts of exchanges end up being productive for everyone involved (as long as you are respectful and civil and all that).  I usually don't write much on the ballot or give extended RFDs, but I'm happy to answer any questions or give you free coaching if you ask for it. Good luck!

Bryan Pearson - PDB

I am a graduate of UC Berkeley. I debated NPDA for four years in college and policy for four years in high school. I have no problem with Speed. I will only say clear once. I don't care if you use your cell phone as a timer. If you use it for any other purpose (texting, etc.) it will negatively affect your speaks. Protip: airplane mode. ==NPTE Philosophy== Section 1: General Information I have no preference for which arguments you run or which strategy you choose. While you should tell me how to evaluate every argument you're going for by your final speech, if you do not tell me otherwise I will default to net-benefits on case and competing interpretations on T. Theory positions should have an interpretation. Don't just say that Conditionality is bad; give me the actual rule of the game. I would like you to call points of order in the rebuttals if you feel it is necessary. The LOR does not have to repeat, or explicitly extend, every argument the MO said for me to vote on it. I don’t care if you use part of your speech time for prep, however it will probably have a negative effect on your speaks.   Section 2: Specific Inquiries  <ol> <li>Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?</li> </ol> I believe in a nominal system: 26-Poor, 27-Average, 28-Good, 29-Superior, 30-Flawless. Range is generally 27-29. Average depends on the tournament.   <ol> <li>How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?</li> </ol>   I approach critical arguments like any other argument in the debate. The debaters may argue that critical arguments should be treated differently if they like. The affirmative can run any argument they like. If a team wins that critical arguments can be “contradictory” with other positions then its ok; if they lose then it is not.     <ol> <li>Performance based arguments…</li> </ol>   If you choose to do a performance you must explain why it matters in the round/context of the debate and you must explain the role of the ballot. Every performance debate is different and I will not know how to evaluate your position if you do not tell me. Keep in mind that, without framework/explanation of how your argument functions, you have no offense in the traditional style of debate.   <ol> <li>Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?</li> </ol>   I default to competing interpretations, but I am open to the debaters telling me what is “required” to vote on T. No, articulated or potential abuse can be fine. No, I can vote on reasonability.   <ol> <li>Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?</li> </ol>   PICs are neither good nor bad. Some PICs are abusive, but it is up to the debaters to win that argument. If the Negative is asked to identify the status of the CP, I believe that POIs are binding and refusing to answer questions with the purpose of muddling the debate will negatively affect your speaks. I will vote on textual competition unless the debaters win the argument that I should not. I will vote on functional competition and do not believe that CPs MSUT be mutually exclusive.   <ol> <li>Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)</li> </ol>   Teams may share whatever they like. I do not believe that a team is “obligated” to share their flows. I do think that a team should provide a written copy of the Plan/CP/Alt/etc Text, but if they do not do so then it’s the other teams responsibility to tell me what should be done.   <ol> <li>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?)?</li> </ol>   By default I will evaluate Topicality, then theory positions, then the substantive debate. My order of evaluation however is highly subject to the arguments made in the round, and a wash will force me back to my default.   <ol> <li>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")?</li> </ol>   In the absence of good debating, I will weigh arguments based on the strength of the warrants and internal links. “Abstract” vs “concrete” impacts should be compared by the debaters and I will vote accordingly. If the debaters fail to compare/weigh these impacts, I tend to favor death over dehum but if the warrants/articulation for dehum are better then I have no problem voting for dehum over death impacts.

Jeff Toney - Pacific

Josh Ramsey - Pacific

Lindsey Ayotte - SFSU

Matthew Hogan - UNR

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

Mike Selck - SIU

Judge Philosophy- Quick Notes: The less comparative impact calculus you do, the more you leave it up to me. I keep up on the world and expect you to as well. No one has ever won a debate round because they cussed. Similarly no one has ever won a debate round because they were disrespectful to an opponent. Think about where you are investing your time.   History/ Experience: I did 4 years of policy in high school and 4 years of parli with SIU. During that college career I won 18th tournaments, the NPTE, and the NPDA. This is my second year coaching and my 10th year in debate.    Delivery: Speed is not an issue but clarity often is.  It’s important for judges to be honest, rather than intimidated, if they simply cannot understand a debater because of a lack of clarity. “It is better to speak remembering we were never meant to survive.” bell hooks.  Also, if an opponent asks or requires you to reduce your speed in round your points become contingent on your acquiescence. Those vacuous speed good warrants rarely, if ever, take into account the type of body they are demanding performance from. I am highly receptive to arguments about accessibility in debate, particularly regarding disability.   Argument Selection: My argument preference is diversified I read the K a lot and policy strategies just as often. I won’t list all the authors I have or haven’t read. Here are some schools of thought I work with or enjoy: post-modernism, modernism, deconstruction, post-structuralism, existentialism. Here is what I am less familiar with or do not enjoy: post-humanism, theology, psychosocial/psychoanalysis, neoclassical theory. Feel free to perform or read a project in front of me. When you do, you assume a certain level of risk because I have only been formally trained in traditional methods of debate. I study performance at SIU so I enter into that discussion with a background, but it is fairly disconnected from debate. You simply must dedicate a responsible amount of time in your performance citing my role as a critic, and how I evaluate the debte. Impact framing is the difference in highly technical debates. I grew up a member of the offense/defense school of hard knocks. Though, I do not rule out the possibility of terminal defense. Although completely arbitrary I am sometimes persuaded by teams that calculate a percentage of possibility to the impact they are reading defense against. Topicality: I enjoy a good topicality debate. I think that is rare though. I come from the Todd Graham school of approaching topicality which is probably radically different from the way you currently understand T.  There is fundamental misunderstanding about what constitutes a standard and what constitutes a voter. Standards are how you determine which definition of a word is best. Voters are why meeting that standard is important for debate.   Procedurals: I dislike specs and find that they serve much less utility than the community might believe. There is not a substantial time trade off, especially against a well rehearsed MG. The time wasted on specs will always be better served on the case debate.  That being said its not as if I refuse to listen to them. Must take a question began at SIU and holds a place distinct from specs.   Counterplans: CP’s are smart. Permutations are only ever tests of competition. I think I have seen every type of counter plan out there. PIC’s, process, agent, actor, consult, advantage. Etc.  Slow down for your texts, especially if they are complex. Your opponents should be provided a text of your counterplan at the least, I don’t think I need one provided you have slowed down. Theory:   In parli I generally believe that the negative team gets one unconditional advocacy or the squo.  That being said I am not going to dismiss your speech or advocacies because they are conditional. It is the affirmatives job to win the condo debate or beat back the advocacies. I don’t particularly believe in text comp. There are much more preferable standards to determine competition. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. The debates I remember most vividly are not always the ones where I won, but usually the ones where I was actually having fun.

Om Alladi - PDB

Phil Sharp - UNR

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

Robert Birlew - Pacific

n/a

Sarah Hinkle - CC

Steve Doubledee - Washburn

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

Vanessa Fernandez - PDB

I am graduating from Cal in December, I was a policy debater in HS and a Cal Parli debater in college. I have only judged at the GGI this year. I don't like to intervene so tell me what I should vote on and how each sheet interacts with other sheets in the round (i.e. if you're running a kritik with the same impacts as the case at least tell me why the kritik comes first and o/w, etc.). Impact calc and thorough analysis at the end of the round is really important. I like theory, but I also love a great CP with a substantial net benefit. T is something I've voted on in the past, I don't generally think it is a reason for an RVI so just save it for another page. Keep the round clean and I'll generally give decent speaks. If you're going fast please be clear, I'll say clear once and the rest is up to you. One of my biggest pet peeves is mumbling in debate rounds, the second is being super rude without having a reason to be. I don't like performance debate, be it on the aff or with a ridiculous alternative. I'll buy framework over performance. If you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them for you at the beginning of the round.

2013 Golden Gate Invitational