FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Andre Chang - PDB

Experience: I did NPDA debate at Berkeley for three years, and I’m in law school now. Please feel free to ask questions before the round regarding my paradigm, since the following is likely to be very bare. Start at a moderate pace and work up to full speed if you have me in rounds 1 or 2. I’ve haven’t been involved with debate since NPTE 2014, but speed likely won’t be a problem. If you are going too fast for me, I will let you know. If you are just being unclear (but not going overly fast), I will probably not let you know, as that is a problem with your speaking style, and I do not like to intervene. I enjoy kritiks. Teach me something new and execute it well. Some people may have viewed me as a K debater. However, I am by no means familiar with all of the relevant literature. So if you are reading a K, do not assume I know anything about your argument. Feel free to go conditional/whatever. Basically you can run whatever you want. I have an econ background, if that helps anything. Please make sure to do weighing at the end – it’s incredibly important for me as a judge to hear how I should prioritize arguments. I am not an expressive judge.

Ben Reid - SIU

Short version: whatever   Less short version: meh, whatever.   More less short version: See above, mostly. I’m coming back to my debate philosophy primarily to decrease the bearing that my predilections will have on any debates I may judge. Instead, I want to suggest that you do whatever you deem most strategic given the context of the debate. What are you good at? What is the other team good at? What are the best arguments on the topic? Those are the questions you should ask yourselves and your coaches. I would prefer you not ask “what does Ben want us to read?”.   But it’s only fair to let you know how I feel about some things so that you can use your speech and prep time effectively. For example, I’m happy to vote for aff strategies which are not instrumental affirmations of the topic. I’m happy to vote on framework against such affs. What matters is context. Framework strikes me as a compelling answer to a lot of critical affirmatives. Framework strikes me as a thoroughly uninteresting answer to other critical affirmatives. Generally speaking, if your framework argument would diminish the value placed on the positionality of another participant in the debate, then it’s probably not going to be persuasive. Use your judgment. Do what you think best lends itself to making debate a hospitable and accessible space for other folks. Be nice. Etc.   The cat’s out of the bag now: despite years of boisterously mocking critiques and critique teams, I’m probably a solid A or B pref for a lot of the new wave of critically oriented teams. This, like all things, is heavily dependent on context. I am not a great judge for teams who want to have lots of high theory debates (can it, Heidegger!). I am a pretty good judge for “social responsibility” and “social justice” type critical teams though. Obviously, theorizing is how we create an intellectual framework for social change and activism, and I appreciate “high theory” concepts being debated as part of a larger social ethic, but I’m not particularly good for teams who want to read eight minutes of Lacan or Baudrillard or D&G in the 1NC.  Just something I thought some of you might like to know.   I still love more classic approaches to debate. A well written, well executed disadvantage warms the lifeless cockles of my soul. CPs solve the aff! 1NCs who spend 8 minutes picking the 1AC apart are, in my mind, deserving of reward. Debating the case ain’t dead, and proficiency at it is what separates the national champions from the octofinalists. Framework is often fine. And a debater who can coherently and persuasively defend the forum and explain all the reasons why the aff should have been topical is surely a good thing. The point is, I’m not in your pocket regardless of which side of the critical/traditional gap you fall on. And I really like clash of civilization debates when they happen at the highest level.   Generally, you should do as you please—do what makes the most sense for a given situation.   One last note about how I “see” the debate: I see the debate (usually) in a holistic sense. I flow point by point, and I do my best to correctly record each moving piece of your arguments. But I am not the type to fixate on (what I perceive to be) one small technical issue. A lot of folks judge like me. A lot of folks judge more like Will Van Treuren. I think either is fine, and Will was an A-pref the entire time I was debating despite that gap. Just be mindful of the ways your judges orient to and process debates. I think about narratives. Others think about points. You should use that knowledge in the way that most effectively facilitates the result you want. This isn’t to say that techne doesn’t matter—you should demonstrate a basic level of technical proficiency—but it is to suggest that you should focus on comparing warrants and explaining why one is better than the other, and using that knowledge to craft a story. Because at the end of the debate, I’m voting for the better story.

Ben Campbell - ACU

Affiliation: Abilene Christian University, Southern Illinois University (Competitor from 2010-2014).  Experience: 4 years HS policy (Parkview HS), 4 years college parliamentary debate (SIU).  Have judged >50 debates last year in NPDA.    Education: B.A. in International Relations (SIU), Second-year Ph.D. student in International Relations and Political Methodology (The Ohio State University).  My research interests are largely in empirical strategies for modeling relational data, and in theories of asymmetric alliance formation and their dynamics. Approach: ~Tabula Rasa (with the exception of the biases I describe below). Communication and Presentation: Unless unclear communication inhibits my ability to accurately evaluate the round, communication and presentation only matter for speaker points (at the margins). Points of Order: Call them, and without a panel, I will rule on them ~75% of the time.  My decision to rule is a function of the clarity of a decision at that time, and the pertinence of the issue being flagged.    Update: 11/11/2015 -Updated to reflect my own biases with respect to impacts and impact calculus.  Read it, please J     My ideal debate is a debate over the topic.  The affirmative reads a plan text implemented by a policymaking body via fiat with two advantages stemming from the implementation of that policy in a fiated world.  The negative would read an unconditional counterplan with two disadvantages and case arguments.    Don’t use this to assume I cannot or will not evaluate alternative styles, but to know what my preference is.  Preferences manifest themselves in inflated speaker points and a happier Ben.      Generally held views relevant to Parli: -Conditionality is acceptable if the arguments are logically consistent (although, I still prefer unconditional positions for the reason of depth). -Disclosure isn’t necessary, I’m not convinced it’s good for parli, and find theoretical arguments to the contrary unconvincing.  I am, however, willing to listen to the discussion – it might be an uphill battle.  -Functional competition is better for evaluating competition than textual competition.  If you must read theory against consult or conditions, read consult or conditions bad.  -That being said – I generally think consult and conditions are theoretically legitimate if the links to the disad(s) are generated by the action of the plan.  -A theoretically legitimate permuation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan/alternative implemented simultaneously.  -Negative gets fiat -Google researching by the judge is intervention – it assumes that I am making a decision about what the “literature” says, and that I read the same articles you did.  That being said, I err on the side of caution about if I think you’re lying or not.  -As a judge of the activity, I am constrained by its rules. I’m being hired on the expectation that I enforce those rules, and I can no longer arbitrarily determine whether or not I will or will not enforce those rules.   I am intellectual, but first and foremost, I am a judge hired by an institution that has certain rules that are required of me as a contractor.  This applies to rules of lateness, speech times, and conduct in round.    While I will generally try not to enforce my ideology through the ballot, I find that the following significantly harm my ability to do so: -Making people feel unwelcome in debate, either through violent rhetoric, actions, or general rude behavior.  This includes, but is not limited to, “Vote against X-school because their DoF is a facist”, name calling, yelling, or asinine impact turns (genocide good, patriarchy good).  This does not include De-Dev, Rights Malthus, or Wipeout.  I just think those are stupid arguments to begin with.  -Clearly lying or misrepresenting facts (i.e. WW2 didn’t happen, Napoleon was a lizard, etc). -Going for “blippy” arguments with the expectation of winning on a “cheap-shot”.  For me an argument includes a claim and data.  -Making causal assumptions that are not clear. -See impacts portion   Don’t be afraid to ask! For the sake of transparency and open communication, I am willing to do the following before the round for you: (1) If you ask, I will give you my frank opinion of how you should rank/pref me.  I may or may not know your “style”, but upon a ~2-3 minute conversation I can accurately answer this question for you.  (2) Answer any impromptu questions during prep-time about how I feel about certain arguments – a response will only come if at least one representative from the other team is also included on the e-mail, text message, or Facebook message.      ***Back to the details   Pedagogical Moment: None of us our policymakers – we are not actors of the USFG and like such I do not believe we role play as them as automatic.  When I discuss fiat, or think it exists in debate, I don’t think we actually believe it is what we say it is.  No one believes that it exists outside of a vacuum of our language.  In fact, when we discuss fiat and role playing, we are discussing a broader way in which we try to employ language to change the world or our perceptions of it.  In a traditional policy debate, a fiat-based approach to political change is just assumed, so it is not worthy of making argument to such a point.  Remember, the plan text as I consider it is a suggestion that you propose to change the policy of the subject of the resolution.   I say that as a way to have you consider how I view framework, affirmatives, and the criticism.  I consider the language of the affirmative’s (fiat/role play based framework) v. some critical-theory based approach of the criticism – framework is a weighing of the best way to solve those implications in the real world.   If that doesn’t make sense, let me know.    Impacts: I have been known as a big-stick policy-based terminal impact sort of debater and judge.  As a debate I welcomed this acknowledgement, and in my early judging career I tried to be as open as possible to a variety of impacts.  I think one poverty of modern debate, and I know it’s one that I certainly participated in, is using heuristic shortcuts to efficiently produce impacts at the cost of clearly articulated impacts that would perhaps be more specific to the topic. I think there are a couple of examples of these shortcuts, and even if I have some biases, I can be convinced otherwise: -“This group is dehumanized, which outweighs nuclear conflict”.  I think dehumanization is a heuristic stand-in for something that may be better described in the context of the advantage and the topic.  For example, saying “poverty is dehumanization” is not saying that people’s sense of humanity is stripped from them through conditions of economic inequality.  Instead, what this argument is describing, is that poverty undermines life expectancy and health care, the ability to be well-nourished, and produce the luxuries that make life more enjoyable.  With that being said, life expectancy and starvation are impacts that can be quantified and are exceedingly probable.  While it may be harder to make these arguments, I generally find them more convincing than individuals who are often in positions of privilege waxing poetic about the suffering of individuals that they can never truly empathize with. -“Economic decline causes nuclear conflict and extinction.” This argument is often made with the assumption that judges will fill in the gaps, and I think absent any clear articulation of a particular scenario that makes conflict likely (i.e. a power-keg exists, and economic decline is the spark), it’s really easy to lose these impacts to terminal defense.  Additionally, I think even if war occurs, the escalation to nuclear conflict is exceptionally unlikely given some unique feature to that conflict.    I say all of this to say something simple: “I generally prefer impacts that are falsifiable (and as a result measureable), quantifiable (death is usually me heuristic for evaluating impacts, given a good enough reason I could be convinced otherwise), and will maximize the utility associated with those impacts.” That last part may require clarification: The risk of 1,000 people dying with a probability of 0.01 (expected death of 10), versus the risk of 12 people dying with a probability of 1 (expected death of 12) means I’d act to save those 12 people.  This is cold and calculative, but I’m not entirely comfortable wading into the waters of comparing quality of life as I have no objective measure with which to make my decision.    If you are to read a criticism, you can clearly make impacts that operate within this metric.  It is to say that I prefer impacts like “Borders are the root of conflict” than “Borders and nationalism create a distancing from our own sense of self”.    It is also worth mentioning that if you are a team that would read critiques of impacts, I rarely think these are more convincing than well thought out impact defense.  I am more likely to vote for your aff that saves 12 lives if you have put terminal defense on their big-stick impact than if you said “save 12 lives and ignore the threat of nuclear conflict”.  Topicality/Theory/Procedurals: Generally I find limits to be the essential standard for evaluating T. I find "predictability" and "grounded in the literature" to be important as well. I also don't feel like there has to be articulated abuse to win. Other than that, spec, and condo I don't know why winning a theory argument means you win the round. Conditionality is generally good, but the more advocacies there are, the lower my threshold becomes for voting on condo is bad. If you go for it in the PMR, make sure the MG was large enough on it. Critiques: They’re fine, but anyone who knows me knows that I do not prefer to evaluate this debate. The only problems I could possibly have with a criticism are a result of a lack of clarity.  A clearly articulated framework and an explanation of the alternative following it would be awesome.  I will evaluate the criticism is a world absent fiat – but that may mean you don’t get links to your criticism and may mean alternative solvency is rough.   Competition and the Permutation: A theoretically legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan/alternative implemented simultaneously.  If you go for the perm (which I think is generally a good strategy choice), I think it needs to be the cornerstone of the PMR strategy and an articulation of why it makes the alternative or CP uncompetitive.    Remember – winning a permutation does not mean you win the debate, it just means that the alternative or the CP is uncompetitive.  This means that it is the disad v. the aff – make arguments assuming that difference. PICS: Love them, a well thought out and well researched PIC is damning. I think theory can be convincing if they pic out of a non-mandate of the plan. An example: If the plan was to go to space, and the counterplan was to go to space but to use the Windows 7 OS as opposed to the Mac OSX, I think that the aff will probably win that the perm is justifiable. Language and Word pics: Eh. They're alright, but you have to be able to win that language or reps matter, this is an all-or-nothing thing to me unless you convince me otherwise. I also think these should be contextual, generic pics are unconvincing (that doesn't mean I won't vote on them). Also, I don't think you should be able to pic out of things not in the plan text. Severance only happens from the plan, not the rest of the speech. Case debate: Fantastic, I love a good case debate. Really do. You'll get brownie (speaker) points if you're good on your case, or good on someone else's. I feel like most the time people undervalue this Defense:  "This is just defense" isn't a response. Diversify your defense.   Politics: They’re fine, but know, if the debate comes down to whether or not some obscure piece of legislation is on the top of the docket or not, and I haven’t heard of it, the decision will not be favorable for you.  I also think people go way too fast through politics – uniqueness in particular. Counterplans: Do whatever you want here, just make sure it's competitive. The negative has fiat. I don't think that's unfair, sorry. Perms: They're checks of competition. If you think you're tricky, and it comes out in the 2AR that you're advocating the perm, I will be sad. If it is, articulate that in the 2AC. If this is done, and the negative doesn't read theory against this in the block, I may slam my head on the table. A theoretically legitimate permutation in my book is all of the plan and all or parts of the alternative. Framework & Performance: I generally think that you should defend a plan text enacted by the government via fiat. However that doesn't mean that I'm not open to performance debate or any alternative frameworks. I'll vote for your movement, but with that being said, I find that many of these debates frankly go over my head and beyond my limited knowledge of the lingo and tricks that are associated with these forms of debate.  If your primary strategy is performance, I may not be the judge for you.  Framework is a way to evaluate impacts.

Ben Dodds - Oregon

Name: Ben Dodds School: Oregon Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. 2014 NPTE 100% rewrite -- read me even if you know me I think honesty in philosophies is one of the best ways to advance the activiy. Let me be perfectly clear what I am trying to accomplish by writing this: I want to be the top preferred judge at every tournament that I go to. I have judged every NPTE since 2009, and attended each since 2006. Seriously, I want to judge all the debates, all the types of debaters, and I want to judge seniors one last time before they go save the earth. I enjoy nothing more than seeing people at nationals when they are at the top of their game. I will stay in the pool until the tournament ends, Oregon debaters left in or not. That is a promise that may be relevant to you filling out your form, I'll stay till the end like a hired judge.  While, there are people that I don’t think I am an ideal ordinal #1 for, I work really hard to make sure that I get better at whatever flaws are the reason for that, so give me a shot to be your #1. I will proceed to explain why I think I am a good judge in most all debates, and why you may want to consider me for your ordinal #1. The exact question: what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you – I did policy debate for the majority of my career. I ended with a few years of parli at Oregon. I think flowing is a very important judging job that I try very hard at. I will use my flow as the official scorebook. I think letting the debaters use their arguments to win is important, so I try very hard to keep my own thoughts out of the debate. However, where there are thoughts that I think are better served by the debaters knowing them, I will let them know them. In my opinion, the number one reason I should be your number one judge is that you will know how I feel about your arguments far earlier than other judges will let on. I will try my absolute hardest to make sure I have communicated to you what I am thinking about your arguments as you make them. I will use verbal and non verbal communication to get this information communicated. This season I have:  Asked for things to be repeated, asked for acronyms to be broken down, asked for things to be written, asked for people to be clearer, asked for people to be louder, asked for people to have more distinct tags, given people obvious signs to move on or told them to move on, and used other obvious nonverbal to verbal communication like: laughter and smiles, head shaking, exaggerated nodding and knocking, and even flat out telling folks that “I don’t get this, explain it better”. Do not be astonished if I ask you a question like that mid speech. I do all of this because I love you all and love good debates. I want to you be in my head with me the whole debate. I don’t think it is valuable for you to invest 25 min in something that I can’t vote on because I couldn’t hear. Similarly, I don’t want anyone spinning their wheels for 20 min when I got it in two. So, I really want to be your top judge, and should be because you will not have a question about where I am at during a debate, but if you would rather debate in blissful ignorance, I’m not your person. Also, there are things that I will not pretend to know about the world. I took the classes I took. Learned whatever I learned, I remember whatever I remember, but not more than that. There are issues that you, as undergraduates, know more about than I do. If there is a confused look on my face or I seem to asking for more explanation a lot, you have hit on something that I don’t understand. You should not just read this argument to me, it should be clear to you that you have to teach it to me. These two things are not the same. Your ability to know the difference is the greatest skill of all. Reading the audience and dialing your message to their knowledge base. If you have not educated me well enough on your magic fission technology, don’t get mad at me for voting on the argument that it won’t work. Still sound like magic to me, that’s on you. Any judge not willing to admit that there are things that they do not know about the world is lying to themselves, and to you. Strike them, pref me, and teach me your argument. I flow things in columns. I prefer to flow from the top of one page to the bottom of it. I'll be on the laptop, so '4 pages or 1 page' is up to you. Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Please describe your approach to the following. 1.         Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 27-30 I have given 10-20 30s in competitive debates of consequence in my career. Most of them are at NPDA/NPTE. Every year there are one or two people spitting pure fire that weekend, so no, I am not the "never seen perfect" type. Debate is subjective, while there might not have been a perfect speech yet; I have seen people debate without a flaw that was relevant to the debate many times. If that is you: 30. Beyond that, I will say that reward good choices higher than pretty choices. I’d rather watch you explain the double turn for 3 min and sit than explain it for two and then go for your DA for two. I don’t like contradicting arguments being advanced in rebuttals, unless there is some explicit reason for it. I won’t floor people at 27 or lower unless they are repugnant, and as articulated above, you’ll get to know from me verbally before I let you just bury yourself in bad. It is very unlikely that you will get poor speaker points from me, because I will let you know what you are doing that I like mid debate. I am like the bowling bumpers of non-verbal communication. You should be able to score pretty well here. 2.         How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Anyone can do whatever they want. I think this is the right forum for debating about things with claims, warrants, and impacts. I am not scared of arguments based on the titles or format that they are delivered in. No on can make any argument without a claim, warrant and impact. If you have those three things, I don not care what you title it, how you structure it, or really anything more about it. You do you. As I stated above, I don’t like hearing contradictory arguments advanced in rebuttals, as by that time, I prefer to hear one strategy that is consistent being advanced, but I will hold out for a well-explained reason that contradictions are ok. Not my favorite, but certainly a winnable argument, just like all arguments are and should be. If you claim that contradictions are ok, and have a warrant and impact, you have made an argument. If you win the debate over that argument, you will win that argument. If you win an argument, I will filter the debate through that won point. 3.         Performance based arguments… Do whatever you want. I think I would be a good judge to try new things with. I have voted for all manor of performance debate as it has come into parli. I have seen parli evolve from the K being a fringe argument to performance being acceptable. I understand the theory that is in play in this debate as well. I am down to vote for either side of every issue on this discussion I am your judge for a new performance that Ks debate, but you’d better be ready to answer debate is good, because I am your judge for that argument too. I reject the notion that the argument framework: Ks cheat, or the argument framework: fiat is bad, are all that different. Just two sides of a coin, I am totally into watching a debate about those two things against each other. I’ll also entertain Ks vs performances, performance affs vs. performance negs, or whatever other arbitrary dichotomy you have to make between schools of thought. They are all just claims, warrants and impacts to me. 4.         Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I require a full shell to vote on T. The neg needs to prove they have an interp that should be preferred, that the aff does not meet that, and that I should vote on T. I will default to that interp until there is a counter interp and/or an argument that says that I should not evaluate interps against one another (reasonability). I will default that T is a voting issue until the aff convinces me otherwise. However, no, I do not require “in round abuse”, because that is arbitrary. Competing interpretations debate resolves this entirely, if that is how T is evaluated, then the interp is good or bad in theory, not practice, ergo, in-round abuse is irrelevant. If the aff wins reasonability, and has an interpretation of their own, that is usually a good enough out. Now, don’t get confused, the reasoning for arguments about in round vs out of round have a place, its just in the reasonability debate, not just drifting in the ether of T is not a voter. Competing interps might be bad because they don’t force the judge to evaluate in round abuse over potential abuse. See, just a claim, warrant, and impact, placed somewhere relevant. I think case lists make good topicality standards. That encapsulates your ground and limits claims well. This works for the AFF and NEG. 5.         Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? This question is silly. You all determine all of these things for me. Do I have opinions on these issue, yes, and I will list them here, but they are hardly relevant to the debate, because theory is not a hard issue for me to just listen to you debate about and vote on. This is totally up to you in the debate, I promise I have voted on the exact opposite of everything I am about to say about how I feel about theory. PICS – Arbitrary distinction. Can’t be good or bad if it is actually impossible to define. This argument usually boils down to complaints like you should not get that CP, or you should not get that many CPs, both are ok arguments to me, just not likely a reason why PICs are good or bad. There is likely another, better theory argument that your claim, warrant, and impact would fit under more intuitively. Perhaps the problem is that the CP is only a minor repair (CP - treaty without one penny)? Perhaps the problem is that the CP is competing through an artificial net benefit that only exists because of the CP (CP - aff in 3 days)? All arguments are conditional unless otherwise specified. While the neg should state this, and I could vote on the claim (with good warrant and impact :P); "vote AFF, they did not specify the status". Or better maybe, "err AFF on condo bad, they didn’t even specify." This form does not ask my opinion on the actual statuses of CPs, but you are getting them anyway. I don’t believe that conditional advocacies are bad. This is the status I think is best: an advocacy that is competitive should have to be advanced. If there is a perm, the NEG should be able to concede it to make their CP go away. A non-intrinsic, non-severance perm to an advocacy is 100% the same argument as no link. If the AFF and NEG advocacies can exist together without repercussion, the NEG advocacy is testing no part of the aff, and is irrelevant. However, this is just my opinion, you do whatever you want. I have, and will vote on condo bad. If it has a claim, warrant, impact, it’s a winnable argument. If the impact to the voter is reject the team, so be it. A legitimate permutation has all of the aff and part or all of the neg advocacy. I will not insert my opinion on that meaning that the function or text of the CP in your debate, again, that is for you. My opinion is that text comp is an arbitrary tool made up to limit otherwise unfair feeling CPs that debaters have not been able to defeat with the appropriate theory arguments. Text comp and PICS bad are actually basically the exact same argument. They both arbitrarily eliminate a bunch of CPs to try to rid debate of a few. Artificial net benefits are bad is the argument that both of these poorly conceived arguments are trying to get at. You should not get the save a penny CP, but that is not a reason that we must use text comp or that we must reject CPs that include the plan in them. That is a reason to reject save a penny CPs, they are just hard to define. There is the rub on all theory, interpret the rules to restrict the exact set of argument that you intend to. 6.         Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Yes. 7.         In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? This question is just sad. It should read, if the debaters you are watching fail to debate, how will you choose? Well, here goes. I will order things: some Ks, some theory, other Ks, some AFFs, other theory, DAs and other AFFs. Don’t do this to me. Either make it clear that you all think the debate should be ordered the same, or debate about the order of these thoughts. If you let me choose, you have not completed the debate, and the decision will be based on something arbitrary, like me ordering issues on my own. 8.         How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? I won’t. I also don’t think the things listed are as abstract and concrete as the question leads on, nor are they necessarily diametrically opposed. In any case, this question, as phrased, is another example of something you should not do to me. Either, make it clear that you all think the debate should be ordered the same, or debate about the order of these thoughts. If you let me choose, you have not completed the debate, and the decision will be based on something arbitrary, like me ordering issues on my own. I think both of the things listed in the question, death and value of life, are important. I could be compelled to separate them based on number of people affected. I could be compelled to separate them on the time the impact occurs. I could be compelled to separate them based on the likelihood of each occurring. I could be compelled that one of these impacts is reversible while the other is not. I could be compelled that one affects other policy choices while one does not. If there was none of that for me to sort it, I would say death is bad, because that is what I think. If you let the debate get down to what I think, rather than something you said, you failed.

Dylan Brugman - ACU

TL;DR version: I don’t think that my job is to define for you the way that debate should be done. You should debate what you’re good at, not what I did/liked as a debater. **The only caveat: Please read interpretations/plan texts/and alt texts twice. That is the best way for me to get them down. Texts would be even better, but do what you want there. Longer version: General: I think that debates are won on offense, and I think that debates are won on strategy. I think that debate is capable in some ways of being a tool of liberation and expression, but I think that it is primarily a game to be played by two teams. The educational aspect of debate is nice, but if debate were about education, I would expect both teams to read textbooks to me about calculus or something during their speech. Win however you can and in whatever way you can. Speed: Hardly ever an issue. Clarity and argument depth often is. The way I flow is: I flow the claim and then flow the warrants underneath them. If I miss the claim, I flow the warrants and infer the claim from those warrants. If I miss both, your arguments are not warranted enough for me to write them down, and I will tell you to slow down. If you are unclear, then I will yell clear. Your options are to either become more clear, or slow down until you are clear. Or keep mumbling I guess. Theory/T/Procedurals: Run them. I default to competing interpretations, and that is the best way for me to evaluate theory, because it comes down to whoever debated it best and requires (arguably) the least intervention on my part; however, if I am given arguments as to why potential/proven abuse is good reason to pull the trigger, or why I shouldn't evaluate T, and the other team fails to provide an adequate answer, I’ll bite. Topicality is a voting issue, it is not a reverse voting issue. It's your fault if you let T become a time-suck. SPECs are generally for bad debaters. The Criticism: Can be run on the aff or the neg. Affs can be topical or not topical (as long as you win that you get to run a non topical aff), and affs can use fiat or not use fiat. A note about the criticism: If it is general/you assume that both teams understand it, I don’t need a thesis. If you are running something that I’m not familiar with/is super complicated, I would run a SHORT thesis. Most of the criticism’s that I ran were environmental, fem, and queer. I understand race pretty well, but if you start into post-structural, European philosophers like Baudrillard, Agamben, Derrida or the like, I need some indication of the thesis of the argument. For some reason, reading a bunch of leftist white academics wasn’t a thing we did at ACU in my undergraduate. That being said, I like hearing new things, if they are explained to me. I debated the criticism a lot as a debater, but in my old age, I prefer a Disad/CP debate. I also like DA/CP/K debate a lot if the negative can win condo. Criticisms/Turns of language in the PMC/LO/MG are generally ok. They are arguments that force the other team to spend time answering, which is always a good thing. Sometimes they make the other team look silly too, that can’t hurt your chances, right? On narratives/performance: Do it if you want, but when you introduce your own stories and experiences into a competitive environment, you make them competitive, and weaponizing identity doesn't help anybody in my experience. Do not physically hurt yourself or others in front of me (I cannot believe that I have to put this in a judging philosophy now). We should protect our activity and the people in it, and physical violence, I'm afraid, is not a good way to do this. Permutations are good to run on the aff. So are impact turns, and so is framework. And if you want to run a framework that policymaking is the only way to evaluate the round, I’ll evaluate that. Framing them out of the round is a good way to win. In general, I default to seeing permutations as tests of competitiveness, but will gladly hear all of the arguments about why they’re more than that. In general, when answering the criticism, do anything to win. Conditionality/multiple worlds: I don’t mind voting for a conditional argument, I also don’t mind voting on condo. I don’t care if you run three counter plans and a K, I don’t care if they conflict, and I don’t care if you collapse out of all of them into case turns. You should be the best condo debaters you can be though, because if you lose on condo or multiple worlds, I’ll vote against you. My favorite opp strat to watch as a judge is DA/CP/K debate. But each team should have one strategy that they're going for in the rebuttals. Opposition, you should go for one sheet of paper in the block (unless its a Disad/CP combo). Don't you dare stick to both disads. That is so bad. It's like the worst part of debate. Trust me enough to vote in the direction that you tell me. Disads: Are good. I like them to be big, and really like to have “burnt, dead bodies” in a disad. Dehume impacts are fine, and so are value to life arguments. With all disads, specificity is key (especially with politics). Lazy debaters are rarely rewarded, and many disads are lazy. Counterplans: Run as many as you want and run whatever you want. If you’re on the aff, run theory and run disads to the Counterplans. Also, permutations. Those are always a good thing. Case Debate: Offense is better than defense, but I think that impact defense (or impact turns) can be a pretty powerful tool. A note on impacts: I like impact calc, and I think it makes things easier for me. I default to extinction outweighs Dehume, but I am also very open to hearing impact frameworks that prioritize certain impacts over others. Everybody should let Ben Campbell teach them how to do impact calc, because that's the exact way that I feel about it. Speaker Points/Etiquette/etc: I don't call the house to order, I don't even know how to do that. I don't particularly like thank yous, but go for it I guess. I don't care if you talk to your partner or prompt them. I don't care if you stand or sit. You should wear some kind of clothing, but beyond that, you do what you want. I pretty much roll out of bed every morning. I don't care if you stand or sit, if you say "point of information" or not, or if you do the little teapot shin-dig when you ask a question (you know the hand on the head and the other one outstretched? Yeah, that's pretty silly). I always liked it when I felt that debaters were friendly to me, and I always disliked debaters that were not friendly to me. I think that for a lot of teams, being welcoming to them is important, inside and outside the round. Last year, I felt that my own RFD's were kind of mean spirited, and I'm trying to be more helpful in giving debaters an RFD that seems well justified. Because of that, I'll always flow on paper, but I'll probably open up my laptop afterwards and type up my RFD to read back to you. This is the best way for me to lay out the round and make the best decision possible. In addition, I promise to be respectful of you in my decision, and will always say something that is honest, but also encouraging. That being said, during the debate, I'm not very expressive, and may even look a little perturbed. I'm not, I promise, that's just the way that my face looks. I like jokes and references from Dungeons and Dragons, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Warhammer 40k, Firefly, Isaac Asimov books, The Sopranos, The Wire, The West Wing, Slavoj Zizek, my main man Barry-O, Kim Il-Sung/Jong-il/jong-un, and other weird things. Speaker points: My speaker points were a little lower than average last year, so I tried to change that this year, and create a more reliable/valid scale for speaker points. It is as follows: if I give you a 27, I think that you are a good debater, if I give you a 28, I think that you should be breaking, if I give you a 29, I think that you should be getting a speaker award, If I give you a 30, I think that you should be in finals. You want good speaker points? Then your rebuttal should be my RFD.

Julian Plaza - CC

Krystal Fogle - ACU

I am a graduate student studying communication and rhetoric.  In debate rounds, I am looking for well developed, clear arguments with strong warrants.  I am new to the world of debate and am learning with every round.  As I learn, I appreciate speakers who adapt by speaking clearly, and not speaking so rapidly that I lose you.  I believe you should be free to run whatever you think is best for the round, however, I expect that you will clearly signpost.   Because critiques/criticisms are complex and my be difficult for me to follow, run them at your own risk and over-explain the theory and your arguments to me.

MATTHEW LANE-SWANSON - SMC

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

Mariel Cruz - Santa Clara

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara Univerisity, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School  I judge both Policy and Parlia debate. I just both events pretty similarly. I do have a few specific notes about Parlia debate at the bottom. Parlia debaters, be sure to read the notes at the very bottom as well.  Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. This is my second year coaching, but I have seen a lot of rounds and know a lot about debate. I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly. I’m good with speed, but be clear. I’ll let you know if you aren’t. However, if you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow.  I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of K literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater, but I don't work with Ks as much as I used to, so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough.  I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I also think conditionality and topicality are pretty awesome. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this. I'll vote on theory and T if I have to.  I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line, so make sure to make those type of arguments as well, ie impact analysis and comparative claims.  I’m cool with paperless debate. I was a paperless debater for a while myself. I don’t time exchanging flashdrives, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.    PARLIA Debate I only went to a hand full of parlia tournaments as a debater, but I helped coach the parlia team during my entire debate career, and I coach both policy and parlia. And, as a policy debater, I'm familiar with all your arguments (since most of them come from policy). I'm also really good with speed, since I had to flow fast rounds all the time for policy. Just be sure to sign post so I can flow properly.  Since the structure for parlia is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parlia rounds than in policy rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parlia, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation.  I'm pretty familiar with debate jargon, but after judging some parlia rounds, I've come to realize that the some terms have slightly different interpretations in parlia than in policy, so you should err on the side of explaining and elaborating instead of just using these terms. For example, explain what "dispo" means, or explain your "try or die" situation, etc.  For any other argument, I judge it the way I would judge policy, so you can look to the information above if you want to know anything else. Also, feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.

Nick Matthews - Long Beach

Last updated: 2/18/15   1. Speed:   <ul> <li>- You must speak at a conversational speed in front of me because I have a significant hearing impairment. Any rate of speed that is faster than conversational destroys my ability to accurately understand your arguments and impedes my ability to do my job.</li> <li>- NEW: If you speak faster than the dialogue of “The West Wing” in a prelim, you will earn a maximum of 27 speaker points. I don’t care what your NPTE ranking is, you will not earn more than 27 speaker points. If you choose to go fast in an outround for strategic reasons, I will respect that choice, but don’t complain if my decision doesn’t make sense.</li> </ul>   2. Theory guidelines:   <ul> <li>- NEW: I will not vote for any theory argument where the violation did not occur in my physical presence. The other team didn’t disclose? Sorry, I can’t verify that.</li> <li>- You must take at least one question in each constructive. Clarifying the status of an advocacy requires all of three seconds and does not count as a question.</li> <li>- The affirmative team must read either a plan or an advocacy statement with a clearly defined text. (If it relates to the resolution somehow, fantastic!).</li> <li>- I will not revert to the status quo unless I am provided with a justification for doing so.</li> </ul>   3. Evaluation method:   <ul> <li>- My default stance is that I will compare a topical plan to the world of the status quo or a competitive policy option or alternative. Feel free to argue that I should approach the round through some alternate means of evaluation. I am open to most arguments you may wish to present, so long as they are sufficiently explained and warranted.</li> <li>- I reward big-picture storytelling, intuitive arguments, and strategic decision-making. I rarely vote for arguments I don’t understand.</li> </ul>   4. Argument preferences:   <ul> <li>- As a competitor, I specialized in straight-up strategies: disads, counterplans, procedurals, case. These are also the debates I am most competent at judging. Don’t let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a lot stronger than my understanding of critical debate. Pref me accordingly.</li> <li>- I am comfortable with structuralist critiques of economies or state relations. My post-structuralist comfort zone begins and ends with Foucault. Arguments like anthro or “give back the land” are also okay. Beyond that, if you have to rely on words that do not appear in any dictionary in order to explain your argument, save the argument for another round.</li> <li>- Generic process counterplans like delay and consultation are lazy arguments in parli. I greatly prefer PICs and other counterplans that indicate critical thinking and preparation.</li> <li>- Disads need an issue-specific link, especially politics disads. “Plan is unpopular, causes Republican backlash” is not an issue-specific link.</li> <li>- Impact calculus—yes. Do you want to cheat? Turn case or control the root cause debate.</li> </ul>

Phil Krueger - SMC

BACKGROUND: I have competed 7.5 years in forensics, four in high school and 3.5 in college. While in high  school I debated LD, Policy, Public Forum, and Parli. In college debate, I debated 3.5 years  doing Parli. I am currently an assistant coach for Saint Mary’s College where I coach parli and  IEs, and this is my first year coaching. I have judged approximately 40-50 rounds this year.  TRICHOTOMY: I recognize that there is a trichotomy to debate. Certain words, such as “believe” and “is” don’t  carry with them calls to action. It would be unfair for Opp if Gov were to run a Plan in a clear  non-policy round. However, I think fact and value debating harm debate overall by taking the  focus away from specific policies and how they directly affect people. As such, I prefer policy  rounds and if both sides don’t have a problem with it, I would prefer that every round is policy. PARADIGM: The only way for a debater to win a round is to outdebate the other side. I know this sounds  simple, but I will not do any work for you. If Side A says something that is not true and Side B  doesn’t contest it, then it belongs true for the purposes of the round. However, I am not tabula  rasa. I carry my philosophy on debate into the round, so by definition I cannot be tabula rasa. I would generally say that I have a policymaker’s view of who wins the round. Whoever can  prove that their plan benefits the world more than it harms it, wins. I listen and respect all  arguments, but the 1% solvency rule weakens link developments. I am far more likely to vote for  a lesser impact than nuclear war with a greater likelihood of that impact than nuclear war with a  bare minimum of risk.  I also don’t follow stock issues. I don’t require inherency. COMMUNICATION: Debate is a game, but well-structured arguments are key to winning that game. I am a flow  judge. I will not vote for a well-communicated argument if it is not warranted.  I vote on dropped  arguments that are clearly extended by the other side. Not addressing an argument is a strategic  choice made by a side.  Therefore extending that dropped argument goes a long way with me.  Most speed is okay, but I will say “clear” if I can’t understand you. ON-CASE DEBATE: Case debate helps, especially the Oppostion. I view presumption as a very light burden to break.  Once Gov. comes up and articulates a plan with some solvency and an advantage, presumption  switches over to Gov. Therefore Opp. teams should always debate on case. When debating on- case, Opp should put offense on case. While I dislike the 1% solvency rule, most defensive  arguments are mitigation and feed into it. Practically speaking, offense increases Opp’s chances  of winning the round.  However, that is not to say that straight defensive arguments cannot win a round. If Opp wants to  pursue this strategy, they need to make it clear that there is a zero percent chance of Gov’s  advantage/solvency/plan working out. Otherwise they basically link Gov’s case for them.  KRITIKS: It’s your round. I have no issue with Ks, with one exception. Under no circumstances will I ever  vote for a Critical Aff/Resoultional K. Gov has to affirm the resolution, how it does so is up to  them. But running a K on their own res is abusive to Opp. Language Ks run by the MG are fine,  provided there is a clear link to it. To expand on this a bit, while I generally think K’s (like value/fact resolutions) are a shifty way  to avoid specific policy debate, I recognize their usefulness in-round.  Moreover, I am not going  to punish a team that runs K as a strategy, as long as they affirm the resolution (Gov) or oppose  the resolution. I don’t think it’s fair that a team that prepares for Kritik should lose just because I  am in the back of the room.  I do think it is fair that a Gov team running a Resolutional K (Critical Aff) should lose, because  Gov doesn’t get to switch sides because they don’t like to talk about the resolution or want to  talk about something completely different. To emphasize, Gov can run a K out of the PMC, but it  would have to be a performance K explaining the need for the resolution. Gov can run a  language/speed/rhetoric K in the MG, since they cannot anticipate how rounds will go down.  Opp can run any K it desires. To win with me on a K, you need a clear link scenario and an actual alternative. The less likely it  looks like I am seeing a “canned” K, the more likely I am to be persuaded by the K. If the  alternative is “reject plan,” that is a weak alternative. I do think K’s can be permed, but I am  willing to be persuaded on this point. If Opp can tell me why it’s K can’t be permed, Opp can  win. COUNTERPLANS: I have no issue with Conditional CPs. However, I can be persuaded on theories stating why  Conditional CPs are bad/abusive. CPs do not have to be nontopical. I do have an issue with the concept that Opp can only win if it runs a CP. That is not true with  me. Sure, a CP is a great tool to co-opt Gov’s case and win a round, but Opp can win on straight  DA/case turns/solvency presses. They do not need a CP and often times Opp teams running CP’s  yield presumption to Gov by not debating case. That hurts Opp in the round, because practically  speaking it gives Gov. an important tool to win the round. With perm, I am open to theory debate on what can and cannot be permed. My feeling is that any  CP that does not directly contradict plan can be permed. That’s because perms, in my opinion,  measure opportunity cost: by doing plan, we lose the ability to do CP. Therefore a CP with a  different actor doing the same thing will likely be successfully permed by Gov. That being said, I  am open to debate on CP perms. Perms are also not advocacy in my opinion: Gov doesn’t case  shift just because they run perm. However, any perm that causes Gov. to alter plan text is likely going to fail Gov on the perm  debate. Severance perms are difficult for me to justify. Intrinsic perms can be argued one way or  the other. For me, the test of whether an intrinsic perm can be sustained is whether that perm  fundamentally alters plan text. If it does, then it likely cannot be permed successfully.  TOPICALITY/PROCEDURALS GENERALLY: While articulated abuse will never hurt a T, I don’t require it. Words/resolutions have meaning,  Gov has to hew to that meaning. I will vote on Extra/Effects T, even without articulated abuse.  This is generally true of most procedural arguments: I can vote without articulated abuse because  I believe that vague plans or procedural violations mitigate the value of debate for debaters  outside of round. Debate is a game, but it is also an educational activity that should make us  better informed policymakers. POINTS OF ORDER/REBUTTALS: In order for me to spotlight a new argument, a debater must point of order it. I may have on my  flow that it is blatantly new, but it isn’t my round. You are the debater, you tell me why it is a  new argument. I have been persuaded on Point of Order argumentation before, so don’t give up  just because you think the complaining debater has a strong point. As for rebuttals generally, like most critics I want my rebuttals to showcase your side’s strongest  arguments in-round. Magnitude plays a small role for me. Any debater can throw “nuke war” out  there and add a 1% likelihood of it happening. However, I prefer likelihood of an impact  scenario over the most detrimental impacts. If I weigh people are going to lose a certain amount  of income over the aversion of nuclear war, I will probably go with loss of income (assuming  that team can prove it is likely.) I don’t have any preference for long-term vs. short-term impacts,  but a team arguing in the long term risks having their impacts blocked  by the other side’s short  term impacts. (E.g.: Team A argues this is cheaper in the long run but Team B argues that it is  more expensive in the short-term, thus causing economic recession that impacts long-term  productivity. Team B probably has an advantage.) With rebuttals, be clear and concise.

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.

Robear Maxwell - Oregon

I debated for El Camino College, Concordia University and Texas Technical University during a 5-year college debate career. This is my second year coaching, first at Oregon. Speaker Points: I believe speaker points to be largely arbitrary and completely subjective. I also consider the distribution of speaker points to be largely exclusive (given to more "known" debaters for example, or for inside jokes) Everyone assumes I always give 30s but in reality I give 30s to anyone who gives a speech like that they've devoted the hard work it takes to be competitive in debate. I was a successful national circuit debater IMO and during my first year out I found it hard to justify giving the people who I myself battled in NPTE or NPDA elims 29s or 28.5s. Speaker points became even MORE arbitrary to me when I saw judges that couldn't link turn a disad cleanly to save their life, give MG's who just executed a clean strat something like a 28.3. If you practice hard at debate and read smart arguments, I will most likely roll out a 30. TOURNAMENTS DON'T EVEN PREFERENCE JUDGE VARIANCE IN THE ACCUMULATION OF SPEAKER POINTS, Wack....   Critical/Performance Arguments: I find myself voting for the pomo-generator more often than not but the fact that I refer to it as the pomo-generator should tell you something. I went for a K in about half my rounds during my career and I've also actually read a lot of philosophical lit so I do think I have a good understand of these argz, I just think these debates end up being fairly vacuous in a 40 minute parli round and devolve in to K on K debates which are nasty and gross. But if that's what happens that's what happens. I think it's a bit silly when debaters use terms that rooted in the lit and don't explain what they actually mean because I feel like I'm intervening when Team A is spreading through a Derrida 1NC and Team B says in the 2AC this is made up bullshit that doesn't make sense and in the block Team A explains that it actually does and defines the overall thesis of each arg in the block. This used to be called "whoopsie debate" and is generally a sucker punch to me. It's not like it really matters if a team wins with shitty whoopsie debate they do, I guess I am just putting this part in my philosophy because I have to be honest.   DAs/CPs: Unlike hippies who don't care about politics or the real world I like politics Das. I read about that stuff for fun so I actually tix debates. I don't like liars so don't tell me someone like John Shimkus is key when he isn't, that's the fastest way to lose your 30 and I don't care if you're the second coming of Marten King. Popular to what people believe I don't vote against people that read CPs. I don't instantly vote on No Neg Fiat. Like any other issue in the debate round though if someone reads No Neg Fiat and you don't have a competitive counter interp (does one exist?) or some other arg against theory you will lose. I default to a plethora of process counterplans (consult, delay, veto cheat hoe etc) to be shitty but I won't hold that against you unless you lose theory.     Theory: I often find that teams don't go for theory at times when it's their only option. That's sad. I don't really like reasonability argz as they are articulated in the status quo so I think you best be ready to articulate a clean counter interp in debates in front of me. I think they should be read twice OR slowly once. I think all theory is up for debate seeing as how theory is a made up scholarship anyway.   Overall None of my personal opinions on debate matter, the round is up to you. I attempt to become a robot who votes on the most well warranted, significant en route to an impact that matters the most per the impact calculus of the debaters.

Ryan Hang - PDB

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

Sohail Jouya - MoWestern

Overview of my philosophy: Over my short, fickle debate experience I have adopted some general concepts of how I view debate rounds. These are ever-evolving notions that debaters have the ability to change. I feel like I’m quite open to a lot. 1. I default to a policy-making paradigm. This is not rigid and I am very open to alterative frameworks of debate although I do believe you should justify your methodology. I have always been very fond of kritikal debate and appreciate the challenging of norms that can make our activity a home for so many. Regardless, I tend to view things in an offense/defense lens.       NOTE - Please don't take this to mean I'm keen on obfuscating resolutions into different tiers of methodology for argumentation. My thoughts on trichot are that resolutions are propositions of policy - this encapsulates plan, value, and facts. If you want to engage in value debate, try a kritikal approach. If you want the round to be evaluated in the lens of fact debate - I must admit that this isn't a concept I like; it leads to bad debate and abusive theory assumptions.  2. TRUTH > Tech This implicates how I view rounds in a number of ways: -I do believe there are evaluative assertions on certain arguments or positions. This probably means I won’t be as keen on morally abhorrent positions like “Racism/genocide good” whereas a more tabula rasa critic would be convinced. (Malthus/Wipeout is fine, but why would you want to?) -Also, I believe that this means you might have to work harder with more generic positions. A lazy Relations or Politics DA that has an underwhelming link or something of that sort probably has a very low threshold to be beaten, and I’ll also allow smart, true analytics to be weighed equally against a card. -This probably means I take "prior question" issues more seriously than many critics. -Don’t be too confused by this; I don’t believe there is an absolute tension between truth and tech – in fact I think true tech is great. Furthermore, a dropped argument in my eyes is a conceded claim that requires a debater’s “spin” in order to make it meaningful in the round. If there is a lack of analysis/impact on any argument (dropped or otherwise) you’re essentially requiring me to independently assess its validity/meaning.   -I feel that debate organically started as a role-playing concept but the evolution of the activity into a game of sorts that values technique. I am fine with this evolution but I do believe there are times where the more sophisticated tactics usurps inclusion and at those points I keep an open mind to a variety of styles. I am of the Ryan Wash camp in that debate should be a home for it’s competitors and if personal advocacies are part of that approach, great. 3. Speed is fine. It would probably be in your interest to slow down a bit on tags or distinctively intricate warrants. If clarity becomes an issue I will indicate so once. If I feel like I need to do it more than once I will probably just stop flowing. I must say that speed for the sake of talking fast and to sound “circuit-y” isn’t as effective as using speed as a tool to capitalize on word economy. Spreading’s true measure is contingent on the amount of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team. That being said my experiences with the activity have shaped me to believe that the game should be played in a certain way, though I am very receptive to criticism about the game itself. I like and appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable or feel obligated to compete in a manner that you are so unfamiliar with that it inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. Chuck D said it best: "Do you" and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has be to believe the following: T/Procedurals/Theory: Don’t need articulated abuse, it’s what you justify not necessarily what you do - but of course in-round abuse makes your argument stronger. Activism is underutilized as a voter; I believe that is an incredibly important value that operates as a massive impact (maybe event the most important) in theory discussions. I believe it’s your job to tell me WHY I should value competing interpretations/reasonability. The same is true with the voters as well, rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a counter-voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact. I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. I view theory to be the floodgates that grant access to fiated implications. That being said, I’m not totally sold on a lot of specification stuff. Consider specification if it’s an absolutely abhorrent plan text or if you need it to prove an air-tight link into some other offcase. Like I said, be tactical. If you’re running 6 minutes of spec that’s probably less strategy and more desperation. Disads: These are fine and I enjoy a good, true disad that spells out a good story that’s rooted in good lit. I've been pretty geeked out on teams that display mastery of DA stories. Politics is fine if you’re playing the policy-making game, but I find them to be pretty useless if there’s an Aff with a kritikal component to it unless you deal with some framing issues first. Kritiks: I know enough to understand that kritiks are not monolithic. I am very partial to topic-grounded kritiks - in all reality, I find them to be part of a policy-making calculus. I especially like kritiks that deal with the root cause of harms brought up in the 1AC and that functionally turn case. (I ran Orientalism a lot). I am very interested in critical race theory and I’m open to Race K’s of just about any variety. Post-modern genres of kritiks that rely on cutting-edge philosophical concepts are still fine by me, but I’m sure you’ll hear this in most philosophies: ensure that your thesis is digestible to me. Philosophy was one of my majors in undergrad so I feel like I have a decent understanding of Foucault, Nietzsche, some Heidegger and continental philosophy, Jabermas, and a few others. Not too familiar with Baudrillard or D&G tho. This isn’t really post-modern, but I hate Objectivism to the point where I’ve deleted it from my team’s backfiles. I am working on the dissonance I have about K’s needing alternatives, but as of now I’m not entirely certain that they need them. That could be because I haven’t thought critically enough about Neg fiat. (But yes, "Reject the Aff" is an advocacy and does do something) In our small, local regional circuits a few teams have attempted to take advantage of my affinity for K’s by reading generic stock stuff and even doing a poor job on the link level. I’ve voted several of these teams down not because they were looking for a cheap win but because they had serious issues addressing the framework of the K they were running in comparison to the Aff. Don’t make the same mistake. CPs: I’m fine with them. They don’t need to be untopical. PICs are fine. Consult/Delay probably isn’t. Please keep in mind that CPs need to be competitive. Many CP debates for me come down to weighing the Aff solvency versus the deficet with the potential of evaluating any net-benefits as well. Perms: Severance is bad. Intrinsic is probably bad. Timeframe perms are usually bad. I probably differ from a lot of judges because I do not believe that perms can “solve” for anything. They are tests of competition only and that is litmus for linkage/exclusivity rather than a question of solvency. Nontraditional debate: Definition of "project" ::::: "A project is a temporary endeavor with a defined beginning and end (usually time-constrained, and often constrained by funding or deliverables), undertaken to meet unique goals and objectives, typically to bring about beneficial change or added value."  Based on this definition every 1AC is a project. In addition, not all performance teams are the same. Some kritik debate itself. Others kritik the resolution, some kritik the USFG, while others have a plan text or advocacy statement that is a policy implementation, the performance is just the method in which debaters make their arguments. I've had a good amount of kritikal debate experience, I’m very much interested in them and I’m fascinated by what they bring to the table. Every speech is an act of politics (personal or otherwise) and thus, a performance. Discourse matters and so does shaping our social construct in a positive/inclusive manner. Disagree? Fine...but don't try to sell me on "real world" on framework to give your DA with the high magnitude impacts more weight. I have coached an Urban Debate League program for three years and that has very much help shape my beliefs on what inclusivitiy in debate should mean. Thoughts on Framework: I had a lot of dissonance about this position. A lot of people who are far more well-versed in debate and who are much smarter than me find framework to be unjustifiable and incredibly offensive. I understand those concerns but I have come to the belief that Framework is a winnable argument that’s the equivalent to procedurals/theory. Justifying an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by more kritikal teams. It is worth mentioning that I would rather teams engage with kritikal approaches and maybe take up a discussion about methodology but the round is yours, not mine. On the flippity-flip: I won't hesitate to pull the trigger on turns onto Framework. Worth noting: - I believe condo is good. Of course, if you say it’s bad and it’s unrefuted you’re probably in good shape. Just know that “condo bad” doesn’t take a lot for me to err Neg. - If you try to perm anything without an alt text, I won't like that. Test of intrinsicness are not the same thing as permutations. - I believe the Neg gets to challenge the Aff in mutliple, unlimited fronts. So yeah, I don't really buy RVIs and I typically don't default to voting down the Neg on Perf Cons arguments. - Over the years the Aff has tried to seize presumption from the Negative and I’m not sure how I feel about it. Hearing “Risk of solvency” in the 2AR/PMR really makes me cringe but I have reluctantly voted on it when the Neg doesn’t win a big enough risk of offense. I do believe in terminal defense so if the Neg has no offense it’s simply Try or Die. -I prefer numbered signposting/referencing to “next/and”. I have been known to give great speaks to 2ACs that do this and 2NCs that do things like “In response to 2AC-3 where they say "x", we have 2 responses. First, "y". Second, "z"” -Open CX is fine so long as everyone’s cool with it. <s>-Don’t steal prep. I might call you out on it if it keeps happening. *</s> Not Parli specific -I don’t feel comfortable injecting in CX in order to clarify anything. I know several critics who do this and I understand the motivation but I don’t feel like that’s my place. - I won't vote for warrentless arguments or even arguments where I don't know the warrant. Don't be a PMR that extends an incredibly blippy non-unique from the MG because you said it was dropped in the block. I'm not sure if this is a tactic nowadays but what I've noticed is that debaters will extend their partner's arguments that have been uncontested not because they're good arguments, but rather because no one is certain what was said or why it matters. -2A/NRs/PMRs should essentially be what you want my RFD to be. Tell me where and how to vote, keep me out of it as much as possible. A significant amount to time should dedicated to impact calc.  On Speaker Points: I've been coaching more national circuit/urban debate league policy at the high school level and those norms have shaped by range: 25-30, usually with decimals to indicate specific levels of mastery. NOTE - I take my team to local regional tournaments where many critics believe a 20 is "a lot". If that's the case I will be forced to arbitrarily adopt a similar standard to protect my debaters. If I give a floor of 25 and I'm the only judge in the pool to do that, I should probably adopt the local community standard (whatever that means).  Want good speaks? Be a solid, clear MG that properly signposts or a PMR that gives great impact calc with a solid narrative of why I should vote for you. Or conversely, a 1NC that smartly puts a cohesive strategy. I like clever neg strats so long as they aren't abusive. LORs, don't just repeat what the MOC says, give impact calc. Quick worthwhile tidbit: I often take my team to local circuits that openly embrace what is often considered the "origins" of Parliamentary debate and some of those mannerisms are on full display. I actually debated at the Oxford Union and let me tell you: no one wastes their speech time thanking everyone in the room. You don't need to either, especially if you're wasting time to thank me just for the capacity to breathe. Also, please don't knock. I find it annoying and distracting. If it's the first time I've judged you, I'll let that stuff slide. If I judge you again and it's problematic or time-consuming, I will dock your speaks. (Does that grate against my attempts to be inclusive to all styles? Maybe. But I don't like tension with my ability to evaluate the round in a timely fashion,) I'm a big fan of debaters with swag (not to be confused with rudeness/arrogance) and I will reward it with higher speaks.  Don't know what I mean? Then you probably ain't got it...

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

Sydney Awakuni - Long Beach

Question 1: What is your judging philosophy? Background/Experience: •Currently- MA & coaching at California State University, Long Beach •4 years of college experience- 2 years at El Camino college & 2 years at Point Loma Nazarene University – parliamentary debate, NFA-LD, impromptu, extemporaneous speaking, platform •BA Communication Point Loma Nazarene University Core Values After competing in speech and debate for four years at a variety of levels/tournaments I’ve decided these are values I tried to uphold in rounds and would hope you would too! •Respect your teammates, opponents, judge, and any audience members. •Play & Compete. To me debate is a game of intellectual banter so be fun and strategic! •Signpost. This is crazy important. If you don’t tell me where an argument goes I will just place it best I can and I unfortunately don’t have mind reading abilities. •Tell me how you me as a judge to view the round and WEIGH the arguments for me. Tell me what you want prioritized. (Ex: why are the values of the K more important/come before the case debate). General Information/Questions You’ll Probably Ask Me: How I View the Round •I tend to default to the role of a policy maker. This means framing the debate in terms of magnitude and timeframe are really important to me. I also love it when debaters answer the question of “why”. So if you are going to say the world explodes- statistics/reasons of how we get there are crucial (aka: strong links/internals are your friend) Speed •I like speed. I think it is a fabulous tool to be able to utilize. If I can’t flow you/think you’re going too fast I’ll try to tap my pen or something to let you know. •I don’t like it when speed is used for the sole purpose of excluding your opponent-allowing them to engage in the round is more fun for you anyway. I won’t drop you because of spreading out your opponent but I may give you lower speaker points CP •Perms- I would like it if you specified if the permutation is a test of competition or an advocacy. The K •I will try my hardest to view the round from a more philosophical position if that’s what you want me to do. I find discussions about ethics/culture interesting but I am NOT an expert. If you want to debate in that world please take the time to explain how these arguments function and how I ought to weigh them. This is not to say I don’t like the critical debate- I just didn’t debate that way, but I do understand the fundamentals. •*2014-15 Update: Last year I found myself voting for more Ks than I ever thought I would. To win me over on a K- give me an under view to the position (quick summary) – it helps make sure you and I are on the same page. Also if you can apply the K to parts of case and use it as offense there- I like having multiple ways to vote for something vs. one big K vs. no answers on the case. •I don’t like Ks that personally attack other people (it doesn’t matter if they are sitting in the round or not), other teams, or a school’s background.   So have a good time in the round and also play to be competitive! If you have any further Qs please ask me

2014 Golden Gate Invitational