FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Amanda Ozaki-Laughon - Concordia

Hello,  I am the Director of Debate at Concordia University Irvine. I competed both nationally and locally at PSCFA and NPTE/NPDA tournaments during my 4 years of competition, and this is my 3rd year coaching and judging.  I tend to prefer policy debate, and am sympathetic to trichotomy arguments that say policymaking includes the educational facets of value and fact debate. Value and fact debates are often lacking in the very basic structure of claim+data+warrant, and rarely use terminalized impacts. These shortcomings are much easier to logically rectify if policymaking is used. "should" is not necessary to test whether or not the resolution is true.  Theory comes first in debate, since it is a debate about the rules. I default to competing interpretations and am unlikely to vote for your counter interpretation if it has no counter standards for that reason. MOs should choose whether to go for topicality or the substance debate and collapse to one OR the other, not both. Likewise, PMRs should choose whether to collapse to MG theory arguments OR the substance debate, not both.  Kritiks should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. The framework should be utilized as offense to frame out the method of the AFF, and prioritize the impacts of the K. The Alt should explain why they solve for the AFF, and avoid the disadvantages of the link story. I prefer critiques that do not make essentialized claims without warrants about how the AFF's method in particular needs to be rejected. I prefer critical affirmatives be topical in their advocacy statement or policy option.  Disadvantages should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. Uniqueness claims should be descriptive of the status quo, with a predictive claim about what direction the status quo is heading. Politics disadvantages should have well-warranted link stories that explain why the plan uniquely causes losers/win, winners to lose, etc.  Counterplans should solve for at least one of the advantages of the AFF. Plan-inclusive counterplans are core negative ground, though perhaps less so on resolutions with 1 topical affirmative (resolutions that require the AFF to pass a bill, for example). I usually default to counterplans competing based on net benefits, and thus permutation arguments need to explain why the perm shields the link to the disadvantage(s).

David Bear Saulet - Long Beach

Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.  The following information is probably relevant in some capacity if you find me in the back of the room.   Experience: 3 years of California Community College NPDA at El Camino College, transferred and did 2 years of NPDA Debate at Concordia University Irvine.  During this time, I was nationally competitive at both levels.  Many of my views on debate and debate pedagogy have been shaped by my upbringing in the Community College circuit as well as the coaching I received from K. Calderwood at Concordia.   General: Debate is first and foremost a competitive game.  There are ancillary benefits including the education garnered through prolonged engagement in this activity, etc.-but debate at its core is a game.   - Defense (especially terminal) is underutilized in most debates. - Demanding texts is absurd-go do policy if you want textual copies of arguments. - It is common courtesy to give at least one substantive question to the other team. - Partner communication is fine but could tank your speaks. - Please don't try and pander to me by reading arguments I read when I competed. - I really don't like having to vote on Topicality-like, really.   Theory: Theory-based arguments are probably my least favorite subset of arguments in debate. That is to say, all things being equal, I would prefer to hear case debate or a criticism before theory.  I don't need articulated abuse, but I do need substantive explanations of how you've either already been abused or reasons why potential abuse is sufficient enough.  Impact your standards. Read your interpretation slowly and clearly at least twice-have a written copy if necessary.  If debating against critically framed arguments, it would behoove you to include a decision about how your procedurally framed arguments interact with their critically framed arguments.  I default to Competing Interpretations on theory issues unless instructed otherwise.  I also tend to think “Reject the Argument, not the Team” is persuasive aside from the Topicality and Condo debates. Spec is fairly silly, please don't read it in front of me. Your Spec argument is presumably to protect your normal means-based link arguments, so just read those arguments on case.    Case: Being good at case debate is usually a good indicator of your fundamental debate skills.  I appreciate seeing well warranted PMC's with organized and efficiently tagged internal link and impact modules.  For the Neg, I appreciate an LOC that saves time to go to the case and answer the Aff line-by-line.  Impact defense is severely under-utilized in most case debates.  Being efficient with your time will allow you to read strategic offensive and defensive case arguments which gives you more options and leverage for the rest of the debate.   Performance: I find Performance to be a distinct but related category to the K. My partner once ate paper as our advocacy out of the 1AC-at nationals we performed a newscast of the topic.  I am supportive of innovative ways of approaching the topic. That said, a few things to consider:   - You should have a role of the ballot/judge argument (probably in your framework interp). - Explain how the opposing team ought to interact with your performance. - Explain the importance of your specific performance within the context of the topic. - Frame your impacts in a manner that is consistent with your performance.   The K: My favorite subset of arguments in debate.  Criticisms should ideally have a framework (role of the judge/ballot), a Thesis (what your critical perspective is), Links, Impacts, and an Alt with accompanying Solvency arguments.  If you don't have a Thesis page, please make it clear what the thesis of your position is elsewhere.  The best criticisms are directly rooted in the topic literature and are designed to internally link turn common opposition arguments/impacts.  This means your K should probably turn the Aff (if Neg) or internally link turn topic Disads (if Aff).  Reject Alternatives can be done well, but I appreciate Alternatives that are more nuanced.   When reading the K, please highlight the interaction between your Framework and your Alternative/Solvency. These two should be jiving together in order to do what the K is all about-impact frame your opponents out of the round. I don't care very much about your authors but more your ability to take the author's theory and convey it to us persuasively within a given debate round.  Name-dropping authors and books will get you nowhere quick in front of me. The literature bases I am most familiar with are:   - Post-Structuralism - Critical Race Theory - Whiteness Studies - Gender Studies - Existentialism - Post Modernism - Rhetoric and Media Studies   Don't allow this knowledge to be a constraining factor-I love learning about new critical perspectives so don't refrain from reading something outside this lit in front of me.   CP Theory:   - After debating Conditionally for a year and Unconditionally for a year, I found being Unconditional much more rewarding competitively and educationally. Who knows, maybe it was just having Big Cat as a coach.  Either way, I'm fine with one Condo CP/Alt but am open to hearing and voting on Condo bad as well. - Delay is probably theoretically illegitimate (and just a bad arg). - Textual Competition is meant to protect against CP's that are blatantly cheater anyways. - Not the biggest fan of Consult unless there's a particularly strong literature base for it. - Read your CP text twice slowly and ideally have a written copy. - PICS are good.   Permutations:   - Always and only a test of competition - Should explain how the Permutation resolves the links/offense of the DA/K. - You don't ever need 8 permutations. Read one or two theoretically sound perms with net benefits. - Sev/Intrinsic perms are probably not voting issues given they are merely tests of competitiveness.   Speaker Points: I start at a 27 and work up from there generally. The difference between a 29 and a 30 are the following:   - Effective overviews that concisely summarize and contextualize sheets in the debate - Star Wars references/quips - Effective use of humor (Stay classy though, San Diego) - Pausing for Effect - Comparative warrant analysis: Stuff like, “prefer our uniqueness because it's more predictive-all their depictions of the status quo are snapshot at best” followed by supporting warrants. - Effective use of Metaphors - I don't like teams/debaters stealing prep. But let's be blunt, everyone does it, so do it well I suppose. - Take at least one question in each constructive   Multiple Worlds: Most debaters struggle to competently and productively have a debate round based in one world-let alone multiple. I would prefer you not read multiple worlds in front of me.    Feel free to ask for clarifications before the round.

Jake Glendenning - PDB

<h3>Saved Philosophy:</h3>   Hey. I’m Jake. I debated four and a half years of NPDA/NPTE style debate. 2.5 at Irvine Valley College and 2 at UC Berkeley. As a general principle, you’re best off debating in the way you’re most accustomed or will have the most fun. I was a part of this activity because it was fun and I enjoyed it, and encourage others to do the same. I will insert myself into your round as little as possible.   Quick Hits   - I almost always defended the resolution as a debater, though not necessarily fiat. This means that I am not intimately familiar with arguments justifying the rejection of the resolution, so if that is a strategy you’re going for, you should probably err on the side of caution and explain your arguments in depth. - As a debater I debated about half critical and half policy. I’m a fan of a good, nuanced politics disadvantage, as well as a well-researched, well-warranted K. I find post-modernism, post-structuralism, and existential type positions to be the most philosophically interesting when run well. I’m relatively familiar with Baudrillard, Foucault, Nietzsche, Deleuze (and his work with Guattari to a lesser extent), Hardt+Negri, and Butler. I find more sociologically-based K literature (race, gender, colonialism, ability) persuasive, but not as much fun to explore on a philosophical level. I think Agamben’s philosophy is garbage, though understand its strategic utility in debate. I feel similarly about a lot of marxist authors, though I also enjoy some very much. - I default to my flow. I adhere to it whenever possible, and don’t intuitively know how to evaluate arguments that ask me to do otherwise, so please be very clear if you are going to go this direction with the debate. - My degree is in Political Science and I did most of my research in Comparative Politics and International Economics, for whatever that’s worth. I’m also a bit of a current events hack. - On speed, if you don’t know the other team’s comfortability with speed, ask. I liked debating fast, but that doesn’t mean everyone does and I don’t much care for the use of speed to beat less experienced teams. -I value creativity quite a bit. If I haven’t seen it before and it makes me think a lot, it’s likely to get higher speaker points than the same consult counterplan I’ve run and seen 100 times.   Disads   -Disads are great. I like nuanced, well researched disads. Politics, relations, whatever. Have specific links to the plan and all that. -When you kick them, please extend actual arguments, and not just “the defense”   Case debate   -It’s great! -For my flow’s sake, please let me know if you have a separate sheet of case defense/case turns. I usually referred to this as a “dump” as a debater.   Counterplans   -Counterplans are also awesome. -I have no real disposition for or against condo (and think I may be the only person Kevin Calderwood has coached with that in their philosophy), but found that I won more going unconditional as a debater. I probably had a bit more fun going condo though, so you do you. Just win the arguments. -I really don’t have any dispositions against “cheater” counterplans, but found them very easy to beat as a debater. Feel free to run delay, veto cheto, conditions, consult, whatever, but theoretically justify it, and be prepared to not get very high speaker points.     T   - I default to competing interpretations, but am fine evaluating theoretical questions through different frameworks if the arguments are made. - RVIs are an uphill battle in front of me. This is probably the issue where I have the hardest time staying objective. You’re going to have to really sell it if you want me to vote on an RVI, and even then you’re taking a risk.   Other Theory   - I’ve always enjoyed that the rules of debate are debateable. I think if you can demonstrate how ground loss took place, it’s going to be easier to win. - I have seen beautiful, nuanced, specific uses of spec arguments and shamefully bad, vague, and slapdash ones. The former will get you higher speaks. - On disclosure theory, I ran this argument quite a bit, and am fine voting on it. My interpretation was usually “If the affirmative chooses not to defend the resolution using fiat, they should notify the negative with no less than 10 minutes left in prep-time if the negative asked them to before prep” and I never ran into any of the contrived hypotheticals that opponents of disclosure theory bring up every time the issue recirculates on facebook or net-bens.   The K   - I very much enjoy the K debate. I have at least a shallow understanding of most K lit I’ve heard of. I find warrants very persuasive, especially in the K debate, and find that they can often help resolve difficult questions in K debates that devolve to claim v claim issues. - I don’t think many teams actually explain how their alt solves their K a lot of the time. It’s more often than not just a bunch of perm preempts, and maybe a claim without a warrant. I’d appreciate it if you really articulated how your alt solves. - I don’t think a K needs an alt in a “methods debate” or when the aff is a K, depending on what kind of specific framework the aff roles with. - I think if there is an alt in a “methods debate” it makes intuitive sense that the aff maybe shouldn’t have a perm, so I’m generally receptive to that argument. -On K affs, I value being creative within the confines of the resolution very much. A topical, non-fiat K aff would be preferable to rejection of the resolution. I also find it really cool when a team can come up with creative definitions of words in the resolution to make their performance or identity based positions topical.

Jason Edgar - MoWestern

Background: Professor of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making at Missouri Western State University. For 20 years I have competed, coached, and judged Cross Examination Debate, Public Forum, NFA Lincoln Douglas, Traditional Parliamentary Debate and NPTE circuit Parliamentary Debate. This year I have judged about 30 rounds of intercollegiate debate. Approach of the Critic to Decision Making:  When I competed in high school and college, Comparative Advantage was the most prevalent criterion. Thus, I understand and enjoy those types of rounds the most (ex. Ads, Disads, CPs). Having said that, I am open to critical arguments on both the Aff and Neg side as long as there is a clear framework and impacts. I don't really buy role of the ballot arguments unless you say the role is to circle a winner and award speaker points. Topicality is a voting issue and I'll listen if there is clear abuse in round.    Relevant Importance of Presentation/Communication Skills: I'd prefer that you make cogent arguments as opposed to a speaking race, but other than that I am fine with speed and you won't lose me. If you aren't comfortable with speed but you attempt it anyways, or you cannot stop buffering, it typically irritates me. Debate isn't a race, it's a search for truth.  Relevant Importance of On-Case Argumentation to the Critic in Decision Making: In order to make an effective argument and for me to make a critical decision at the tournament, a case will need to have (at least) inherency, significance(harms), and solvency. Prima Facie is a voting issue. So if the negative can prove that the current system can solve the problem, or proves that the harms are insignificant, or the plan cannot solve, then I can definitely see myself voting neg. If Aff can defend those stock issues without causing massive impacts, then they win.  Preferences on Procedural Arguments, Counterplans, and Kritiks: As mentioned above Topicality is a voting issue but should only be ran if there is clear abuse in round. When people asks for my "threshold" I usually just tell them that it depends on the round. I love counterplans because it allows the negative to not have to support current system (Trump). As for Kritiks, they are the only arguments that I didn't myself run or run into when I was a competitor, so don't expect a thoughtful disclosure if you go all in on the K. That being said, "non-uniqueness doesn't stop the pain" and I'll definitely listen as long as you provide clarity.   Preferences on Points of Order: I don't think there is much of a community issue with an overabundance of Point of Orders, so feel free to use them if there is a clearly a new argument or abuse in round.  Closing Thoughts: I'd like you to do whatever you want in the round. Sure, I have my preferences, but I want the debaters to feel most comfortable. I do love my career, so running arguments that view debate in a negative light, I probably won't vote for. In round, it would be in your best interest to not be rude. JE

Joe Allen - Washburn

Generic information: I do not wish to impose my views on the activity through my ballot. What I mean by this is that I think you certainly ought to debate in front of me in a fashion consistent with what you're best at--and allow me to adapt to you. I fundamentally believe that nearly all aspects of debate are negotiable, and certainly a multitude of different kinds of strategies can be fun to watch and fun to do. I believe those who insist on debate conforming to their view of the activity are narcissistic and don't get the point. I also think that the notion of the inevitability of intervention does not remove the responsibility to evaluate issues in a fair and honest fashion--in fact it strengthens this obligation. I will do my best to make decisions which are not informed by my predispositions but rather a serious evaluation of the issues as they were debated. My burden of striving for non-intervention will not prevent me from passing judgment. This ought not be confused. I will make a decision based on judgments I make (clearly) but I will not be dishonest about the objective flow of the debate in order to cater to my own debate ideals. I am a debate nihilist (you might say), I begin with the assumption that what you can do in debate is only limited by your imaginative capacity to justify your argumentative choices. There is no strategy that I didn't try as a debater--who would I be to tell you that you can't do the same? Specific information: Despite my strong belief that our predispositions should have no effect on the outcome of our judging, I must admit that I obviously do have predispositions about this activity. I've spent enough time doing it, and even more time thinking about it, that I am not a clean slate. I'll put my slate away for the sake of fair deliberation, but here's a glimpse of what my slate looks like. Topicality: Unless argued persuasively otherwise, I default to assuming that topicality is both a voting issue and an issue of competing interpretations. I truly believe that affirmatives who make a good faith effort to support the topic (even if for a very abstract or nuanced reason) are the most strategic. Even some of the most strategic critical affirmatives I've ever seen affirmed the topic. I suppose a good general rule is that if you're not trying to be topical, you should have an exceptionally good reason why. I have never heard a definition of reasonability in my entire life that made more sense to me than competing interpretations (doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility). I believe that the specificity of the standards and how effectively they are compared (T debates are impact debates like everything else) is often the decider. Counterplans: I tend to assume that counterplans are a very useful strategy available to the negative. I am not predisposed against conditional counterplans, and frankly I'm also not predisposed against multiple conditional counterplans. Do not mistake this with an unwillingness to vote for condo bad if you can’t justify your instance of condo. Surprisingly perhaps, I also am not strongly against counterplans which don't compete textually (particularly if they are authentically within the scope of the topic). The reason I think textual competition is usually a good limit is precisely because most counterplans which textual competition limits out are those which detract from topic education. If yours doesn't and you can justify your counterplan you're fine. If you say there's a textually competitive version of the counterplan I will know if you're lying (just so you know). It's really all about what you can justify. The quality of your solvency evidence is generally a great indicator of how smart your counterplan is. The kritik: We shouldn't be afraid to have kritik debates because they serve as a way of making sure that our assumptions can be justified. That being said, our assumptions can be justified, and I appreciate people who do in fact engage critical teams and make an effort to defend the perspectives which inform their arguments. A few uphill battles critical debaters might find with me are that I often think critical framework arguments do not particularly limit the affirmative very much. There is no part of debate that isn't already a performance, and there is no part of debate that isn't already representational. It's about the desirability of those representations. Another roadblock critical debaters might find with me is that I have no problem signing off on topicality or evaluating the framework debate against the kritik. I'm not opposed to framework if you cannot justify the way your kritik is framed. If they're responsible for their representations why aren't you? I don't like the fact that kritik debaters uniquely have to have a sheet of paper justifying the existence of their argument right out of the gates, but if you cannot win that your argument should exist I think you should find a different argument. I also am a sucker for sophisticated and clever permutation arguments. Perhaps this is why I think the best kritiks are topic specific and turn the case.â€¯    Theory: I think theory serves a vital role in regulating debate trends, like a filter. Sometimes a strategy is a winning one precisely because it's not crafted in a fashion that is fair. Sometimes a strategy is antithetical to education to a degree that merits its total exclusion. Again, these questions are answered best through a framework of competing interpretations where sophisticated impact calculus happens at the level of the standards debate. If you can justify it, you can do it. Theory debates are one of the best tests of whether or not you can justify your given strategy. For this reason, I take it seriously and think it should be evaluated first. I will not evaluate it first only in the circumstance where you lose the priority debate (which sometimes happens). My default assumption is that fairness and education are both good, and keep the activity alive. This does not, however, remove the obligation to demonstrate why something is theoretically objectionable to a degree that merits the ballot. I also tend to fall further on the potential abuse side of the spectrum than the real abuse side. Just because you don't perform abuse (in the sense of how much of their strategy has in-round utility) does not automatically mean the way your strategy is positioned is suddenly educational or fair.â€¯    Disads: A well argued disad can be a beautiful thing. If you can't outweigh the case, read a counterplan that pairs well with your disad. If you want, read two. You could also surprise me and debate the case effectively (I will appreciate this). I do not dislike politics disads, but those which do not have any real link specificity annoy me a bit. Sometimes the politics disad is the right choice, sometimes it's not. Depends on the topic. The greater the specificity and applicability the happier I'll be. I love a well crafted topic disad. If your disad authentically turns the case, then I'll probably be inclined to thinking it's a good disad. Be prepared to debate all levels of disad uniqueness (not just top level) including link uniqueness, internal link uniqueness, and impact uniqueness.â€¯  Things that really annoy me:â€¯  1) Process disads. If your disad relies on the process of the plan passing, rather than the outcome of the plan, I will not like your disad. If you say things like "the plan will be horse-traded for x" or "the plan will move x off the docket" I will be utterly dissatisfied with your lazy and bankrupt disad. To be clear, it is the job of the aff to identify how absurd your disad is. I will not hesitate to vote for shitty process disads if the aff fails to correctly answer them, but it'll make me feel bad about myself and the state of debate.  2) Theory debates which begin in the PMR. Sometimes really egregious things happen in the block. In this case, I may very well vote for theory which begins in the PMR. Example: the negative splits the block. However, I am more often than not wildly uncomfortable with theory debates in which the negative has no opportunity to contest your argument. The best example I can think of here is that the MOC should take a question. My intuition is that you get the last word, and so you should have the upper hand in dealing with these situations without putting me in an awkward position. This is one of my least favorite debate arguments.â€¯  3) Spec arguments or T arguments which have no resolutional basis. If your spec argument has no basis in the topic, or requires the aff to be extra-topical in order to meet your interpretation, I will think it's a bad argument. E-spec is a good example of such an argument. This is especially egregious in instances in which T arguments have no basis in the topic since T is supposed to be explicitly premised on the language of the topic.â€¯  4) Floating pics. Alternatives should not include anything resembling the plan. They should especially not literally include the plan text. If they do, and you do not win the debate on perm: do the alternative with appropriate theory arguments about how nonsense it is for the alt to include the plan I will be pretty sad. The negative should have to make alt solvency arguments in order to demonstrate why the alt solves the aff, and the aff should be entitled to argue that the aff is a disad to the alt. If the alternative does not enable this debate to occur, it's more than likely theoretically bankrupt. I would hope that the aff would identify this.â€¯A good question to ask the LOC when they read their alternative is whether or not the plan can pass in a world of the alternative.   5) Incorrect permutation strategies. For every silly nonsense counterplan which shouldn't exist, there is a solid permutation text which makes such counterplan look pretty silly. I really appreciate it when the aff correctly identifies the appropriate permutation, and conversely, I really don't like it when the aff fails to problematize bad counterplans with the appropriate permutation.â€¯I am not principally opposed to severance or intrinsic permutations, but appropriate applications of them have a high degree of difficulty. Theoretical objections to them are a reason to reject the permutation, not the team, unless argued persuasively otherwise.   6) Failure to offer impact comparison. It is up to you to ensure that the debate is resolvable in a way that doesn't require me to compare things myself. I will always decide debates based on what occurs in your own words. I will not put the pieces together for you. I will not assume your position to be a priority if you fail to demonstrate this for me. Impact calculus is the centerpiece of how you can accomplish this.â€¯  7) Failure to identify things which are theoretically bankrupt. What bothers me the most about asinine strategies is when I'm put in a position to have to endorse them with my ballot, and I absolutely will if you fail to allow me to do otherwise. It is your responsibility to filter out irresponsible debate trends with sound objections to them. Take your responsibility seriously so that I don't have to make decisions which I know endorse things which are not good for the activity.â€¯  Summary observations: I suppose my views on the ideal strategy are almost always informed by the topic. The best K's turn the case and are topic specific, and the same can be said for the best disads. The best counterplans have very quality solvency evidence and a sensible net benefit. The best critical affs affirm the topic and discuss issues pertinent to the topic literature. There's always a good strategic option for a given topic, and it's up to you to find it. I will not be a hindrance to that process. Whatever you think is situationally best given the strengths of yourself and your opponent should be what you go with. I'll adapt to you. You'll probably debate better when you do what you're best at. Almost all debate is fun, it should be a question of what's the most situationally strategic option.    One last thing: I am a very expressive judge. 9 times out of 10 you will know what I think of your argument. I will shake my head at you if you say something really absurd, and I will nod for arguments that I agree with. I can't really control this very well (I've tried). On very very rare occasions I will verbally declare an argument to be silly during the debate. Do not take me too seriously. I vote for silly arguments when I would be intervening otherwise, and not all smart arguments are round winners. If it's very difficult for you to deal with non-verbal reactions to your arguments or this is very distracting for you, don't pref me. I literally could not possibly be less interested where I end up on your pref sheet.

Joseph Evans - El Camino

~~About me: I have been involved in forensics for 10 years. I debated HS LD for 2 years, and then 4 years of college parli debate at UCLA. I coached at CSULB while in graduate school, and I am now currently the assistant coach at El Camino College. I view debate as a game of intellect, and therefore I believe that any method of debate is viable when used as a strategic ploy to win. I will try to list my views on the major themes within debate. The way I evaluate the round: I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the eyes of a policy maker. Unless I am told otherwise, I tend to fall back on Net Benefits. This means that I will evaluate the arguments based on how clear the impacts are weighed for me (probability, timeframe, and magnitude). I will however evaluate the round based on how you construct your framework. If (for example) you tell me to ignore the framework of Net Benefits for an ethics based framework... I will do so. On the flip side, I will also listen to arguments against framework from the Neg. You win the framework if you provide me clear warranted arguments for your position, and weigh out why your framework is best. Speed: I am usually a fast debater and thus I believe that speed is a viable way of presenting as much evidence as possible within the time alloted. I can flow just about anything and I'm confident that you can not out flow me from the round. That being said, I value the use of speed combined with clarity. If you are just mumbling your way through your speech, I won't be able to flow you. While I won't drop you for the act of being unclear... I will not be able to get everything on the flow (which I am confident is probably just as bad). Counter Plans: I will listen to any CP that is presented as long as it is warranted. In terms of CP theory arguments... I understand most theory and have been known to vote on it. All I ask is for the theory argument to be justified and warranted out (this also goes for perm theory on the aff). Topicality: I have a medium threshold for T. I will evaluate the position the same as others. I will look at the T the way the debaters in the round tell me. I don’t have any preference in regards reasonability vs. competing interps. You run T the way your see fit based on the round.  Additionally, I have an extremely high threshold for "RVIs". If the neg decides to kick out of the position, I usually don't hold it against them. I will vote on T if the Aff makes a strategic mistake (it is an easy place for me to vote). Kritical Arguments: I believe that any augment that is present is a viable way to win. Kritical arguments fall into that category. I am well versed in many of the theories that most critical arguments are based in. Therefore if you run them i will listen to and vote on them as long as they are well justified. I will not vote on blips as kritical arguments. Framework: I will listen to any alt framework that is presented ( narrative, performance, kritical Etc.) If you decide to run a different framework that falls outside the norm of debate... you MUST justify the framework. Evidence: Have it (warranted arguments for parli)! Rudeness: don't be rude!

Kevin Yanofsky - PDB

Background: I debated npda/npte parli for UC Berkeley from 2011 to 2015, where I graduated with a degree in computer science.  I also debated three years of circuit LD in high school.  Overall, I largely view debate as a game, and think that you should do what you think gives you the best chance to win it.   Overview: - I am fine with whatever level of speed you wish to debate at, but be sure to make sure the rest of the debaters in the room are as well. - I will listen to any type of argument you like, as long as you are able to justify it.  However, I’ll go into further detail in later sections as to my tendencies that might deviate from the average parli judge. - I evaluate the round based on my flow.  As of now I'm not sure what to do about arguments telling me this is bad.  Perhaps the best case for you if you tell me this method of evaluation is problematic is that I will be slightly less picky about my flow, but don't count on it. - My overall knowledge of the world is limited mostly to news headlines and debate experience.  If you are reading an intricate scenario, just explain it carefully and you should be fine. - My personally experience of debate was split fairly evenly between policy and critical. - I do have a moderate preference that the affirmative defend the resolution (perhaps if you want to be critical, find a topical way to do so without fiat).  That being said, good argumentation can certainly override this preference, and while I might like a good framework debate, I will not give credence to a bad one.   Case Debate / Disads: - For both the aff and neg, the more specific your links are to the plan the better. - Be sure to fully terminalize your impacts, I might feel uncomfortable doing that work for you.  If the terminalized form of your opponent’s impacts are not obvious, I find pointing this out to be a strong way to outweigh them.   Counterplans: - I have little bias for or against condo, debate to your style here. - If you want to run other “cheater” counterplans, I find that topic specific reasons those counterplans should be relevant are persuasive responses to theory.   Theory/Topicality: - A personal favorite of mine, at least early in my career.  I will appreciate nuanced and well thought out theory debate, but don’t think that I’ll give you credence on a bad shell or make internal links for you. - I default to competing interpretations, and absent a clear definition of some alternative, I find it very difficult to evaluate theory under reasonability. - Competing interpretations means you need to either win a we-meet or superior offense to a counter interpretation. - I personally find fairness claims more compelling than education, but any arguments about the order of these two made it round will instantly override that. - By default I will assume any 4 point shell is reject the team, and any paragraph theory (often seen as responses to cheater perms) is reject the arg, absent the team reading the shell specifying the opposite. - RVIs will be a very uphill battle, if you really want to go here please read unique, maybe round specific arguments.   Kritiks: - I read and collapsed to Ks in the majority of my neg rounds.  I believe I would be comfortable evaluating most Ks that could come up in parli. - Specific warrants and examples from the real world, as opposed to making the same assertion that your author claims, will generally help put you further ahead both when reading and answering a K. - A pet peeve of mine is when every alt solvency argument is just a perm pre-empt (you'd be suprised how often I've seen this).  Please also warrant why your alt solves your K. - I might be slightly less inclined to wave away the framework of a K than the average parli judge, especially if there are more specific arguments being made than the standard stuff where everyone’s impacts seem to end up getting compared on the same level.  That being said, if all you plan to do is read the super generic K framework arguments, I’m perfectly fine if you just cut it out from the beginning and go for root cause.  Side note, if you do this, be wary of timeframe on extinction impacts. - I read a lot of pomo as a debater, so if you want to bite the bullet and make people to justify why intuitive things are real/bad, go ahead and do so.   Aff-Ks: - As I said earlier, I prefer that teams find a way to defend the topic. - I find topic specific critical affirmatives or smart critical advantages to be very strategic. - If you are answering framework, saying that the shell is a re-link to the K is not independently a logical takeout of the theory.  Often these debates devolve and become a circular mess of each position denying that the other should exist.  Find a way to make your approach to this problem more nuanced than your opponents'.   last updated: 1/3/2016

Kyle Dennis - Jewell

Name: Kyle Dennis School: William Jewell College     I record nearly all of the debates that I judge on my MacBook. During the debate, you will see me creating position/answer markers so that I can easily recall any portion of the debate during my decision. I have developed a basic system to govern the conditions under which I will review the recording— (1) if I think I have missed something (my fault) I will note the time in the recording on my flow, (2) if there is a question about exact language raised by the debaters in the round, (3) if there is a Point of Order about new arguments in rebuttals, (4) I will review the exact language of any CP/Alt Text/ Theory Interp. Outside of those circumstances, I typically will not review recordings.   This new process has had a couple of important impacts on judging. I don’t miss arguments. I will take as much time to review the debate afterwards if I believe that I’ve maybe missed something. It has made my decisions clearer because I can hold debaters accountable to exact language. It does, however, mean that I am less likely to give PMR’s credit for new explanations of arguments that weren’t in the MG. It also means that I’m more likely to give PMR’s flexibility in answering arguments that weren’t “clear” until the MOC. I don’t provide the recording to anyone (not even my own team). Within reason, I am happy to play back to you any relevant portions that I have used to make my decision.   If you have questions about this process, please ask. I encourage my colleagues to adopt this practice as well. It is remarkable how it has changed my process.   If your team chooses to prefer (or, in the case of the NPDA, not strike) me, there are a couple of promises that I will make to you: I understand that the debaters invest a tremendous amount of time and energy into preparing for a national tournament. I believe that judging any round, especially national tournament rounds, deserves a special level of attention and commitment. I try not to make snap decisions at nationals and it bothers me when I see other people do it. I know that my NPTE decisions take longer than I will typically take making a similar decision during the rest of the year. If you spend 4 years doing something, I can at least spend a few extra moments thinking it over before I potentially end that for you.    I flow on paper. I find that I am more connected to the debate and can deliver more complete RFDs if I am physically writing down arguments rather than typing. When I watch my colleagues multi-tasking while judging debates, I am self-conscious that I used to do the same thing. You will have my complete attention. I can also guarantee you that my sleep schedule at tournaments will not hinder my ability to give you my full attention. I have made a substantial commitment to wellness and, if I am being honest, I have seen/felt significant improvements in my life and my ability to do my job at debate tournaments. Once again, you will have my complete attention.   Finally, I can tell you that I have come to a point that I am unwilling to categorically reject any argument. I have voted for negative teams with a 1NC strategy of a K, CP, DA, and case arguments (who collapse to an MO strategy of the criticism only) more times this year than I ever thought I would. Smart debaters win debates with a variety of strategies—I don’t think that I should limit your strategy choices. The debate isn’t about me. If we can’t embrace different styles of argument, this activity gets very annoying very quickly.   If I get to judge you, there are a couple of promises that I want you your team to make to me: Please slow down when you read plan texts, theory interpretations or perm texts unless you are going to take the time to write out a copy and provide it to me. Please do not get upset if I misunderstand something that you read quickly (an alt, for example) if you didn’t give me a copy. I will review exact text language on my recording, if necessary.   Please do your best to engage the other team. I like watching critique debates, for example, in which the affirmative team engages the criticism in a meaningful way rather than reading common framework or theory objections.   Please make all of your interpretations on theory as clear as you possibly can. This isn’t exactly the same as asking you to read it slowly—for example, a PICS Bad debate should have a clear interpretation of what a “PIC” is to you. I have generally come to understand what most members of the community mean by “textual versus functional” competition—but, again, this is a theory debate that you need to explain clearly.    Finally, please do not assume that any of your judges are flowing/comprehending every single word that you’re saying at top speed. As long as I have been involved in this activity, the most successful debaters have recognized that there is an element of persuasion that will never go away. I think that the quickness/complexity of many of the debaters have far surpassed a sizeable chunk of the judging pool. I often listen to my colleagues delivering decisions and (in my opinion) many struggle or are unwilling to admit that portions of the debate were unwarranted, unclear, and difficult to understand.   I have often observed an undue burden to make sense of 2-3 second blips placed on critics by debaters—this activity doesn’t work unless you help me to understand what is important. I have the perspective to acknowledge that if a critic doesn’t vote for one of my teams, that there is something that we could have done better to win that ballot. I would simply ask that you dial back your rate of delivery slightly. Understand that there are times that slowing down makes sense to put all of the arguments in context. The most successful teams already do this, so I don’t imagine that this is a very difficult request.   Other notes: I flow the LOR on a separate sheet of paper. My speaker point range is 27-30. I don’t give out many 30’s, but I am happy to give quite a few 29’s. I will protect you from new arguments (or overly abusive clarifications of arguments) in the rebuttals. I will be involved in all aspects of prep with my team. Regardless of what I would disclose, for me, clarity is your best bet. I generally advise my teams to assume that your judges don’t know what you’re talking about until you tell them. I generally try to remove my previously existing understanding from the debate as much as possible.   TL, DR: I want to make the best decision that I can, given the arguments in the debate. If I’m going to end your NPTE, I will do so thoughtfully and with my full attention—that’s a promise. Make the debate about you, not me. I love this activity and all of the people in it. I make a conscious effort to approach decisions (especially at nationals) with respect for the activity and the people in the debate.

Marc Ouimet - Long Beach

the short version - you do you. the rest is really just personal preference about strategy execution that i feel is very basic but for some reason am not seeing enough of.   the long version - non-weirdo stuff… me as a debate person - 2 years competing Palomar, 4 years coaching Palomar, 3 years coaching Beach, presently a 1st year Beach grad asst. case - consider making offense happen here theory - one shot kill? much like similar pokémon OHKO moves, i think they hit the mark stunningly infrequently. so if your strat rests here, prioritize your impact calc. side note: time skew/suck arguments are innately counter-intuitive (unless maybe its a time portal or something) partner communication - Jim Henson was a fine person, but puppeting is not cool, and i personally did my fair share of sinning here, but even then i operated under the assumption that only the addressed speaker would be flowed. points of order - be concise, these can make or break a rebuttal so use them when you can convince me you are right. i am generally pretty easy to read, i think, so execute your strategy effectively in the rebuttal. politics - convince me you at least read The Hill, but if you’re not just reading this just to kick it later, you better give me the nerd hookup on laying down the nuance. speed - please don’t be a dick to the other team if they need you to slow down . i will not be shy about pen time or clarity, but if you’re just ripping lists of answers please distinguish claims and warrants. status of positions - i was uncondo mostly, it was a good time. i think there are numerous critical reasons why condo is problematic, but that being sad - i really don’t care as long as you can defend your strategy execution and its theoretical justifications if need be. perms / competing advocacies - i do not think it is not my place to tell you how to debate - and yet, i have seen a stunning lack of fully developed DAs or net benefits to perms and CPs read this year, you should consider doing that. standard parli blips about coalitions, juxtaposition, etc. pain me in their lack of explanation. and just have second-lines, they’re good to have. speaker points - i’m a fairy. take what you get, because it’s generous. root cause - this argument is bad. stop making it. there are other ways to get an internal link - talk about how one produces, exists within, happens at the process level of, or obfuscates the other. any claims about the dawn of civilization or whatever are, at best, not intellectually rigorous and typically nebulous and/or wrong. claiming you are somehow more intersectional while denying the legitimacy of one form of oppression in relation to another by means of a reductionist causal relationship is a horrible debate - and yet, it happens surprisingly often. rebuttals - warrant comparison please. there is also a difference between shutting doors and being disingenuous about the other team’s access to a thing (honest assessment and clear round vision are way better than denying someone game on something they clearly have access to). so just beat them on it - don’t be an ass about it. that’s why you have framing mechanisms for your impact modules, and link/solvency differentials - i expect that the teams ideally have exchanged ideas. humor - remember,when people made jokes in debate rounds? it made things fun. be fun. collapse - do it. seriously, please do it.   kritik stuff - which you hopefully know is my wheelhouse generally - i like offense here, so if someone dances on your lit be prepared to defend it. 90% of author indicts are lazy and can be side-stepped easily. 90% of author name drops make me doubt the team has a thorough understanding of the argument. i think too many teams let each other get away with mischaracterization here anyway - probably why having a thesis page is rad. not necessary, but so rad. framework - be explicit and strategic here. frame out the other team (not employed enough lately, i think) or go for your impact prioritization (not made explicit in most shells lately, i think). give me a clear interp and role for the ballot. links - if you don’t have a specific link - you will make me very sad. you might be able to save yourself by second-lining the shit out the other team, but then you are not employing your K strategically - you will make me very sad. impacts - defend your reps, no-value-to-life is very turn susceptible. structure - please signpost and differentiate the pieces if you are going off of one sheet. solvency - be more rigorous here. underdeveloped alt solv. if you solve the case, say how. at least explain how you resolve your own impact modules. if the alt has a vague-ass mechanism you don’t explain fully, i am very likely to desire the other team clowns you on alt vagueness. lit i probably will not be stoked to hear you read - Nietzsche - blame Fletch, if this is your thing.   other weirdo stuff - which you hopefully know is also my wheelhouse performance - if your framing is about comparing methods instead of being specific to your actual method, i am going to cry. narratives - provide context, make it work for you in more than just one speech. don’t just leave this hanging or you are just giving an intermission. personalization - i’m not super stoked on this, the handful of times i spoke about myself explicitly in the debate space i did not ask for the ballot. i will do my best to evaluate it as always and understand the importance of representational politics but i consider this a delicate dance to have people not feel like they have to escalate and summarily feel super shitty at the end of the round, which i think is more important. but if you have fully considered ways to have people not feel shitty in engaging your argument, do the thing.   any other questions, please feel free to ask.

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.

Richard Ewell - Concordia

Hello, all! My name is Richard Ewell and I currently serve as one of the Co-Directors of Debate for Concordia University Irvine. I competed for El Camino College for three years and Concordia University for two. When I first set out to write my philosophy my goal was to give you all some insight into how I evaluate arguments as a critic. The interesting thing I have found is that it is difficult for me to do that because I don’t have a great deal of experience judging anything other than one-sided high policy debates. So unfortunately you are stuck with a bunch of random things I think about debate. Hope this helps! Disadvantages: Yes, please? No judge has ever squawked at the idea of a case specific disad with an intuitive link story, and I don’t plan on being the first. If relations, hegemony, or politics is more your thing, that is perfectly fine too, as I spent a large chunk of my career reading those arguments as well. Counterplans: Counterplans like condition and consult are legitimate under the specific condition that there is some sort of solvency advocate presented. Otherwise I will be skeptical of the theoretical legitimacy of such arguments, and thus more likely to reject them should an objection be made by the opposing team. Perms are never advocacies, and are only tests of competition. But you knew that already… Theory: I will listen to your SPEC shells, and I won’t penalize you for running it, but the likelihood that I endorse such an argument with my ballot is slim. I believe such debates are best resolved through debates about what constitutes normal means. When evaluating theoretical objections I am inclined to reject the argument and not the team (except as it pertains to conditionality, which we will get to in a second), but will listen to arguments which suggest a harsher punishment is warranted. As for conditionality…I don’t really think it’s that bad. Considering I was unconditional for 90% of my career I might be inclined to favor the “condo bad” over the “condo good” arguments, and multiple conditional strategies are likely to annoy me a great deal, but logically consistent strategies which include disads and/or case turns with a conditional K or counterplan don’t seem that unreasonable to me… K’s on the Negative: I read the K a good deal in my final years in debate, and I enjoy these types of debate very much. However, NEVER assume that I have read the foundational literature for your K because I make it a policy to not vote for arguments I don’t understand… K’s on the Affirmative: I read K’s on the affirmative a great deal. But even when I was doing it I wasn’t sure how I felt about it. Was it fun for me? Yeah. For my opponents? Probably not so much. That bothers me a bit. Does that mean that you ought not read these arguments in front me? No, that is absolutely not what I mean. In fact, topical critical affs are some of my favorite arguments. If it is not topical aff (perhaps, a rejection of the res) that is fine as well so long as there are specific reasons why the res ought be rejected. Put simply: the less your argument has to deal with the topic, the more likely I am to be persuaded by framework and topicality. Miscellaneous Stuff: -Be nice! Providing a spirited defense of your arguments and being kind are not mutually exclusive. -Not a huge fan of “no perms in a methods debate” type arguments. Tests of competition are generally good for debate, in my opinion. I understand the strategic utility of the position, so I will not fault you for running it. I would just prefer that you not (get it? prefer that you not? never mind). -I am also not a huge fan of “you must disclose” type arguments. I think topicality is the argument you should read against critical affs, but do what you will. -I don’t know what to do with text comp. I think I know what it is, but for all of our sakes making a specific theoretical objection (delay bad, consult bad, etc.) will get you further with me than text comp will. -And last, have fun! (EDIT FROM AMANDA: Richard is a TOTAL REBUTTAL HACK. Also any fantasy football references or shoutouts to the Philadelphia Eagles will get you speaks)

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.

Shannon Prier - Concordia

Edits in this version: I removed a lot. Clarified my position on conditionality. Adjusted the K and speaker point sections. Background: I have been involved with debate for 4 years. I debated at ECC for 2 years and CUI for slightly over 1. I stopped competing after Jewell my senior year and moved to a minor coaching role on CUI’s team (really just helping new folks write files and judge a tournament here or there). I have been judging all of the 2015-2016 season.   General: Most important: I have issues hearing. Please, please, please read all plan texts, counterplan texts, advocacy texts, alternative text, and interp/role of the ballot arguments twice and clear.  Also, I flow on paper if that means anything to you. QUICK STUFF: I enjoy debates about the topic. My dislike conditionality has more to do with my distaste for backfilling warrants. I have no moral issues with conditionality, but I also have no issue voting for Condo bad. For the K: I’m not in the lit base for most things post modern so keep that in mind. Most of my issues following those arguments have to do with the use of phrases I’m not familiar with. If you have me in the back of the room, consider simplifying the terminology if you are running something based on a post-modern philosopher and I should be fine. I am fine with you reading a criticism. However, I am not the best critic for your arguments. I think about public policy frequently. This is less true for critical arguments. Chances are I’m not in your lit base so it’s your job to make sure your argument is understandable/accessible. Also, if you go one off and 5 minutes of case and the one off is a disad, you’ll probably have my heart forever. The K: As a very brief background for me with the K: I frequently ran Cap bad and Fem Ks, more specifically Fem IR. Feel free to run a critical affirmative, but I’ll definitely be open to the argument that you should defend the topic. Also, I flow criticisms on one sheet with the alt on a separate sheet if that matters. REJECTING THE RESOLUTION AND RECURRING CRITICISMS (sometimes referred to as projects): I approach debate as a game that you are trying to win. If you tell me that debate is a platform for you to spread your message, I will do my best to assume genuine intent, but realize I will usually assume you are just trying to win a ballot.  I understand that advocacies get incredibly personal, especially when you spend a year researching it. On the aff: I have no issue with you not debating the topic. I would much rather watch you debate what you are passionate about rather than attempt to talk about the economy if that’s not your thing. Just make sure the argument is still clear and easy to evaluate (i.e., have at minimum a role of the ballot argument). For criticisms that utilize personal experience, please avoid using arguments about mental health issues or sexual violence, as I would prefer not to have to critically evaluate those. If you would like to get more information on why I would prefer not to evaluate personal struggles of mental health, contact me privately (Facebook before the tournament, or just come and talk to me if you see me around). I am completely willing to discuss my issues with evaluating these arguments if you reach out to me. ALTERNATIVES: Make sure you have a written text and repeat it twice and clear. If you have a critical affirmative that doesn’t have an advocacy text (or if your narrative/entire PMC is your advocacy) then please have a role of the ballot argument somewhere. Counterplans: I prefer that you provide a copy for the other team.  Make sure you have a written text. I like advantage counterplans, PICs, and actor counterplans. Consult less so, but I’m open to it. For the affirmative: I’m open to PICs bad arguments (particularly at topic area tournaments) claiming the neg shouldn’t get a PIC when there is only one possible affirmative. Permutations: Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies. I will not reject a permutation outright unless you give me a reason of why it shouldn’t be evaluated. Theory: All theory positions should have an interpretation, a violation, standards, and voting issues. Please read your interpretations more than once. I am willing to vote on theory arguments, however I do not believe that new theory in the PMR is legitimate, even if it is in response to something that happened in the block. (This includes theory such as “You must take a question”). Topicality: I have yet to see a round with a legitimate reason why topicality is a reverse voting issue. My threshold for T is maybe lower than some. If you win your interpretation, violation, and your standards outweigh I will vote for you. Speaker Points: Be smart and concise and your speaker points will range between 26-30. Others have told me that I’m a bit of a point fairy (I’ll typically start from 29 and move down to about 27 with half points in between). I think speaker points are fairly arbitrary so I have never found a good justification for changing that range.  TL;DR: Be nice and smart. I like policy debate. Ask me any questions if necessary. (updated: March 6, 2016).

William Van Treuren - PDB

Experience: I debated for four years in high school policy and four years in college parli. I won the 2010 NPTE. I have coached CU for three years and a high school team for one. I enjoy the activity of debate immensely; a good round is life affirming and an actively bad round is unpleasant.   Arguments: I am comfortable with any style of debate. Choose the strategy that you are most comfortable with and I will adapt. If that’s case/DA/CP I will be excited; 1AC’s are usually poorly constructed in parli and good case debate is a hallmark of a good debater. I haven’t heard an aff yet this year that didn’t beg for (at least) 2 minutes of case in the 1NC. If your strategy is the K make sure you explain what voting for the alternative does (and don’t ignore case).  I am uncomfortable comparing the world of the plan (or a CP) to an advocacy whose enforcement boundary is unclear (if this doesn’t make sense, ask me). Lest you think I am anti-K, my favorite round this year was a huantology 1AC.  If your strategy contains theory, I’ll be a happy camper. I love a good theory debate and think it’s a sure way to demonstrate technical prowess. As a final note, I prefer strategies that engage your opponent and are commensurate with things I know about the real world (e.g. a good debate about science related policy). As an example, if you have the choice between an LOC with a CP, K, 2 DA’s and 2 case args, and an LOC with 1 K and a bunch of case args (or 1 DA, 1 CP, and case args), choosing the latter will give you a better chance at my ballot.   Speaker points: Intensity, precision, technical prowess, and knowledge are my favorite qualities in a debater and I reward these qualities. There is, however, a difference between frontin’ and intensity/passion during a speech/CX, and the former is highly discouraged in front of me. Using CX/flex time well is a good way to get high speaks.   Biases: <ol> <li>I assess internally consistent arguments that clearly articulate incentives for various actors as more probable. If your scenario (or strategy) is not internally consistent in some clear way, I will treat it with inherently lower probability. As an example, an aff with a really well constructed single advantage can often outweigh poorly warranted LOC disads (even if they are otherwise undercovered) by virtue of how important being able to construct the causal chain and incentive landscape for the actors is post your link for me. As a corollary, good defense (not just ‘MAD checks’) is very underutilized and can go a long way to controlling impact framing for me.</li> <li>I listen very intently for how impacts are flagged; if you say ‘war -> 1000’s die’ that impact gets a 5*103 mark on my flow. If you extend it as something it wasn’t shelled as initially, I will honor only the original demarcation (obviously if you explain why its actually bigger before the LOR/PMR you’re fine). If you say ‘nuclear war’ I’ll mark that contextually as best I can; if it sounds like you are saying a small nuclear war where 5*106 die that’s different than if you sound like you are claiming extinction. Either way, the best way to avoid ambiguity is to spend more time on the impact portion of your advantages/disads.</li> <li>Judging at the 2014 NPTE, I was accused of ‘over-thinking’ rounds. I believe that generally people under-think rounds. The move to multiple conditional advocacies and away from deeper work on a smaller set of issues has encouraged this behavior. As mentioned in biases 1 and 2, internal consistency and precise (and supported) tagging is key. Doing those things will help you avoid whatever tendency I have to overthink.</li> </ol>   Specific questions asked by the NPTE philosophy document. As a note – all the biases I express in the answers to the questions below are general and flexible. You can convince me to vote any way on almost any issue. <ol> <li>Speaker points - I normally give 27’s to 28’s. 29’s if you are really good, 30’s if outstanding.</li> <li>How do I approach critically framed arguments – I enjoy a good K debate. The problems that I have with K debate stem from an inability to compare the games being played by the team reading a fiated USFG action and the alternative to the criticism. How do I compare ‘voting negative to reject the biopolitics of the 1ac’ against passing the plan? For the plan, I understand the ‘enforcement boundary’, that is I can imagine the causal chain of events after its passage. For the alternative, it’s not usually clear to me what happens after passage/endorsement/whatever. Resolving this lack of understanding by explaining what the causal chain of events is after I vote for the alt helps a lot. If you have questions about this, please ask.</li> <li>Performances – I am fine with performance, but I am not sure how to approach performance that doesn’t make explicit arguments. As an example, at NPTE 2014 a team read a ‘space traders’ aff performance in front of me. The debate developed into a question of what was the best strategy to combat oppression of various types. I voted against the affirmative because the 1AC alluded to racism and solvency for that racism but did not make explicit, empirical or theoretically supported arguments. I am deeply uncomfortable voting for an argument that is implicit.</li> <li>Topicality – I like a good topicality debate and wish affirmatives were more topical. In round abuse is not necessary, but a more coherent defense of competing interpretations than ‘less judge intervention’ is required.</li> <li>Counterplans – a smart counterplan is wonderful to see and focuses the debate. I think PICs are good (though can be convinced they are bad for any individual round). Textual competition seems inferior to functional competition to me. Having a text of plans/cps is nice but not required.</li> <li>Sharing flows – not my business, do whatever you like.</li> <li>Order of evaluation – the priority of arguments should be determined by you in round. If you do not do that, I will default to theory first, then all other issues at the same time.</li> <li>Weighing bias – read my general statements above. This is a hard question to answer in a general context, each specific round is different. In general, I find explicit comparisons of magnitude the most convincing. For dehumanization, it’s easy to be specific: dehumanization means loss of X quality of life for Y people for Z time for a magnitude of M. This is akin to the ‘quality-adjusted life year (QALY)’ used by organizations like the CDC, FDA, etc. It’s even easier for other body count impacts. If you do not do this (at your peril) I will attempt to do so.  Note that I think I would be very open to voting for dehum > war if impacts were more accurately quantified than ‘dehum -> all impacts justified’. QALY’s provide an excellent framework to do this.  </li> </ol>

Zach Schneider - SIU

Hi! I’m Zach. I debated for 5 years of NPDA/NPTE parli (4 at Cedarville University and 1 at SIU) and now I’m an assistant coach at SIU. I aim to remove my argumentative preferences from the debate as much as possible and allow you to argue whatever strategy you think you’re best at. I’m involved in debate because I love the activity and I want to judge you regardless of what style you prefer. With that said, I provide the following as guidance as to my opinions and predispositions. Quick Hits - I’m fairly predisposed to believe that the affirmative should defend the resolution (not necessarily fiat) via a topical plan or advocacy. Framework is not an autowin in front of me but I am almost always willing to vote on it. - As a competitor, I debated a variety of strategies; about 2/3 policy and 1/3 critical. On the critical side of things, I’ve spent a lot of time in debates reading Nietzsche, DNG, Wilderson, and disability based positions. - I am thoroughly wedded to my flow as a judge; I do not know any other way to evaluate the round that does not just involve me making arbitrary assertions about which arguments deserve more value. - I am a computer science major working at a technology startup and a general Internet geek. I don’t think it’s my job to be an arbiter of truth (in other words, tech > truth) but particularly with regards to science and technology-related topics I’ll get kind of irritated if you’re just asserting blatantly inaccurate things. - Speed is good. Against teams of equal or better skill, feel free to go as fast as you want in front of me. However, if you are debating novices or people with accessibility issues, I expect you to slow down, especially if asked. Please also try to make sure your speed is intelligible – if I say “clear” it almost certainly means “be clearer” not “go slower.” - If you want to go super in-depth, I maintain my historical judging record with some neat stats as a Google doc: <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OAE7LV2off4DLvcNdRLNAmMDAUPYOQtDJ9R6UMpWnZI/">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OAE7LV2off4DLvcNdRLNAmMDAUPYOQtDJ9R6UMpWnZI/</a> Offense/defense - Offense wins championships, but smart defense is underutilized. I am quite willing to assess terminal defense/no risk of something. I generally evaluate defense as either probability (arguments that the impact is unlikely - e,g, MAD checks) or possibility (it is physically/legally impossible for the impact to happen - e.g. Brazil cannot start a nuclear war because they do not have nuclear weapons). If you concede your impact is impossible, I will assess 0 risk of it. If you concede your impact is improbable, I will compare the strength of the two claims and decide how much risk to assess (or, ideally, you do this comparison for me in a rebuttal). Disads - Intrinsic, specific, well-sourced, big-stick disads are a thing of beauty and definitely in my wheelhouse. - Comparative link/impact analysis in the rebuttals is likely to be the deciding factor in the debate. You should identify which member of the Holy Trinity you are winning (timeframe, probability, magnitude) and then use the rebuttals to tell me why that outweighs the other two. - “Extend the defense” is not an argument, please take the five seconds to say “extend MAD checks nuclear war” or whatever. I am often enamored of affirmatives that take the time to exploit lazy kicking of disads. - Politics is fine. I didn't go for it much but I understand the strategic utility of these positions. Compelling politics disads require a robust description of the status quo (both the bill/process that the disad is centered around, and the motivations that hold the status quo together) as well as a coherent link to the affirmative; I find that the best politics disads are top-heavy, while the ones that give politics a bad reputation have few/blippy uniqueness/link arguments stuck on top of a big impact. Case debate - It’s good and you should do it. Counterplans can be a useful component of a negative strategy, particularly if they solve large portions of the aff, but anyone who thinks you need one to win is wrong. - It’s fine if you read little mini-disads and stuff as case turns (I did it like it was my job) but if you have more than 1-2 “unrelated” case turns please tell everyone to grab a new sheet of paper for the case debate. I get really frustrated by rounds that come down to a poorly handled case turn because the LOC read like 15 turns on “inherency” and probably nobody flowed them all correctly. Counterplans - PICs are good unless there’s a whole bill or (maybe) one topical affirmative. Agent CPs are good. Consult is fine if accompanied by a compelling argument that consult is not normal means. - Delay, veto cheato, object/utopian fiat, and whatever other obviously cheater CPs people come up with are bad. Doesn’t mean I won’t vote for them if the aff doesn’t read theory/answer it correctly but I’ll be at least a little annoyed. I also think states is a lot less legitimate than people tend to give it credit for; it’s always smacked of multi actor/quasi-utopian fiat to me. - Text comp is a made up standard that has never made much sense to me. You should read PICs bad or more specific theory if the counterplan is abusive. T - I default to evaluating the debate through competing interpretations. Feel free to argue another framework, but I think I’ve yet to hear a credible justification (or even definition) for reasonability. - The affirmative should lose every debate if they fail to read either a “we meet” or a competitive counterinterpretation to T. I do not require in-round abuse to vote on T. - T is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue; the aff does not get to win because they were topical. (K of T is different - I am quite inclined to believe that T is good/does not lead to genocide, but I will not dismiss the argument with prejudice as I will generic RVIs.) Other Theory - I will not vote for spec arguments of any variety under any circumstance unless you can demonstrate actual ground loss because of egregious vagueness on the part of the affirmative. I won’t punish you for reading it in the 1NC (other than perhaps with an annoyed glare) but you will lose the debate and probably get terrible speaks if you go for it in the block and the affirmative wasn’t blatantly abusive. The K - I love the K debate. I went for the K in about a third of my negative rounds and occasionally on the aff as well. A knowledgeable, deep MO going for a specific K with strong, intrinsic links to the affirmative is one of my favorite speeches to watch. - I don’t automatically let the aff weigh their aff. You have to do that work on the framework; if you concede that ____ology comes first and you don’t defend your ____ology you’re going to have a bad time. I think that big-stick affs should usually spend their time on framework defending the ____ologies of consequentialism, threat response, and empiricism. - I’m often suspicious of alternative solvency, particularly “alt solves the aff” claims – but many affirmatives lose debates simply because they don’t answer arguments. Tags like ____ comes first/is a prior question, no value to life, root cause of violence, or alt solves the aff should be setting off alarm bells if you’re giving the MG. - The permutation is always a test of competition and never an advocacy. The recently popular argument that “you don’t get a perm in a methods debate” doesn’t make much sense to me; the permutation is then a question of whether it is possible or desirable to employ both methods in the same world. Generally speaking, the more specific your net benefits to the perm, the more they will compel me. - Absent some glaring concessions by the affirmative, I don’t think it’s possible to win the K debate if you read the K along with other contradictory positions (e.g. cap with an econ disad). “Perm: equal risk of a link to the K, aff is still good” is devastating in that instance. Identity based/performance/not-about-the-topic positions - I do not think that identity-based positions are well-suited to parli; these debates are extremely difficult to fairly adjudicate (particularly without evidence to contextualize critical claims), and I think they deny the breadth of topic education (and/or education about oppression and violence in a variety of contexts) which makes parli uniquely valuable. If you find it liberatory to discuss your experiences with systemic oppression in debate, I don’t think it’s my place to tell you what arguments to read; but you should also know that, like all judges, I am more compelled by positions that reflect my own personal views (e.g. framework). In more concrete terms, I’m probably a low B or high C pref for you if this is your kind of debate. - As I mentioned at the top, I am fairly predisposed to believe the affirmative should defend the topic. Even if you read the same position in every round, adapting it to the specific context of the topic will help you a lot in front of me. If you don't contextualize your position to the topic (or even if you do), I prefer if you focus your argument around the defense of a specific method in a specific context and away from questions of individual identity. For an excellent example of this, look at the argument NAU RS was reading at the 2013 NPTE: defense of a method (“abolition of whiteness” with comprehensive explanation of what it looks like to be an abolitionist) in a specific context (debate). - When reading or answering framework, comparative impact analysis of the standards and counterstandards is important to me; for that reason, I think the best framework shells function as disads to the method of the 1AC and/or net benefits to policymaking. As a debater, I essentially thought of framework as a counterplan/countermethod of policymaking, contrasted with the method/advocacy of the 1AC; I thus often find arguments that "there's a topical version of the aff with a net benefit" (topic education, policymaking good, etc.) to be compelling. - Outside of framework, I find it best for negative teams to engage critical affirmatives on the level of method; I think reading a countermethod, a PIC out of some portion of the affirmative's advocacy, or just case turns can all be effective strategies.

2015 Golden Gate Invitational