FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

zz-bye

n/a

zz-bye

n/a

Adrian Jackson - U of Houston

n/a

Aly Fiebrantz - Texas Tech

n/a

Antonio De La Garza - Utah

Ashley Nuckels-Cuevas - Pacific

Ashley Nuckels Cuevas (University of the Pacific)<o:p></o:p> Experience: I debated for Palomar College and Point Loma Nazarene University. I have coached high school policy debate and this is my second year coaching for UOP. I am earning my Master’s Degree in Political Communications with an emphasis on Feminist Criticism and Rhetorical Criticism.  Overall I think that debate is a game of strategy so go for what you think is important but let me know why it deserves my ballot.  I enjoy both Econ debates and Tix (both US and abroad).<o:p></o:p> Theory/ Procedurals: I default to an abuse paradigm but am fine with competing interpretations. I am fine with you using theory to get access to DA’s and other arguments or just collapsing to theory in the block.<o:p></o:p> K: I love the K but I also love on case debate. I do not like reject only alt’s but I have voted on them. <a name="_GoBack"></a><o:p></o:p> I am fine with speed but I do not think that speed without clarity and substance is necessary or advantageous to the speaker or the event. Overall, be polite and respectful to each other and the event. Good luck and have fun.  <o:p></o:p>

Bill Neesen - Long Beach

Bill Neesen Cal. State Long Beach/IVC Years Judging Debate: 22+ Years Competed in Debate: 7 What School Competed at: Millard South/ OCC/CSU- Fullerton Section 1: General Information I think that debate is up to the debaters in the round. They the privilege of defining what debate should look like, but also the responsibility to defend that interpretation. I like Case debate (this is a lost great art), CP, DA, K and performance (but I really hate performance that is bad). I will listen to and vote on theory but you have to make it clear. Other than that I would say that debate is a game and I always play games to win and would expect you to do similar things. Also while I do not think that any judge can be truly non-biased and not intervene at all, I think intervention is a bad thing that the judge has a duty to try to resist as much as possible. Other things to think about: some people think that I am a hack for the K. While I have coached many great K people (or performance) I was a CP/DA/Case debater. This really does mean I love to see it all. I am a very fast flow. I hate lying in debate and would suggest for people to try to get facts straight. I do not vote against people who lie or make bad arguments (I leave it up to the other team to do that) but your points will reflect it. Well I do not mind critical arguments and think everyone can run them no matter the side. I treat them the same as every other argument. If they have a framework argument I will start there and see how I should frame the debate (and do not think I default crazy, many great debaters have won policy making in front of me). Once I decide how to frame the debate than I use it to evaluate the debate.  As far as contradictory K positions with counterplans I do not like it if the K works on a level of discourse as a reason to vote for the k. I have a hard time with the whole language is most important and what we learn in debate is best, followed up by someone using bad rhetoric and saying the other team should not use it. I do not just vote for it but I do find the whole you contradicted it so either you lose or the K goes away persuasive. I would give some warning before I talk about Crazy in debate. 1. There is a winner and a looser in each debate, just because you were doing something crazy does not mean you get to avoid it. I have very few things I get to do and I enjoy the power (I give winner, looser, and speaker points). 2. Bad performance is not only horrible to watch (which kills speaker points) it also is easy to turn if the other team know performance or makes simple logical arguments. This means that it needs to be prepped and practiced it is not normally something that just comes to you in prep and if it does you might want to resist it because they go bad on the fly. Having said all of it I have seen some amazing performances over the years and it was cool when they were good. I have an old school approach to T. I do not mind it and while it does not have to have in round abuse it is always better to have it.  To vote on it you need to win that there is a reason why what they did is bad and in the round the best thing would be to drop the AFF. As far as competing interps go I have a little rant. I do not know what else there is but competing interp. I mean both sides have their interp and the standards they use to justify it. In the end to win T you would have to prove your interp is the better one (hence the winning interp from the competing interps) and that topicality is a voting issue. I have no idea why people say t is about competing interps (because it always has been and will be) and I have no idea what that argument gets them in the round. I love counterplans. I have heard very few counterplans that are not pics (and they were really really bad). Topical counterplans are the best for debate and policy making because they are honestly the heart of most of the literature.  If you plan on kicking the CP I would put the status in the cp because otherwise you run the risk of the PMR getting angry about the kick and it is always messy for the judge at that point. Perms need to have text unless it is do both (because the text is literally both). Types of competition are interesting text seems a little weaker than functional but both can be good and lame too. I want to remind you here that even though I have told you about what I think about theory arguments I still vote on them all the time.  Even the silly argument that you only get one perm and it is always advocated (Yes cheesewright I am insulting you :P). I also think conditionality bad is a smart argument even if I don’t always get to vote for it. MPJ: My recommendation for teams is to pref me based on the people they are debating that weekend. I see people who are not fast or cannot handle the K (or defend policymaking) well and that is sad because they ranked me an A. You should rank me biased on what is most likely to win you rounds and I would never be offended by this.

Brandon Merrell - Lewis & Clark

Brant Short - NAU

Brittney Bryant - U of Houston

n/a

Bryan Malinis - Long Beach

Caitlyn Burford - NAU

Burford, Caitlyn (Northern Arizona University) Background: This is my eigth year judging and coaching debate, and I spent four years competing in college. Please feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. Specific Inquiries 1. General Overview I think debate is a unique competitive forum to discuss issues within our rhetoric about the state, power, race, gender, etc. in a space that allows us to rethink and critically assess topics. This can come through a net benefit analysis of a proposed government plan, through a micro political action or statement, through a critique, or through some other newfangled performance you come up with. In that sense, I think debate is a rhetorical act that can be used creatively and effectively. Running a policy case about passing a piece of legislation has just as many implications about state power and authority as a critique of the state. The differences between the two types just have to do with what the debaters choose to discuss in each particular round. There are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. Thus, framework is imperative. I’ll get there shortly. You can run whatever you want as long as a) you have a theoretical justification for running the position, and b) you realize that it is still a competitive debate round so I need a reason to vote for something at some point. (a.k.a Give me a framework with your poetry!). 2. Framework This often ends up as the most important part of a lot of debates. If both teams are running with net benefits, great, but I still think there is area to weigh those arguments differently based on timeframe, magnitude, structural weight, etc. This kind of framework can make your rebuttal a breeze. In a debate that goes beyond a net benefits paradigm, your framework is key to how I interpret different impacts in the round. Choose your frameworks strategically and use them to your advantage. If the whole point of your framework is to ignore the case debate, then ignore the case debate. If the whole point of your framework is to leverage your case against the critique, then tell me what the rhetorical implications (different than impacts) are to your case. 3. Theory It’s important to note that theory positions are impact debates, too. Procedural positions, topicalities, etc. are only important to the debate if you have impacts built into them. If a topicality is just about “fairness” or “abuse” without any articulation as to what that does, most of these debates become a “wash”. So, view your theory as a mini-debate, with a framework, argument, and impacts built into it. 4. Counterplan Debate This is your game. I don’t think I have a concrete position as to how I feel about PICS, or intrinsicness, or textual/functional competition. That is for you to set up and decide in the debate. I have voted on PICS good, PICS bad, so on and so forth. That means that it all has to do with the context of the specific debate. Just make your arguments and warrant them well. Unless I am told otherwise, I will assume the CP is unconditional and my role as a judge it to vote for the best advocacy. 5. Round Evaluation Again, framework is important. Procedurals, case debate, and critique debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality/procedurals, then the case. Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team. (Again, this is only absent any sort of weighing mechanism for any of the arguments.) If there is a topicality/procedural run without any voters, I won’t put them in for you and it will be weighed against the case. I will not weigh the case against the critique unless I am told how and why it can be weighed equally. A concrete argument is always going to have a bit more weight than an abstract argument. A clear story with a calculated impact will probably outweigh an uncalculated potential impact. (i.e. “15,000 without food” vs. a “decrease in the quality of life”). But, if you calculate them out and do the work for me, awesome. If I have to weigh two vague abstract arguments against each other, i.e. loss of identity vs. loss of freedom, then I will probably revert to the more warranted link story if I must. 6. Speed, Answering Questions, and Other General Performance Things I’m fine with speed. Don’t use it as a tool to exclude your other competitors if they ask you to slow down, please do. I don’t really care about how many questions you answer if any, but if you don’t then you are probably making yourself more vulnerable to arguments about shifts or the specificities of “normal means”. It’s your round! Do what you want!

Colin Patrick - WWU

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

Dara Miller - Hired

Dayle Hardy-Short - NAU

Dayle Hardy-Short - Northern Arizona University Saved Philosophy: Background: I have not judged NPDA parliamentary debate this year--I have judged BP and Lincoln-Douglas. So my flowing is a little rusty. On speaker points, I look to such things as analysis, reasoning, evidence, organization, refutation, and delivery (delivery being only 1 of 6 considerations I made for speaker points). Thus, I virtually never give low-point wins because if a team "wins", then it has done something better than the other team (i.e., like had clearer organization or better arguments). Generally: Generally, I am open to most positions and arguments. I expect the debaters to tell me what they think I should vote on, and why. I appreciate clash. I will not do the work for the team. I believe that the affirmative/government has the responsibility to affirm the resolution and the negative/opposition has the responsibility to oppose the resolution or the affirmative. Such affirmation and opposition can appear in different forms. I feel pretty comfortable in my understanding of whether or not something is a new argument in rebuttals, and I will not vote in favor of new arguments--just because someone extends an argument does not mean it's new, and just because someone uses a new term does not mean the argument is new (they may be reframing a previously-articulated argument based on additional responses from the other team). I prefer debates in which debaters clearly explain why I should do what they think I should do. This includes explaining use of particular jargon and/or assumptions underlying it (for instance, if you say "condo bad", I may not necessarily understand in the heat of the debate that you're talking about conditionality versus something you live in; similarly I do not understand what “fism” is—you need to tell me). Do not assume that simply using a particular word means I will understand your argument (argument includes claim, explanation, and evidence of some kind). Please consider not only labeling the argument, but telling me what you mean by it. I will listen as carefully as possible to what's going on in your debate (I will try to adapt to what YOU say and argue). Do your debate, make your arguments, and I will do my best to weigh them according to what happened in the debate. I am not arrogant enough to think that I get everything on the flow, nor am I arrogant enough to claim that I understand everything you say. But if you explain important arguments, most of the time I can understand them. At least I will try. Topicality is a voting issue for me, and I listen to how teams set up the arguments; I consider it to be an a priori argument. I have an extremely wide latitude in terms of what affirmative can claim as topical within the scope of any given resolution. I don’t like T arguments that are ONLY about so-called abuse (indeed, I do not find them persuasive). I prefer that you focus on why the affirmative isn’t topical. Thus, I prefer in the round you explain why something is not topical (standards, alternative definitions, etc.), but you do not need to articulate abuse (which I define as "they're taking ground from us; they’ve ruined debate; or similar arguments”). I guess it does seem to me that if a case is truly non-topical, then it almost always follows that the position is unfair to the negative--as long as the negative came truly prepared to debate the topic. Thus, the negative does not need to belabor the point--say it and move on. I will assume your counterplan is unconditional, and if you think it should be otherwise, please explain and justify that position. With an articulated counterplan, then my job becomes to weigh the best advocacy with regard to the resolution. Please provide me (and the other team) with an actual CP plan text, so I can consider arguments about it as they are made (I really do prefer a written plan text, or please repeat it 2-3 times so I get it written down correctly). I certainly am not opposed to permutations, but please have a text that you can show me and your opponents. I am not opposed to critiques nor performance debate, but please be very very clear about why they should win and what criteria I should use to evaluate them and/or weigh them in the debate as a whole. Abstract impacts should be clearly demonstrated and explained, and concrete impacts need to have similar weight. A final note on speed and civility. I don't have particular problems with speed, but clarity is essential--clear speakers can speak very quickly and I will get the flow. I believe that debate is an important activity, both as an intellectual exercise and as a co-curricular activity in which we get to test classroom learning in a more pragmatic way (application and reductio ad absurdum), including communication skills and the extent to which arguments can go. The way we behave in rounds often becomes habit-forming. So show some respect for the activity, some respect for your opposition, and some respect for the judge. I'll try to keep up with you if you'll treat me like a human being. I will think through your arguments if you will give me arguments worth thinking through.

Dena Counts - ACU

I am the DOF at ACU.  I have been coaching Parli for the last 7 years.  For those last 7 years, I have judged on average 65 rounds per year.  This year I have been judging less but still should be able to keep up with you.   I vote with the better quality of argument. When I say better quality, I am looking for depth of arguments and warrants behind your claim. I attempt to remove my individual biases from the round and make debaters tell me where and why to vote. I understand that biases do seep into my judgments, but I do feel that I should make decisions based upon your argumentation – not my worldview. Probably, I’m more of a game player when it comes to a decision maker.  Love new and unique strategies. I really think almost anything goes in this thing called debate. I say "anything" as I don't like cursing, nakedness, or slurs, but strategy wise, you can do what you need to do to win. Know that I’m very expressive in my nonverbals. If I am getting your argument, you’ll know. If you’ve lost me, you should know from my nonverbals. I have only been coaching for five years, so there are times that super speed (not typically speed) can lose me. Again watch my nonverbals, and I’ll let you know. I flow, judge on the flow, and don’t do the work for you.  Use your rebuttal to tell me why you win and where on the flow your arguments overwhelm the teams.     Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.   1.     Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?  25 to 30 25 to 27 means you need work 28 to 30 means you are pretty awesome   2.     How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   Kritiks are great from both Aff and Neg. Explain your framework, impacts and give me a realistic alternative.  I do think you need an alternative and it shouldn't bite your story.  No I don’t think when you run other negative arguments they should contradict other neg positions unless through the running of those positions you are trying to make a point.     3.     Performance based arguments…  Great.  Just tell me how I should interpret them, how they function in the round.     4.     Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?   I will vote on T but would rather vote elsewhere. To pull that trigger in -round abuse is typically necessary. Also, competing interp is necessary.     5.     Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?  CP’s are fine. PICS are fine. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t run argumentation of why PICS are bad though. Yes, ID the status of the CP. PERM the CP every which way you can. If you can think of a new way to PERM that would be super fun.   6.     Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)  Yes that’s fine.     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?)?  Topicality is first.  Then I look to Criteria or Framework to tell me where to go.  Usually it is impacts or turns on case.  I REALLY like rebuttals that tell me where to vote and WHY to vote.     8.     How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? If you don’t tell me WHY your impact outweighs their impacts on timeline, magnitude or probability, you are gambling on my choice or priority.  I would probably go with concrete impacts over abstract ones.

Grant Tovmasian - CSULA

Griffith Vertican - Concordia-CA

n/a

Guy McHendry - Utah

Ian Sharples - PLNU

n/a

Jacki Evans - Utah

Jared Bressler - Texas Tech

n/a

Jeff Jones - Concordia-CA

n/a

Jennifer McGee - Concordia-CA

n/a

Jeremy Christensen - Cypress

n/a

Jesus Valles - Long Beach

n/a

Jesus Carro - Long Beach

n/a

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark

Joe Provencher – Lewis and Clark   The Quick hits for Prep time:   Unless told otherwise, I default to net-bens/policy making.   If you want me to evaluate topicality via competing interpretations, slow down a bit through your interpretations so I have the text exactly as you intend it. You should also probably take a question on your definition/interp if it's particularly long/nuanced/complex/crazy.   I used to tell teams I believed all advocacies in round should be unconditional. However, a lot of the conditionallity debates I saw were really terrible, and probably had PMRs going for the theory without really understanding it, and then expecting me to vote every time for the aff as a result of my philosophy. So I'll try my best to explain it more below, but for your quick evaluation of me now, know that I don't really think conditionality is necessary (maybe not even good), but will do my absolute best to be open to the theory arguments made in round.   I think that counter-plans must compete via net-benefits or mutual exclusivity. Other CP theory arguments are going to be an uphill battle for my ballot.   I don't think I'm biased one way or another on the kritik. I think good K debate is good, and bad K debate is bad (and good theory debate is good, bad theory debate is bad, etc, etc). Just get small in the rebuttals, one way or the other, and pick your winning argument. Like any argument, if you suspect I may not be 100% familiar with the literature you are using, then make the tag line very clear so you can read your warrants as fast as you want.   Take some points of information. Be cordial. Call as many points of order as you want, but it should be limited to the individual calling the point of order, and a response from the opposing individual making the argument. There should never be a debate, or any back and forth, about whether an argument is new. Make your point, respond to it.      Some further reading for your strikes:   On conditionality: I would never explicitly tell a team not to run a certain argument in front of me. However, out of all the reading I've done, and rounds I've seen, I can't imagine a world in which the MG puts out a good Condo bad shell, the PMR goes for it sufficiently, and I do not vote for it. Maybe the reading I've done is insufficient, but I'm not convinced yet, and the limited condo debates I've seen have been bad ones that only reinforce that opinion. However, I'm trying to stay open to furthering my education in the activity and would encourage anyone to come find me and talk (maybe outside of round) so we can keep the discussion going.   On topicality: I believe that T is a discussion to find the best definition of a word in the resolution. The standards debate is a debate about why a particular definition is very good. A lot of times, especially with teams yelling about ground to DAs they're supposed to have, I think that focus gets lost. If a plan doesn't link to your DA, it might not be because they have mis-defined a word. It might just be that the DA is not good. Consequently, the claim that NEG can read DAs is not a reason your definition is good. That just means they can run DAs. Most debaters are good enough to come up with some kind of offense on the spot.   In general: Good debate gets small at the end of the rounds. Rebuttal speeches should be deep and specific, and focussed around why I must prioritize a single given story. Do that, you win.

Jon Williamson - Long Beach

n/a

Jordan Innerarity - UT-Tyler

n/a

Joseph Evans - Long Beach

n/a

Joseph Evans - Long Beach

Debated for South Bay Faith Academy in HS. Debated for UCLA About me: I have been involved in forensics for 7 years. I debated HS policy for 3 years, and then 4 years of college parli debate (I am currently in my 4th year of competition). I view debate as an 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: Being involved in policy and parli (only), I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the eyes of a policy maker. Unless I am told other wise, 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 25 cards on Zizek, 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 very high threshold for T. I believe that there needs to be articulated abuse for me to consider voting on it. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I HATE T. I actually like hearing T debates... I just have a high threshold on T when the neg runs it just to run it. 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!

Justin Harris - Concordia-CA

n/a

Kaitlin Bundock - Utah

Question 1 : Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, # of rounds judged, etc)        I competed for four years in college parli debate for Northern Arizona University; I have judged 20+ rounds this year. Question 2 : Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)        I vote on the flow, keeping in mind that dropped arguments that are not impacted out or made to have an important role in the round will likely not be a factor in my decision making. In other words, I will not just see which team had less dropped arguments on a position and vote there. I will evaluate the quality of the arguments being made.        I will usually only vote on procedural arguments if there is in round proven abuse that excludes one of the teams from being able to access offensive arguments. You have a better chance of me voting on a procedural if you are able to make it kritical in some way. When evaluating rounds I will look first at the procedural debate to determine if there was significant abuse, then to the K debate (if there is one) then to the impacts, then to theory (unless theory arguments are being made as to why I should reject a position or a team). The rebuttals should tell me how to prioritize the arguments of the round, where to look first, why to look there first, and why the argument matters. I will flow the rebuttals and would prefer teams to call points of order, but not when the new argument is trivial.        I prefer policy debates and dislike procedural debates. I do not like fact or value debates because I think that they often are not argued well, and tend to go in circles. If you are in a fact or value debate in front of me, you should make well warranted arguments that have impacts, and provide me with a clear way to evaluate the round.       You need to have well warranted link stories on case advantages and disadvantages. If you have a weak link and/or internal link story on a disad that leads to massive impacts, I will likely not be persuaded by your disad and will be more apt to vote on turns to your internal link/link story by the gov. I do not have any particular preferences about the CP debate, but prefer the CP to be mutually exclusive and net-beneficial. To beat a CP in front of me you must put offence on it.        I will generally vote for any argument as long as it is argued well and justified. I default to the net-benefits paradigm unless you specify another criterion.   Question 3 : Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making        I am ok with speed as long as it is not used to purposefully exclude a team from the round. If speed is used to exclude you from a round you need to make an argument about it and demonstrate proven abuse and why it is significant to you and the round. I can keep up with speed fairly well, but the faster teams can out-flow me. I will let you know if you are going too fast. Question 4 : Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making        I prefer there to be a good amount of on case argumentation, but am fine with the debate occurring more on another position. If the debate is occurring mostly on off-case positions, the gov needs to make good, well warranted, and offensive arguments on those positions in order to win the round. Additionally, the opp needs to demonstrate that the reason they are not addressing case more is because their impacts outweigh the case impacts. Question 5 : Other information:        Overall, I enjoy seeing competitors having fun with this activity and talking about issues that are important to them.

Kathryn Starkey - Texas Tech

n/a

Kevin Calderwood - SIU

Konrad Hack - Concordia-CA

n/a

Korry Harvey - WWU

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

Kristine Clancy - Pepperdine

Kyle Cheesewright - SIU

Loretta Rowley - Long Beach

Maclean Andrews - PLNU

Malynda Bjerregaard - Snow

Maria Putzer - Utah

Marlin Bates - Pacific

ection 1 – General Information Dr. Marlin Bates University of the Pacific Years judging LD:  I judged your coaches. Years coaching:  I coached your parents. Decision calculus:  I will generally decide where and how I am instructed to decide by the debaters themselves.  I am generally open to any arguments.  However, in my old age, I have determined the following: <ol> <li>This is a communication event.  Communicate. Speed is discouraged.  I am fully capable of flowing any speed demon.  However, I choose not to. </li> <li>Cross-examination is binding & important.  You should address your questions and answers to the critic, not each other.</li> <li>Be polite and have fun.</li> </ol> Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters.  Please be specific and clear.  This may include your background, delivery preferences and general thoughts on paradigms (stock issues, policy maker, tabula rasa, etc). Section 1 – General Information Dr. Marlin Bates University of the Pacific Years judging LD:  I judged your coaches. Years coaching:  I coached your parents. Decision calculus:  I will generally decide where and how I am instructed to decide by the debaters themselves.  I am generally open to any arguments.  However, in my old age, I have determined the following: <ol> <li>This is a communication event.  Communicate. Speed is discouraged.  I am fully capable of flowing any speed demon.  However, I choose not to. </li> <li>Cross-examination is binding & important.  You should address your questions and answers to the critic, not each other.</li> <li>Be polite and have fun.</li> </ol> Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters.  Please be specific and clear.  This may include your background, delivery preferences and general thoughts on paradigms (stock issues, policy maker, tabula rasa, etc). If someone wants to run a procedural, I will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round.  As with ALL arguments, I have no pre-existing prejudices. In general, I think critiques discussed at high rates of speed are antithetical both to the event and to the subject matter under discussion, but, as I just said, I have no biases to vote for or against them. Stand up when speaking.

Matt Swanson - Hired

Matthew Hogan - UNR

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

Maurianna Shelbourn - Utah

I do not have any competitive debate experience but I do come from a speech and communication background. I enjoy critical theory and performance and am very open to their use in rounds. Primarily I am looking for teams’ strength and quality of argumentation. I want to see you take the time to warrant your claims.   It is unlikely for me to vote on procedurals unless there is very clearly demonstrated abuse. I tend to get frustrated when time is spent here unnecessarily.   In rebuttals I am looking for you to address the impact calculus and provide arguments that explain why one impact should outweigh another.   I believe debate should be accessible. This means I am not a fan of excessive speed and like to hear clear, articulate delivery. While I am learning the structure and terminology of debate I also appreciate minimal use of jargon. I will take notes but I do not consider myself to be a flow critic.

Michael Middleton - Utah

Michael Middleton Judging Philosophy A Quotation: “The present situation is highly discouraging” –Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari A Haiku: Debate is Awesome Judging Makes Me Cry Softly Do I weep in vain? Some things to consider (when debating in front of me): 10.  I DO NOT support speed as a tool of exclusion 9.    I DO NOT like deciding for myself what is the most important thing in the round or how to evaluate the competing arguments; You should do this for me.  You will like it less if you don’t. On the other hand, I will like it more. 8.    I DO like well-structured debates. I also like interesting structures. 7.    I DO like creative interpretations; I DO NOT like when you don’t explain/provide a rationale for why I your interpretation makes for a productive/rewarding/interesting/good debate. 6.    I DO NOT like nor understand potential abuse arguments; I DO like and reward teams that demonstrate compellingly that the quality of the debate has been compromised by an interpretive choice made by the other team. 5.    I DO NOT vote for any given argument or against any given type of argument.  Run whatever strategy you like; Be clear about your strategy. 4.    I am a participant in the round also.  While I make my best effort to vote on who is winning and losing the debate based on the arguments, I use speaker points to evaluate and highlight both excellent and poor behaviors, i.e. if you create a hostile environment, you get massively low speaker points. 3.    Jargon does not equal argument. Nor does it equal a good time. 2.    Cross-application does not equal new argument. It doesn’t really equal anything. 1.    Debate is not life.  Losing a ballot will not steal your humanity.  I tend to prefer rounds that demonstrate everyone in the room knows this. 0. Have Fun

Mike Fain - U of Houston

n/a

Nicholas Paliewicz - Utah

Nick Robinson - Whitman

Nick Russell - Long Beach

Judge Philosophy for Nick Russell DOF @ CSU, Long Beach Years in Debate: 20 Rounds Judged this Year: not many Months without a Weekend: 1.5 I view debate as a laboratory for democracy, by which I mean that debate provides an opportunity for students to become agents of positive social transformation. As such, my view is that debate should be a forum for debaters to develop a voice to express the arguments about which you are passionate; it’s your opportunity to positively transform society. And it’s not my place to tell you how to do that (e.g., run a project, a plan, or a pomo). That being said, I’m convinced that in order to transform publics, you must persuade your audience. And there are things that make arguments and debaters more or less persuasive as I audience them. <ol> <li>I think that human beings are different from one another. And, for this whole democratic experiment to succeed, I think we need to be respectful of differences. I may be wrong and you may be right, but for debate to work, there has to be space for a dialogic exchange. And that means respect. I loathe hostility and am uncomfortable with aggression, so please find a way to make the debate friendly.</li> <li>I teach argumentation, so my brain has been socialized to understand arguments in a relatively formal sense: e.g., a claim supported with evidence—connected with a warrant. Please don’t read this as a normative endorsement of the Toulmin model. Instead, it’s a descriptive claim of the way that I have learned to think through my experience in debate and my livelihood teaching Introduction to Argument classes.</li> <li>While I enjoy reading critical theory and cultural studies, my brain is quicker to make sense of things that are tangible, concrete, and explained using examples. For critical teams, this means you ought to describe how your argument plays out in the world of the plan; for orthodox teams, this means you need to describe how the plan solves your harms (even if this is internal to an advantage); and for project teams it means explaining how your argument will concretely and meaningfully cause change.</li> </ol> The bottom line is this: you are an active agent of social transformation. You should actualization that agency for positive social change—and not for social domination.

Nigel Ramoz-Leslie - Whitman

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.

Rachelle Harris - WWU

n/a

Reyna Velarde - Long Beach

Reyna Velarde- Judging Philosophy   Cal. State Long Beach Years Judging Debate: 10 Years Competed in Debate: 6 What School Competed at:  Grossmont/Cuyamaca College & CSU, Long Beach       My background is in Parliamentary debate and Individual events. I want you to make good arguments and communicate them well at the same time. Teams that win my rounds are making the better arguments and speakers that receive higher speaker points are speaking well and making good arguments.   Structure: I believe a good debate has good structure and arguments are responded to with offensive arguments. Please be organized and tell me where you are making the arguments. I will not do the work for you. I will time roadmaps- as it should not take more than 5 seconds to say, “Ad1, the K, DA1, DA2 , then Solvency.” I will also time thank you’s- that shouldn’t take very long either.   Types of Arguments: I will listen to any argument as long as you have good warrants and reasoning’s. If you want to try out a critical Aff, go for it. I will listen to K’s, as long as they are run well and you have a good narrative and structure.   Topicality: I know I said I’ll listen to any argument, however- I have a particular distain for Topicality. Please don’t run T as a test of competition or when it is unwarranted. This doesn’t mean don’t run T at all… If the Aff isn’t topical, then run T. I just don’t want the whole debate to come down to a T, XT, FXT time suck debate. I prefer to watch a debate on the resolution or on something critical- not on semantics. Again, of course it is warranted and you really, really, really, need to run T. And if you do run T- please make it short- If you are responding to T, you either know how to answer it or you don’t- so get to it quickly and respond. If I look bored when you are talking about T- get through it faster.   Speed: Speaking of fast, I am a tad disabled in my right wrist. It broke about 6 years ago and it can get sore and tired quickly. If you are going to speak quickly, speak articulately. If your debates are only won with speed, I am not the judge for you. If I feel like you are too fast, I will give you no more than 3 warning calls of “speed” or “slow down”, before I drop my pen or I stop typing.   Overall, have fun in the debate. Please have a good debate about the resolution- I prefer a debate with Advantages, DA’s, Counter-plans, and K’s. Be nice to each other and make sure you call POI’s if you hear them in the Rebuttals- Don’t assume I’ll catch them. At the end, make sure you have some voters- I want to know where you think I should vote.

2012 GSL/Long Beach Swing: Great Salt Lake Invitational

Judge Philosophies

zz-bye

zz-bye

Adrian Jackson - U of Houston

Aly Fiebrantz - Texas Tech

Antonio De La Garza - Utah

Ashley Nuckels-Cuevas - Pacific

Bill Neesen - Long Beach

Brandon Merrell - Lewis &amp; Clark

Brant Short - NAU

Brittney Bryant - U of Houston

Bryan Malinis - Long Beach

Caitlyn Burford - NAU

Colin Patrick - WWU

Dara Miller - Hired

Dayle Hardy-Short - NAU

Dena Counts - ACU

Grant Tovmasian - CSULA

Griffith Vertican - Concordia-CA

Guy McHendry - Utah

Ian Sharples - PLNU

Jacki Evans - Utah

Jared Bressler - Texas Tech

Jeff Jones - Concordia-CA

Jennifer McGee - Concordia-CA

Jeremy Christensen - Cypress

Jesus Valles - Long Beach

Jesus Carro - Long Beach

Joe Provencher - Lewis &amp; Clark

Jon Williamson - Long Beach

Jordan Innerarity - UT-Tyler

Joseph Evans - Long Beach

Joseph Evans - Long Beach

Justin Harris - Concordia-CA

Kaitlin Bundock - Utah

Kathryn Starkey - Texas Tech

Kevin Calderwood - SIU

Konrad Hack - Concordia-CA

Korry Harvey - WWU

Kristine Clancy - Pepperdine

Kyle Cheesewright - SIU

Loretta Rowley - Long Beach

Maclean Andrews - PLNU

Malynda Bjerregaard - Snow

Maria Putzer - Utah

Marlin Bates - Pacific

Matt Swanson - Hired

Matthew Hogan - UNR

Maurianna Shelbourn - Utah

Michael Middleton - Utah

Mike Fain - U of Houston

Nicholas Paliewicz - Utah

Nick Robinson - Whitman

Nick Russell - Long Beach

Nigel Ramoz-Leslie - Whitman

Phil Sharp - UNR

Rachelle Harris - WWU

Reyna Velarde - Long Beach

Rob Layne - Texas Tech

Sherris Minor - Hired

Than Hedman - Debate at CU

Tiffany Dykstra - Texas Tech

Travis Salley - UNR

Trish SIlva - Long Beach

Tyler Rising - NAU

Vivian Amezcua - Concordia-CA

William Cooney - Cypress

Zac Parsons - Hired

Brandon Merrell - Lewis & Clark

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark