FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Conrad - Utah

Adam Testerman - Lewis & Clark

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

Alex Smith - Berkeley

n/a

Andrew Silverstein - CSULA

Antonio De La Garza - Utah

Ashton Levier - Hired

Just for a bit of background, I competed in Parli, LD, British Parli and limited prep events all throught high school and college and attended McNeese State University, in a very Pi Kappa Delta oriented program. While I do enjoy seeing arguments created and countered quickly, I'm more concerned with the content of what each speaker has to say. I will listen to just about any claim and give each one full consideration unless otherwise told to do so by the opposing team. I believe it is the responsibility of each team to tell me why an argument they have put forth is a voting issue, as well as why the opponent's arguments are invalid, etc. Running K's, CP's, Top arguments can always be fun, but make sure they are well constructed and necessary. Using any of those arguments simply as a timesuck is infuriating and a bit insulting to everyone in the round. I'm also a firm believer in the artistry of debate. Dropping 100 wpms is not art. If I have to struggle to keep up with your speed, I will not enjoy the round and that will reflect in your speaks. That being said, I'm fairly adept at keeping up with reasonable amounts of speed.   Philosophy aside, I'm a flow judge. I expect nothing to be left to me to interpret or decide. If it's not on the flow, it's not a valid argument. If a new argument is presented in rebuttal it will not be added to the flow. I hope that I never have to judge a round where it is ultimately up to me to decipher what's going on, but if I have to, I vote on the best policy resolution.

Barbara Gaustewitz - PLNU

<h2>Barbara Gausewitz - Point Loma Nazarene University</h2> <h3> </h3>   Background of the critic: Four years Parli at PLNU. Two plus years coaching/judging Parli, NFA LD, and NFL LD   Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock issues,    policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):   I believe that debate is a strategy game, so I will listen to any argument a debater can make, and it is the job of the debaters to prove to me why it is a winning argument. I do my best not to do any work for you; your arguments need to have warrants and you need to weigh impacts to explain to me why you win.   If you don’t provide a clear framework I will default to net benefits and I will default to weighing the impacts that are most proximal and probable first.     Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making:   The more time I spend away from the activity, the more I realize that communication is important in grown-up life, and I wish debate did a better job teaching and encouraging real communication skills.    That being said, I view debate as a strategy game. If "presentation" is part of your strategy, use it. If not, then don't.    I hate lying, rudeness, and whining. If you make a claim that sounds weird to me, I WILL fact check it before I make a decision, so don't claim anything you don't know know to be true.    You probably won’t speak too fast for me to flow, but if you aren’t clear about where you are, I won’t know where to write those arguments, and it will be hard for me to evaluate them. If I'm looking looking confused and not writing your arguments, it is probably a good idea to pause and tell me where you are or what you mean.    Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:  The most important thing you can do is weigh impacts. I think it is fine for the neg to concede or drop case as long as they have something that outweighs case, and as long as you can explain to my why it outweighs case.   Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks: I have a high threshold on abuse positions, but again, I’ll listen to anything. I was a kritikal debater, and I like to hear kritikal arguments as long as they are well done. I don’t love politics DAs, but I vote on them all the time. I don’t have a head for economics, so if you have a complicated econ case, make sure that it is well explained. For me it doesn't get any better than a well constructed case and a pile of well warranted case turns from the Neg.    Preferences on calling Points of Order: I don’t do any work for you, and that includes calling your points of order. If you hear a new argument, call it, or else I’m going to flow it like it has been there all the time.   Other notes: Have fun, be nice. Debate is not nearly as serious or important as people treat it. I always vote for the team that better articulates and WEIGHS impacts. If I disclose after round, feel free to ask questions but for the love of God do not argue with my decision. Please avoid made-up words like "secondarily" and "specitivity."

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!

Carlos Tarin - Utah

Broadly, I consider myself to be fairly straightforward in my approach to debate.  I think the best debates happen when teams actually engage the issues invoked by the resolution, rather than getting bogged down in pointless meta-theoretical exercises.  I am open to a variety of perspectives, but will generally default to a policy-making paradigm that evaluates net benefits unless I am given a reason to do otherwise.  If you want to run more creative positions (critical or otherwise) I’m okay with that as long as I am given a rationale that substantively articulates the importance or worth of those arguments.  Basically, don’t play games with the round for the sake of playing games; warrant your positions and give me a clear way of evaluating the claims you are making.  I am okay with some speed, but generally don’t appreciate spreading (and, in all fairness, I probably won’t catch everything if you’re going crazy fast).  I try to stick to the flow as much as possible, but if you arguments aren’t clearly labeled or are rushed, I’ll eventually give up trying to follow along.  Tell me where to go on the flow and where I should be (cross)applying arguments if necessary.  Things I generally don’t like: counterplans, topicality (unless there is demonstrable abuse happening in round), convoluted theory arguments (of the debate variety; I dig philosophical arguments), time sucks, rudeness. Your chances of winning my ballot will be greatly improved if you: clearly give me reasons why I should vote for you in rebuttals, weigh impacts, provide actual clash, win frameworks.  Miscellaneous: I’m usually pretty nice with speaker points (just don’t be a jerk).  Points of order are fine, but don’t go overboard.

Chris Leland - CCU

Debate has always been and always will be an academic lab for the articulation of good argumentation.  I have competed, judged and coached programs at the university level in IE, CEDA, NDT and Parli.  As such I am not a novice to debate, but I am relatively new to some forms of theoretical arguments and especially the more recent lingo that surrounds them.  I have been out of coaching for 14 years, but have been putting into practice the debate skills in the public forum against philosophers, theolgians, cultural critics, politicians, free thinkers, etc.  So I have seen what debate does in the "real world."  As such I am not yet convinced that some of the culture of debate doesn't force us into a box that is really pretty particular to our little world.  I say that to say,  I am not opposed to T or "Kritique" (which I guess is the hip postmodern spelling) or any other theoretical arguments but I can say I would much rather see clearly articulated and communicated arguments that are well constructed and well thought out.  It is fair to say I have a much higher threshold for those types of arguments.  Debate, I recognize, is also about strategy, but not at the expense of solid argumentation.  Having coached CEDA and NDT and now Parli for the last couple of years, I can flow.  Have to use my glasses to see what I wrote, which is different from the good ol' days, but ...  I will say that the thing that has shocked me the most this year is the casual way in which language is thrown around.  I fully don't expect it at this tournament, but there is no room in academic debate (even with the idea of free speech in  mind) for foul language.  It is unprofessional and rude.  Might be considered cool for some, but it is not accepted in any of the professions for which we are training up this group to move onto in the future.  Otherwise, I am excited to be back in the debate realm the last couple of years.   Chris Leland, Ph.D. Asst. VP for Academic Affairs, Professor of Communication & Director of Debate Colorado Christian University

Danny Iberri-Shea - CSU

I am open to many different styles and formats of debate and debate theory.  Ultimately, I see debate as a game of intellectual chess.  Weigh out all impacts in the round and tell me why your side provides a superior philosophy, plan, or perspective.  Be offensive!  Control the agenda of the round.  The big picture of the debate (over a criteria) is just as important as the line-by-line.  I did CEDA, Parli, NFA LD, etc., and have coached many different formats of debate.  Control the variables in the debate (definitions, criteria, contentions, etc.), and then use those variables to your advantage.  Strike first, strike hard! - Danny :)

David Romanelli - Loyol Chicago

David Romanelli School: Loyola Chicago   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. I have been judging for 22yrs (Old CEDA, NDT, CEDA/NDT and now Parli). I think the resolution is the focus of debate. If the government team does not support the resolution I have a very low threshold for voting opp.  I like a well-organized flow. I prefer line-by-line debate. I prefer well developed arguments to warrantless tag line debate. I am not a fan of K debates unless the wording of the resolution demands it (the resolution is the focus of the debate).  I do not think performance debates make sense in this forum. Speed up to a point is fine (slow down on plan text, theory dumps etc.). Debaters should adhere to the guidelines of their institution and that of the host.       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)?                                 There is no specific answer for this. I go to a variety of tournaments. At better tournaments I see better debaters who often get higher points.   2.       How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?                                 Contradictions can cost you the debate if the other team knows why. K affs are generally not welcome unless the resolution demands it. That does not mean that the impacts have to be war etc.…. You can and should make arguments about how impacts should be evaluated. 3.       Performance based arguments… No thank you.     4.       Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I have no problem with T. There are a variety of ways you could win it. That being said, most will not. You need to explain how it works and answer their arguments. A well explained definition and violation with clear standards is the key to my ballot on T.   5.       Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? C/P status is conditional unless explained or asked about (I would ask). Net benefits are my default for competition.   6.       Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) I really don’t care, just don’t waste time.   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?)?                                 If we get to this neither team has done a very good job and you get what you get. T and K’s would most likely come before ads/das.   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 this happens neither team has “won” the debate and I am now forced to intervene. No one is going to be happy including me. I have no set way to decide these issues. Lots of dead bodies normally = victory. I promise nothing here though. It’s your fault if you don’t weigh things out. As noted above, the debate doesn’t have to be about a body count.

David Airne - U of M

4 years HS Policy; NDT 3 years and 1 year LD in college Coached HS Policy, HS LD, HS PF  NDT/CEDA, LD, IPDA and Parli for +10 years.   Upadated: January 2018 and also on Tabroom.com The quick overview to my judging is really simple. I judge things on what happens in the context of the round and it is up to those in the round to write that ballot for me. If you do not write it for me then you leave it up to me and I do not really want to intervene in the round, so write the ballot for me. So use the rebuttals to write my ballot. Asking me what arguments I like is silly, run what you want and if you are winning it then I vote on it. If you run things I happen to not like that just means you might have a higher threshold needed to win it, but if you are winning it then I vote for it. I typically default into a policy maker, but I am happy to vote wherever the round takes me. Finally, I will openly admit I do not give the highest of speaker points when compared to others (26-28 is pretty typical) but good debate warrants higher speaks when it occurs. Any specific issues you want to know about continue reading or just ask me since I am happy to tell you. However, note I teach, research, and publish in political communication (campaigning) and gender (masculinties, in particular). Those issues are difficult, at times, for me to step away from and while you are not debating against me as the juege, it can make it more difficult for me to evaluate the argument because it those issues are ingrained in my head and I see them in different ways that you may be arguing those issues (especially in Parli since we do not have access to evidence, but in evidence based forms that is different). That does not mean that you cannot run those certain positions, but they get a differnet listen than other arguments due to my work in the area. Framework: If you have a framework be sure you explain how it functions for me in the round. Remember, I tend to default to policy maker so without a clear explanation of it I will use that lens in the framework. So you have to tell me how the AFF/NEG views compete with each other. Critical Stuff: Never have had any problem with it other than I do not like them run poorly and I am not a fan of running them in the 1NC with other contradictory positions so that you can pick which arguments are your winners. It does need to be well developed and explained, especially in forms of debate where there is no evidence that I get to read after the round. Otherwise, feel free to run whatever critical arguments you want but be sure you explain how it compares to the AFF or NEG so I see how it operates in the world. Doing those things make critical arguments always great to hear. Traditional Policy Arguments: All are fair game. Be sure that you give me some way to evaluate the impact and show me how it relates to the AFF/NEG. However things like "RVI", or "T is a voter for fairness and education" do need some form of explanation. Your unsubstantiated claims are not going to work so well against one that is supported and explained. Parli specific notes--Points of order: You are welcome to call them, but just know that they are all under consideration and that is how I will answer to all of them. I tend to feel that me ruling on them has to potential to provide some unfair advantage for the team and it feels like a form of intervention since now you know how I "feel" about an argument so I just default to the under consideration answer to avoid that perception/advantage one side might get from the argument. Any specific questions you have please feel free to ask and I am more than happy to answer.

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.

Erin Pack - Utah

I will listen to any warranted argument. I tend to default to Policy Making and enjoy a good impact calc debate. Argue what you are comfortable arguing. In parli, please debate policy style cases, not value or fact. I don't mind spreading, but please enunciate. I will shout "CLEAR!" one time if I can't understand; adjust accordingly. Be sure to be clear on your tags and theory args. I have a very high threshold for voting on T and Theory, at the very least you need to be able to prove in round abuse. I like critiques as long as they can logically flow within the context of the round. I have a decent grasp of most K authors via grad school and being married to a critical theorist, so you need to have more than a Cliff Notes understanding of their ideas. I will most definitely call you out on the ballot if you display a blatant misunderstanding of their ideas. The rule of thumb for me with K's- don't read something if it doesn’t offer a competitive alternative and you can't sufficiently link it into the case without making a huge leap. Generic K's for their own sake are no bueno. I enjoy disads and counter plans. Just be thorough in your warranting, especially on the links. Admittedly, I have a bias against performance, but I will listen to you. Please be sure to err on the side of over coverage in your theoretical justifications for it. Be polite and present thoughtful arguments. Don't be an awful human being. I consider this to include: sassing me or other judges before/during/after a round, randomly shouting at the other team during their constructives or rebuttals, racist/sexist/classist/xenophobic/homophobic comments to other people in-round.

Grant Anderson - UNK

n/a

Jason Jordan - Utah

For the NPTE:   Name: ____Jason Jordan____________________ School: _____Ranger College__________________ <o:p> </o:p> Section 1: General Information <o:p></o:p> 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.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. I have very few, if any, normative beliefs about what debate should look like and/or ‘be’. Absent debate to the contrary, I default to voting for the advocacy with the most net beneficial post fiat impacts. Unless I am told to do otherwise, on all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments. I don’t evaluate speaking skills as part of my decision, nor do I have any value judgment attached to a proper “method” of speaking in debate rounds. Unless I am told to do otherwise I attempt to flow everything I possibly can. I think people should be nice, in round, out of round, etc. So, please try to be nice, in so far as you consider my value to life important. <o:p> </o:p> Section 2: Specific Inquiries  <o:p></o:p> Please describe your approach to the following.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  1.     Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?<o:p></o:p> For the NPTE I anticipate I will assign points on a range between 27-29.9, with 28 as an “average”. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  2.     How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?<o:p></o:p> Do what you want to do, just make an explicit framework argument if I am supposed to adjust my decision calculus from what I have elucidated above. My MS is in critical rhetoric, so I am comfortable with these arguments, but I try very hard to evaluate the arguments as presented in the round, so I vote both direction on the K quite a bit.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  3.     Performance based arguments…<o:p></o:p> See above. Do what you want, just tell me why it matters (the ‘impact’) and how I evaluate the merit/epistemic value of your argument.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  4.     Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?<o:p></o:p> I prefer debaters to make these framing arguments in the round. Absent debate to the contrary I will default to evaluating these debates through the lens of competing interpretations, and assuming in round abuse is a necessary pre-requisite to T being a voter. I tend to look at T and Theory debates as questions of methodological advantages/disadvantages, unless I am told to consider the argument in a different way.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace: none">  5.     Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?<o:p></o:p> I have no personal stance as a judge on any of these questions. Really. Make the theory argument. Absent an offensive reason to not grant a team their argument, I default to them getting access to it.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  6.     Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If debaters choose to do this, I have no problem with it.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  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?)?<o:p></o:p> Critical positions about debate-> ‘Rules’ arguments (Topicality, Theory, Procedurals, etc.)-> pre-fiat/discursive critical positions about the aff/neg-> post-fist impacts of enacting/not enacting an advocacy.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:-.5in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:.5in; mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">  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")?<o:p></o:p> If these two are not compared (ie: otherization is not presented as an internal link to the nuclear war scenario, and/or nuclear war is not presented as the worst form of otherization/inclusive of such impacts) I will most likely default to preferring the “concrete” impacts, but I would greatly prefer for debaters to make comparisons of such claims in the round.<o:p></o:p>

Jeff Jones - Hired

Section 1: General Information “Debate is a game” is a metaphor I no longer find to be sufficient at explaining how I feel. Instead, I think it’s like a flight simulator. We get the opportunity to test out a variety of policy and critically oriented positions in a largely consequence-free space, and if the thing crashes, we try again. It’s important to sort it out, though, because eventually there are going to be people in the back of the plane and they’re going to be pissed if they don’t land safely. Section 2: Specific Inquiries How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?  “Standard” criticisms don’t bother me. I don’t have an academic background in the literature so you may need to hold my hand a little, but if this is the style of debate you’re best at or if you believe it’s the proper strategic choice, go nuts.   Criticisms that rely on a description of your own identity or that require me to examine my identity to engage the debate make me very uncomfortable. I’m well aware that that’s often the point, but I remain wholly unconvinced that forcing people to confront themselves in an adversarial environment is productive. If your criticism includes a call for me to make a personalized value judgment about a particular action as opposed to roleplaying the same, be prepared for me to make an unpredictable decision that you may not like much. Performance based arguments… See above comments on identity politics. I will require you to adhere to speech times and rules regarding speaking positions. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I do not believe in round abuse is necessary and do believe the affirmative must have a competitive interpretation. I believe the round begins with prep time, not with the PMC. Good interpretations are, for lack of a better term, functionally competitive in the same way counterplans are. Your interpretation should have a net benefit with an impact, like anything else, and if you do sufficient impact calculus I will not hesitate to vote on topicality. Note that topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue, and I have a very hard time believing it could ever be the internal link to any kind of structural violence. I think most SPEC arguments are pretty terrible unless coupled with a link argument on a substantive piece of paper. I have once voted for ASPEC in semi finals of what I would define as a national circuit tournament. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? PICs are good if they have an impacted net benefit. Too frequently affirmative teams fail to mention that a miniscule PIC does not have a net benefit and I should affirm on presumption. This can be a pretty useful argument, given the proliferation of miniscule PICs, and the increasing frequency of that occurring at a topic area tournament. Absent identification of the status of a CP, I will assume it is conditional. I have no problem with conditionality, and think the MG should be prepared to be strategic and flexible. A permutation is always a test of competition and never an advocacy, but should also have some sort of net benefit. If there is a functional disadvantage to the plan but a functional advantage to the permutation, it follows to me that the CP is not competitive and the permutation captures sufficient offense. I believe counterplans must be functionally competitive and may be textually competitive, but think that the amorphous nature of texts in parli precludes a requirement for textual competition. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Yes. I will also note that I expect you to make a copy of any advocacy (plan text, CP, alt text) available to your opponents and preferably also to the panel. Texts of permutations can be necessary, but aren't always – Do Both is more than sufficient, for example, and I will not look favorably on teams complaining about a lack of text in that instance. 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 costbenefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)? Procedurals will be evaluated first, followed by a weighing of the impact debate. Absent framework arguments or impact calculus arguments to the contrary, I will weigh claims by magnitude. I view probability and timeframe as mitigating factors to magnitude. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? Death is worse than dehumanization. To convince me otherwise would take a very clear win on that level of debate, or perhaps a concession of a uniqueness level claim (if we're all already dead, who cares if I kill everyone).

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.

Joe Allen - Concordia

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.  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.  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.  Things that really annoy me:  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.  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.  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. 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. 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.  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.  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.

John Hansen - EWC

Debate / Judging Philosophy - John A. Hansen My philosophy of debate is constantly evolving or devolving depending upon your locus of control within the continuum.  Philosophically I think in order to understand my orientation you have to understand my background of debate and experience.  I’ve been associated with debate for nearly 20-years; I started as an old school Lincoln Douglas debater (value / criteria) from there I transitioned to CEDA and NDT, and now coach NPDA and IPDA. Each format has revealed nuances about argumentation and theory and allowed me to refine my views on what ‘debate is.’ The overarching ‘rule’ I ascribe to debate, is the notion of reciprocity meaning that if neg wishes to disco, dispo, challenge on multiple levels, etc. Aff is also able to engage within the same constructs to challenge the negatives suppositions.  Inherently debate introduces strategy into a normative oppositional framework; hence, I am open to speed, jurisdiction, the K, framework conditionality / dispositionality, etc.  Each strategy bends the goal of communication and have their own inherent strengths and weaknesses and just because I am o.k. with the bleeding edge of speed doesn’t mean that I am not sympathetic to a critique of said strategy.  This dichotomy is emblematic of my views on debate, I think its important to try new forms of argument/strategy but be mindful of how such constructs are impacted by reciprocity. My debate philosophy has transitioned beyond the tabula rasa judge because (literally not all arguments are equal {‘racism good’ never a ‘good idea’} and I am incapable of subjugating all past experiences) into viewing the communication medium as Habermas does- one whereby individuals evaluate their motives amongst the technical, the practical, and the emancipatory.  Each of these categories demarcate debate theory and communicative action and provide a scaffold for understanding our own constructions. Please impact your arguments, weigh the round, provide judging / evaluative standards and be respectful of one another. Regards, Hansen

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!

Josh House - Cypress

I have tendencies but I'm not entirely robotic and my views are not perfectly static across time and space. If I change in a major way I’ll let you know. I tend to prioritize substance over style. That's not to say that I discount style entirely, and your delivery can certainly influence my understanding of what you have to say, but I'm not ever voting based on what you're wearing or just based on who sounded more polished. I tend to prefer structure in your delivery, and I prefer it if you watch my nonverbal reactions and adjust accordingly when appropriate. That is to say, if I’m confused or lost I try not to keep that to myself, and I’d appreciate it if you make some attempt to un-confuse me sooner rather than later. I tend to want to vote in debates based on how the debaters tell me I should vote and to try to keep my personal feelings about a topic out of my decision. That is, I try to stick to the flow and I try not to intervene. I tend to view voting on Topicality (and procedural issues more generally) in Parli as something that is in opposition with that last tendency. The Gov team gets about 20 minutes to figure out what a topic means and what they’re going to say. As long as their interpretation of what the topic means makes sense I tend to think that the Opposition team should debate them on that interpretation. To be clear(er), I will vote on Topicality but I am very sympathetic to “we meet” arguments and I absolutely require articulated in round abuse (not potential abuse and not prep-time abuse). In LD or other activities where the topic stays the same over time I’m much more likely to vote on Topicality and to listen to reasons why I should choose the “best” interpretation of the topic. I would love to talk to you more about this if you’re interested. Oh yeah, I tend to want you to run a policy because I think it usually makes for better, more educational debate. I tend to think that if the alternative on your K has to include the words “Vote Opp to…” it’s a good sign that I don’t really need to vote Opp to accomplish what you’re after. If your Alt solvency rests on changing the minds/actions of people in the real world (not via fiat) then I expect an explanation of how it works starting with the people in the room and extending as far as our influence reaches. Otherwise don’t tell me that my voting Opp will end capitalism or the patriarchy and expect me to fill in the gaps on how that happens. I tend to forget to give time signals because I’m busy writing things down. I will usually at least have a timer, it’s just that I forget to look at it as you go, so if you time yourselves or have somebody in the audience help out that’s usually to your advantage. I tend to want people to enjoy this activity, to seem like they’re enjoying this activity, and to help others to enjoy this activity. I tend to react pretty negatively to behavior that is exclusionary, rude, or mean. I would be happy to add clarification on items of interest on request.

Justin Harris - Concordia

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.

Katherine Starkey - Hired

Judging Philosophy: Kathryn Starkey   Updated 10/3/12           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.   I debated at the University of Wyoming from 2006-2011, and I am currently in my second year of coaching at Texas Tech University. As a debater, I tended to read policy-oriented arguments with the occasional cap-bad or constructivism K thrown into the mix. Debate is a game; be strategic. This is one of the most incredible educational activities out there. Treat it as such.       Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.       1. 1. Speak er points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given.   So far my range tends to fall in the 26-30 category. Things to help your speaker points: strategy, intelligence, and wit. Adjustments will occur when debaters are inappropriate in round. Please be civil! I know that debates can become intense, but your speaker points will also be a reflection of your ability to treat your opponents with respect.       1. 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?    I have voted k’s for them since I have stopped competing, but a word of caution: I am probably not as well versed in the literature as you. This being said, if you run a K in front of me, make sure to thoroughly explain your argument. Several unwarranted tags coupled with name-dropping authors isn’t going to be as persuasive as a thorough explanation of the thesis of the K. The alternative must be able to solve the mpx of the K, which make both the alt text and the solvency contention pretty important in my book. I’m not a fan of using the K to exclude the aff. It makes the discussion solely about the K, which I think takes away from the merit of parli. Despite this, it’s your debate.   The aff can run critical arguments, but there is a way to do so and be topical at the same time. The resolution exists for a reason.   As for contradictory arguments, it probably depends on your ability to defend conditionality as a beneficial thing in parli. I’m down with conditional arguments, but demonstrating why you are not abusive to the other team can be difficult at times and is your burden to fulfill. This also probably means you need to have a coherent strategy going into the block to deter possible abuse if you are going to run critical arguments that contradict other facets of the negative strategy.       1. 3. Performance based arguments…   Not a fan….. I’ll vote for whatever you tell me to vote for in a round, but I’m not going to enjoy listening to a performance if read in front of me. I’d like to enjoy what I listen to. J       1. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?    For the aff, you should probably be topical. Aside from this, I love T debates as long as they aren’t the generic, stock T debate that gets rehashed every round. Nuanced and educational ways to interpret the resolution tend to spur interesting debates, at least in my opinion. I’d prefer to have in-round abuse, but it’s not necessary. Without a specific weighing mechanism, I’ll default to competing interpretations.   To vote on T, it clearly needs an interp, standards and a voter. In a paradigm of competing interpretations, there must be a net-benefit to one interpretation that the other fails to capture. I don’t see T as a win-all for the Aff. I don’t think I’d vote for an RVI on T.       1. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?   With a substantial net-benefit, PICS are great. I welcome the theoretical level of the counterplan debate as well. That being said, it would be difficult to persuade me that arguments like PICS bad or PICS good are more than a way for me to view the round. I.e. Voting for the arg: PICS are bad, which means they lose. If a solid abuse story is established, I can probably be persuaded otherwise.   I also think the neg should state the status of the counterplan in the LOC. It forces the theory debate to begin later in the debate, making it difficult to evaluate the end of a debate in which the PMR goes for that theory. Why hide your status? If you’re going to read a counterplan, be ready to defend it.   Counterplans need to be functionally competitive, or there seems to be no point in running one. It must have a NB that the aff cannot solve. As for textual competition, I’m impartial. It probably helps to prove the competition of your counterplan, but it doesn’t seem as necessary to me, though I can be persuaded otherwise. Perms are tests of competition; they are not advocacies. If a counterplan is non-competitive, then it goes away, leaving the rest of the debate.       1. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)   Impartial. It’s probably in your best interest to make sure you flowed an argument as the other team stated it, but it’s up to you. Sharing texts is probably a good idea as well. I also don’t care if you ask the other team something during a speech (this isn’t a POI – it’s the other communication that occurs) as long as I can still hear who’s speaking. It seems to be a trend that’s picking up. Doesn’t bother me.       1. 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?)?   As a disclaimer: this is your job, not mine. Please do this for me. Procedurals come first, then usually other theoretical objections, impacts. It all still depends what kinds of arguments are in the round.       1. 8. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?   I would honestly prefer to NEVER have to do this, so please don’t make me have to do so! A thought, though: Extinction>dehume       Other Random thoughts J   -          I LOVE disads. Politics is probably my least favorite.   -          Please read texts and interpretations more than once. If you want it down word for word, please repeat it for me!   -          POI’s: Seems like a good rule of thumb to take one per constructive speech. Clarification on texts, especially, is sometimes necessary for a coherent strategy.   -          Spec positions are awful. I understand their utility to guarantee a strategy, but they’re not very convincing in front of me if you go for it.   -          Overviews are good; you should use them.   -          Please make sure to compare positions and give impact calculus throughout the rebuttals.   -          I’ll protect against new arguments in rebuttals. You should still call points of order in the event I may have missed something.   -          Any questions, please feel free to ask. I love this activity, and I love to talk about it.

Katherine Preston - Hired

Judging Philosophy – Katherine Preston   General Information:   I debated for about 5 years for about two and a half schools, those being Oregon, Cal State Long Beach, and Nevada. My partners were the best of the best, including Ben Dodds, AJ Jenkins, and Max Alderman. If you are reading this and I am your judge, there are a few important things to know. First, while it is important to have some swagger and confidence in debate, too much is lethal. Glenn Prince once called my partner a “flippant asshat” in outrounds of NPTE. It’s a fine line, and I am sensitive to it. You think you’re a baller? I don’t. Tone it down. Second, I can’t help it that I have opinions about the world. I won’t let them influence which team I circle at the end of the round, but I am going to grimace and nod and shake my head and if you say something that I think is epically dumb, you’re probably going to notice that I think it’s epically dumb. Sorry.   Argumentation:   Kritiks. Most people assume that because I debated successfully with critical arguments, this means you should run a critical argument in front of me. Do so with caution, because I probably haven’t read your literature, I probably don’t care to, I’m not going to instantly “get it” or agree or be presupposed to your argument and, honestly, I completely hate the way most teams run the K. Most people get to their alternative with FAR too little time left for questions, for solvency arguments (because why wouldn’t you read solvency arguments for your alt?), etc. It is devastatingly hard to run a K successfully in parliamentary debate, and frankly I don’t recommend it.    If you are the affirmative team and you are debating against a critical team, I highly recommend you go all-in on debating their alternative on the level of the permutation (and multiple permutations), disads to the alt, and alt solvency. As a debater I would always recommend starting with the alternative on top, then going to the framework boondoggle.   Disads. That being said, I much prefer a debate with some thoughtful, nuanced, warranted disads with some real meat on them. Big shit, like China and Russia blowing crap up with nukes, or big climate change impacts where we all die in the end! Of course, debaters should engage uniqueness at all levels of the disad, or if they prefer, I’m down for impact turns. Counterintuitive arguments are kinda fun if you want to go there…just be careful and have fun!   Counterplans. I both love and hate counterplans. I love counterplans because you can fiat disads into existence and that’s a cool way to score some extra points. But I hate, hate, hate counterplan theory. I honestly don’t care if the counterplan is textually competitive. I guess if there’s some five alarm reason that the aff is going to keel over and die from having their text “stolen” from them, then whatever, I’d consider voting on the issue, but it’s an uphill battle with me. I am inclined to vote on the net benefit to the counterplan.  If it’s a consult CP, tell me why consulting is bad. Tell me why consulting is normal means. If you say theory about a counterplan, I may consider it a reason to reject the argument, but probably not the team. Please don’t try to make me vote on CP theory alone.   Also, I think counterplans are conditional and that’s okay. The MO should probably kick them about half the time. No biggie. Just go for another strat and move on, people.   Topicality/Etc. I generally do not have a problem with theory arguments that interrogate the link between the affirmative case and the resolution. I evaluate these arguments based on competing interpretations. Have counter interpretations and standards as answers to T. Specification arguments can be useful if you have specific disads, like politics disads, that rely on links for the plan’s funding, for example. That said, I hate voting on crappy spec arguments and I will be hoping for it to be kicked in the block. I will prioritize standards about actual in-round ground loss and abuse over vague prospective education loss and division of ground.   In my view, the opp generally shouldn’t be going for T or Spec in the LOR unless they A) have to, because they’re getting trounced (maybe due to some ground loss, arguably) or B) because it is a slam dunk, the gov dropped the ball and it’s an easy out for the judge (in which case, thank you).       Closing thoughts. I value debate immensely as an educational activity that taught me a lot, but it is a game. I expect good sportsmanship and professionalism. Also, please understand that I am reentering the activity after some time off, so while I was a very speedy debater in my heyday, and I will try my best to keep up, I am not at my top speed. I will yell “clear!” or “slow!” as needed. Thanks!

Kenny Hopkinson - Hutchinson CC

n/a

Kevin Calderwood - Concordia

New additions to my philosophy this year:   --I like teams that spend a significant amount of time lighting up the case in the 1NC.     --I still think that I err affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory, but I have grown tired of the textual versus functional competition debate. I think that the legitimacy of counterplans I tend to dislike (process, delay, anything that changes the nature of fiat) is better resolved through objections specific to the counterplan in question (i.e. delay bad, etc.)   ---I think teams spend too little time on the link story and spend too much time developing their impacts. This isn't to say that I don't think that having a developed impact story is important, but very little of it matters if the extent of your link is "GOP hates the plan, next..."   ---I think that systemic impacts are underutilized, especially in economy debates. Recessions are bad.  Unemployment is bad.  These events have a life long effect on your physical and mental health that is ignored in debate in favor of improbable impact scenarios like resource wars, etc.   ---I think that fairness is the most important impact for me to consider when evaluating theoretical issues (including topicality).  It is very difficult to convince me that education should come before fairness.  Not being topical does not lead to the collapse of debate, but for me, this is first and foremost a competitive activity, and thus I am most persuaded by claims about fairness.   Quick Notes   ---I prefer policy arguments.     ---You must take at least one question in every constructive.  You must make a good faith effort to ask a question for me to vote for this procedural.     ---All advocacies in the debate are unconditional.   ---All texts should be written down for the other team and repeated at least once.   ---Framework is never a voting issue; it's a lens to view the rest of the debate.   ---Topicality is always a voting issue, and is never genocide.  Spec arguments are never voting issues.  Permutations are tests of competition.   ---I vote negative more times than affirmative.     ---I will err affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory (delay, consult, conditions, normal means, textual competition etc.).  Ask, and I am sure I can clarify this for you. ---Although I do not have a predisposition towards these arguments in debate, I find that capitalism is typically the best and most fair economic system, and that the forward deployment of American troops and the robust nature of American internationalism generally make the world a better place.   Background:   I am entering my thirteenth year of either competition or coaching in academic debate.  I have judged hundreds of debates in almost every format.  However, my approach to judging parliamentary debates is quite different, based mainly on structural differences.      As an undergraduate I studied international relations, and would classify myself as a liberal hegemonist (I believe that the United States should use its expansive power to establish free markets, promote democracy, and maintain peace).   In graduate school, I studied presidential rhetoric, with a focus on environmental communication.  I wrote most of my term papers dealing with the environmental justice movement, climate change rhetoric, democratic social movements, and Monsanto’s crisis communication strategies   I will default to judging the round as a policymaker, and I generally prefer these debates to critical ones.  However, the best debates happen when debaters argue what they are best at.  If this means you are awesome at performance, then you are more likely to win than if you stumble through a CP/DA debate.      Working hard is the easiest way to win in front of me.  This means working hard in your preparation before the tournament and during the debate.  I expect you to be well read in the arguments you are running.  Lazy debaters are more often than not those that intentionally obfuscate the debate to confuse their opponents.  I reward hard work, and it’s really not difficult to identify those that work hard.   I use should a lot in my paradigm.  This is a list of my preconceived notions, intended to help guide you in winning my ballot.   All of these considerations are how I think debate ought be, not what it is, so, they are obviously up for discussion.   Offense/defense: Defense is the most underutilized tool in debate.  However, I still believe that the uniqueness controls the direction of offense in nearly every instance.  This does not mean that you cannot nullify the disadvantage or reduce its risk with effective defense, but I do not believe that you will win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate.  There are two scenarios where I think you can win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate: (1) The impact to the disadvantage is systemic.  Poverty exists in the United States.  If you win that the plan increases the economy and decreases poverty, then this is a tangible, offensive impact.  (2) If you add a systemic impact as a part of your link turns.  If you lose the uniqueness debate on helping the economy where the impact is nuclear war, you will not win offense.  However, if you contextualize your link turn with an argument that any increase in the economy helps reduce poverty, then you can theoretically make the link turn an offensive argument.  Argument comparison is necessary in all debates, but I cannot stress how important they are in nuanced debates like I just described.   Framework: I find these debates boring and overly dogmatic.  Framework is a lens to view the rest of the debate; a filter for the judge to determine which impacts should come first and what their role is as a critic.  Framework, by itself, is never a voting issue.  It consists of three parts: (1) an interpretation of what your framework is; (2) what the role of the judge is (i.e. policy maker, intellectual, etc.), and (3) competing modes of impact calculus (i.e. utilitarianism, methodology, ontology, etc).   Debates are not won or lost on framework.  If you lose the framework debate, but win that the plan breaks down capitalism (link turn), or that capitalism is good (impact turn), you will still win the debate.  I find arguments like “fiat does not exist” quite sophomoric.  Most arguments placed in framework are really just hidden link/impact/alternative arguments that have no place in the framework debate.  Losing one framework argument most likely will not lose you the debate.  In fact, it is not necessary to have your own framework or even answer the other team’s framework to win.  Overall, I generally dislike “clash of civilization debates”, and prefer debates on the more substantive aspects of the criticism.     Critiques: I voted negative on the critique last year quite a bit.  I am much more versed in critical theory now, but if your argument is something you do not think I would be familiar with, take care, slow down, and be sure to explain everything a little bit better.  I have found it much easier to understand things the first time I hear them as a judge, but it’s still an important consideration.  I am not in the “alternative doesn’t matter” camp.  Having a real world alternative is important, especially if you do not win framework arguments regarding language and discourse.  If you win those types of framework arguments, then alternatives that rethink/reconceptualize/problematize the status quo are more persuasive.  Critique debates are more likely won by isolating that the critique impacts/alternative solve the root cause of the affirmative impacts as opposed to winning a silly framework argument that unfairly seeks to exclude the other team.      Counterplans: A counterplan or good case arguments are necessary to win.  Counterplans should be unconditional.  You should write a copy of the counterplan text for the other team.  You should take a question about the text of your counterplan.  Your counterplan should probably not mess with fiat (delay, veto/cheato, consult, etc.)  I believe I will generally err affirmative on counterplan theory in parliamentary debate (this is different than policy debate where the affirmative has more pre-round prep time, in-round prep time, and a literature base that limits down the number of predictable counterplans).   With that said, I am very much in the textual competition camp, largely concerning issues of fairness.  Case specific/topic specific counterplans are more effective, but I certainly understand the utility of agent/actor counterplans.     Permutations: A legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan.  Intrinsic and severance permutations are bad unless you win their legitimacy through a lens of textual competition.  Permutations should never be advocacies.  Multiple permutations are fine because there are a finite combination of legitimate permutations.   Disadvantages: This section will focus mostly on politics because I do not have issues with any other disadvantages (that I know of).  Politics is generally boring and not well researched.  Links that are based on the process of the plan (i.e. focus, delay, using political capital) make no sense since fiat assumes the plan happens immediately.  Links based on the outcome of the plan (i.e. popularity, backlash, gaining political capital) are legitimate.  Defense is very important against politics disadvantages since they most likely contain small risk/high magnitude impacts.   Disadvantages alone are unlikely enough to win a debate, but those that both turn and outweigh the affirmative case are preferable.     Theory: All theory positions should have a stable interpretation, violation, reasons to prefer, and voting issues.  I find most theory in parliamentary debate to be behind the times (no negative fiat, permutations should be advocacies, etc).  If it has an interpretation/is an advocacy you should read it more than once to ensure that I have it written down.  I will not vote on a speed criticism except in the event that you are markedly better than your opponents and are using it as a tool of exclusion as opposed to a strategic tool.  Reverse voting issues are for lazy debaters.   Topicality: This argument is probably not genocide.  It should be a voting issue.  I will judge this debate either through an evaluation of the standards debate or through a lens of reasonability.  Your interpretation should be grounded in a definition from the literature (or a dictionary) and should not be just an “interpretation” of the topic, like “back down = must be the WTO”.   Specification: These debates are better conducted through a discussion of what normal means is.  Instead of defaulting to lazy debate by simply “out teching” another team on theory, you should engage in a substantive debate about what the most likely normal means mechanism of the plan is.  This is what we call a link.  I will vote on these arguments, but if you look at any policy backfiles and memorize those answers I do not see myself voting on these ridiculous arguments.   Speaker Points: I will give you between a 25-30, unless you say/do offensive things (i.e. racist/sexist/homophobic, etc. language).  I start at a 27.5 and work my way from there.  My average was somewhere right around a 27.8 for the year.   As a final note, I really hate cheap shots.  I also dislike having to decide debates on dropped arguments.  Most parliamentary debates are won or lost on the technical aspect instead of the substantive aspect.  I think this is unhealthy for the activity as a whole, and I will reward debaters who are willing to engage in the debate at hand instead of cowardly sidestepping in favor of a cheap shot.  I can’t stand “knocking” and find it completely disruptive.    Have fun, respect your opponents, and work hard.

Kyungyean Son - Utah

Loretta Rowley - Long Beach

Malynda Bjerregaard - Snow

Margaret Moore - ACU

Matt Swanson - Long Beach

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

Neil Casey - Pepperdine

My judging philosophy is fairly simple. I prefer well reasoned and logical arguments that are at least somewhat consistent with the original purpose of Parli debate, pretending to be legislators discussing legislation. Because of this, I tend to prefer policy arguments with concrete, easy-to-see real-world impacts over other types of argument, particularly procedurals.  Because I competed in a slightly different form of debate for most of my collegiate career, you should also generally assume that I am not familiar with the majority of arcane parli jargon and theory, and explain anything you use. I am much better versed in current events and political/policy discussions, and I do not care for lazy assertions or misrepresentations in rounds, so do everything you can in the limited time you have available to avoid these sorts of errors, and to call out your opponents for making them.  Because of my background, I also tend to dislike speed. I will always go for the qualitatively better case over one that merely contains a greater number of arguments. Arguments that are merely tag lines containing a few assertions will receive very little weight from me.  I will not penalize competitors simply for speaking quickly on my ballot, but I will almost certainly miss or give little weight to many of your arguments, so spread at your own risk.  I have voted for criticisms many times in the past, but generally because the team on the receiving end of the critique was unable to respond effectively.  The most important part of any criticism is the alternative, specifically one that envisions the world of the team running the criticism.  Simply saying "Reject the opposition" is not an alternative. If you do run a K, be prepared to establish that your opponents' plan will have real and serious costs that outweigh any benefits the plan may create. Similarly RVIs need to be serious, and well-reasoned. If you think something is important enough to make me reject your opponents, take the time to convince me of the importance.  All that being said, I also believe that debate is about the competitors, not the judges, so I will do my absolute best to not bring my personal preferences and beliefs into my decisions. If you can debate better than your opponents and convince me by using an argument that I personally dislike, I will still vote for you.

Nigel Ramoz-Leslie - Hired

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 Kamrath - UNK

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.

Ron Bronson - EWC

Background: I competed in parliamentary debate at Washington University in St. Louis and revived the debate programs at Monmouth College & Knox College in Illinois. I competed at NPDA nationals twice and organized the first midwest tour of the Oxford Debate Union, also competing against the English during that time. I co-founded the Central Debate Conference, a former confederation of liberal arts college programs throughout the midwest. I'm in my 2nd year coaching parli at Eastern Wyoming College, though my day job is actually as the college's digital strategist. You'd be safer thinking of me as a lay judge with insider knowledge into the activity than a formal debate judge. Approach to judging: I tend to view debate as a game and enjoy fun debates where teams are matching wits up against a topic. The key is people actually knowing what they’re talking about or sounding like it. Nothing frustrates me more than hearing people spew on misrepresenting an issue wildly for 45 minutes.  That being said, it’s your round. Impacts are fine, but I like things to be weighed. My opinion shouldn’t matter as much as your arguments and I don’t make a habit of inserting myself into rounds. I want debate with warrants and substance and strongly prefer debate that’s clear and persuasive over speedy drivel, but will vote for the latter so long as it gets the job done.   Counterplans are fine and DAs are super so long as each one of them doesn’t result in nuclear war. I’ve got a strong public policy background and so, it’s often hard to be tabula rasa when people get up and say wildly ridiculous things (though I’ll vote for it if the other team leaves it on the flow untouched.) Long story short is: Know what you’re talking about. I don’t expect you to speak with the breadth of a Ph.D., but I do expect both teams to understand the case they’re running at some base level.    Splitting the block is cool with me. I abhor tricotomy, run it at your own risk.

Sherris Minor - PLNU

Sherris Minor- PLNU  I have been in and out of debate since 2003. I competed in parli for 3 years and have since coached parli/ LD for 4 years, this is my 3rd year coaching since I came back to the activity in 2010. My background is in political science, anthropology and philosophy. My current course of study is in conflict management (specifically conflict transformation) and the rebuilding process through a critical gender lens.  I have judged over 100 rounds of parliamentary debate this year and about 60 rounds of LD debate.  I would consider myself a flow critic I will listen to any round you would prefer to have.  Unless told otherwise I will default to a net benefits paradigm.  Framework is important to me because it sets up how you want me to evaluate the round and should help you prioritize what arguments you are winning and why that means I vote for you.  Rate of delivery doesn’t really matter to me. Most of the time I can keep up with the arguments coming from the speaker. I will yell slow down if it does become an issue.  However, The use of speed should not preclude you from making an actual argument. I shouldn’t have to wait until the LOR/ PMR to know how your arguments function.   Clarity is a separate issue for me. This goes for both speaking and what is said. If I cant hear you because you are mumbling and I am missing things on my flow I will say clear.  If you are saying a ton of tag lines without warrants you will not win my ballot  Procedurals are awesome, but I do not vote on potential abuse. Please have a clear interpretation. I default to competing interpretations unless I am told otherwise. I don’t vote on RVI’s especially if the justification for it on T is “time suck they abused us.”    I think critical discussions are great within the context of debate. That being said you need to justify your framework for evaluating the round, and tell me how I vote using this framework. You need to explain your links don’t just say they link tell me how they link/ why that link is important. These discussions tend to get very convoluted it is your job to clearly explain your argument(s), I shouldn’t need an interpreter to understand what your k says.     Counter plans are a great strategy tool but they should be competitive and have some sort of net benefit to them beyond this doesn’t link to the disad. Don’t kick an unconditional counterplan in front of me I will not vote for you.  Politics is a good strategy but please try to use a true or at least plausible scenario.  Theory is awesome please explain to me why your theory/ interpretation of theory means you win the debate don’t just blip out any perm is severance/ or intrinsic. This is one not true but also doesn’t explain how your theory works in the context of this debate.  I believe all perms need to have a text. This helps to show me in a textual sense how your perm theory functions. Also it provides something stable in the round that I can look at when I am making a decision. I think for the most part that Perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy but if you have a compelling reason why your perm could be the latter please run it.  I believe the debate should be smaller by the end of the round don’t be afraid to kick arguments. Issue selection is great because you can get more in depth on arguments you think you are winning.  Warrants for your claims are awesome because that means your arguments are not just tag lines. I will not fill in the blanks for you so please give a clear tag and warrant for why you argument is true. This is critical in debates with competing uniqueness stories where the objective is for me to decide which scenario is the most true.   Impact calculus and prioritization are important to me. It allows you to tell me where to vote and why I look there before I look at other arguments. Don’t expect me to do the work for you, you set the framework for the round I expect you to tell me how I vote in the world of your framework.  Overall, if you do the work you should be able to win my ballot. I don’t care what you run.  I expect that your k, ad, disad has impacts and I want you to tell me how I weight them at the end of the round. Don’t be afraid to collapse to arguments you are winning, and be clear in what your case is and how it functions in the round.  If there is anything I missed please feel free to ask.

Tiffany Dykstra - Utah

Experience… I did HS policy for 4 years and competed in parli and LD for four years in college- this is my fourth year coaching/judging.   I consider myself tabula rasa, I like well warranted and clearly explained arguments. Beyond that, I’ll listen to almost anything. If no one defends an alternative framework, I’ll revert to policy making.   Point of orders..… Although I don’t have a problem with speed, I struggle keeping up with confusing, messy or inarticulate speeches. Because this can be a problem in rebuttals, I appreciate points of order. I will do my best to protect but it’s just a much better idea to call out new arguments as you hear them. I will never dock speaker points unless you are excessively calling illegitimate POI’s for the sake of disrupting your opponent.   Speaker points…. I usually won’t give lower than a 25 unless you are extremely offensive or dishonest. 26-28 is my average. I will reward excellent articulation, efficiency and strategic decision-making.   Critical arguments…. I am open to critical debate but I usually don’t like voting on kritiks without an alternative. I also don’t like rejection alternatives. That’s not to say that I won’t vote for a reject alt, just that I appreciate more creativity and imagination. And I also always want an alt text. Critical affirmatives are fine with me, just be sure to clearly explain and justify your framework. If you read a kritik it has to be unconditional, I don’t like multiple advocacies or reverting advocacies. I am completely open to performance, but I don’t have a lot of experience evaluating these arguments in a debate context. As long as you are sufficiently knowledgeable and can clearly explain your position we shouldn’t have a problem.   Topicality…..I actually really enjoy a good topicality debate but I would prefer you to have some in round abuse. For me, evaluating potential abuse is problematic. Also, I will never vote on an RVI.   Impacts… It’s super important that you’re weighing things for me. Please, do not make ridiculous or warrantless dehumanization claims. I feel like this desensitizes people to real dehumanization and makes it less likely that people will recognize and respond to actual instances of dehumanization.

Travis Roberts - Hutchinson CC

n/a

Will Van Treuren - CU

Experience: I debated for four years in high school policy and four years in college parli. I have coached CU for four years and a high school team for one. I enjoy the activity of debate immensely and see my role as a judge to keep my biases out of the round and let you play the game how you see fit. I will happily listen to traditional debate, the K, theory, performances, anything you want to do, and try to evaluate the arguments objectively and within the context of the debate. Here are my current preferences/biases formed over my time in debate. They are guidelines; you can convince me any of them are wrong (i.e. you still have to win that multiple conditional advocacies are bad, there are good reasons for them): Multiple conditional advocacies – I tend to believe multiple conditional advocacies are abusive to the affirmative. Frameworks that procedurally exclude offense – (like ‘aff can’t weigh their case because fiat is illusory’) are not particularly persuasive to me. If a framework question is unresolved I will default to thinking of myself as a policy maker and of the teams as advocates for the policies they are defending.  Alternate frameworks often lack a way to compare impacts (e.g. what is a methodology or ontology DA?) and I will compare the world of the alternative to the world of the plan in terms of articulated consequences (impacts) without filter unless you provide a clear decision criteria for what impacts to include or exclude. Case debate – I think the state of case construction and the level of case debate in parli is bad. Most cases I have seen in the last two years of judging have had internal contradictions/tension that were not exploited by the LOC. I reward clever case argumentation, and wish it would be a larger portion of LOC strategies. In particular smart defense in conjunction with a case specific disad or turn will often be more demonstrative of intelligence and clever strategic thinking (to me) than reading several counterplans and resolving aff offense with conditionality (same goes for smart defense coupled with a few clear pieces of offense against a CP, K, DA or whatever). Impact calculus – I assess internally consistent arguments that clearly articulate incentive structures (check out Stephen Moncriefs excellent philosophy for more) for various actors as far more probable impacts/links/uniquenesses. If your scenario 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. I will vote on RVIs if they are entirely unanswered, but my threshold here is very high – I think RVIs are stupid. I hold no bias for or against specification arguments.  I default to competing interpretations but think that the aff can easily win reasons why they are bad and/or their interp is good enough. In round abuse is not necessary. I think that PIC’s encourage strategic and in depth debate. It will be hard to convince me that they are bad without a more nuanced argument about functional and textual competition. I am a fan of most counterplans that are not veto-cheato style, but can more easily be convinced that plan contingent counterplans are abusive. My default ordering for argument evaluation is procedural then all other arguments equally unless arguments about the sequencing are made (i.e, impact filters, ontology precedes something, etc.). You can change my default. I think death is probably worse than dehumanization and that body counts are a more effective way to get my ballot then nebulous claims about dehum. However, I think that teams can seriously improve on impact calculus and more complex weighing of dehum versus death or probability vs. magnitude could be fertile ground to win an otherwise unwinnable debate. Style and speaker points: The only stylistic thing that I think merits inclusion is that I dislike arrogant or mean debaters. Intensity is encouraged but very easy to do that without being rude. I like to reward clever decision-making and technical prowess more than eloquence or being funny (but those things will help you as well). If you are not taking the debate seriously I will not enjoy judging you, and while I will try to make sure that doesn't impact my decision, it will likely influence speaker points. Critical/performance arguments: I am happy to listen to critical or performance arguments by either side. I think that a clear framework for my role as a judge needs to be established and that the alternative have explanation. I have backfile knowledge of many criticisms but am not deep on the literature so your arguments will have to be explained. I think that affirmatives under utilize ethics or critical style advantages and enjoy the strategic options they introduce into the debate. Being ‘contradictory’ with other negative positions doesn’t seem like a problem in a world of conditionality. Contrary to my reputation as an anti-K hack I frequently vote for criticisms but I have never voted for Baudrillard and Nietzsche (not to say that I won’t, just a word of caution).

Zach Tschida - UCLA

Zach Tschida - UNR

My name is Zach Tschida and I am currently coaching Policy and Parli debate at Whitman College. Last year I coached at the University of Puget Sound and judged at 31 tournaments (mostly parli tournaments and high school policy tournaments, but I judged at Gonzaga, UNLV and the WNPT). I competed in debate for seven years total throughout high school and college, and I spent four years at UPS competing primarily in parli debate. I have a year and a half of college policy debating experience.<o:p></o:p>   <o:p></o:p>   Disposition and Preferences<o:p></o:p>   <o:p></o:p>   My most fundamental belief about debate is that, at least in terms of what arguments ‘should’ be available to each team, access to theory allows debate to be self-correcting. As a result, I do not believe that any type of argument is inherently prohibited. Of course, I lean in particular directions on various theoretical issues (to be discussed below). Since I am uncomfortable with ignoring any argument simply on principle, I think it is incumbent upon each team to present any objection to their opponents’ argument selection. Because I think theory has the power to correct imbalances in debate, I am always willing to adjust my predispositions to the particular debate.<o:p></o:p>   <o:p></o:p>   I am committed to giving equal weight to all types of arguments, but I do particularly enjoy Kritiks and Theory. I do not wish to encourage you to alter your strategy in favor of my preferences, although I realize this is somewhat inevitable. If you enjoy debating a politics DA, for example, then I would much rather watch that debate because you will likely be able to present your favored arguments in a more nuanced and persuasive manner. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p></o:p>   In terms of speaker points, my range is 27-29. I prioritize rewarding strategic decisions and clean execution of those strategies.<o:p></o:p>   <o:p></o:p>   Specific issues:<o:p></o:p>   <o:p></o:p>   Theory<o:p></o:p>   <o:p></o:p>   I enjoy theory debates that are well contextualized and thoughtful. <o:p></o:p>   In terms of CP theory, I think conditionality is good, not really compelled by conditionality bad unless there are more than 2 conditional strategies and the squo – but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote on conditionality bad if you mishandle it. <o:p></o:p>   If your 2NR strategy includes a CP or other advocacy that was originally identified as conditional, I will not evaluate the world of the status quo (I will only consider the CP as your advocacy) – unless I am explicitly told otherwise.<o:p></o:p>   PICs are generally legitimate, but I do find the theory against some subsets of CPs to be pretty compelling. For example, I am typically persuaded by theory against delay and consult CPs.<o:p></o:p>   <o:p></o:p>   <o:p></o:p>   Kritiks<o:p></o:p>   <o:p></o:p>   In general, I would not say I am ‘well-read’ on all fields of literature, but I would say that I have a decent understanding of most types of kritiks. I majored in Economics and Political Theory, and consequently I am most familiar with Kritiks related to those fields – but I always enjoy hearing arguments that are novel to me. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p></o:p>   I think K Affs are acceptable and, if deployed well, can provide thoughtful insight specific to the topic. As I said, nothing is ‘off the table,’ so I do not automatically bind Affirmatives to presenting a topical plan text.<o:p></o:p>   <o:p></o:p>   However, because most Kritiks fundamentally argue that we should be responsible for our rhetorical choices, I think this places a reciprocal burden on teams advocating Kritiks to defend their choices. In this sense, if you read a plan text, I think you are responsible for defending its hypothetical enactment; if you do not read a plan text, I think you are still responsible for defending a stable and well-articulated advocacy.<o:p></o:p>

2013 Utah Swing: Great Salt Lake Invitational