FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Alec Baker - Lewis & Clark

n/a

Amanda Taylor - Carroll

n/a

Amir Goodarzi - UCLA

Andrew Grimalda - Concordia-CA

n/a

Annie Berry - Azusa

n/a

Antonio De La Garza - NAU

n/a

Brad Krupicka - Lewis & Clark

Brian DeLong - IU

n/a

Brian DeLong - IU

n/a

Brittney Bryant - U of Houston

n/a

Caitlyn Burford - PLNU

n/a

Colin Patrick - Texas Tech

n/a

Connie Frazier - Utah

n/a

Dena Counts - ACU

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

Eric Peatross - USU

n/a

Geoffrey BrodakSilva - CSULA

My comments in this paradigm should be understood as the horizon from my point of view--not dictates.  I love debate because it allows teams to argue about what they feel is important. I have been active in debate for over 20 years at both the high school and the college level.  In that time, I have watched as 2 documentary film crews followed two separate teams on mine (1 high school, 1 college).  I have worked several summer institutes, coached in the Northwest and Southwest, started an English Language Debate League in Mexico City and continue working with the LA Metro League.  I am currently the Director at Cal State LA and have judged about 15 rounds this year. Many years ago I wrote an article about why I think the tricotomy, while conceptually helpful, fails to provide a fair and debater centered approach to topic interpretation.  I feel much the same way about the stock issues, where inherency plays the role of fact, harms the role of value, and solvency playing policy.  Like most of the policy-maker paradigm, I see significance and topicality as derivative of the coordination of other three.  That is to say, I will use my real-world experiences both in and out of rounds, and therefore cannot feign ignorance of their import. I do not feel that the ability to speak quickly is even close to one of the most significant things I have learned from forensics.  I can flow fast debate because I have been trained to, not because I enjoy the tactic.  I do not feel that rate is a substitute for making strategic choices. I believe that the negative has the burden of rejoinder and, as such, must respond to the substantive arguments of the affirmative.  I dislike the 1-off LOC because while tactical choices are made, it also necessitates a “going for everything” strategy that does not necessitate making strategic choices. I rarely vote on procedural arguments because they are usually pale shadows of a more important substantive issue.  There have been times when there is clearly articulated in-round abuse; but it goes without saying that the procedural argument trades off with another actual position, not a potential position. A counterplan needs to test the solvency of the affirmative’s advocacy, which is to say, it competes with the plan on the level of net benefits.  Both textual and functional competition have the possibility of fulfilling this standard, if they can demonstrate an opportunity cost.  Since uniqueness can be counterplanned, the status of the advocacy need not be unconditional.  A permutation is the plan plus any part of the counterplan--“Do both” is not a permutation. Kritik is a label to describe arguments that do not easily fit into either the stock issues or the policy maker paradigm.  Teams should feel free to use “framework” to ease this disparity, but not as a substitute for demonstration of an alternative.  However, I do believe it is possible to defend rejection as such an alternative. Points of order should be called if you are worried that a rebuttal argument is not being understood as new.  I will protect teams from arguments that create a new strategic field once rebuttals have begun.  In preliminary debates, points of order will be well taken or not; in out-rounds, points of orders will be taken under consideration. At the end of the round, the best arguments win.

Grant Tovmasian - CSULA

Grant Tovmasian - Glendale, CA

n/a

Guy McHendry - Utah

Jacki Evans - Utah

James Kozinski - Utah

Jared Bressler - Texas Tech

n/a

Jess Jensen-Ryan - Wyoming

n/a

Jordan Innerarity - UT-Tyler

n/a

Juan Victorio - CSULA

KB Hom - Utah

n/a

Kathy Leslie - Utah

n/a

Konrad Hack - Concordia-CA

n/a

Kristine Clancy - Pepperdine

Kyle Cheesewright - SIU

Lee Bjerregaard - Snow

Lewis Silver - Whitman

n/a

Malynda Bjerregaard - Snow

Marvin Dailey - U of Houston

n/a

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.

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

Michael Moran - Mesa State

n/a

Mike Fain - U of Houston

n/a

Nicholas Russell - Utah

n/a

Nick Robinson - Whitman

Nicole Brown - Texas Tech

n/a

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.

Rob Layne - Texas Tech

n/a

Rosie Russo - Utah

Sarah Crachiolo - Long Beach

Savannah Sanberg - Metro

n/a

Seth Hunter - Wiley

n/a

Seth Hunter - UHD

n/a

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

<h1>Skip Rutledge                                                                 Point Loma Nazarene University</h1> 25 +/- years judging debate                                                    14+ years judging NPDA Parliamentary 6 +/- years as a competitor in policy debate (college and high school)   Academic Debate Background: Competed 6 years +/- in team policy in High School and College (NDT at Claremont). Then coached and judged at the high school level for a number of years as a part time volunteer.  Returned to academia and have coached since 1989 in CEDA, we switched to Parli in about 1995. In addition to coaching teams and judging at tournaments I have been active in NPDA and helped at Parli Summer Workshops to keep fresh and abreast of new ideas.  I have also tried to contribute conference papers and a few journal articles on debate.  I love well reasoned and supported theory arguments where debaters are aware of the foundational issues and prior research on topic.   Judging Paradigm: For lack of a better term, I embrace what I know of as the Argumentation Critic paradigm, but certainly not to the exclusion of appreciating strong delivery skills.  I encourage fewer, well-developed arguments with clear claims, reasonable warrants, and strong evidentiary support to back up those warrants, rather than the shotgun method of throwing lots of claims out, hoping something slips through the others’ defense.  That probably makes me more of a big picture critic, rather than one that gets fixated on the minutia. I do recognize too, that big pictures can be defined by small brushstrokes, or that details can count heavily in proving big arguments. I don’t hold Parli case/plans to the same level of proof that I might in CEDA/NDT since they are constructed in 15 minutes without direct access to deep research, so spec arguments are not very compelling in many cases.  Disadvantages, solvency arguments, or counter-plans share the same burden of proof that the government does. Impacts are very important, but the establishing the links are critical. Debaters should be well read in current events, philosophy and especially political philosophy.  Poorly constructed arguments and/or blatant misstatements will not prevail just because someone happens to not respond to them.  While I attempt to minimize intervention, claims like “200 million Americans a year are dying of AIDS” does not become true just because it might be dropped (taken from an actual round).  I think your word is your bond.  If you say it with conviction, you are attesting that it is true.  If you are not quite certain, it is preferable to frame a claim in that manner.  The prohibition on reading evidence in a round is not carte blanche to make up whatever unsubstantiated claims you think may advance your arguments. I enjoy case clash, smart arguments, exposing logical fallacies, using humor, etc. . .  I dislike rudeness, overly quick delivery, or presenting counter warrants rather than engaging case straight up.  I will try to make the decision based the content of the arguments and also rely on delivery for determining speaker points.  It is not uncommon for me to give low point wins.  I also think it is the debaters’ job to debate the resolution, not my own views on styles of debate I prefer to hear.  If a resolution has strong value implications, please debate it as such. Likewise if there is a strong policy slant, debate it as such.  Additionally, I do not feel that there is only one way to debate.  I will not try to implement unwritten rules such as the Government must argue for a change in the status quo.  They certainly should if the resolution requires it, but may not have to if it does not.  I think the resolution is key to the debate.  This does not negate Kritiks. It invites sound logic and framing of Kritiks and alternatives. I do have some a priori biases.  I believe the resolution is what is being debated. That has implications on counter plans.  My a priori bias is that they should not be topical and should be competitive.  Just because the negative team finds another, perhaps even “better way” than the affirmative chose, to prove the resolution is true, does not seem to me to automatically warrant a negative ballot. I am though open to good theory debates, You should first know my beginning basis of understanding on this issue.  And although I enjoyed debating in NDT and CEDA, I think the speed of delivery in that format was built around the need to read evidence and specific research to back up the claims and warrants.  The absence of such evidence reading in NPDA should invite more considerate and slower argument analysis, not provide opportunities to shotgun out many more, less developed arguments.  I believe the reason for not allowing researched evidence briefs to be read in this particular format of debate was to encourage public focused debate, which implies a slower rate of delivery and genuine consideration of case.  The gamey technique of negatives throwing out lots of flak, or obfuscating issues to throw off governments time use, only to collapse to a few key arguments, does not seem to advance strong argumentation development, a fair testing of the resolution, or solid speaking skills..

Steve Mitchell - Texas Tech

n/a

Thomas McCloskey - Long Beach

n/a

Tiffany Dykstra - Texas Tech

n/a

William Murphy - Metro

n/a

Zach Moss - Concordia-CA

n/a

Zoey DeWolf - NAU

n/a

2011 GSL/NAU Swing, Pt. 1

Judge Philosophies

Alec Baker - Lewis &amp; Clark

Amanda Taylor - Carroll

Amir Goodarzi - UCLA

Andrew Grimalda - Concordia-CA

Annie Berry - Azusa

Antonio De La Garza - NAU

Brad Krupicka - Lewis &amp; Clark

Brian DeLong - IU

Brian DeLong - IU

Brittney Bryant - U of Houston

Caitlyn Burford - PLNU

Colin Patrick - Texas Tech

Connie Frazier - Utah

Dena Counts - ACU

Eric Peatross - USU

Geoffrey BrodakSilva - CSULA

Grant Tovmasian - CSULA

Grant Tovmasian - Glendale, CA

Guy McHendry - Utah

Jacki Evans - Utah

James Kozinski - Utah

Jared Bressler - Texas Tech

Jess Jensen-Ryan - Wyoming

Jordan Innerarity - UT-Tyler

Juan Victorio - CSULA

KB Hom - Utah

Kathy Leslie - Utah

Konrad Hack - Concordia-CA

Kristine Clancy - Pepperdine

Kyle Cheesewright - SIU

Lee Bjerregaard - Snow

Lewis Silver - Whitman

Malynda Bjerregaard - Snow

Marvin Dailey - U of Houston

Matthew Hogan - UNR

Michael Middleton - Utah

Michael Moran - Mesa State

Mike Fain - U of Houston

Nicholas Russell - Utah

Nick Robinson - Whitman

Nicole Brown - Texas Tech

Phil Sharp - UNR

Rob Layne - Texas Tech

Rosie Russo - Utah

Sarah Crachiolo - Long Beach

Savannah Sanberg - Metro

Seth Hunter - Wiley

Seth Hunter - UHD

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

Steve Mitchell - Texas Tech

Thomas McCloskey - Long Beach

Tiffany Dykstra - Texas Tech

William Murphy - Metro

Zach Moss - Concordia-CA

Zoey DeWolf - NAU

Alec Baker - Lewis & Clark

Brad Krupicka - Lewis & Clark