FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

AJ Taula - Truman

n/a

Adam Blood - UCMO

Amanda (Ataiyan) Stauder - McKendree

Section 1: General Information I debated policy and public forum in high school for four years, debated four years for McKendree doing Parli and some LD. I coached at McKendree for three years before beginning coaching at a local high school last year. Speed –I am competent at flowing debates but admit that I am a little less in the know about current issues and slower in terms of speed than I was when I was still debating. If I can’t understand you or you’re going too fast I will let you know. If I’m confused about a position I will look confused. On critical arguments go slower. I generally protect the PMR but just in case I miss something you should call points of order if you think the argument will matter in the decision for the round. Points of order and of inquiry are not your speech time and not a time to make an argument-- they are for question asking or to challenge whether an argument is new. If someone says no to a question do not just talk loudly over them and ask anyway/comment on the round. Disadvantages- do the impact calculus work in the rebuttals and make sure that the rebuttals include explicit extensions of the position you want me to vote on. Politics- I do not follow domestic politics closely if at all. I do not know which senator is from where and what they think. I did debate in college and have a political science degree so you don’t have to dumb things down, just make sure to clearly explain your story and why points matter on politics disadvantages. Section 2: Specific Inquiries Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? I try to give the median of speaker points. Higher if you really impress me, lower if you are really offensive or particularly bad at speaking. Stuttering, disorganization, and a lack of understanding about how positions interact will also not be good for your speaker points. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I didn’t read critiques when I debated but I think I am more critical argument friendly than I was a few years ago, though they are not my favorite. I do not understand nor do I have a background in post-modern literature and the jargon does not make sense to me. Say critical things and use regular words and I should be more than able to follow along. Explain a voting rational for critical arguments over the others in the debate to help me construct a decision for one. Critical affirmatives I like less- I think you should affirm the resolution. I am likely to not vote for performance affs and really critical affirmatives- it will be an uphill battle for you and probably not bode well for your speaker points. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I view topicality in terms of competing interpretations- standards claims with impacts to education or ground I find much more compelling that abuse claims and reverse voters, though I’m sure most people feel this way. In-round abuse not necessary but you do need to articulate what, as the negative, what you do not get access to in the world of your interpretation and then why I should care (ie how it affects debate, education, ground, etc). For affs, you have to have a clear and supported counter interp and your own counterstandards if you want me to not vote negative. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms – textual competition ok? functional competition? PICS are okay, specify the status of the CP so we’re all on the same page from the beginning, not voting for the CP means just that- I can still vote negative on other arguments in the debate. Reading CP with K’s is okay but you should not go for a combination of those. You can run a K and a CP but you need to pick one in the MO and adequately kick the other which means you have to answer the offense first of course. CP theory I understand but am not particularly opinionated about. Keeping theory arguments to a minimum is probably best thought sometimes they are warranted when you’re caught off guard or the CP is actually really abusive. Theory arguments are okay but I am more reluctant to vote on them. 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 kritiks, then CP/DA/Aff. The order of priority is also up for debate. Framework arguments indicate how to evaluate the kritik verses the aff. 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")? When not explicitly weighted by the debaters- people dying outweighs human rights abuses. Human rights abuses are the “root to all violence ever” without examples and as a blanketed claim will not get you far with me. Concrete impacts are preferable but some topics lend themselves more readily to arguments about human rights. Which is more important is up for debate and dependent on the context, and resolution, those arguments are made in.

Amber Holt - Cameron

n/a

Amorette Hinderaker - TCU

n/a

Ben Robin - WKU

Brian Swafford - Northwest MO

n/a

Bridget Kraft - Loyol Chicago

Brin Walters - UNL

n/a

Brit Isbell - Jewell

Brittani Farrington - Wheaton

I was a policy debater in high school and then debated 2 years open parli for Wheaton College. I'm familiar with standard position types and am not opposed in principle to voting on any type of argument. Procedurals are fine; Kritiks are also fine, though both teams should be crystal clear about their frameworks (especially with how to weigh distinct theoretical positions against each other). I'm not opposed to speed in constructive speeches (though, when giving intricate analyses, it can be counter-productive), but in the rebuttals, emphasis should shift toward crystallization: for example, "we're beating them on the following three arguments," followed by a numbered list, sounds like a helpful organizing framework. Finally, be courteous and respectful to opponents, especially when asking/receiving points of information!

Bryan Brooks - Hillsdale

n/a

CJ Hunt - McNeese State

n/a

Cassie Craft - Marian Univ

n/a

Chad Meadows - WKU

Debate should reward hard work. Your strategies and in round execution should reflect intensive research and thought about the topic/your opponents arguments. My speaker points AND ballot will be used to reinforce a curriculum that normalizes debate practices I believe are needed for the overall health of the community. 1 -Evidence Debate should be a referendum on the quality and quantity of research done first, and then a matter of execution later. I will reward debaters who do excellent and thorough research over debaters who have “slick tricks” to win debates. I think evidence is VERY important, its quality and qualifications should be debated. I will usually prefer excellent evidence to spin. When comparing a good card which was not well explained/had no spin vs. no card or a bad card with excellent spin I will typically prefer the good card. I will call for cards after the debate. I will generally only call for evidence which is referenced in the final two rebuttals. Refer to evidence by last name and date after it has been cited in the first instance. If you do not READILY share citations and evidence with your opponent in the round - I WILL be cranky, probably vote against you, or at the very least give you TERRIBLE speaker points. 2 - Speed/Flowing If speaking at a more rapid rate is used to advance more scholarship in the round, I encourage debaters to speak quickly. If speaking quickly devolves into assaulting the round with a barrage of bad arguments in the hope that your opponent will not clash with them all, my ballot and speaker points will not encourage this practice. I keep an excellent and detailed flow. However, winning for me is more about establishing a coherent and researched explanation of the world rather than extending a specific argument. An argument is not “true” because it is extended on one sheet of paper if it is logically answered by evidence on another sheet of paper or later on the line by line. You can check your rhetorical bullying at the door. Posturing, repeating yourself (even loudly), insulting your opponents (except during cross-x), or insisting that I will "ALWAYS vote here" are probably a waste of your time. 3 - Argument Selection Any argument that advances argument on the desirability of the resolution through valid decision making is persuasive. The source of argumentation should be left up to the debaters. I am very unlikely to be persuaded that the source of evidence justifies its exclusion. In particular I am unconvinced the methodology, epistemology, ontology, and other indicts pertaining to the foundation of the affirmative are unjustified avenues of research to explore in debate. Above all else, the content of your argument should not be used to duck clash. Specific Issues: 1 - Topicality is a voter and not a reverse voter. "Proving abuse" is irrelevant, well explained standards are not. 2 – The affirmative does not have to specify more than is required to affirm the resolution. I encourage Affirmatives to dismiss specs/vagueness and other procedurals without implications for the topicality of the affirmative with absolute disregard. 3 – Conditionality is logical, restraints on logical decision making are only justified in extreme circumstances.  4 – There is nothing implied in the plan. Consult, process, and other counterplans which include the entirety of the plan text are not competitive. 5 – I will decide if the counterplan is competitive by evaluating if the permutation is better than the counterplan alone or if the plan is better than counterplan. Ideological, philosophical, and redudancy standards for competiton are not persuasive and not useful for making decisions. 6 – I mediate my preferences for arguably silly counterplans like agent, international, and PICS/PECS primarily based upon the quality of the counterplan solvency evidence. 7 – Direction/Strength of link evidence is more important than “controlling uniqueness” This is PARTICULARLY true when BOTH sides have compelling and recent uniqueness evidence. Uniqueness is a strong factor in the relative probability of the direction of the link, if you don't have uniqueness evidence you are behind.  8 - I do not have a "threshold" on topicality. A vote for T is just as internally valid as a vote for a DA. I prefer topicality arguments with topic specific interpretation and violation evidence. I will CLOSELY evaluate your explanation on the link and impact of your standards. 9 - I am very unlikely to make a decision primarily based upon defensive arguments. <a href="mailto:chadwickmeadows@gmail.com">chadwickmeadows@gmail.com</a>

Charlie Mulvey - Harper

Clara Adkins - Marshall

n/a

Daniel Hogan - Sterling

Danny Ray - Marshall

n/a

Darrell Farmer - UNL

n/a

David Bowers - Sterling

Generally speaking I think that you should do what you like in debate and I will do my best to evaluate whatever that may be, the more clear you can be the better RFD you’ll receive I imagine.  Please, ask questions if you have them, my email is <a href="mailto:dbowers01@sterling.edu">dbowers01@sterling.edu</a> if you have any prior to the tournament.  I debated in various places and in varied formats. Collegiate competition in CEDA, PARLI & LD for Hutchinson Community College, Barton Community College, Kansas City Kansas Community College and Sterling College. Theory—Competing interps makes the most sense to me, always, abuse in round is an impact to a standard.  This is probably the only place that I would make a definitive stand on anything.  Impacts to standards are critical in evaluating any procedural question, that doesn’t mean “education is important” it means “education is important because…” Counter plans—I don’t have any problem with any cp.  The only thing I’d have to add here is that is in regards to theory.  PICS, ect theory is probably a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Disads—These are neat things to do.  I need you to spend a second extending arguments that are winning you the round but PLEASE do not feel like you have to extend the entire shell.  Any impact is fine, I really don’t care as long as in some point in the debate there’s impact calc. Da K—This is fine.  I think that in order to vote on it I need more than “State bad”.  I also rarely think that framework means that you drop the team, but rather it means that you get to weight the aff. Performance—These are cool, and I know this sounds stupid but do them well.  Don’t do it because it’s weird, or fun, or something.  I feel like I haven’t said much, mainly it’s because I don’t have a ton of preferences.  Like I said above, I’d much prefer to let you do what you do in debates.  But please, if there are questions please ask.

David Bailey - SBU

n/a

David Trumble - St. Anselm

n/a

Deion Hawkins - Marshall

n/a

Gary Harmon - KWU

I have coached a long time.  I am familiar with theory and practice.  I believe argumentation is a search for the probable truth and not game playing.  I believe arguments should be prima facie when presented.  I don't hear as well as I used to.  It does affect my ability to listen to speed.  If you are clear, I can handle a pretty fast rate.  However, use speed only when you have so much to say that you need it to meet time restraints.  Speed plus poor use of time is not good.  Procedurals should only be used when there is abuse. I enjoy good argumentation.

Heather Walters - Missouri State

In my ideal debate world, the affirmative would read a topical plan and defend the implementation of that plan.  The negative would read disadvantages, counterplans, and case turns/defense.  Topical research is probably my most favorite part of debate, so I would assume that I would have a tendency to reward teams that I see as participating in the same way I view the game. I get that my ideal debate world isn't everyone's ideal debate world.  I also vote for teams that prefer to run Topicality, Kritiks, or other arguments as their "go to" strategies.  Good critical debaters explain specific links to the affirmative case and spend some time discussing how their argument relates to the impacts that are being claimed by the affirmative team. I also think it helps a lot to have specific analogies or empirical examples to prove how your argument is true/has been true throughout history. I expect that paperless teams will be professional and efficient about flashing evidence to the other team. It annoys me when teams flash large amounts of evidence they don't intend to read or couldn't possibly read in a speech to the other team and expect them to wade through it.  It should go without saying that I expect that you won't "steal" prep time in the process of flashing, or any other time really.  It also annoys me when teams don't flow just because they are "viewing" the evidence in real time.     I expect that teams will post their cites to the wiki as soon as the debate is over, and ideally before I give my decision and otherwise participate in information sharing efforts.   I like to have a copy of speeches flashed to me as well so I can follow along with what everyone else sees in the debate and because I think it makes the decision making process go faster. The best way to get high speaker points from me is to be clear, be polite, participate fully in your cross-examinations and use them to your advantage to point out flaws in your opponents’ arguments, try hard, and use appropriate humor.  Ask me questions if this doesnt cover what you need to know or you can't find the answer from someone else that I have judged/coached.  Obviously there will be tons of other things I think about debates that I haven't posted here.  Have fun.

Ian Hopkins - Miami U

n/a

Isaac Mayeux - Cedarville

Isaac Mayeux Judging Philosophy   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 for two years with Cedarville University from 2006 to 2008. I’m an English professor now, so I like stories. I also enjoy literary theory, so I’m familiar with some of the theorists people use as the basis of their kritiks. This is my first year as a judge, and I’ve been to Mile High, Webster, Wheaton, and Loyola so far.   Tabula Rasa is probably the most important concept to me as a debate judge. I don’t plan on voting anyone down because I find their argument morally repugnant. It’s the job of the debaters to tell me why or why not a certain position is morally acceptable. Aside from the basic rules of NPDA, such as protecting from new arguments during the rebuttal speeches, I view everything in the debate round as a set of conventions and preferences. As such, I’ll listen to, flow, and vote on just about any argument. For example, I have voted on counterplans that I felt were abusive because the affirmative did nothing to show me why the counterplan was abusive. Within the framework of the NPDA rules, do whatever you want; just be polite to others.    Speed should be fine. I’ll tell you if you’re going too fast or if you’re unclear, but I've judged a number of high-level rounds and I haven’t done this so far.   Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.   Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given.   I tend give 26-27 points for speeches that I think are decent. A 28 signifies a really good speech, while a 29 means the speech was excellent. If I give a 30, I probably think this speech was nearly perfect; a 30 is probably also a funny speech.   How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?    I appreciate a well-run kritik, but I probably won’t vote on it without solid examples of how the other team bites the K. I see no reason why the affirmative couldn’t run a critical argument, whether it’s a kritik or a critically framed affirmative. I do think it’s a problem if a negative bites its own K, but I wouldn’t vote on that without the affirmative making that argument and supplying examples of how the negative bites. Overall, I’d say that the negative should do their best to put arguments on case without biting their own K. For instance, if part of the K is that impacts are bad (I’ve heard this with Camus, Baudrillard, and maybe Becker), the negative team should probably avoid using impacts in the round.   Performance based arguments… I personally would probably rather not see performance-based arguments, but I’m open to them nonetheless.   Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?    I would be willing to vote on topicality as long as the negative proves that the affirmative can’t uphold the resolution with its interpretation. Proving abuse makes that argument much stronger, of course. I don’t see how I can vote on T without an example of what the interpretation should have been, so competing interpretations seem rather important.   Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?   PICs are typically fine, but I have seen cases where a PIC is somewhat abusive. For instance, if we’re talking about a bill in congress with hundreds of pages and you remove a single page, then that might be a problem. Identifying the status of the counterplan is generally a good idea. Functional competition is inherently important. Textual competition is less important to me. If a counterplan isn’t textually competitive and it causes abuse, then the affirmative can make those arguments about why I should vote on abuse.   Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)   As long as both teams agree, I’m fine with it.   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?)?   I would use the ordering laid out in this question: procedurals, kritiks, and then case.    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 don’t think arguments have inherent weight. Arguments weigh no more than what the debaters make them weigh in the round via rhetoric. For example, if the PMC has a decent economic advantage but no one talks about it ever again in the following speeches, then that advantage stops mattering to the round. I’ll probably give the most weight to whatever arguments are most discussed. When looking at opposing claims, I’ll lean towards whomever has the best narrative. I don’t favor concrete impacts over abstract impacts or vice versa, but I expect debaters to tell me specifically why an abstract impact like “dehumanization” is particularly important compared to a concrete impact like “one million deaths.”

Jack Rogers - UCMO

Jacob Jones - IUPUI

Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.) o  Parli debate 2 years, coach/judge 2 years Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) o  I accept trichot arguments if they are justified well. I am likely to accept resolutional analysis that takes a fact/value and turns it into a policy round. Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making o  Ability to speak will effect speaker points, but not actual outcome. The only way the ability to speak effects round outcome is how it applies to the clarity of the arguments presented. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making o  On-case is important to me, either by linking well the opp off-case to gov case, or by providing direct response. Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks o  I accept CPs, perms, Ks, etc. I will vote on T. Preferences on calling Points of Order.   o  Call “point of order,” Judge stops time and asks for violation, then asks opponent for response, then gives decision and continues.

Jacob Stutzman - OKCU

22 years in debate, HS policy, NFA-LD, but mostly NPDA (judging for the last 14 years).  This year I’ve been in tab a lot, so I haven’t judged many rounds. I want the debaters to decide the form and substance of the round.  I’m not opposed to any particular argument or strategy that you feel fits the purpose of the debate. Framework debates are good, but rarely dispositive. Absent a specified framework for viewing the round, I default to whatever makes it easiest for me to render a decision. I get very frustrated by debaters who do not think their way through the round. This shows up when debaters don’t make connections between positions or go after obvious deficits in the other team’s arguments. If you can’t compare solvency of the plan vs. the CP or give me specific link analysis on the K, then something is wrong. On the flip side, debaters who do those things usually make it easy for me to vote for them. Smart debaters are the ones who take the easy ways out of the round. I’d like a copy of plan and CP/alt text. Perm text too, if possible. I tend to prioritize probability in impacts, so tell the better story on your positions. Regardless of how fast you’re going, I’ll let you know if you’re not clear. Please take into consideration the size and shape of the room and any other atmospheric factors that may complicate my hearing you. I prefer that you only call points of order on arguments that are likely to be very important to my decision. Calling points simply to disrupt the speaker or to contest minor arguments will be given very little leeway before I start docking speaker points. Absent punishment for that sort of stuff, exclusive language, or otherwise improper behavior toward your opponents, speaker points are usually 25-29, very rarely above that, and are decided based on the amount of enjoyment I get out of your participation in the debate round. Make smart choices and explain those choices to me well, and you’ll come in at the top of that scale. Don’t assume I know your lit on the K. Explain the warrants to me and make the links very explicit.

Jason Edgar - Crowder

n/a

Jeff Przybylo - Harper

John Boyer - Lafayette

n/a

Jon Sheldon - IUPUI

Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.) o  Parli debate 3 years, coach/judge 2 years Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) o  I accept trichotomy argumentation if it is justified and run well. I am likely to accept resolutional analysis that takes a fact/value and turns it into a policy round, as long as there is propper agumentation.  Stock-issues and burdens by Government or Opposition can affect the outcome of the round (if the Gov. does not meet their burden, they lose). Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making o  Ability to speak will effect speaker points, but not the actual outcome unless the clarity of the argumentation is poor.  Attitude and behavior, specifically rude or un-sportsman like behavior, can affect the outcome of the round. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making o  Clash is very important.  On-Case and Off-Case argumentation is crucial to clash and a solid well run round. Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks o  I accept all theoretical argumentation as long as it is justified and well done.  Poorly ran theoretical and procedural arguments will not be voted on, but good ones will. Preferences on calling Points of Order.   o  Call “Point of Order,” Judge stops time and asks for violation, then asks opponent for response, then gives decision and continues.  This applies to "Point of Personal Privilege" as well.

Jory Baker - Northwest MO

n/a

Josh Melby - Wheaton

This is my eighth year involved in the wider debate community. In high school, I mainly competed in public forum debate. I have two years experience in parli. I am a typical flow judge but believe that presentation matters. I have a high threshold for low probability scenarios. I like government creativity so a simple t shell won't win me on topicality. I also don't like voting for blatantly untopical plans. I like hearing debate theory arguments; thus, I enjoy seeing good k-debate. I err gov often on perm theory so make sure your mutual exclusivity is air tight. I usually would default to opp defending squo if cp fails. Any other questions, ask before the round!

Josh Crowton - FSU

n/a

Justin McIlwee - IUPUI

Katie Hodgdon - CMU

Ken Corbit -

Kevin Garner (Hired) - Jewell

Experience: 1 year of NDT at University of Kansas; 3 1/2 years of parli at William Jewell College; 2 year parli coach at Texas Tech University; 6 years parli coach at William Jewell College.  Note: I have been out of the activity since the fall of 2015. I judged at one tournament since and kept up with the pace. Section 1: General Information - I am a flow critic who evaluates the round through net benefits unless told otherwise. If a distinction does exist between pre/post fiat, you should tell me how to weigh all the arguments. I generally do not find arguments that seek to prevent the negative team from competing compelling (i.e. "you can't run DAs, etc). I am fine with discursive impacts, but make sure all can access the round. You don't get to win simply because you are aff. I also do not like fatr/value debate and have a low threshold for voting on "Fact/Value bad" arguments. - I am frustrated by the trend of parli to reward unclear, blippy debates that lack substance. I give preference to warranted arguments and clash as compared to a dropped blip that was not developed. An argument is not one line! The above is especially true concerning impacts; a quick blip on “Resource wars = extinction” does not mean anything nor will I just assume the number of people who die as a result of your impacts; YOU MUST DO THE WORK! - I can flow a pretty fast pace, but there is such a thing as too fast and really such a thing as unclear. If I do not flow your arguments due to excess speed/lack of clarity, your fault, not mine. - I will give you a few seconds to get a drink and order, but I am frustrated with stealing prep. I may begin time if I think you are taking too long (you will know I am irritated when I ask you for the order). - You cannot perm a DA….period! - I believe that you should take a question if your opponent wants one concerning a new advocacy (plan, CP, alt text, and if perm is more than “Do Both”). - Slow down and read your plan texts/interps/counter-interps twice unless you plan on giving me a copy - If you say “x argument is for cheaters,” you will probably lose my ballot. There is a difference between claiming an argument is bad/should not be ran and making an attack against a team. If a team has cheated, that is to be determined by the tournament, not in round. - I do not understand rudeness. Being rude does not help your arguments and only gets me irritated. Sarcasm and banter are fine, but there are limits. 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. The aff/neg can run critical arguments; make sure you have a framework and alternative and be clear as to how I evaluate critical arguments with non-critical arguments. Also, dropping authors’ names and using big words does not mean the K is good; make sure you know what you are talking about or there is a good chance, I won’t. The alt should be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions. - I do not vote on Speed Ks (Update: There is a potential I could find this argument compelling, if framed correctly, when it becomes apparent that the sole purpose of using speed in a round is to exclude another team....but this is a stretch in most instances). - I will let teams debate out the legitimacy of contradictions. Performance based arguments… I will not exclude any arguments. Just make sure you have a clear framework to evaluate the argument and have an alternative Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I require you to win the argument and have a voter…. I do not require a counter interpretation; I just highly doubt you will win T without one Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? The opp should identify the status and if not, should allow the gov to ask what it is (without counting it as a question). The CP should also be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions about the CP. I will let the debaters debate out CP theory for PICS, perms, etc. 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?)? I default to the weighing mechanism established (so if you say net ben and I am not told when to evaluate T, I will evaluate it as a decision of cost/benefit instead of as an a-priori issue). In a round with T and Ks, teams would be wise to debate out which one comes first. 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 love the buzz terms “time frame,” “magnitude,” and “probability.” Debaters should use these. One million deaths will always come before an unwarranted dehum claim. Debaters should also tell me which impact standard takes priority. I also do not consider internal links, impacts. Telling me “the economy goes down” does not mean anything. Also how do I evaluate quality of life?

Kevin Kulshrestha - OSU

n/a

Kiefer Storrer - KWU

I like to listen to good arguments.  Do not assert if you do not also give support (evidence in LD) for what you assert.  I debated 4 years in high school and four years in college. I understand debate theory, but do not enjoy debates that venture from the directives of the resolution.  Use theory only to lead you to arguments or to stem abuse. I don't enjoy speed for speed purposes.

Kim Runnion - Lafayette

n/a

Konye Ori - IUPUI

Kristi Scholten - Truman

n/a

Kyle Dennis - Jewell

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

Lauren Morgan - COD

I coach parliamentary debate at a community college on a circuit that emphasizes clear communication (no speed and spread), use of general knowledge, and persuasiveness. My teams do not debate on NPDA or IPDA circuits, so I am not used to hearing speed and spread; it is difficult for me to follow.  I appreciate debaters who are able to adjust their speaking style.  I stress use of the weigining mechanism; if it is the criteria by which debaters ask me to judge the debate, I expect debaters to make use of the weighing mechanism throughout the debate.   I am also not impressed by "preponderance of evidence," especially if it is simply meant to overwhelm the other team.  I expect strong argumentation (reasoning and evidnece), but teams may utilize different types of evidence (i.e. reasoning by sign).  Avoidance of logical fallacies is paramount.  Topicality arguments are okay, but a team must have very strong, clear reasoning to call T.  If teams are condescending or overly aggressive in their communication style, that is cause for me to stop listening and may cost you the debate.

Leah Frey - Ottawa

n/a

Leigh Cummings - Ottawa

n/a

Margutt Hill - Ottawa

n/a

Mark Turner - KWU

I have judged for a long time.  My children debated in high school, and I have judged since.  I mainly judge individual events. I look for the message being sent by the performer and look for consistancy and support.  I expect normal presentation skills.  I like to be entertained as well.

Marty Feeney - Simpson College

Mary Kate Kelly - UCMO

Mat Myles - McKendree

Matt Beifuss - COD

Matt Reisener - Loyol Chicago

Matt Weibel - ISU

I am brand new to debate. I have only attended one lecture on this format of debate and have very limited exposure to the activity. I participated in IE events throughout my collegiate career at Moraine Valley Community College and Bradley University. I will place emphasis on the logical sense an argument makes and the interaction between arguments in the round. I will not give claims as much weight as I will give a well developed argument that is composed of a claim and warrants which are supported by evidence. I believe this is a communication event and that the rate that the debaters speak at should be understandable and accessible to anyone (this means that I will not favor speed in the round). I am not easily persuaded by nuclear extinction, but rather a clear story that leads to a logical conclusion (do not take this to mean that I will not listen to extinction arguments, just ensure you have all the steps necessary to get to extinction). Procedural arguments will not be particularly persuasive to me as I do not fully understand how they function in debate; however, if there is a clear violation of topicality or you can show in the round how you were harmed by the way an argument was framed or the type of argument that was made I am willing to listen and vote on procedural arguments. I just ask that you are very clear in your violation and demonstrate why I should vote for you on a procedural argument. I have heard of an argument that is known as a kritik, but I do not know what they are, how they function, or what to even do with them. I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE you to not run these as it will result in me scratching my head and you probably ending up being upset with the decision. The simpler the debate is kept the easier it will be for me to render a decision that is based on the arguments in the round and not based on who has the best tie and spoke the prettiest. Additionally, I have been informed that speaker points are very important in debate. That being said, I take delivery VERY seriously and strongly believe in professional courtesy and employing word economy (it's not always what you say, but how you say it). Keep in mind there is a difference between being snarky and being rude. Your speaker points will reflect your attitude in round and the way in which you present your arguments. Additionally, avoid acronyms as much as possible as I am not extremely familiar with the jargon. The more explicit you are about what you are saying and what argument of your opponent's you are responding to, the easier it will be for you to win the round. Please ask me if you have any questions prior to the beginning of the round.

Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale

n/a

Melissa Gomez - COD

Nancy Jackson - Marshall

n/a

Nichelle McNabb - Otterbein

n/a

Nick Prephan - Marshall

n/a

Nick Garcia - OSU

n/a

Nikki Freeman - UCMO

Nikki Overcash - UIS

n/a

Robert Markstrom - McNeese State

n/a

Russ Luce - Truman

n/a

Ryan Rigda - CMU

Ryan Louis - Ottawa

n/a

Sarah Collins - Cameron

n/a

Shanna Carlson - ISU

Background: I competed in parliamentary and LD debate for Washburn University for five years. I am currently the assistant debate coach at Illinois State University. I believe that the debate is yours to be had, but there are a few things that you should know: 1. Blippy, warrantless debates are mind numbing. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. This usually occurs at the top of the AC/NC when you are trying to be "clever." Less "clever," more intelligent. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence. 2. I don't really care about speed--go as fast as you want as long as you are clear and warranted. I will give you two verbal "clears" if you are going too fast or I cannot understand you. After that I quit flowing and if I do not flow it I do not evaluate it. 3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not like moral obligations as I do not believe that they are usually warranted and I caution you in running these in front of me. I do not believe that all impacts have to go to extinction or nuclear war, but that they should be quantifiable in some manner. 4. Run whatever strategy you want--I will do my best to evaluate whatever you give me in whatever frame I'm supposed to--if you don't give me the tools...I default to policy maker, if it's clearly not a policy maker paradigm round for some reason I'll make something up to vote on...basically, your safest bet is to tell me where to vote. 5. If you are rude, I will not hesitate to tank your speaker points. There is a difference between confidence and rudeness. 6. I am not the best with kritiks. I will vote on them, but you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative, and alt solvency (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like and how my ballot functions to get us there. 7. If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow. 8. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round. 9. Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. 10. I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision. Really, I'm open to anything. Debate, have fun, and be engaging. Ask me any questions you may have before the start of the round so that we can all be on the same page :)

Shea Holland - UCMO

Sohail Jouya - MoWestern

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

2014 Gorlok Gala