FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Blood - UNL

n/a

Alley Agee - OKCU

I competed in Parli at Oklahoma City University for four years, and this is my first year judging, but I’ve been with the team for most of the season. I flow on my laptop so I don’t anticipate having any problems with speed if you are clear, but I will let you know if you’re going too fast for me. I ran pretty much everything when I debated, and I will vote on almost anything of substance if you give me good reason to. I love a good K debate, but I also find them hard to judge if they get messy. This usually happens when the links are not clear, the team does not understand their lit, or the alt and alt solvency aren’t clearly explained. Avoid that and you should be fine. I also really dig straight up debates with lots of offense and clear impact weighing, especially if it involves unique positions I did not expect or critical impacts. My favorite rounds are those that combine both policy and critical positions. I will vote on T, but you need to win the entire page for me to vote there, meaning you should probably spend the majority of your rebuttal on it. This is also pretty much how it goes for all theory positions. CP’s are cool, non-topical plan texts are cool, performance arguments are cool, anything can be cool if you tell me why. I don’t particularly enjoy the strategy of “let’s dump everything we can into the round and grab on to what the other team drops,” especially if what they drop is a blippy, poorly warranted or explained argument. On the other hand, I think debates should end smaller and deeper than where they began. Find that balance and you will do well in front of me. If you have any specific questions you can certainly ask them before the round begins, but just know that there really aren’t any positions or strategies that I won’t vote for if given smart, solid arguments as to why I should. I do have a small bone to pick with personal advocacy positions. Don’t ask me to personally advocate for a position I do not believe in, especially if it requires me to vote that debate, making change in the world, feminism, etc. are not important. Additionally, if you’re going to put your name on your plan text or alt text, as in “Alley Agee believes that,” you need to give me some good solvency arguments as to why that’s better than just a regular plan text. I usually give speaker points ranging from 24-28 points. 29s and 30s are not impossible, but the speech better be pretty damn good. I reward smart arguments, in round thinking, and offense. Have fun and be smart!

Andrew Dykstal - Hillsdale

n/a

Andrew Hart - Missouri State

Experience: 3 years of high school policy debate, 5 years of NDT/CEDA debate at Miami University and Missouri State University.    I am open to most positions, but I usually default to in round argumentation, analysis and clash over other factors that might occur in a debate. I generally have few biases about how a debate should go down and what few I have I will do my best to lock away during the round.    Most of my experience in debate was on the policy side of thing. That doesn't make me uncomfortable with kritiks, but I  also wouldn't say I'm familiar with much of the critical literature base.  Even more so than in policy rounds, solid evidence analysis and application is very important for me to vote on a critical issue on either the affirmative or the negative. For critical affirmatives, I do think it's important to answer any topicality or framework arguments presented by the negative. For kritiks against these types of affirmatives, I think it's important to contextualize the philosophies and arguments in each in relation to the other side. Maybe even more than in policy v critical debates clash here is very important to me.    On the policy side of things, I love to see a good case debate, and think that evidence analysis(of both your own and your opponent's evidence) is of the utmost importance in these debates.  I love a good discussion and comparison of impacts.    I'm also open to most counterplans, especially if they have a solvency advocate. In terms of CP theory, I will probably default to rejecting the argument rather than the team in most instances if the affirmative wins the theory debate. On conditionality, the affirmative must have a pretty specific scenario on the negative's abuse in the round for me to vote on it. I much prefer the specificity of that distinction over the nebulous "bad for debate" generality.    Cross-X's importance, I think, is usually undervalued by most, and an effective use of CX time is very important. I will likely not flow it, like I would a speech, but I am more likely to note important concessions or admissions made in CX.     Speed is fine, but I think clarity is far more important that showing me that you can read a bunch of cards.

Annie Reisener - Simpson College

Anthony Cavaiani - Marian Univ

n/a

Brandon McCasland - MSU

n/a

Brent Brossmann - JCU

Note: For those whoâ€™ve known me as a judge previously, things have changed. I have been in debate continuously since 1976. I am a policy maker. I believe in the value of policy debate. The organization specifies that it embraces policy debate. I will make my decisions on policy. Thus, there are two ways you can win my ballot: 1. Have the best policy. 2. Prove that your opponentâ€™s practice is so egregious that I need to vote against them regardless of the policy. That could be for offensive discourse or a theory violation. If you want to make that â€œthree reasons,â€ go ahead. Topicality is a voting issue. It is not a reverse voting issue. The negative doesnâ€™t actually win topicality without demonstrating in-round abuse. In-round abuse can be proven by demonstrating that arguments to which you should have access were denied to you by the affirmativeâ€™s plan. You donâ€™t actually have to run and lose the arguments, but you do need to win that these were arguments you should have had access to, that they were important and that the plan denied you access. Counterplans need to be competitive. The counterplan must be better than the combination of the plan and counterplan (net benefits) or better than the plan alone IF the policies are mutually exclusive. As a policy maker, risk is important. Please use impact comparisons to weigh rounds for me. Probability, magnitude, risk and time frame are arguments that both debaters should use in rebuttals to weigh the round for me. Prioritize those that help you win and explain why they are more important. Some kritiks are legitimate arguments in policy debate. Others are not. If the kritik impacts the round at a policy level, it is clearly legitimate. Some of the philosophical or discourse assumptions behind a policy or its presentation need to be challenged with respect to the policy itself. Some kritiks may identify particularly nasty things your opponent has done in a round. These kritiks are legitimate. The rest should not be run in front of me. Iâ€™ll be happy to explain if you ask. The bottom line is that debaters need to respond to each otherâ€™s arguments in meaningful ways. However, there is a strong presumption against any argument which does not directly relate to the policy being discussed in the round, unless it is a compelling argument as to why your opponent is abusive either in theory (not playing fairly) or in discourse (is actually offensive). I will continue to defend the value of policy debate. To help the tournament run on time, Iâ€™ll submit a ballot before I comment. After that, Iâ€™ll be happy to disclose. The best education in debate happens in the post-round discussion and the more quickly that follows the end of the round, the more relevant the information is. I donâ€™t care about speed, per se. I do care about clarity. I know that some debaters care about speed. My policy is that the person who wants it to be slower â€œwinsâ€ that issue. So, if someone is too fast, simply say â€œslower please.â€ If someone says that to you, slow down. Have fun. Be kind. Learn a lot. Donâ€™t forget to smile or laugh. Remember, your opponents are here because they share your love of the event. We all dedicate huge amounts of time and passion. Respect that and them. (And, the last name is pronounced with a long O, like a bro.)

Brent Nicholson - McKendree

This philosophy should give you a look into the way I think, but I believe that it will be totally sufficient given my outlook on debate. In the past, I’ve tried to be comprehensive, but I think that that lead to folks misinterpreting my thoughts on debate. Do not take my brevity to mean that I don’t have thoughts about debate, but rather that I think my own opinions ought not matter to you as a debater – this is, after all, your activity. My goal as a judge is to adapt to the round that the debaters have. This may seem to be empty to y’all, and that’s fine, but my goal as a coach and judge is to facilitate debate rounds that debaters want to have. I feel capable of judging any debate and would encourage you to do you when I am your judge. With that said, you’ll probably want a few things that I start off with to keep in mind. - I assume all negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. - I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts. - Give your opponents’ arguments the benefit of the doubt. They’re probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning. - Role of the ballot arguments do not make sense to me: if you have to win that the aff/neg does something good to meet the role of the ballot, it seems like you’ve already won the regular-old impact debate. Keep trying! But be aware that I was probably already voting for you if you won an impact.

Brian Swafford - Northwest MO

n/a

Brin Walters - Henderson

n/a

Briya Grice - TSU

n/a

Bryan Brooks - Hillsdale

n/a

Cami Smith - Boise State

Caroline Campana - ISU

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

Chris Outzen - Truman

Judging Philosophy: NFA-LD I take the position that any form of public communication, including debate, is an audience-centric endeavor. The role of each debater is not to convince each other of their rightness in an isolated box at the front of the room; it is to convince the judge that they are the more right debater in that round. To that end, adaptation of strategy and delivery of argument necessitates consideration of both your opponent AND the experience of the judge. To that end, the following are some of my expectations and constraints as a judge. Judge’s General Debate Experience: I am the primary IE coach at my program and this is my 2nd year judging LD regularly. I have 1-semester college policy experience from and undergraduate class, so you can expect that I will understand most debate terminology but that my flowing and listening speed will not be up to par with those who have been in the debate community consistently for years. Speaker Speed: I believe that LD inhabits a unique position where both argumentation and strong speaking skills can be valued. However, I have noticed with the advent of digital files and including judges in sharing chains that these are treated as permission to spread, even in front of judges without years of spreading/flowing experince. At this point, we reduce debate to a comparison of evidence, not a speaking and oral argument exercise. Therefore, I am fine with a faster than conversational rate of speaking but I have no tolerance for true spreading you might see in NDT/CEDA or some parli formats. If you are looking for a brightline, consider the climax of a Poetry Interpretation. A little faster than that would be fine, but not much more. If agreed to by both debaters, I’m willing to alert you in-round if you are going too fast for my comprehension. Argument Explanation: You are welcome to run any arguments you wish in front of me in varying levels of complexity. However, remember the audience-centric principle. Your audience/judge may not be familiar with every aspect of this topic. Thus, your debate is not just debating; it is a teachable moment where you can give information about the topic in order to justify your win. This means you should be practicing breaking down complex concepts and providing strong links between the different pieces of your argument. Ethical Speaking: Engaging in unethical or obfuscating behavior, including misleading card cutting, deliberate spreading against judge preference, ignoring the audience as consumers of your message, or styling your arguments deliberately to be overly complex/dense, are not acceptable as a speaker. You are also expected to grant your opponent the same ground/courtesy as you expect. Example: If you cut off their answers in CX to move on to your next question, do not talk over/ignore them when they do the same thing in their CX. Topicality-I’m open to T arguments. Proven abuse is the best course to win a T argument, but I’m willing to consider potential abuse if the possible abuse is of a significant magnitude. Kritiks-I’m open to K debate. However, I expect K-affs to pass the test of Topicality; make sure you can explain how it links to the resolution. Additionally, do keep in mind that K debate is still a growing area of argumentation in the LD community, so please consider the principles laid out above with regard to Argument Explanation if you run a K on either side of the debate. To summarize, I'm open to all forms of argumentation on the premise that a) They are understandable and follow basic ethical guidelines; and b) They are justified by you as fitting in the round and resolution.

Christopher Bond - MWSU

Clara Adkins - Marshall

n/a

Cory Freivogel - McKendree

CORY FREIVOGEL JUDGE PHILOSOPHY Hi! My name is Cory Freivogel. I did four years of policy debate in high school in the Chicago area. After that, I spent four years doing Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate at McKendree University. I’m currently the assistant coach there. I will preface this philosophy in the way that most people do - I think you should debate however you debate best in front of me. That being said, I obviously have certain biases and I think you should be familiar with them. Some general notes…. 1. I think debate is first and foremost a game. I think you should do whatever it takes to win that game, and I respect people who play the game with a lot of heart and lot of intensity. 2. I like people who do work. This doesn‘t mean that I won‘t vote for lazy, trite strategies - I have no problem doing that. It just means I respect people who put in extra effort to develop or update sweet arguments. 3. I like people that talk pretty. I certainly don’t think you should ever sacrifice strategy and execution for eloquence, but if you can give a smart speech that’s funny and engaging it will bode well for you. Also, don’t try to be funny if you’re not. 4. Don’t dismiss defensive arguments. Of course I think you should be making a wide variety of offensive arguments, but do not assume you’ll be fine by saying that 9 smart, defensive answers to your affirmative are just defense. DISADVANTAGES I like these arguments a lot. Running well-researched disadvantages with a diverse set of link arguments and huge probable impacts is the easiest way into my heart. Generic disadvantages like politics, business confidence, etc. are fine as well so long as they’re specifically tailored to the affirmative and properly executed. Similarly, I think smart negatives (and affirmatives as well) will do a great deal of work comparing impacts. If you do not do this I will make my own determination about the probability and magnitude of a disadvantage’s impact. I am also probably more concerned about probability than some other judges may be. I am not often impressed by massive impacts that are highly improbable and under-explained. Phrases like “even a 1% risk of our impact outweighs the entire risk of the aff” are typically code for “our impact is absurd and our disadvantage barely links.” COUNTER PLANS These arguments are sweet as well. I typically err negative on arguments like PIC’s bad, conditionality bad, etc. I will vote on these arguments, but it will be an uphill battle. The argument that I should reject the argument rather than the team is usually a winner. I think condition, consultation and other silly process counter plans are of questionable legitimacy and I can definitely be more persuaded to drop teams on theory if they’re extending these arguments. That being said I like counter plans of all shapes and sizes and think that if you aren’t reading one or straight turning the affirmative, then you’re probably in trouble. KRITIKS I am not as hostile to these arguments as most people probably think I am. I am, however, probably as unlikely to understand these arguments as most people think I am. I have not and probably will not ever read any traditional or post-modern philosophy unless someone requires me to do so. I’m not trying to dog on anyone that does, but it’s just not my thang. This is mainly meant as a word of caution. If you run the kritik I will listen, flow and do my best to make a fair decision. But, I am not the best critic for you. If you somehow find me in the back of the room and you have nothing but your criticism, it will serve you well to slow down and eliminate all the jargon you imagine I may be familiar with. That being said, if you’re an affirmative answering these arguments do not assume I will let you get away with answering kritiks poorly. If you mischaracterize the criticism, concede framework arguments, or rely on defense then I’ll probably notice and you’ll lose. TOPICALITY I like good topicality debates a lot. If you are affirmative, then you need to meet the interpretation or you need a counter interpretation. Absent one of those things, you will probably lose. If you are going for or answering topicality you should be comparing standards and voting issues in the same way that you compare impacts. If you do not compare standards, it will make it very difficult for me to make a good decision and it will be bad for everyone. I am also more persuaded by arguments about ground than limits. I could care less if your interpretation “explodes the topic” given that the topic will only exist once and you don’t have to do any research in the future. ASPEC / OSPEC / FSPEC / BILL NUMBER SPEC / COMMITTEE ORIGINATION SPEC / BLAH BLAH SPEC…. These arguments are really not my cup of tea. This is mostly because I don’t like giant pieces of shit in my tea. I understand the strategic utility of introducing these arguments in the LOC, but I cannot understand why one would choose to extend them in the MO unless there was some incredible example of abuse. It is difficult for me to imagine giving any higher than a 27 to even the most persuasive extension of a generic specification argument. THE CASE People forget about the case all the time. That makes me sad because I love a good case debate. If you’re the LOC and you don’t have an incredible counter plan, then you should be putting a lot of offense on the case. Similarly, the MG should be extending and utilizing the case throughout his or her speech. It frustrates me to no end when affirmative teams assume they can entirely ignore the case until the PMR when it suddenly becomes the focus of the debate. Personally, I think you should have to extend the affirmative throughout the debate. POINTS OF ORDER I keep a pretty decent flow and think I can detect new arguments on my own. That being said, they are allowed by the rules and if you think there is a particularly egregious example of an abusive new argument feel free to call it. However, if I know an argument is new I will protect the opposite team regardless of whether or not you say it's new. If you call a bunch of unnecessary points of order on teams just to disrupt their speech or be funny or whatever I will be very unhappy. I hated when teams did that when I debated and I imagine I will hate it even more as a judge. Don't do it. POINTS OF INFORMATION I think as a general rule you should probably accept two of these per speech. I could pretty easily be persuaded to pull the trigger on a "they didn't take any questions" type of procedural. Also, no means no. If someone won't take your question don't yell that question or jump around waving your hands like an idiot or yelling "Please!! Just one!!" The only exceptions to this are in instances when you need to know the status of a counterplan or to have a text repeated / handed to you. I don't think you should have to raise your hand to ask for those things. Maybe there is no legitimate justification for that, but that just happens to be what I think. COVERAGE - I wanted to make a point of discussing this because at some point late last season I found myself voting on weak impact prioritization arguments and extinction claims that others chose to disregard. I’ve found myself doing this more and more. I believe that Claim + Warrant = An Argument. Whether that warrant is fantastic, idiotic or just okay is not for me to decide. Conceded arguments are true arguments - no matter how stupid or abhorrent they might be (I‘m looking at you “Dehumanization outweighs everything!“). If you ignore a potentially round-changing argument because you thought it was dumb or you just missed it, you’re probably going to lose.  Some judges don’t vote on these types of arguments because they are not thoroughly explained, they aren’t “fleshed out” or they aren’t given priority in the rebuttals. I understand and respect that philosophy, I just don‘t share it. I am constantly pushing myself to keep a flow that is as organized and detailed as humanly possible. In the context of debate, I find few things more resplendently beautiful than an immaculate flow. There are no computers, blocks or prep time in this game. As such, It is impossible to become a great debater without first mastering the art of the flow. I refuse to reward debaters that do not excel at the fundamentals. Perhaps it is unfair of me to push my dorky fetishization of the flow onto you, but I'm going to do it anyways. You should be aware of that.  DISCLAIMER: I love good, smart debates with dope strategies on both sides. Please DO NOT use this philosophy to justify ruining the debate with a whole mess of garbage arguments. I’ll probably give you a 17 or have Ben Reid wring out his sweat-soiled clothes on you.

Daniel Hogan - Sterling

Danny Ray - Marshall

n/a

Darrel Farmer - Henderson

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

Derek Pritchett - UCM

<h3>NPDA</h3> Overview I competed in Policy Debate for four years in high school and did Lincoln-Douglas and Parli all throughout college. I am currently a graduate student coach at the University of Central Missouri and I coach and Judge LD and Parli. I tend to default policymaker, but if you want to put me into something else I’ll listen. The debaters should define the round, not the judge. Procedurals I like Topicality and Procedurals if they're warranted (using them as time sucks is a useful strategy as well). For Topicality I usually can be pretty swayed by reasonability claims from the aff, but if there is demonstrable abuse it easily overcome reasonability. Competing Interps are good to use, but I wouldn’t punish an affirmative team for just meeting neg’s interp (assuming they actually do). Disads These are probably the easiest to evaluate, just make sure you do impact calculus for me. I don’t really like politics Das unless there are specific links, brinks, and Internal links. CPs I like CPS a lot, but will vote on a good perm if the competition isn’t good enough. I’ll also listen to theory positions on CPs, but there needs to be proven abuse. Kritiks I’m up to date on several kriticisms, but not so much on others. Just make sure the information is clear. Kritiks need clear links and framework. Alternatives need to be something other than “reject aff” and be something I could actually accomplish. The alt solvency and role of the ballot claims are really important to me when I comes to evaluating the K Kritical Affs/Projects I haven’t judged a ton of projects so far, but I’m fairly receptive to them. I think its negatives job to challenge the methodology of the 1AC. I don’t think procedural arguments/fairness are particularly persuasive against these affirmatives unless leveraged as framework. Speed I should be fine with most speed, but make sure you are clear and enunciate (if not slow down) on taglines and things you need to make sure I flow.   If you have any other questions you can ask me before the round.     <h3>NFA-LD</h3> This same general stuff is true for LD as it is for Parli, but I do default to the rules and need a really good reason to change that.

Dylan Rothermel - Truman

I did 4 years of policy in high school on the national circuit, then 4 years primarily debating Parliamentary (with some LD sprinkled in) in college.  I'm perfectly happy voting for anything, but the sole caveat to that rule is that I'm sorta stupid with critical arguments.  I'm willing to pull the trigger on arguments that are pre-fiat, critical, rhetorical, or whatever your framework-de-jour is, but you may need to slow down and perhaps explain them a little more than average with me.  I like the arguments just fine, I'm just a little too literal minded to grasp them easily.   Another couple warnings - I did plenty of speedy, technical debate in my day, but that wasn't exactly yesterday.  I may ask you to slow down or be clear if I can't understand you.  I won't necessarily hold it against you, though.  I'm also unfamiliar with the topic, so don't rely on any pre-existing specialized knowledge, 'cause I won't have much.   The best way to earn my vote is to write my ballot for me.  Your last speech should be filled with phrases that I can use to justify my vote.  What's dropped, what you're winning, why those things matter, and why the things that you dropped or are losing don't matter.  The more work you do for me, the happier we'll all be.

Elizabeth Hobbs - Truman

Emily Halter - McKendree

Emily Halter McKendree University General Information: I debated policy for 4 years in high school (which I understand is largely irrelevant now, but who knows), and then I did parli for 4 years at Lewis & Clark College, located in the lovely Portland, Oregon. I currently am an assistant coach for McKendree University.  This is my first year coaching and judging. During my debate career I read a variety of different arguments so I am at least familiar with many various arguments and styles of debate.  If I had to choose, I would say I am definitely more comfortable with straight up counter-plan disad style debate.  However, I would also say that I am open to you doing whatever you want in front of me as long as you explain it well.  I expect debaters to tell me what is important, and how I should vote. The only other bit of general information that I will add is that if you are debating a younger or perhaps more experienced team please remember that debate is an educational activity.  I do not look favorably on absolutely face crushing younger teams because that just isn’t necessary. Acknowledge that someone may perhaps not be as familiar with speed or critical arguments, and act accordingly. Answer questions and slow down when asked in these situations. One more thing, debate is fun so debate like you actually care and want to be there.  If you are miserable and sound miserable, I can guarantee that I am miserable listening to you. HAVE FUN!!! Specifics: Speaker Points: Obviously, since I have yet to judge a tournament, I don’t have a speaker point range.  However, I would expect 26-29.5.  That’s a rather broad range, but I guess we will find out once I start giving them. Critically framed arguments: I am fine with criticisms run on the aff or the neg.  I also think that you can read a K with DA’s.  I don’t, however, think you can critique debate as a whole and then read procedurals and disads.  That doesn’t make any sense to me. I am familiar with a variety of criticisms and ended up running them in a decent number of debates, but please don’t confuse that with extensive knowledge of critical literature because that I don’t have.  I understand the K and a have a shallow understanding of authors, but if you read something incredibly nuanced or confusing, please be sure to explain it.  I guess that goes for any criticism; I don’t think it is good debating to confuse the other team with philosophical jargon, and truthfully, there is a good chance you confuse me also.  So read Ks all you want, just please explain them well. As of now, there is no criticism that I really don’t want to hear.  That may change, so as of now I have no preferences. Performance Arguments: I became more comfortable with performance-based arguments during the second semester of last year, as my partner and I read one a few times.  However, I am still much more comfortable and familiar with more “straight-up” debate.  I will listen to performance arguments, and please feel free to read them, but please don’t think that I prefer or am more familiar with this style of debate. Topicality: I would not say that I am a T-hack, but I also would not say that I have a high threshold when it comes to topicality.  I really enjoy good topicality debates when they are technical and clean.  That being said, if a T argument is dumb or insanely counter-intuitive, what a waste of time! I also do not think in round abuse is necessary.  I think that prep skew is a very real thing. If you tell me to evaluate based on reasonability please tell me what that means.  If you just say reasonability without a definition of reasonability, I will not consider that a way to evaluate topicality because I don’t know what that means according to you. Counterplans: Counterplans are beautiful.  I have always loved the counterplan/disad debate.  I think that I would be willing to listen to any counterplan.  That being said, I do think delay counterplans are super cheater.  I will listen to them, and I would never do anything like auto vote against them, but I will be incredibly amenable to a delay bad theory position or perm do the counterplan. In terms of status, I think it is probably the job of the affirmative to ask the status of the counterplan, but it would surely be nice of the negative to incorporate that into the reading of the counterplan “thus the unconditional/conditional counterplan is ….”  Either way I guess.  I don’t have a status preference, just be prepared to justify conditionality if questioned.  That being said, you will have a hard time justifying multiple conditional counterplans or multiple conditional kritiks, because I think that’s dumb and cheating.  Let me clarify, I don’t’ mean you can’t read a conditional counterplan with a conditional kritik.  I mean, that you probably shouldn’t read multiple conditional counterplans or multiple conditional kritiks. Even though I don’t have a problem with conditionality, I have no problem voting on condo-bad if that’s what the debate comes down to. PICS ARE THE BEST THING IN EXISTANCE. I think that a good PIC is probably the most fun part about being negative, and I love to hear them.  That being said, I am FULLY sympathetic to aff teams reading PICS bad, and I strong suggest that they do.  I think PICS are awesome, but they are also probably pretty stinking abusive in many cases, so I am not more likely to vote for a PIC than I am to vote for PICs Bad, all things equal. Sharing flowed arguments: I have never really been in any situation in which this happened.  I guess that’s up to the debaters to do their thang.  I’m not the one debating so it doesn’t really concern me. Order of evaluation in making a decision: I like to think that I will evaluate the arguments the way in which the debaters tell me to evaluate things.  I will default net-benefits, but just tell me how you want me to vote on what position and why.  For the most part, I will evaluate the arguments in the order that they are prioritized by the debaters.  I think the answer to this question is it will largely depend on the round. Comparing abstract impacts: The only noteworthy comment that I have here is that unlike some other people, I don’t think that value to life is the end-all-be-all impact.  I think that if you drop a value to life claim, you can easily recover.  I treat more abstract impacts like any other impacts.  If you read an abstract impact, I need you as the debater to do impact comparison and tell me why the particular impact is more important than nuclear war or whatever. Please just come up and ask me if you have any questions.

Eric Halverson - Simpson College

Eric Arganbright - KWU

n/a

Gabbi Ray - Northwest MO

n/a

Garrett Hayden - Ottawa

n/a

Gloria Batiste- Roberts - TSU

n/a

Gus Foote - Ohio U

n/a

Heather May - Emerson

n/a

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.

Holly Ragan - Truman

Hope Gutierrez - Crowder

n/a

Howie Long - Boise State

Isaac Mayeux - Cedarville U

I debated parli 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 coach, but I judged last year at a handful of tournaments, including NPTE. 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. That being said, the present NPDA rules require that A) the affirmative team affirm the resolution and B) that I vote on something other than personal experience. This means if your opponents convince me that your advocacy is nontopical, I'll vote you down. This also means that I'm not going to vote based on personal characteristics, but rather the arguments themselves. Speed is fine. I’ll tell you if you’re going too fast or if you’re unclear.   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, Lacan, and a few others), 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 - UCM

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

Jeff Przybylo - Harper

Jeremy Frazier - WKU

Jessica Furgerson - WKU

Joe Blasdel - McKendree

Joe Blasdel McKendree University Section 1: General Information 1. I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University.  After a three year hiatus studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so since 2003. 2. In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues).  I am very unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments. 3. On 'trichotomy,' I tend to think the government has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that they are topical.  While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debate, I am open to people choosing to do so.  I’m also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality. 4. If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised.  The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion.  If you’re calling multiple POOs, I will probably not be pleased. 5. I do not think the rules permit splitting the block.  Any responses in the LOR to MG arguments that were dropped by the MO will be considered new.  Additionally, it is rare that I will vote on MO arguments that are not extended in the LOR. 6. I’m not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then warranting them in the MO/PMR.  I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ‘new’ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ‘new’ PMR arguments. Section 2: Specific Inquiries 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given). Typically, my range of speaker points is 26-30, with an average of 28. 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I’m open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for competition and alt solvency than most judges.  I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical.  If they are not topical, I have a very low threshold for voting on topicality/framework. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K. 3. Performance based arguments… Same as above.  I’d be hesitant to run them with me as your critic if they are not topical/competitive. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary.  A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position that’s run – it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground.  I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework – I’m not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an ‘average’ threshold.  I don’t vote on RVIs. On spec, I have a ‘high’ threshold.  Unless there is in-round ground abuse, I’m probably not going to vote on spec.  I would only run spec arguments in front of me if you’re using it as link insurance for another position and the affirmative refuses to answer your questions. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition? All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay), but am growing more frustrated with tiny PICs and other arguably abusive CPs – so this trend may change.  I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized. 6. 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?)? All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework. 7. 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 tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise.  If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.

John Tao - UIUC

I have been involved with the debate community for over a decade now.  I competed policy debate and have been coaching collegiate parli for the past five years first at IUPUI and now at the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign.  At this point in my life I tend to view debate as a game where anything goes.  To that end I am fairly tab.  Run any kind of argument and with enough well argued rhetoric I will absolutely entertain the idea of voting for it.  I'm comfortable with Ks, used to be a theory hack, and think politics is rather generic and trite (but by all means, go for it).  I like being lazy so a clear, organized debate with good use of line- by- line will be helpful, otherwise I start applying your arguments to places or start making arguments for you and then the round REALLY can go either way... and neither team will like that if that were to happen.  Good, solid, impact analysis is always appreciated as well.  I want to know what happens in the world of the plan, in the world without the plan, and how each team is able to access their specific scenarios.  Tell me a story, end in the death of humanity if you want, but make sure it's cohesive and internally consistent and you'll end up winning my vote. With all of that said, technicalwise.  I'm comfortable with all the debate jargon, I'm happy with spreading and will clear you if I feel the need to.  I tend to be pretty expressive and you should be able to tell when something is compelling, what I think of an argument, etc.

John Boyer - Lafayette

n/a

John Markley - UCM

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.

Jon Agnew - Boise State

Saved Philosophy: Last updated: 24-March-2018 I have been involved in competitive forensics for 13 years. I am cool with speed as long as tags for claims are not cumbersome and difficult to flow. I’m cool with just about any argument as long as it is well warranted. I won’t want to hear “genocide good” “rape good” or similar arguments. Moreover, I’m not sure of all the preconceived biases I have about judging debate. I know I am more inclined to prefer probability and timeframe arguments over magnitude. But overall, the game of debate is however you want to play it. Just play it well and play it by the rules. Last thing, as a critic at the end of the round I prioritize arguments that have been denoted in the debate via jargon or argumentation as most important. I always try and work through these arguments before working through the rest of the debate. What I mean by this is questions of: a priori, decision rule, RVI, framework, role of the ballot, role of the critic, theory sheets….I try and resolve these kinds of questions before resolving other substantive issues in the debate. Question 1 : What is your judging philosophy? Background: I debated 4 years in at Hillcrest High School in IF, Idaho. I did 3 years of LD, 1 Year of CX/PF, and speech. I debated Parli/IPDA for 4 years at Boise State and I.E.s. I have been an assistant coach at Boise State since 2013. And this will be my 13th year involved in competitive forensics. Other Background: <ul> <li>I will default Net-Benefits/Policymaker unless told otherwise.</li> <li>I try to be as Tabula Rasa as possible. I don’t want to involve myself in your debate. I don’t have any preconceived biases about what arguments or strategies should or should not be deployed in any given round.</li> <li>I will vote for arguments I do not ideologically agree with every time IF they are won in the round. </li> <li>I am relatively okay with speed. I have difficulty flowing overly cumbersome or wordy taglines. Plan texts, Interpretations, CP Texts, K alts, perms, T vios need to be read slowly twice OR I/your opponents need to be given a copy. I find it difficult to judge textual questions in a debate round when I don’t have the text proper written down word for word.</li> <li>I am lenient to “no warrant” or “gut check” arguments. I don’t want to do the work in your round. I do not want to fill in the blanks for your scenarios. In saying such I will always evaluate a developed warranted impact scenario over a generic one, IF the arguments are won in the round.</li> <li>I think offense and defense are necessary to win debate rounds. I am also relatively lenient on terminal defense. If you win the argument that there is absolutely no risk of a link or impact I will evaluate it strongly. I want to hear intelligent, sound, strategic arguments in every debate round. The aforementioned claim strongly influences my speaker points.</li> <li>My high school coach used to always say “debate is a game you play with your friends”. I identify strongly with the statement. In saying such, please do not put me in the situation where debate is not fun, where any individual (partner, opponents, myself) feels berated, and please do not deploy obscene/vulgar arguments.</li> <li>POO’s: please call them. I usually reply “under consideration”. I’m not lenient on new argumentation in the rebuttals. Honestly, I feel this is important. I tend to flow everything in the debate round. Even if the argument is new in the rebuttal. I feel it is important to call these arguments. I don’t know how well my paradigm works with multiple judges. But ya, POO are ok and encouraged to call.</li> <li>POI’s: please do not get excessive. Teams should probably always answer a question or two. I will give weight to in-round argumentation regarding “you should have taken a question” on any sheet of paper.</li> <li>Speaker points: I tend to give between 26-29.5 at tournaments. 30s definitely occur. So do speaker points below 26. I tend to evaluate these via sound, strategic, intelligent arguments. Delivery/style is not the most important factor for speaker points. I have never looked but I feel like I give higher speaker points than most.</li> </ul>   Case: I’m cool with any type of affirmative strategy (mini-affs, K affs, performance, comp-ad). However, I want to know how your case functions in the round. Framework/RAs are very important. Advantages must have uniqueness, link and an impact. Aff’s should solve for something. Plan texts should be read twice or I/opponents should be given a copy. If you are running performance or a critical affirmative I need to know how it engages the round and resolution. For example, if you are criticizing—topicality, language, semiotics—I need to know how to evaluate these arguments with your opponents. I find these types of debate engaging/fun to judge, but I have often been put into a position where I do not have a clean and accessible framework to evaluate the rhetoric and argumentation in round. Additionally, I have always felt somewhat icky inside when my personal identity or the competitors has been attached to the ballot. If this is important to the round. Framework is everyone’s friend. I want to be as much as a blank slate as possible.   T/Procedurals: I ran a lot of procedurals arguments in college. I feel in order for me to vote on this position I need a clear interpretation explaining how the debate should occur, a violation explaining specifically why your opponents do not meet your interpretation, I need standard(s) to detailing why your interpretation is good and/or why your opponents do not garner/violate them, and a voter(s) demonstrating why I should vote for the argument. Again, please read your interpretation/violation slowly twice or give myself/opponents a copy. I really really enjoy watching good T debate. And vote on T relatively often. Kritiks: my partner and I ran a lot of kritiks in college. I need a clear and accessible thesis. Arguments that tend to be stuffed into kritiks (no value to life, K Alt solves aff, X is root cause of violence) should be well developed. Please engage these arguments on the case debate as well. I am familiar with a lot of the K literature (POMO, Frankfurt School, Lacan). However, I’M NOT AN EXPERT. I think a kritik needs a framework, link, implications, alternative. I am a fan of good kritik debate. I am persuaded by well warranted impact turns to K’s or compelling arguments regarding how the K engages the assumptions that inform the PMC. Please do not prove the “K’s are for cheaters” club by deploying confusing/absurd, and blippy arguments. CP’s: I am not very familiar with the ins and outs of CP’s. Functional CP vs. textual CP debates are usually educational for me. I say that because, I again, am not nearly as familiar with CP debates then K debates. I am not biased on any type of CP theory. I will listen to all types of CPs (consult, agent, delay, multi-actor, multiple, PICS). In saying such, some of these types of CPs are subject to very compelling theoretical arguments about their fairness and educational merit. I think solvency is very important for CP vs Case debates. I like to hear arguments regarding how the CP/Case solves or does not solve each advantage or net/benefit debate. Therefore, if the debate comes down to case vs. CP/NB/DA…solvency is very important for weighing impacts. DA’s: need uniqueness, link, impact to be evaluated. Please explain why the status quo changes post the affirmative plan. I enjoy listening to strategic DA debates. Well-developed impact and link turn arguments make for lovely debate rounds. Defense and offense is usually important to deploy in any DA debates. I find the interaction of these arguments critical in deciding the round. Please explain these relationships in regards to impact calculus. Like I said earlier I tend to evaluate probable scenarios over their magnitude. Politics debates are fun to listen to. I like well warranted scenarios. Additionally, I’m not a fan of perceptual IR DAs (they tend to be under-developed and lack warrants) but nevertheless I will definitely listen to them. If you have any other questions please ask. My email is jonagnew@u.boisestate.edu

Joseph Packer - CMU

I competed and coached in policy debate for 11 years and coached LD for 3. Things to know 1. Reject the argument not the team is my default on theory issues. This means that absent a clearly articulated reason as to why a team should lose the debate I will not vote on theory. (Note: Yes this means even if the other team drops a random voting issue I will not vote against them if you do not provide clear warrants as to why they should lose the debate). 2. Winning topicality or any other theory issue requires more work than winning on a substantive issue. This is to say, if both teams go for substance I have to pick a winner, but if one team goes for theory I can assess that they have not surpassed the burden required to reject the other team. This does not mean that T and theory are unwinnable arguments in front of me. I think I am much more inclined to vote on T than the average LD judge I have encountered. In order to win you should clearly explain your interpretation, explain how the other team has violated it, explain why your interpretation makes for good debates, explain what the opponent does or justifies, and explain why that is bad for debate. 3. Negatives need to make choices in their second speech. I frequently find myself voting against negatives that should be ahead in the debate because they extend too much. This holds especially true when negatives go for a combination of theory and substance. To a lesser extend this is true for affirmatives as well. 4. Presumption goes to the status quo, which means that ties go to the negative (in the world of a counterproposal I lean aff on presumption, but the question is up for debate). 5. Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards by making smart, warranted, analytical arguments. 6. I lean affirmative on most counterproposal theory questions (conditionality, PICs, topical counterplans). The chances of me voting on a consultation counterplan are extremely low. Any counterplan or kritik that can result in the affirmative’s plan is highly suspect. 7. I don’t find many of the kritiks run in LD to be persuasive, but I think this is a function of not adapting to the time constraints and speech times of the activity. If you do read a kritik you should apply it to the affirmative’s case starting in the first speech. If you are only talking about your kritik and not how it interacts with the specifics of the affirmative case, you are unlikely to get my ballot. The more specific the kritik is to the topic or plan the better. 8. Be respectful to the other team.

Kelly Parliament - Cedarville U

I debated for two years at Cedarville University. 1. I try to be tab ras, but as with any human being, I will have biases I suggest you pay close attention to.  2. Although I ran the K quite often as a debater, I've never particularly liked it. Not only do I think solvency take-outs are particularly persuasive, I also have a lot of trouble evaluating frameworks. If you lose the framework debate as neg on the K, you've already lost. Make your framework arguments very, very clear.  3. In general, I've noticed going for the perm is an uphill battle in front of me. While I will try to evaluate it fairly, I think there are other, more valuable arguments you can be going for on the flow.  4. If the other team does not run an argument that a CP is abusive, I will not intervene to protect from abusive CPs. Run alt-actor, 50 states, whatever. I will listen to abuse arguments against the CPs and vote based on who won that argument, not what I think about the CP.  5. I can listen to speed and flow it pretty well, but if you know you're ridiculously fast please look at me and see if I appear to be following along. I tend to not look upon speed bad arguments favorably, but if you mishandle them I very well might vote on them. 6. Use topicality however you want. As a legitimate way out, as a time suck, as an anti-project argument, whatever. Just make sure the interpretation debate and its ties to the standards is clear for me. That's most likely where you'll win.  5. Condo good, condo bad, one conditional, two conditional, two unconditional, I'll listen to whatever. I had a habit of running multiple conditional advocacies in my LOC and running condo bad out of the MG. Whatever works. They're all game pieces.  6. Now to the good stuff: performances and projects. I am very, very biased in favor of framework or abuse arguments when faced with performances or projects. I am very, very unlikely to vote on a performance. Like, unless the opposite team concedes the ballot I will probably not vote on it. Projects I am more open minded about. I will mostly favor a topicality or framework argument, but if these are not structured well or not given the necessary attention, I will vote on the project. If you go all in on the block on topicality when hit with a project or performance, 99% of the time you have my ballot.  7. Warrants are like Ohio: you won't win without them. 8. Call POOs. I try to protect, but it will help me if you call them.

Ken Troyer - Sterling

Keven Rudrow - VSU

.

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 Minch - Truman

Kiefer Storrer - UCM

I default Policy Maker. I enjoy realistic impacts but if y’all want to get into competing terminal impact scenarios I wouldn’t be opposed to that. If you’re going to run theory or kritical positions (with the latter not being just a linear DA) impact out how I’m affected in the round as well as the debate community as a whole. On topicality abuse wise I’ll accept a healthy medium between proven and hypothetical abuse, so if you don’t want to waste two minutes of your speech running a non-unique DA to prove abuse you can just give me the flow of the argument. On the other hand, reasonability is a totally valid counter standard most of the time for me, so while T is definitely a debate to be had, again, there is a reason I default policy maker. Speed is a non-issue, I can flow it fine, but I will say specifically for Parli (because there isn’t carded evidence) I’m not the biggest fan of levels that require double clutching and such…at that point I’m going to feel like you just canned out every word of your position and you’re reciting it instead of arguing it. Rapid delivery is cool, spreading is a legitimate strategy but I’d much rather have you go in depth on two DAs instead of running four or five that just aren’t as well articulated. Experience wise, I competed in Kansas high school policy for four years, did four years of Parli in college, took a year off to judge parli/ld/forensics, and am now assistant coaching at UCM. I believe that debate is a pedagogical activity and that the most important parts of it will be the parts that bleed out into the real world. We are future politicians, lawyers, scholars, rhetoricians, and professors; so ideally all of us involved with this activity will take realistic, impactful ideas and bring them to fruition in the real world. And for those of us that are current or future coaches, I believe we should be striving to instill those real world changes in the future. Have fun, be polite.

Kiera Wilson - Ottawa

n/a

Kim Runnion - Lafayette

n/a

Kris Kueker - Truman

Kristi Scholten - FSU

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.

Kyle Kellam - Marian Univ

n/a

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

Mandy Paris - MSU

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.

Marshall Thompson - Wheaton

Brief History: I did ‘circuit’ LD debate for four years in high-school, graduating in 2011. I have had a good degree of success in LD both as a competitor and coach. I did Parli for about a year and a half at the beginning of college but for various reasons decided not to continue it and have been an assistant coach for the Wheaton team this last year, I have not judged as many parli judges as many people, but have judged a lot of HS LD rounds over the last four years. General (Possibly) Useful Things: While I don’t think that ‘tab’ judging is coherent, my decisions still tend to correspond with those decisions made by other supposedly ‘tab’ judges. I think there is value in having a plurality of modes of discussion in any activity, especially forensics; and will be fairly willing to vote on most arguments assuming you adequately defend them. That said, because of my experience with HS LD I am far more receptive to ‘analytic’ philosophy, especially as regards ethical questions, than most judges in parli (assuming you explain and defend it well). I am almost perturbed by how readily the parli community tends to adopt a vague and poorly defined consequentialist calculous. Certainly I will use a standard of ‘net-benefits’ but if you propose a different one it will not be an uphill battle in front of me, I don’t have any predisposition to assuming net-benefits is the end-all be-all of ethical deliberation. Also because of my experience in HS LD I am probably a better (not necessarily that I am biased in favor of them, but just that I trust my ability to make the right decision) judge for those types of debate that tend towards abstraction ‘philosophy’/’framework’/’theory’ than I am on ‘classic policy’ style or more ‘progressive performative’ style arguments. I default fairly strongly to explicit weighing and give significantly more weight to weighing extended from earlier speeches than to weighing first made in the rebuttals. If there was one thing that I think Parli debaters do in miss adapting to me it is a lack of nuanced weighing, especially when answering theory and Ks (people running theory and Ks tend to weigh a fair amount). Theory: I have a lower threshold for voting on theory arguments than many people in the parli community (especially in my willingness to vote even when there is no ‘actual abuse’). However, I also think that theory debaters in parli are generally very poor because there is a lack of internal coherence between the individual standard arguments and the logic and argument of the voter. Spamming counter standards will be less useful in front of me than weighing a specific standard in terms of its relevance for what matters in debate. Flowing/Speed: I can follow just about any parli speed in the sense of comprehending the arguments being made. That said, I have never been great at flowing (I am dyslexic and so have difficulty recording information in a written fashion). I have not had difficulty in most fast parli rounds, but top speed parli does begin to push my limit in terms of getting everything down. What that means then, is that you can probably go as fast as you want (in terms of my ability to flow, I will still expect you to make arguments in a way your opponent can access), but if you are being both fast and quite blippy I may have a problem. If you use speed to judge develop greater detail to a smaller number of arguments then your fine. Speaks: I try to assign speaks based generally as follows: 30-There was nothing that could have been clearly improved on 29.5-30-Your speeches would probably have beaten the top teams in the country. 29-29.5-Your speeches might not beat, but would hold their own even against the top teams in the country. 28-29-There were no major strategic, argumentative or technical flaws, but the fine-tuning separates these performances from the top ones. 27-28-There were occasional major issues of strategy, clarity, argument quality etc. 26-27-There are major issues with most of distinct aspects of your speeches. My speaks are probably disproportionally influenced by how ‘clever’ I find your arguments and strategies. I will drop your speaks severely for being mean or disrespectful to your opponents. I will drop your speaks severely if your increased debate exposure to exclude your opponent from the activity. You can use speed to develop your own arguments, do not use it to keep your opponents from getting your argument down. You can use Jargon to precisely refer to an idea, but do not use it to keep the idea you are getting at opaque from your opponents.

Marty Feeney - Simpson College

Matt Reisener - Simpson College

Matt Delzer - Simpson College

Matt Beifuss - COD

Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale

n/a

Matthew Warner - Hillsdale

n/a

Matthew Pinckard - Cedarville U

Experience: I competed for Cedarville University for the last two years (2012-2014). During my second year of debate I qualified to NPTE. I would consider myself a competent debater, so I'll know the vast majority of your debate jargon and be able to keep up with the arguments. I've judged at two tournaments this year and haven't had any problems getting back into things. Approach to decision-making: I evaluate impacts. Pretty simple, pretty standard, I know. But if you aren't giving me impacts, you're losing. The rebuttals should take the time to do impact calculus. Tell me which impacts matter more and why. You don't want me to make those decisions for you. Also, I like impact framing. I enjoy a good debate about whether high-magnitude impacts or high-probability impacts (or whatever other sort of weighing mechanism you wanna try). I can definitely be persuaded that we should care more about 2,000 people who will almost certainly die tomorrow than 2 billion who might maybe die in 2 years.   I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but just don't forget that no one is completely unbiased. But I will listen to anything, and I will vote for arguments that I think are absurd but aren't well responded to or than I personally dislike for whatever reason (there are a few noteworthy exceptions, which I will mention as they come up in my philosophy). The exception is that I will refuse to weigh claims that lack any warrant whatsoever. Assertions without warrants are not arguments. My default order of evaluation is procedurals, kritiks (more on that below), and then all on-case arguments. You can convince me otherwise, but just keep this in mind. NOTE FOR PROJECT TEAMS: I don't want to hear your project. I will listen to it, and if you clearly win it I will vote for it, BUT I will be HIGHLY sympathetic to arguments about why we should talk about the topic and why projects are a tool of exclusion and why projects are bad for education and all the other reasons projects are bad. So do us all a favor and talk about the freaking topic. Or strike me if you're that committed to running your project. Relative importance of presentation/communication skills: I mean, they sort of matter for speaks, but they aren't going to influence my decision in the round. Even speaks I primarily decide based off of who debates the best.  On-case argumentation: On-case defense is never as importance as offense (anywhere), but it still matters. Taking out the other team's offense is pretty much essential to outweighing them. Solvency arguments are pretty crucial for winning my ballot, unless the impacts on the negative just massively outweigh the aff.  Critical arguments: K's were never my strong point when I was a debater. I ran them. I won with them a few times. But I was never a great K-debater. However, I generally understand them pretty well, and I'll listen to just about anything . . . with the rare exception that if I find your K to be entirely morally repugnant I very well might vote it down on principle. My threshold here is pretty high though. The only K that I've heard of that would be an automatic downvote is one that essentially boils down to saying we should all commit suicide. (On that note... if you have to read a trigger warning for your K, DON'T READ THE K! Once you've read the trigger warning I will stop listening to you). That being said, if you're debating in front of me and wanna run the K, go for it. Just win your framework, links, impacts, alt/alt solvency and you're golden. But don't consider me a K-hack. I find perf-cons pretty persuasive reasons why the K won't solve, and some solid impact turns are enough to win the aff the debate even if they lose their case. Performance arguments: Eh... please don't. If you reeeeeaaaaally want to run it... fine. I'll listen. I won't vote you down just because you ran a performance. I just don't like them, and honestly, the performance itself is not an argument, so if you spend half of your PMC performing, the neg only has half a PMC to respond to in a full LOC. Counterplans:  I think the neg is entitled to one conditional advocacy. I can be persuaded otherwise for the purpose of a debate round, but that's my default. I have a pretty low threshold for mutual exclusivity (i.e. if the plans can be done at the same time but there's a big DA to doing both but not to the CP alone, then they're competitive via net benefits). I also consider any form of counterplan legitimate until the aff tells me why there's abuse. Aff, if you want to run a procedural against a CP, go for it, but make sure you tell me clearly why it's a voter and not just a reason to shoot down the argument. If you want to know my general bias, I think any CP is theoretically legitimate except for PICs in the case of a resolution that requires the aff to pass a specific piece of legislation. However, delay CPs and consult CPs are pretty easy to beat (can't predct the future, and can't predict other actors' response). Procedurals: On Topicality I don't need to see in-round abuse to vote neg. If the aff isn't topical, they aren't upholding the burden of the aff. Thus they lose. Pretty simple. Aff, you can persuade me otherwise, but it might be an uphill battle.  I do generally need to see in-round abuse for other procedural arguments. You can tell me why I shouldn't need it or just explain to me how you've been abused even without losing links to specific arguments (i.e. running a conditional advocacy has already skewed our strategy), but I do want it to be there.  Please don't run spec arguments. Vagueness and O-spec are fine, but A-spec, E-spec, F-spec, etc. are just not good arguments. If they go absolutely cold-conceded, then maybe I'll vote on them. Same goes with RVIs. All I need is a blip on my flow telling me that I shouldn't vote for it because it's ridiculous and the argument is gone. Points of Order: Go ahead and call them. I'll try to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but admittedly I sometimes get too caught up in the flow of arguments that I don't realize something is new. If the PMR is bringing up a crapload of new arguments, you can stop calling them after 2 or 3. At that point I'll be pretty aware that most of the speech is new.

Melissa Gomez - COD

Mike Eaves - VSU

I am a tabula rasa judge. I debated CEDA for 4 years82-87. Was asst coach for CEDA at FSU for 4 years 89-93, national runnerups in CEDA nats, 1991 Coached CEDA for 7 years 93-2000 at vsu and NPDA since 2000 at vsu. I reward creative interp and good arguments. If you have questions, just ask. I flow specs, procedurals, and other traditional off case args. Aff case must provide equal ground so T checks back abuse. Counterplans are fine...inc PICS and other lesser know CPS incl delay, study, etc. I love political, econ DA..know your story and analysis.    I debated policy in high school and in college. While I coach parli now, I still judge h.s. policy rounds.   Specifics <ol> <li>Speaker points <ol> <li>25-29 usually.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Critical Arguments <ol> <li>I am open to procedurals, and critiques in the round. </li> <li>Framework and criteria will be key.</li> <li>I am open to performance and counter-performance. Debate is a game. Play it well. </li> </ol> </li> <li>Topicality. <ol> <li>I tend to be equal on T. Since there is no resolutions in advance, negative must have T as a check against abusive aff positions. I will vote on RVIs unlike some judges. I have no artificial thresholds on T or procedures.</li> </ol> </li> <li>I am a tabula rasa judge but can default to a policy maker if I am put in that position. <ol> <li> The last two rebuttals are key in parli debate. Please go only for the arguments you are winning, especially when on the negative.</li> </ol> </li> <li> <ol> <li>Speed is great if clear. I will tell you if you need to slow or get clearer. If you ignore me, then I wont get your argument.</li> </ol> </li> </ol> I love to think outside the box. Feel free to run postmodernism, CLS, or any philosophical position. I do not have artificial thresholds on procedurals or critiques.

Mitchell West - UIUC

I competed in parli for three years at IUPUI (having been a founding member of the team) and I approach debate with the standard tabula rasa paradigm.  If you want me to vote in another way give me the framework and debate out why that framework is best. I really appreciate critical thinking and engaging with issues directly, i.e., I love strong clash on case.  I am comfortable with speed, I am comfortable with debate jargon, and I am comfortable with any type of argument that you choose to run including kritiks, topicality, etc.  With that said, I truly appreciate good argumentation so use speed if you can but make sure you're not only using speed for the sake of using speed.  I tend to view debate as a world where you can really explore the deeper implications of policy actions and really appreciate being presented with well- argued, well- reasoned impact analysis.  Show me how you access your impact scenario and show me how to evaluate the world of the plan versus the world of the negative and then really weigh them out.

Nancy Jackson - Marshall

n/a

Nichelle McNabb - Otterbein

n/a

Nick Garcia - OSU

n/a

Nikki Freeman - UCM

Noel Massarelli - JCU

My debate history is policy debate for four years in high school and three years in college. I did college LD debate for one semester. Ultimately I think the debaters are in charge of their own destiny and I’ll vote wherever/however you tell me I should. I like offense. I am willing to vote on defense, but unhappy about it. Good line by line argumentation is always awesome. Good analysis will beat just reading a card (a good card PLUS good analysis is even better). I prefer not to read cards after a round unless there is contention on what that cards actually says. I tend to have an expressive face, not much I can do to stop that. Use this flaw to your advantage! For example if I look baffled, then your argument makes no sense to me.   My policy experience makes me very comfortable with speed. That being said, PLEASE only speak quickly if your words are clear. Speak as fast as you are capable of, not as fast as you potentially could. Slow down during analytical argumentation, I find debaters speed through them and the details become muddled. My policy experience makes me very comfortable with speed. That being said, PLEASE only speak quickly if your words are clear. Speak as fast as you are capable of, not as fast as you potentially could. Slow down during analytical argumentation, I find debaters speed through them and the details become muddled. There are not many arguments that I do not like hearing. I like to think I would vote for anything. That being said, I’m a T hack. But don’t think that means I vote on T left and right. Don’t be afraid to run it if they aren’t topical, but poorly thought out T arguments won’t get you anywhere and might hurt your speaks.   The Kritik is a special animal, in my opinion. If you run the K like the NDT/CEDA people do I think you’re doing it wrong.  Keep your implications tied to policy and try to avoid flowery and long tags on evidence.  Be kind to each other. Ultimately this whole thing is a game and we’re here to have fun. Feel free to ask me any questions you like both before and after the round.

Norell Conroy - Boise State

I've been involved in forensics/parli for five years. I prefer real-world probability over magnitude in impact calculus, even when faced with systemic v. hypothetical if the arguments are well-warrented.  I think the k debate can be super interesting.  I will probably only vote on t if you demonstrate actual in-round abuse--most t debates are less interesting/important than others. Call points of order. Speed is fine, but to a point.  If I can't understand you, I will make it clear.  At that point, if you do not slow down so I can understand you, that is bad for you because I vote based on what is on my flow.  Also, if you don't say something, I won't write it for you--that is, I will (to the best of my ability) not intervene--however, I will hold you accountable if you make offensive claims for the sake of winning (i.e. anything advocating for things like genocide, rape, etc. because you think such an argument functions in a compelling way--in front of me, it doesn't)   Courtesy and civility are vital to this activity. You will lose if you are outwardly rude or uncivil.  Sass and humor are swell, being purposefully mean-spirited is not.

Rebecca Godsey - SBU

n/a

Rosemary Loehr - Jewell

Background:  I debated parli for four years at William Jewell College. General Thoughts: At the end of the round I want debaters to feel like they had the opportunity to contribute something meaningful to the debate space. Please, at least when you’re debating in front of me, try to make that your goal too. Slow down if the situation calls for it, take questions, explain your arguments, don’t be exclusionary.  If you want this activity to be more than a game, if you want this activity to continue to grow, learn, and be instructive, try to reflect that in your round. Speed: I have not judged a debate round in about two years. Keep that in mind when considering how fast you plan on speaking. Don’t forsake speed for clarity and don’t use speed as a tool of exclusion. I would much rather hear a few thoughtful, deep, strategic arguments than a bunch of blippy ones.  Don’t get me wrong, it is great if you can read 16 good arguments against a politics disad in 30 seconds, but that doesn’t mean that you need to.  Sometimes I feel like the normative style of debate has gotten so fast that debaters feel like if they’re not putting out as many arguments as possible they’re doing something wrong.  If you ever feel that pressure know that you shouldn’t have to feel it in front of me.  Slowing down to be thoughtful, more in-depth, and more strategic with your responses will only ever help you. Theory: Having specific abuse isn’t necessary, though it certainly doesn’t hurt. I believe procedurals, and particularly arguments like topicality, are sufficient when they can articulate why another team created limits that negatively implicate the debate space.  I get that these types of arguments are procedurals, but that doesn’t mean they cannot be substantive – so use that to your advantage when debating in front of me. K Affs: I don’t care if K affs support the resolution. K’s in general: Like all offense, the more specific, the more creative, and the more warranted the better off you’ll be.  The strategic utility of Ks is that they should link to just about everything, the substantive utility is that they can reveal problematic underpinnings. Make both of those things work in your favor. Contextualize your links and have a clearly stated thesis/framework. Performance/Narrative-Based Arguments: The last time I judged a debate was NPTE 2015. During a preliminary round of two competing narrative/performance-based arguments, I witnessed two national circuit debaters use their skin color, social, and credentialed/reputational privilege to berate and exclude two women of color. It was the most disturbing round I had every witnessed.   If you’re reading a piece that asks for my ballot to mean something, then on-case arguments aren’t necessarily going to cut it. I’m not going to use my ballot to support behavior that I find unethical or damaging. I will prioritize the safety and validation of vulnerable debaters. I will not be kind to well-credentialed debaters who use their privilege to marginalize others – intentionally or unintentionally. DAs: same as K’s, the more specific, intrinsic, and creative the better. The best DAs, in my mind, turn the AFF, have an auxiliary net benefit, and are also competitive via time frame, magnitude, and/or probability CPs:  I only evaluate functional competition. I think textual competition is a new way of saying Pics bad, plan plus, etc…if the CP is plan plus or if it is an abusive pic, run a theory. Perms: Perms test competition, can resolve links to disads, and can present auxiliary net benefits. If you want to advocate for a perm that is intrinsic or severance, that’s fine, just justify it. Likewise, if you want to argue that something is intrinsic or severance, go ahead. Conditionality: Condo is fine and the calculus behind argument selection is one of most applicable educational benefits of debate. That being said, there is a point to where you are a) being exclusionary or b) sacrificing breadth for depth. I find the style of debate that attempts to overwhelm the team with a multitude of shallow, blippy arguments very unimpressive. Case debate: The ability to quickly recognize and generate offensive from logical inconsistencies in another position is a great skill. Too often LOCs are too quick to ignore holes in cases, or worse, sneaky hidden arguments. Really, the more you engage any position on face, whether it’s the case, the K, the DA, or the CP, the better off you’ll be. Defense:  Thoughtful, strategic defense is very underutilized. I’m perfectly happy assessing that a position has zero risk of an impact if you are fine with giving me in-depth defensive arguments that go beyond yelling, “MAD checks back nuke war”.

Ryan Louis - Ottawa

n/a

Scott Thomson - Ithaca

n/a

Scott Laczko - Chico

Copied over from tabroom. My basic beliefs about debate have not changed. for LD ... rules are debatable the more like policy debate you make the round for me the happier i'll be Updated 10/29/13  I'm still figuring out my paradigm and it is an every changing process as this is my first year out but, below ar my basic beliefs about debate. With that being said i'm also trying to determine what i look for when giving speaker points. To get a better understanding of what my values are or what i look for I should start by saying that I have been heavily influenced by Sue and Jason Peterson and Theresa Perry. If my philo is confusing i suggest you look there for additional information. I debated for 3 years at CSU Chico the reason you read the philo-   Framework and non topical aff's - i believe that you should affirm the resolution. I love a good framework debate specifically when it is well carded. the community  bashes on the clash of civs debate but as a competitor they were probably my favorite to have. I think that the framework should have it's own built in topicality but additionally that a different topicality is worth the time investment. topical version of the aff is very compelling to me.  stolen from Sue's philo: if you are going to "use the topic as a starting point" on the affirmative instead of actually defending implementation of your plan, I'm probably not going to be your favorite judge.  If that is unclear i'll state it another way. If you are not even loosly related to the topic you should not pref me. I believe that the debate should at least in the same hemisphere as the resolution. I believe it at the most basic level the resolution is the commonality that binds the activity together. K's-  holy batman if your link is solely based off a link of omission you are running an uphill battle before me. I think links of omission debates are the largest waste of time it is impossible to talk about all of these problems in the world in a 9 minute speech. Linking to the status quo is also problematic for me links should come off what the aff does not to what the squo is. alternative solvency needs to be explained so that it makes sense, I am not familiar with the liturture base. Why is rejecting the plan necessary what does it actually do? T's - go for it i'm down. i default to competing interpretation and don't like to vote on potential abuse C/p and DA: always a dependable 2nr decision. I really enjoy listening to nuanced DA's. c/p with a solid internal net benefit are also underutilized. case: 2a's hate talking about their case in the 2ac. a good 1nc strategy will have a large case debate ready to ruin some days.  theory: should always be where it applies. however i'm pretty persuaded by reject the argument and not the team

Scott Elliott - KCKCC

Scott M. Elliott., Ph.D., J.D. Years Judging: 25.  Special Note for Novice and Junior Varsity Debaters: After years of consideration, I have made the decision to make TOPICALITY an absolute voting issue in novice and junior varsity debate. By this I mean that if the affirmative's 1AC is not topical, they will lose the debate. Extra-topical advantages or extra-topical or non-germane critical aspects of the affirmative 1AC will not be considered in my reason for decision. That being said, what constitutes a "topical" affirmative case is still open to debate. Especially given this year's college topic wording, the traditional framing of the agent of action, or whether really is an agent of action is very much open to debate. Competing interpretations should be debated out. In other words, addressing why one interpretation is better for debate, education or better for students is still open to debate. You can use whatever types of warrants and data to support the claim (the resolutional statement). This means that if you want to "perform" your 1AC (all 1AC speeches are performances anyway), that is fine. If you want to use forms of poetics or aesthetics to support your defense of the resolution, I am willing to listen to it.  Topicality is a gateway issue and will be decided before anything else in my decision except for instances of some egregious behavior from debate particpants that violates standards and norms of the activity (.e.g. ethics challenge, certain language choices, intimidation or physical confrontation). Topicality is a minimum affirmative burden of proof. It is not a reverse voter. I do not want any more persons telling stories thirty years from now about the time they won a debate round on an RVI. In case you are confused, let me give you some examples of 1AC's that would not be topical, and would thus LOSE the debate, if the negative team made and properly defended a topicality argument all the way through the debate: 1) Debaters need to eat healthier; 2) not enough ramps on campus for disabled debaters; 3) debate participants have been somehow abused or neglected by the debate community, other debaters, or coaches prior to the reading of the 1AC; 4) the general shittiness of your ontological or epistemological existence; 5) the refusal to affirm the resolution because you object to one or more of its terms; 6) you feel like academic policy debate unfairly constrains your freedom; 7) the world, or the debate activity, is generally racist, homophobic, abelist, sexist, capitalist and any other form of oppression that is not tied directly to affirmation of the 2014-2015 Cross Examination Debate Association resolution for policy debate for CEDA/NDT tournaments or the assigned resolution in a parlimentary debate tournament.  If you do not like this portion of my judging philosophy, I suggest that you either do not pref me or debate in open division. For persons in open/varsity debate and other issues related to debate: I prefer a standard topical plan with advantages affirmative case versus counterplans and disads from the negative team. That being said, I listen to, and vote for, critical affirmatives and I have voted for many kritiks. Common Issues: Topicality and Framework. I will vote on topicality. I think a lot of negative teams allow themselves to be run over by critical affirmatives’ framework arguments. There are good reasons why topicality should be a voting issue. Develop them. I think the smartest argument I have heard on the T/framework debate is, “it’s not the ground we lose, it’s the ground you gain.” That pretty much encapsulates why T should be a voter. That being said, I often vote for critical and non-topical affirmatives because the negative team fails to make good arguments, or kicks T/framework in the 2NR. Disadvantages. Run them if you have them. There should be plenty on this topic this year. I am usually not a fan of politics debates. However, on this topic, I think there are actually real links to political capital and elections disads. I think link turns are really good offense because, at worst, they function to take out the link to a disad, or make it a wash. Affirmatives should note, impact turns are fine with me. Counterplans. Please do. There should be plenty of counterplan ground on this topic. Agent counterplans seem pretty legit (Ex-O, Congress, maybe courts or States) until proven otherwise on theory or based on the topic literature. Consult---maybe, but you are going to have to read some topic specific evidence to justify it. As long as it is grounded in the topic literature, I am probably going to accept the legitimacy of a counterplan. PIC’s….I think people read blocks that are nonsensical on both sides. Kritiks: I will vote for them. I find a lot of them to be nonsense. But, many affirmatives do not know how to respond to nonsense. Debate it out. Affirmatives probably need to discuss the transition to the end-state envisioned by the K authors. Things I tend to do in rounds:  1) I try to be fair to the teams. That means I will listen to any argument and try to figure out to the best of my ability what the speaker is trying to say;  2) I protect the 2NR. I don't give much weight to new 2AR arguments. The 1AR better extend and explain an argument if you want the 2AR to go for it;  3) I evaluate what went on in the round, not what I think your (K or solvency) author really thinks;  4) I usually look at evidence only when the last two speakers ask me to make an evaluation or comparison. I will rarely call for every card read in the round and reconstruct it as I see fit.  5) I like the last two speakers to tell me, "we win this debate for the following reasons" and "even if they win this argument(s), we still win because." On the other hand, I tend to dislike five minute overviews. Be responsive to the other team's arguments. Do not make me do all the work. Allowing me to connect the dots will often lead to an outcome that you did not anticipate and you will not like; 6) If I think I missed something in your speech, I will ask during the round what the argument was. If I say clear, and you don't change your rate or style, be prepared to not have those arguments evaluated in the round. I don't read your speech documents as you speak. But I will ask for it after the round as a matter of team policy; so I can post cites and argument outlines to the debate caselist. Memorable examples of ways teams have unexpectedly picked up my ballot:  1) Voted for Baylor one time because Emory misspelled their plan text;  2) Voted for Emporia once because their plan wiped-out the universe, destroying all life (you had to be there);  3) Voted numerous times on anthro kritiks, De-Dev, Cap K's, anarchy, malthus, space, aliens A-Life, etc.; 4) voted for a counter-performance because it made me feel more emotional than the 1AC narrative;  5) voted for porn good turns;  6) voted for genocide reduces overpopulation turns;  7) did not vote, but the team won, because they took my ballot filled it out, gave themselves the win and double 30's;  8) voted once on a triple turn--link turned, impact turned, and turned back the impact turn (had to be there);  9) voted on inherency; 10) voted on foul language in a round--both ways--foul language bad and "yeah, we said F***, but that's good" turns; 11) voted for veganism K while eating a cheeseburger. One last point: All of you need to flow the round. The speech document they flash over to you is not the debater's actual speech. Look. Listen. You may be surprised what the other team is actually saying.

Sean Kolhoff - CMU

Seth Fendley -

Debate Experience: 1 year Parli/1 year IPDA at Arkansas Tech University Judging Experience: 4 years Policy/Parli/LD/IPDA in both high school and college Education: B.A. Speech Communication/Public Relations (ATU)/ 2nd year M.A. Student in Communication Studies at ASU (ADOF)   Overall Philosophy: I typically vote on case. That being said if you read below you will find when I vote based on other issues and my overall decision process. I Will Not vote based off evidence not presented in round. It’s unfair to you as the debater and the overall educational experience.   Speaker Points: I start out in the middle. If you provide a flawless speech you will receive perfect speaks. That being said a bad round will not mean you receive low speaks. I typically only drop below 50% on speaks for people who forfeit rounds, don’t make arguments, or are otherwise jerks in round.   Rate of Speech: I would prefer to experience a traditional Parli round. This seems to be an unrealistic expectation. I need to be able to flow your case in order to completely judge your round. I can tolerate a decent paced speech but if I cannot write down your entire argument then I’m unable to offer a cohesive decision. In this manner ensure that you clearly signpost and tag your points. Doing this will generate positive speaker points and can result in a ballot in your favor.   Argument Structure: Please ensure that all arguments are informed and based. In this manner there should be clear links, brinks, and impacts for each point. If an argument does not have an impact then I have no way to determine if the argument is warranted and thus will be unsure how to vote.   T-Case: I do not appreciate teams that always run T as the OPP. T is meant for teams who have been completely defined out of a round and have no ground for debate. I should be able to clearly see that a T-Case is needed for me to see it as a valid issue.   K-Case: I prefer that K-cases have a direct correlation to the resolution. Both the government and opposition teams can run a K-Case. However, the K should be warranted and clearly explained in order to be considered on the ballot.   CPs: Counter plans are not needed for the OPP to win. Counter plans are a great opportunity for the OPP to show that the status quo should be changed. Counter plans should be unique and completely explained why they are more beneficial in order to be warranted a win and not be permed by the government team.   Perms: If a counter plan is non-unique then it should be permed. The government should be careful to explain why the plan is not competing in order to successfully perm a case. As the opposition adequately show how the counter plan is unique in order to avoid the perm.   Performance Debates: In over 200+ debates given and judged competitively I am yet to experience a performance round. Running a performance round can be effective. Explain the concept and it will be considered on the ballot based on the performance and understanding of the argument presented.   Overall Decision: I vote Topicality -> Solvency -> Kritik -> Harms. Solvency and Kritiks are interchangeable depending on where they are placed in the case. If a case is ran straight up I will vote based off the arguments presented in the case. In the event that none of the above mentioned things happen then I will vote for the opposition based on presumption. I’ve only had to do this once though and that was in a high school round with novice debaters.

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 :)

Sondera Malry - TSU

n/a

Spencer Croat - Simpson College

Spencer Orlowski - WKU

I view much of policy debate as a question of net- benefits which I do not believe is mutually exclusive with the stock issues. More specifically… I dislike solvency defense masked as a procedural. This doesn’t mean I will not vote on contrived procedurals, but it does mean I am likely to be persuaded by arguments focused on why they are not a logical reason to reject the affirmative.  It is important to note that standards are impacts to interpretations and abuse is just a standard, albeit a persuasive one.  Inherency should be on case by the way. Topicality is a voting issue, not because the rules say so, but because a non-topical affirmative is not a reason to vote for the resolution. As the negative read a definition or I will not be persuaded. Ks are great, just be familiar with the literature and be able to explain your alt and role of the ballot Please be nice. We are all here to learn. Solvency defense isn’t a voting issue unless you tell me why. Impact calculus is super important, do it, tell a story, tell me what to write on my ballot. Speaker points are arbitrary but generally based on strategic choices.  See Chad Meadows paradigm for further questions or just ask me in the round.

Steve Hagan - McKendree

Sue Peterson - Chico

I primarily participated in CEDA/NDT debate as a competitor and coach for the last 20 years.  We made the move to NFA-LD four years ago and I haven’t looked back.  I consider myself to be open to most decision-making criteria, but I default to an offense/defense, cost-benefit calculus minus further instructions.  I do not enjoy adjudicating performance debate.  I like for affirmatives to have a plan text that clearly identifies the government action that is being advocated and then solvency advocates for that government action.  I like when the debaters clearly identify the key voting issues from their perspective and do impact analysis in those areas.  Simply said, I like for the rebuttals to “write my ballot” for me.  The best rounds are those with good evidence AND good analysis.  The worst rounds are those with neither of those things.  I love a good topicality debate that gets to the heart of predictable, educational and fair ground on the topic.  I also like good counterplan/disad debates that clearly identify the competitive points and focus the debate on that competition.  I am okay with theory debates, but I think they need to have a real purpose in the round (read – I don’t like cheap shot theory arguments as voting issues) and they need to have clear warrants for why I should vote on the them other than “It’s abusive”.  I have no problem with criticisms, but I feel like the limited speech time and having only two speeches usually results in an underdeveloped argument.  So, if you run one, be sure to consider that and try to develop it as an argument, not just repeat taglines.  Overall, be nice to one another, have fun, but most important, be smart! Because NFA-LD has an actual “rule” relating to speed of delivery, we should at least give that rule a “nod” in rounds.  So, just because I am fine with you talking fast in a debate, if your opponent or other judges on a panel feel that speed is a hindrance to their performance and states that out loud before the round, we should honor it.  My least favorite thing is listening to speed critiques or requests for others to slow down from someone who is talking relatively quickly – don’t be hypocritical.  I also think that clarity is a key component in these discussions.  Some people can talk fast and be totally understandable.  Others, not so much. Arguments that probably won't go well for you in front of me:  Performance, debate bad arguments and reverse voting issues on topicality.  Underdeveloped theory arguments.  Critiques that are contradicted by other arguments you are making in the round without some justification for that contradiction.

2015 Gorlok Gala