FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Austin - Sac State

Adam is in his first year of graduate school and still new to debate. He has been working hard on this process, attending lots of tournaments and observing, but still has limited experience judging. He flows fairly well, but you should still take it pretty slow and be sure to explain your arguments in depth, particularly impact comparisons.

Adam Blood - UNL

n/a

Alec Hubbard - Truman

Amber Benning - KWU

n/a

Amy Arellano - Boise State

Overall I feel that debate is a game, other than the obvious rules of the game (time limits, speaker order, resolution) I feel the debaters set the tone for the debate. I am a critical judge that acts as a policy maker, I will judge the round based on the grounds the affirmative provides. Give me voters, do not make me decide what is important, it may cost you the round. Also give me structure, if you do not number your arguments separately than I am ok with your opponent collapsing your six arguments into one. Remember to signpost, it is important. Debaters should remember that I am not voting for good positions; I am voting for good arguments. A superior position is nothing if it does not take advantage of the superior arguments that make it a superior position. To win my ballot, out-impact your opponent. There are two kinds of impacts. First, there are the impacts that exist in the make-believe world we debate about (nuclear war, republican backlash, tyranny) and there are the impacts that tell me how these impacts should affect my ballot (nuclear war is bad, so you should vote for the team that doesn’t cause it; that’s us!). It is a lack of weighing impacts that usually forces judge intervention. If you do the work for me, I won’t have to do it on my own. I do not like to intervene as a judge; this means that it is your responsibility to give me everything I need to vote for you so that I am not forced to fill in gaps or assumptions. If you want me to vote on topicality, tell me why I should vote on topicality. If you tell me that your position has more advantages, tell me why this means you should win. If this isn’t done, I will resort to whatever decision criteria is advocated in the debate or impose one of my own if no such criteria is offered. I have no problem voting on topicality or on critical arguments, but they must be structured. If the negative if forcing either of these positions the Affirmative must explain why the affirmative stance does not bite topicality or the critical argument, because it doesn’t is not sufficient argumentation. If the negative fails to structure the topicality or critical argument, as the affirmative point that out and move on, I will not vote on the issue if it is not structured. The Flow: A dropped argument means nothing if you don’t tell me why it matters. Weigh it for me. I won’t vote for you just because the other team dropped arguments. Also, two or three well developed strong arguments are better than ten undeveloped arguments. Debate as a Forum of Communication: Being rude is not acceptable; play nice or I will dock your speaker points. When speed comes into conflict with clarity, I always prefer clarity.

Annie Sauter - Harper

n/a

Anson Long-Seabra - Truman

Ben Pyle - WKU

Bobby Imbody - Bama

n/a

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.

Brent Mitchell - UCM

General Debate Experience: I am a Graduate Assistant Coach at the University of Central Missouri who specializes in Individual Events but I have been learning about the LD side of the spectrum throughout this year. I have sporadic college Parli experience, so while I am familiar with much of the jargon and terminology, I am not nearly as quick when it comes to flowing and listening as some of the other judges within the community. While I can typically keep up with speed, if you see me put down my pen it is safe to assume that you are probably going too quick for me. I will do my best to alert you if I am unable to keep up. Arguments: As far as arguments go, feel free to run any argument in front of me. In this activity, I do not believe that I should be the one to determine what you choose to run in round. Just understand that I may not be familiar with every aspect of this topic. Additionally, I expect debates to be civil. Rudeness will not be tolerated and will generally result in a dock in speaker points. Be courteous to others as everyone is here to learn and grow as individuals and competitors. Topicality-I’m fairly open to T arguments. To win my ballot on T, I need to see proven abuse, not hypothetical abuse. Kritiks-While I am open to K debate and I enjoy hearing these arguments, I like for the arguments to be clearly  constructed. Please do not assume that I will understand all of the specifics from your literature. Overall, I am open to pretty much anything as long as you understand that I am still learning and I cannot be expected to be perfect in my understanding of everything.

Brige Mendes - JCU

n/a

Bryan Brooks - Hillsdale

n/a

Chad Meadows - WKU

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

Charlie Mulvey - Harper

Chip Hall - CNU

n/a

Chris Schneider - Hillsdale

n/a

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.

Christina Ivey - Boise State

Clara Adkins - Marshall

n/a

Cory Paul Harrison - Bama

n/a

Craig Hennigan - Truman

Most of this is copy/pasted from my CEDA paradigm. A speaker point scale will be forthcoming when my adjustments to NFA-LD speaker point ranges get normalized. I debated high school policy in the early 90’s and then college policy in 1994. I debated NFA-LD from 1995-2000. I then coached at Utica High School and West Bloomfield High school in Michigan for their policy programs for an additional 8 years. I coached NDT/CEDA at Wayne State University for 5 years. This is my 1st year coaching at Truman State. I think of myself as adhering to my flow. Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat, and bonus if it’s a messy round and you are able to clean up my flow for me. Saying this, it’s a good idea for debaters to have clear tags on their cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence. If it blends together, I do not do well.  With regard to specific arguments – I will vote seldom on theory arguments that do not show significant in-round abuse. Potential abuse is a non-starter for me, and time skew to me is a legit strategy unless it’s really really bad. My threshold for theory then is pretty high if you cannot show a decent abuse story. If it is dropped though, I will most likely drop the argument before the team. Reminders in round about my disposition toward theory is persuasive such as "You don't want to pull the trigger on condo bad," or "I know you don't care for theory, here is why this is a uniquely bad situation where I don't get X link and why that is critical to this debate." I don’t like round bullys. Especially ones that run a very obscure K philosophy and expect everyone in the room to know who/what it is saying. It is the duty of those that want to run the K to be a ‘good’ person who wants to enhance the education of all present, rather than roll eyes because the opponents may not be versed in every 19th century philosopher from the highlands of Luxumbourg. I have voted for a lot of K's though this season so it's not like I'm opposed to them. K alternatives should be able to be explained well in the cross-x. Repeating jargon of the card is a poor strategy, if you can explain what the world looks like post alternative, that's awesome. I will vote on T. I typically don't vote on T arguments about capital letters or periods. Again, there should be an in-round abuse story to garner a ballot for T. This naturally would reinforce the previous statement under theory that says potential abuse is a non-starter for me. Anything that you intend to win on, it's best to spend more than 15 seconds on it. I won't vote for a blip that isn't properly impacted. Rebuttals should consist of focusing on the arguments that will win you the round. It should reflect some heavy lifting and doing some real work on the part of the debater. It should not be a laundry list of answers without a comparative analysis of why one argument is clearly superior and a round winner. Performance: Give me a reason to vote. And make sure to adequately respond to your opponents arguments with the performance. I do not see that many of those rounds in the first place. If you win a framework debate, you're more than halfway there to a win. I think there are ways that framework can be run that isn't inherently exclusive to debate styles. However I think there are framework arguments that are exclusive too, which isn't very cool. The main issues that I voted on in those rounds were dropped arguments. If a team running an alternative style aff/K is able to show that the other team is dropping arguments then that is just as valid as the traditional style making claims that arguments are dropped and should be weighed accordingly.

Danny Province - CMU

My “paradigm” is that I am interpreting the quality of argumentation on both sides through a stock issues and net benefits framework (side without presumption must win both). I consider both the AFF and NEG to be giving me an advocacy, and therefore must be consistent (no performative contradictions) in their position. I assume both sides must prove any position they articulate (procedurals, case, disads, critiques) for me to vote on them at the end of the round. I evaluate impact calculus as [probability x (magnitude - timeframe) = impact]. This means that magnitude is limited by how likely the scenario seems and how soon. A low probability, high body-count scenario will not count for very much compared to a high probability impact with a smaller body count. Additionally, I assume the further away in time the impact is, the less likely the scenario will hold true, so timeframe can further mitigate magnitude. AKA: I prefer high probability and sooner impacts over unlikely high magnitude impacts. I will entertain any analytics so long as good warrants are given. I am flowing, but am not 100% obligated to vote on the flow as it is not specified in the rules of LD to do so. If both competitors prefer speed debate, then I will tolerate it. My only concern from speed is preventing spread debate. The rules say I am not to “encourage” spread which I interpret to mean I will not award it the ballot. AKA, if you run 6 procedurals only to try to spread your opponent and just focus on drops, I will intervene and ignore the dropped positions and only pay attention to where there was clash. I interpret an exclusionary use of speed the same way; I will intervene by only listening to clash. I am not the judge to go for spread debate in front of.  Please no Obama is a time traveler white supremacist or equivalent weird arguments. If your evidence is from a spiritualist/unqualified source making a ridiculous claim, I may not even flow it.  I view judge intervention as a necessary tool of an educator. I am comfortable intervening, but will do so sparingly and only when I believe someone has gone outside the bounds of good argumentation.

Danny McQuarters - CMU

David Martin - Marian Univ

n/a

David Trumble - St. Anselm

n/a

Drew Stewart - CNU

n/a

Elizabeth Good - Cameron

n/a

Eric Morris - Missouri State

I primarily judge in NDTCEDA (which I enjoy), but operate under different assumptions when judging in NFA-LD (if you want to read my NDT CEDA philosophy to understand how I think, it can be found here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_account_id=6383). I like NFA-LD because it is more novice-friendly, and most of the community prefers DA-case debate. I don't dislike CP's (or K's that refute the plan) outside of the novice division, but direct refutation is refreshing to me. I tend to prioritize probability (strength of link and internal link) when two impacts have a large magnitude. Uniqueness is rarely 100% either direction (although it can be).  Explicitly non-topical affs or K's which refuse the topic entirely have a huge presumption to overcome.  I have a presumption for NFA-LD rules, but you need to apply the specific rule. There is often room for counter-interpretations (including mine). Use them to help you refute arguments instead of making a bunch of independent voters. Thus, stock issues may be a place for debate more than "voting" issues - since negative often minimizes them instead of completely refuting them.  I like that NFA-LD is not as fast as NDT (for access reasons), but the line of "how much is too much" is hard for me to judge. I want debaters to negotiate this before the round - the round should be no faster than the preferences of either participant (including others judges on a panel).  Although I lean negative on many T questions relative to the NDT community, I'm not a hardliner on effects T. I think the literature base is relevant to how much is "too much" on extra T. I think T arguments should be grounded in clear definitions/interpretations, and I lean aff when there is uncertainty about the violation. I think spec arguments are best handled as CX questions, and generally have a strong presumption against theory voting issues - reject the argument not the <debater> is my leaning.  If you share evidence via email chain (the best method), my gmail is ermocito. Given quick decision times, I prefer to get a copy of all speeches in real time (even if by flash drive) so I can double check things during prep time and CX.  I will flow closely but often my RFD for the opponent could be reversed with better application of your argument to theirs, or better readings of their evidence to support your argument. Those things are excellent debating.

Erika Anderson - Chico

Fernando Morales - Bama

n/a

Garrett Walker - Marshall

n/a

Gary Harmon - KWU

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

Gemma Buckley - Wiley

n/a

Gloria Batiste- Roberts - TSU

n/a

Hannah Tabrizi - VSU

’m a graduate student at Valdosta State University. I debated parli & IPDA debate as an undergrad. I have coach debate for a year and a half. I believe that competitive affs must: (a) prove significance, (b) provide harms, (c) cross inherency, (d) be topical, and (d) show solvency through plan action. I will listen to specs, topicality, and other procedural arguments (i.e., I do not have any artificial thresholds). DA impacts should have probability and magnitude and as a result, should probably rarely ever be "flashpoints" (e.g., nuke war, extinction). I will probably always vote on impacts that are narrative driven versus those that are not eloquently substantiated. Language is the vehicle of communication and as a result, I believe that language is astronomically important (i.e., do not use racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive language). Kritiks are a great tool to use when language: (a) perpetuates systems of oppression or (b) is offensive. I do not find verbose and needlessly convoluted philosophy persuasive, Kritiks must have clear links/triggers, and kritiks should not be used as an exclusionary tool. Remember that as a tabula rasa judge the argument you make is what goes on the flow. I do not make assumptions for you; however, if I catch you in a blatant lie you will probably get a nasty ballot back. I would prefer that counterplans are: (a) non-topical and (b) mutually exclusive. As of now I believe that conditionality is bad (try to take advantage of this disclosure) or help persuade me otherwise. I’ve never evaluated critical performance, so I do not have much of an opinion on it (not certain whether this is good or bad).

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.

Howie Long - Boise State

Isaac Mayeux - Cedarville

n/a

JJ Thompson - MoWestern

Jana Hall - CNU

n/a

Jared Anderson - Sac State

NFA-LD judging philosophy I have been coaching and judging debate for about 10 years now. I've primarily coached CEDA/NDT debate but I am also very familiar with Parli. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I will try to keep this brief and answer any questions you may have... NFA-LD rules - I have read and understand the rules and I will "enforce" them if arguments are made. I will not intervene, you need to argue the violation. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules to resolve any violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it. Speed - I understand that this is one of the rules. It is also a rule that makes very little sense, is written poorly, and difficult to interpret. I take a good flow and I suspect that there are very few folks in LD that can test my pen. That being said, I am not encouraging any one to try to spread people out. That should never be the goal of debate. If there is a legitimate concern raised about the rate of delivery from somebody, I will consider the argument, but it needs to be well developed and explained.  Topicality - is a voter.  Kritiks - must link to the action of the plan. Winning "doesn't link to the plan" will function the same as "no link" for me. Basic Logistics: Prep - The prep clock stops when you stop prepping! When the clock stops, everyone needs to stop prepping. Don't tell me you are ready and then look for more cards or that you have to find your flow. Prep is done when you are ready to speak. If you are paperless, I will stop prep when the flash drive is in the other teams hand or the email is sent.  Evidence Sharing - be adults about this. If you want a paperless debate, awesome. I think it works the best, however...get your tech together. If both debaters are prepared for paperless that is great, if you are providing a viewing computer it better be of a quality that allows your opponent to actually view the evidence without wasting their prep time. If the debate is on paper, pass down cards as you read them and avoid bickering about who has access to the evidence. The person who is prepping should be in control of the evidence. Disclosure - unless specifically forbidden, I will disclose my decision after the debate and give you brief feedback. Since we need to keep the tournament on time I will keep my comments brief. I'm happy to answer additional questions at a later time.

Jason Edgar - MoWestern

Background: Professor of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making at Missouri Western State University. For 20 years I have competed, coached, and judged Cross Examination Debate, Public Forum, NFA Lincoln Douglas, Traditional Parliamentary Debate and NPTE circuit Parliamentary Debate. This year I have judged about 30 rounds of intercollegiate debate. Approach of the Critic to Decision Making:  When I competed in high school and college, Comparative Advantage was the most prevalent criterion. Thus, I understand and enjoy those types of rounds the most (ex. Ads, Disads, CPs). Having said that, I am open to critical arguments on both the Aff and Neg side as long as there is a clear framework and impacts. I don't really buy role of the ballot arguments unless you say the role is to circle a winner and award speaker points. Topicality is a voting issue and I'll listen if there is clear abuse in round.    Relevant Importance of Presentation/Communication Skills: I'd prefer that you make cogent arguments as opposed to a speaking race, but other than that I am fine with speed and you won't lose me. If you aren't comfortable with speed but you attempt it anyways, or you cannot stop buffering, it typically irritates me. Debate isn't a race, it's a search for truth.  Relevant Importance of On-Case Argumentation to the Critic in Decision Making: In order to make an effective argument and for me to make a critical decision at the tournament, a case will need to have (at least) inherency, significance(harms), and solvency. Prima Facie is a voting issue. So if the negative can prove that the current system can solve the problem, or proves that the harms are insignificant, or the plan cannot solve, then I can definitely see myself voting neg. If Aff can defend those stock issues without causing massive impacts, then they win.  Preferences on Procedural Arguments, Counterplans, and Kritiks: As mentioned above Topicality is a voting issue but should only be ran if there is clear abuse in round. When people asks for my "threshold" I usually just tell them that it depends on the round. I love counterplans because it allows the negative to not have to support current system (Trump). As for Kritiks, they are the only arguments that I didn't myself run or run into when I was a competitor, so don't expect a thoughtful disclosure if you go all in on the K. That being said, "non-uniqueness doesn't stop the pain" and I'll definitely listen as long as you provide clarity.   Preferences on Points of Order: I don't think there is much of a community issue with an overabundance of Point of Orders, so feel free to use them if there is a clearly a new argument or abuse in round.  Closing Thoughts: I'd like you to do whatever you want in the round. Sure, I have my preferences, but I want the debaters to feel most comfortable. I do love my career, so running arguments that view debate in a negative light, I probably won't vote for. In round, it would be in your best interest to not be rude. JE

Jay Walton - Simpson College

Jeff May - UCM

General: Debate is a communicative space wherein one side is often trying to defeat the other. There are many ways that this can be achieved, and I am open to all of them.  I’m basically in the Tab school of debate judging, but keep in mind that I am most experienced with operating under a policy/netben paradigm. I am more than open to Kritiks or other types of arguments.  Speed is not a concern of mine but speed should not be used to exclude any particpant from the round, so be mindful.  Further, while I have personal views concerning debate theory, I try to set them aside and let the debaters in-round construct theory based on warranted and logical argument.  If your arguments boils down to "but the rules say so!", but you cannot explain why that rule (or the rules in general) matter, you are going to have a bad time.  Will happily vote for procedurals/topicality if explained and legitimate (proven abuse easier to vote for than hypothetical).  Clear voter crystallization is strongly appreciated.  I try to take the path of least resistance when choosing which argument wins a ballot.   I expect all participants in a round I judge to be respectful and civil.  Debate should be a safe space for all participants, and I will strongly consider intervention as a response to overly-aggressive or bullying behavior.     If you want argument specifics, they can be found below.  Please remember that these are malleable and that I much prefer to work under theory constructed by debaters in-round: Specifics: Topicality: I like to vote on T.  Many of my students will back up this claim, perhaps while sighing in resignation.  I have voted on hypothetical abuse many times, but much prefer to vote on proven instances of in-round skewing as a result of atopicality.  T flows should be clean, hopefully following the Interp-Violation-Standards-Voter structure. Don’t just fly through naming standards and voters; tell me what each means and why each matters.  I don’t have a preferred horse in the Competing Interps vs. Hypo Testing vs. Reasonability race.  I happily flow (and have voted many times) on FXT and ExtraT.  I don’t believe that running Topicality is necessarily an abusive act, and consider it a key means for the Neg to check back against Aff research and speaking time biases in the NFA-LD format.  Other Procedurals: Basically the same as my stance on Topicality.  Procedurals exist to check abuses that can be perpetrated by both sides in a debate round.  That being said, I’ve never voted on hypothetical abuse on a procedural such as a Specification or Vagueness.  The burden to prove abuse on any other procedural is higher than it is on Topicality.  I want to see well-warranted reasons why violation of a procedural norm or rule actually matters in a given round.  The same goes for arguing them back; don’t just say “x is infinitely regressive, moving on.” Counterplans: Ran them all the time as a debater and still love them.  They should be competitive against the 1AC (see “Perms” below).  I personally see no reason why Conditionality or Dispositionality is bad for debate, but am open to hearing such claims from an Aff.  CP’s should probably have the same Solvency and Specificity burdens as Aff Plans. Kritiks: I like them.  Just like CP’s, these need to be competitive, but I have no theory reservations outside that requirement.  Don’t assume that I know your literature, and please be able to back up claims about your literature using actual, carded evidence.  Perms: I tend to be generous with giving perms credibility.  Needing to demonstrate exclusivity/competiveness is important.  If this were not the case Affs would be doomed.  I prefer when perms also operate on the Framework level.  I’m yet to see a “cede the political good/bad” clash that I have not liked, for instance.  I do ask that when you read perm texts that you slow down so that I can accurately flow them.

Jessica Furgerson - WKU

Joan Andrews - TJC

n/a

John Boyer - Lafayette

n/a

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.

Justin Stanley - JCCC

n/a

Kacy Abeln - COD

Kaila Todd - UCM

n/a

Karin Nordin - Bama

n/a

Kathleen Bruce - SJDC

Katie Brunner - Simpson College

Kedron Bardwell - Simpson College

Kelly Bressanelli - North Central

n/a

Kelsey Devasure - Missouri State

I am a grad student and graduate teach assistant/coach. I actively competed with the Missouri State in LD my senior year. Undergraduate years prior to that work with the team was done none competitvely. With my communication background competitve and persuasive rhetoric is recognized and can be rewarded -speaker points wise- in conjunction with winning the flow. Impact calculous and net benefit emphasis is important to win a round. Don't get so caught up in the other aspects that you forget stock issues etc. DA: Always willing to buy a well presented DA with full internal link. CP: Must be won in all aspects, perms must be answered well. I don't think this is the strongest negative position to take in most cases due being poorly executed and the debate not reaching it's full potential. Theory: Interesting arguments to hear but make sure you can fully defend and answer questions about it entirely so the debate can reach it's full potential. K: Kritik that links to the case is best. Will vote on a well presented and defended K. T: Willing to vote on T if it is ran correctly, I do not believe this usually happens. Blatant time wasting strategy is annoying if it crosses a certain threshold. Main point: Play to your strength strategy wise but do so well, if you don't understand and explain the argument well it doesn't matter how good the argument is because you don't actually know what you're saying. Don't forget about the basics and the flow. That's how you win.

Kelsey Figiel - COD

Organization is key! Along with that, please do not speed, as that does not show me your critical thinking or argumentation skills. When you present a weighing mechanism, please bring it throughout the entire debate. For me, that continues the organization of the debate from start to finish. Finally, respect each other! Enjoy yourself and learn something from your competitors!

Kevin Ambrose - Hillsdale

n/a

Kiera Wilson - Ottawa

n/a

Kristen Stout - Missouri State

Affirmatives I generally believe that affirmatives should be topical and have some defendable plan of action. If you think that not having a plan is a good idea or that the topic is inconsequential to your debating I am probably not the right judge for you. Minimally Topicality Though I think affirmatives should be topical I am not the hugest fan of unnecessary T debates. As a 2A my default is probably reasonability if you do not tell me to evaluate T otherwise. You need to make sure you are doing a good job proving substantive abuse claims for me to be persuaded. Being Negative I am pretty ok with just about any strategy. I often went for heg bad/politics on the neg and a semi- critical affirmative the rest of the time. That means I probably have a higher threshold for well explained and developed arguments. I would much rather see a more developed disad/CP debate than a poorly extended K/T/DA/CP combo. Pet Peeves Cross examination is a way to show the communication skills you have learned in debate. I really hate when people get unnecessarily rude or angry with their opponents. Being respectful of the other team no matter what goes a long way with me. Whatever you are yelling about in cross X is probably stupid and not near as important as you think it is so relax.

Kyle Kellam - Marian Univ

n/a

Lance Allen - McKendree

I competed in Parli and IE’s for 4 years at Mckendree and have now coached for 4 years. That means I have a diverse background and have seen a large variety of positions.  As a coach, I have watched rounds at traditional tournaments in parli to LD out rounds at nationals. While I am competent in a K debate, I am most comfortable in the case/DA/CP debates. This means that the K needs to be well explained, whether a critical Neg or Aff. For me, in-round abuse is not necessary on T. All CP types are fine, just beat the procedural. I evaluate procedurals first and then move to rest. I tend to weigh the magnitude and probability first in impact calc. You should feel comfortable running most any position in front of me as long as it is well explained and defended.

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.

Leigh Cummings - Ottawa

n/a

M'Liss Hindman - TJC

n/a

Manda Hicks - Boise State

Mark Turner - KWU

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

Marty Feeney - Simpson College

Matt Beifuss - COD

Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale

n/a

Matthew Gilmore - ISU

General – I expect civil, friendly debates. Rudeness will result in a reduction of speaker points. In partner debate, please do not consistently talk over/answer every question for your partner. Avoid “next” as the beginning part of a tag. Instead, use “first, second…” or “sub point a, sub point b…” Topicality – I vote on the best interpretation for debate. With that said, I typically find reasonability claims on topicality compelling. If a negative wins my ballot on topicality, it is most likely through the question of limits. Not a fan of potential abuse claims. Theory – Not the best way to access my ballot. I do not automatically dislike theory debates, but I think they lend themselves to debate with little clash or critical thinking. What do I mean by this? If someone runs a plan inclusive counterplan against you, please do not run 2 minutes of PIC’s bad and then skip over the line-by-line of the counterplan. Furthermore, avoid the temptation to speed read buzzwords in hopes that an opponent drops the “argument.” The best theory positions are 1) slow, 2) well warranted, and 3) are not the only “out.” Kritiks/Criticisms/Performative debate – I am not opposed, but do not assume I have read all of your author’s work prior to entering the round. This requirement is difficult to navigate around (in NFA-LD) due to time restrictions. However, if you feel comfortable with explaining the criticism in a way for everyone in the room (opponent included) to participate, then go for the position. If you run a critical AFF, I prefer a plan (not a requirement though).  Everything else – Run it. I think debate should be fun, creative, and meaningful. If you enjoy a particular position, I will typically share that enthusiasm. I prefer debates to be creative in their construction (namely prior to round) and then watch as both teams try to engage that position without defaulting to theory.

Michelle Beving - Simpson College

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.

Nancy Jackson - Marshall

n/a

Natalie Schneider-Brooks - Hillsdale

n/a

Nick Pasternak - CMU

Nicole Sandoval - SJDC

Nikki Freeman - UCM

Noel Massarelli - JCU

n/a

Nolan Chaney - Sterling

n/a

Patrick Halpin - Harper

n/a

Phillip Voight - Gustavus

n/a

Richard Paine - North Central

Debate Philosophy:      (1) CLASH.  Don't let the debate turn into two ships passing in the night.  Be sure you respond to what your opponents say.  Carry through your own ideas (story) but also be sure you respond in detail to their story.  In terms of the sheer amount of time spent on the stories, I prefer that the debate preference Gov. ground - Opp ground should clearly be an analysis of what the Gov. position is.  Go line-by-line, be direct, be complete.  Pull through dropped arguments.      (2) STRUCTURE.  I want to see it.  I want to hear numbers/letters AND precise tags.  If I don't know where you are, I can't flow it effectively.      (3) SUPPORT your claims/assertions with specific concrete data whenever possible.        (4) TAKE QUESTIONS.  This is my pet peeve.  If someone rises to ask a question, take it, and take it quickly.  Statements like "I don't have time right now" or "I'll answer it at the end of the position" are a sure way to press all the wrong buttons with me.  Questions are crucial to debate and must be honored.  How many?  Three allowed per speech sounds about right to me.      (5) NEGATIVE RESPONSE OPTIONS.  I am not a fan of Counterplans, and I am not a fan of Kritiks.  If you choose to run them, I will of course listen to them and evaluate them - but I am not naturally inclined to embrace them.      (6) DISADVANTAGES.  I am not a fan of unrealistic high-impact disads ("Increasing grade school funding will lead to nuclear war").  Realistic and believable real-world consequences are more likely to carry weight with me.  Disadvantages must be evaluated in terms of both their impact AND by how likely they are to occur.      (7) SPEED.  It should be easily comprehensible.         (8) DEBATE JARGON.  I want to hear the whole argument convincingly.  Don't just toss out the lingo ("Turn!  Perm!") and assume that's enough.  You will have to explain the process by which the lingo applies.      (9) SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.  Partners should not talk to each other during their speeches or "cover mistakes" when the debater speaking starts to waver.      (10)  PLANS.  In policy rounds, the plan should be fully provided in the PMC.  It is not sufficient to say "any questions?  No?  Well, you had your chance."  The burden is on the Gov. to provide a complete plan without prompting in the PMC.  If that doesn't happen, I consider myself free (and likely) to vote on the basis of missing Plan planks.      (11)  OTHER THINGS?  Please ask!  I welcome all questions!      (12)  Have fun.  Enjoy it.  It's just a game!

Ryan Louis - Ottawa

n/a

Sarah Collins - Cameron

n/a

Shanna Carlson - ISU

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

Shekia Rogers - TSU

n/a

Sohail Jouya - KCKCC

AFFILIATIONS: Director of Debate at University Academy (DEBATE – Kansas City) Coach at Kansas City Kansas Community College BIG PICTURE - I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you. - Truth > Tech, but I recognize that debate is a game competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of reasonability, what it does mean is that embedded clash between opposed positions (the “nexus question” of the round) is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper. - As a coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/debate space.  Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious, if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well: FORM - All speech acts are performances, consequently debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.   - “Are you cool with speed?” In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb. I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the amount of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team.  - Ethos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise roundvision, assertiveness, and swag. I’m personally quite annoyed at many judges who insert a “decorum” clause in their philosophy regarding the “need for civility.” These notions are quite loaded and make broad assumptions that ought to be unpacked and questioned, particularly if the deployment of this concern consistently villainizes certain subsets of debaters. I certainly believe debaters should show mutual concern for each other’s well being and ought to avoid condescension or physical/rhetorical violence – but I do not conflate this with respectability politics. Arguments are arguments and deserved to be listened/responded to regardless of mainstream notions of digestibility or the personal palate of an opposing team. In all honesty, some humour, shade, and disses have a place in rounds so long as they aren’t too terribly mean-spirited. Please don’t misinterpret this as a call to be malicious for the sake of being cruel. - Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:  1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like 2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely. While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for hypothesis testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it. FUNCTION - The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic. Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.   - The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution.  It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible. - I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances. - I will vote on Framework. That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter. Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.  - I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates. -Presumption is always an option. In my estimation the 2NR may go for Counterplan OR a Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both. I will not “judge kick” for you, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.  “But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” I haven’t been in too many of those and if this is a claim that is established prior to the 2NR I guess I could see voting in favour of an Affirmative on presumption. - Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. If they fail to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing contentions that may not function well without a good warrant. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s affirmation of an unfalsifiable truth claim. - Framing is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better. - Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.  - My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default tocompeting interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like its interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents.  The same is true to a lesser extent with the voters as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a counter-voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact. I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Multiple topicality and specification arguments is not strategic, it is desperate.  - I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.  Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.  Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.   - Probability is the most crucial components of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).  - Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.” - Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a racist puts on a cardigan, eats a Werther’s Original, and uncritically watches Mad Men. KRITIKAL DEBATE I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilize a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).  It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense. In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams then there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame). THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion as been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies requires an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text. Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.  Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

Sondera Malry - TSU

n/a

Spencer Waugh - 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.

Tabi Secor - JCCC

n/a

Tameike Washington - TSU

n/a

Tashon Thomas - TSU

n/a

Taylor Wessel - Hillsdale

n/a

Taylor Brewer - Purdue

Tim Overton - Simpson College

I'm comfortable with speed, but DO NOT forget proper speech technique. I'm generally a Games Player, I will vote on K, T, theory or anything that has been properly established and carried through the round. No clash on the flow might mean a conceded win, either way.

Trendi Nwyguen - TSU

n/a

Tyler Gillette - KCKCC

Victoria Ledford - Marshall

n/a

Wendell King II - TSU

n/a

Zac Mcgee - UCM

n/a

2017 Gorlok Gala