FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Blood - UNL

n/a

Alec Hubbard - Truman

Alex Baldwin - McKendree

Alex Amos - UCMO

n/a

Alyssa Hager - WKU

n/a

Anthony Cavaiani - William Woods

First, I need to hear you make a clear and concise resolutional analysis. I find that when debaters cut this short and move onto their plan and advantages that arguments get misunderstood by all parties involved (competitors, judges, observers). So, lay it out clear and don’t rush through it. Next, your contentions should be clear and not contain a ton of wordiness. Link your contentions back to your criterion and explain the significance of your arguments. There isn’t anything that I consider to be “out of bounds” in a round. I’ll listen to any argument you want to make, but if it isn’t clearly articulated I will throw it out. I also don’t have much patience for circular logic or reasoning—so use examples and don’t over explain things just to sound intelligent. I’ll listen to your counterplans as long as it is mutually exclusive from the GOVs plan. I don’t care for counterplans that extend the original plan to solve for a bunch of other stuff that isn’t relevant to the round. However, if you run a counterplan I need to hear you, first, refute why the original plan is not beneficial rather than just ignoring everything the GOV has said to get to your CP. I prefer direct refutation to many CPs. I do make my voting decisions from the flow but if you can crystallize the issues to a few voters during your rebuttal than you really get my attention. Basically, don’t assume that just because you flowed everything over that you’ll get my vote. That is necessary but I also want to hear you explain to me why the plan should/should not be adopted according to your criterion. Fourth, if you run topicality don’t argue that the educational value of debate is decreased because your opponent wasn’t topical. I consider that side-stepping the issue and I will drop you because of it. Make a cogent argument for why T is appropriate and make the violation clear. I don’t consider a lack of educational value a violation. When you run T you are being forced to make a larger argument about the plan and its practicality. Finally, I began my forensics career as an IE judge and competitor. I don’t mind if you spread, but I do vote on delivery and presentation. I value delivery and its role in competitive debate. So, if you are rushed, have a lack of eye contact, don’t address the room, and just do not care about your audience I will probably not vote for you. I am always learning about the nuances of debate. I respect and delight in the pedagogy of debate. So, if you have any questions before the round feel free to ask. J

Ashley Coker - Ball State

n/a

Audrey Weber - Hillsdale

n/a

Booker Mendes - JCU

n/a

Brandan Bilski - CMU

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 Mitchell - UCMO

n/a

Caitlin Smith - U of Minnesota

Experience/General Stuff: I debated 4 years of NPDA/NPTE parli in college for Wheaton College (graduated in May) and 4 years of LD in high school. I’m currently coaching parli at the University of Minnesota and LD at Apple Valley High School. I care a lot about debate, about equity in it, access to it, and very much believe in the power it has to change lives. I try to evaluate rounds as on-the-flow as I can, though, of course, none of us are unbiased. That said, debate is a game and the real world at the same time, so I will not check my status as a moral agent at the door. I’m fine with speed and will clear you if you pass my threshold (which is unlikely). Please say all plans/CP’s/T-interps/alts/etc. slowly and twice and take at least one question in your speech (if there isn't flex time/CX). Finally, please be respectful of your opponents and partner. AD/DA/CP Debate: I’ll be honest, I never did well at complicated economic or political AD/DA debate, so I will be largely limited to my understanding of what you put out in a given round. If you’re clear, there shouldn’t be a problem, just don’t expect me to know what various terms or abbreviations mean off the bat.  Weighing: Please do it. This will make my job a lot easier, and also make it a lot more likely that I see the round the way that you would like me to. I will evaluate the round as you tell me to, but, that said, I default to probability first and will have a substantially lower threshold than most parli judges to vote on systemic/materialized/highly probable impacts (given any arguments being made that I should prefer them). This does not mean I will not vote on nuclear, disaster, etc. scenarios, just that I will not accept prima facie an unwarranted claim that those impacts outweigh all other things if your opponents are making arguments to the contrary. Theory: Win the debate on whatever layer you would like, I have no problem voting on theory. I like debates that are contextualized to the way that arguments interact; if you can do the nuances of a theory debate, and/or if your opponent is clearly abusive, I will be happy to vote on that position. I default to competing interpretations.  Kritiks: I debated lots of K’s in my time in parli and I love them. The biggest thing I need is a clear alt text and alt solvency. Tell me the (presumably very good) reasons your K matters in this round/against this case/whatever and give me a clear picture of what your alt is going to look like, and I will be happy. I really hate chicken-and-egg style root cause debates and would much prefer to hear substantive debate about the issues in the K. Please don’t assume I know your literature. I will vote on what is said in the round, not my prior knowledge of your particular author. Performance: Debate is both a game and the real world. Bringing real world issues to the forefront within debate rounds is simultaneously extremely important and extremely difficult. It definitely creates change in our community and, as such, is something I take very seriously. I will attempt to evaluate every round as fairly as I can, while recognizing I do not check my status as a moral agent at the door. The one thing I like to be clear in these debates, therefore, is the role of the judge. I don’t mean that you have to include me in your movement, make me feel comfortable, or anything like that; I mean expecting me to evaluate what I’m supposed to do at the end of a debate round, with many moral issues on the table and no framework to deal with them, is very likely to give me an anxiety attack. I don’t say this because I anticipate any such problem, but simply because it is a very real concern for my mental health. Speaker Points: 26-30, unless you do something very rude or exclusionary.

Carolyn Nivling - COD

n/a

Casey Sabella - Ball State

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

Chase McCool - Simpson College

n/a

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.

Chris Miles - U of Minnesota

ntro TLD- I did debate a lot Hello, My name is Chris Miles, I am a former debater for Missouri Western State University and an Alumni of KCKCC as well as an assistant coach Fort Osage High School. I debated Policy Debate all four years in High School and was exposed to both lay style debating and nat circuit style of debating. I have also been involved in the local community and have judged a very large amount of rounds especially on the MO and KS circuits as well as rounds at nationals. In high school I debated "traditional" policy affs until later in my high school career I became a more technical K debater. At KCKCC and Missouri Western I debated the K very heavily as well as method/performance style arguments. I would like to think that I have a decent understanding in all base forms of argumentation, and do not prefer one over another.  Look below to see how I evaluate specific arguments.   The K TLDR I did it a lot. if it's your thing then do it, also i don't care that much about fw in the LOC/ 1NC. Have overviews and do link packaging. Don't waste your time with a whole bunch of Net-Bens to permutation arguments. I hate R.O.B comes first claims.   I prefer the K with large overviews. I will admit that I don't know all areas of K literature, but have been around the park enough to understand almost anything you throw at me as long as you do a good job describing the basics (Treat me like I don't know anything, and you will be better off.) I believe that the K will almost always need more than a link of omission or a state link in order to win in front of me, unless clerically explained. I think there needs to be a clear link story, alt story, and impact story.  I have a higher threshold on perms when there is only one off case position, and I believe that it is a test of competitiveness not an advocacy unless explicitly told otherwise. In the world where the perm is made I will evaluate it on the risk of solvency vs the risk of the K impacts. I am not a huge fan of rejection alternatives, and would prefer higher level of argumentation than reject the aff (but do it if it makes sense). I also think that link packaging makes the debate cleaner especially later in the debate. If you choose to not read an alternative that is ok, but it may take more work on your part to explain to me how the K solves the impacts to the K and/or the aff.   Theory, TLDR don't read it if not necessary, condo is generally good if alternative option and squo   I have a pretty high threshold on theory and will very rarely will I reject the team, unless there are multiple off case positions kicked in the 2NR or some other wacky amount of abuse. All levels of theory need to be impacted out. That said I believe that you can use the theory flow to get offense on other parts of the flow. I prefer to flow this on a separate sheet so tell me in the road map. I also believe that the negative should avoid making contradictory arguments (Performative-Contradictions are probably bad) and can be used as offense. Slow down a little bit for theory at least for the interpretation and violation, if you want me to vote on it then it is in both of our interest that I have a clean flow.   Framework TLDR- it's a strat. Read counter interps. Interps can be functionally competitive.    I have been on both sides of the framework flow, and I think that both sides need to be making offensive arguments on the framework flow. I believe that framework should try to include the most debaters as possible and should not be exclusionary, I am naturally going to prefer those arguments over just basic fairness and education debates. The problem I see most often on the framework flow is that no one is making strong impact analysis. I do have a higher threshold than many "traditional" policy judges on this question, and tend to err a little to the left of center.  That being said you do you, and I'll do my best to keep up.   Topicality, (see above) I have a moderate threshold on T and would prefer not to vote on it if possible, I will willingly evaluate it in a round where the aff probably just isn't topical. In cases like that I handle it similarly to theory arguments so look above. I will buy topicality isn't a voter if clearly warranted why the discussion of the 1AC is more important. I have surprisingly voted for both effects T and extra T this year more than I have voted on regular Topicality. If you read a plan I have an implicit bias that it should be topical   DA/ CP- Read them? Good advantage cp's are nice.   I group these two areas because I believe that all cp's should have a net benefit. I am not a fan of consult cp's and think that they steal a large amount of ground. If that is the argument you are going to make you will need to win a high chance of the net benefit. I refuse to vote for cp's that do not have a form of net benefit. I handle perms on the CP the same way I evaluate them on the K. I will vote on da's including politics I like good politics debates, as long as the internal links are solid.   Offense vs. Defense,- read both   I'm pretty pessimistic. I will vote on terminal defense. I may have a higher chance of voting on terminal defense than some other judges. That being said I think you should always be extending offense before defense. In debates between systemic impacts and magnitude impacts, impact framework is very important.   Aff's- have one   Don't have much to say. You do you tell me why to vote aff, if you're not topical tell me why that is ok, etc. I am not a massive fan of try or die arguments, so saying it 200 times in the 2AR pmr isn't going to get you very far with me, say it once that's fine (if you say it more than that then you are probably missing larger issues). I have also noticed a trend of 1AC's not having very good internal's in the advantages and this trend frustrates me. I also see a lot of non-inherent aff's if it becomes an issue I will vote on it. Again you do you.   Performance/method- I did them   I am all for this kind of argumentation as long as you are telling me why you are doing it and why your method is something that I should to vote for. I also prefer some form of thesis statement as a center for advocacy. give me tangible reasons to why your performance or method is an endorsement of a methodology that I should endorse with the ballot.    I will try to give non verbals when I can because I think they are important for you to understand how to communicate, and will say clear twice before I stop flowing.

Clara Adkins - Marshall

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 McQuarters - CMU

David Bailey - SBU

n/a

David Rosnovjak - Harper

n/a

Deano Pape - Simpson College

Drew Stewart - Marian Univ

n/a

Eduardo Magalhaes - Simpson College

n/a

Edwin Duckworth - U of Minnesota

Experience: Former NFA-LD debater, Graduated in 2016. Since then I have judged at 1-2 tournaments/year.   Paradigm: I default to a stock issues paradigm because that is what it says in the rules. To me, it’s only fair to default to the rules because all judges and competitors can be expected to have read and be fully aware of the rules before entering the round (and if you haven’t read them, do it. They are less than 3 pages long). It should be noted that I said “default” though. If different paradigms or frameworks are proposed during round I will evaluate based on the most compelling. Tell me why your framework is more educational or fair or better in general than what your opponent proposes. Don’t just say words because they are written on the bottom of the shell or read a framework card without being able to explain what it means. Evidence: Taglines are not evidence. Cards are evidence. I have seen plenty of contradicting taglines in debate, but I have yet to see contradicting cards. Only one of them can be right (if either at all), and it’s your job to tell me which one by telling me about the actual warrants found in the cards. Flow: At the end of the round I’m evaluating what is on my flow, so it’s in your best interest to keep my flow nice and neat. You can do this by always giving a road map, clearly signposting when you move to a new section, numbering or lettering your points, extending your previous speech’s arguments, and giving key voting issues. This last point is super important. If your final speech doesn’t contain the sentence “I win this round today because…etc. etc.” then you have severely hurt your chances of winning. Going line by line is important, but your end-game is to show me the forest for the trees. For cross-applying cards, note that I do my best to flow cites, but I don’t always get them, so when you cross-apply evidence it is easier if you refer to it by its position on the flow (i.e. “my Solvency B card”) rather than just by the author name. Speed: I’m probably fine with your speed, and if I’m not I’ll tell you. Speaker points: Speaker points for me are based a lot on how you present yourself and how clearly you present your positions. Bonus points for particularly clever arguments.

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.

Erick Roebuck - OU

I have coached parliamentary debate since 2000 at Biola University, John Brown Universiy, and the University of Oklahoma.     I am pretty open to any arguments you want to run.  Be sure that you justify them and impact them in the round.   I like to vote on the flow.  I am a big fan of debaters who are organized and who use letters and/or numbers to label key arguments.  If rounds get super messy, sometimes I default to more of a comm skills judge.     I am okay with speed as long as your organization is clear. I am also okay with speed K’s if the other side wants to defend why it can limit access to debate.   I work my hardest not to intervene on empirics unless you make a blatantly false claim (i.e. global temperature has not increased over the past few years). Moreover, I am a big fan of providing citations for essential stats or other critical in round info.   Feel free to ask me specific questions before the round.

Gage Simmons - McKendree

Graham Deese - Hillsdale

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.

Jack Rogers - UCMO

Jackson Specker - UNI

n/a

James Baugh - WKU

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.

Jennifer Clauson - Cedarville

n/a

Jessica Furgerson - WKU

Joe Hamaker - Missouri State

Johanna Christophel - Hillsdale

n/a

John Boyer - Lafayette

n/a

Jon Sahlman - WKU

n/a

Jordan Compton - SBU

n/a

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

Justin Morse - KWU

Kacy Abeln - COD

Kaila Todd - UCMO

n/a

Kedron Bardwell - Simpson College

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.

Kristen Stout - Crowder

Head Coach Crowder College 4 years debating and 3 years judging in NDT/CEDA I generally think debate is a communication activity. However, I think communication happens a lot of ways, potentially at different speeds.  As long as you are coherent I can probably follow along.  That being said, persuasion is still important and it is worth your time to emphasize important arguments/frame the debate in ways that make it easy for me to evaluate the debate. Topicality: You should defend some interpretation of the topic and prove why the resolution is a good idea.  I also think topicality is a viable strategy against affirmatives if you can win that your interpretation is best.  A debater need not prove “in round” abuse.  They just have to win their interpretation is better for debate and creates a better, more fair topic.  If all things are equal I probably default to reasonability because I was a 2a but things have to be really equal, which they rarely are.  Reverse voting issues are not a thing.  It shouldn’t be that hard to prove your aff is T.    Kritiks and CP’s:  I am fine with these arguments but the must be competitive and relevant.  I have noticed in these debates that people like to throw around a lot of jargon.  This is very frustrating to me.  Please don’t assume that because you say a few debate words you have made substantive answers to the argument.  This doesn’t mean you should avoid theory arguments if relevant.  Just only say the things you need.  I would be weary of assuming that I think those words mean the same thing as you.    Less is more. Please don’t make arguments that are not related to your overall strategy just to make them.  This is especially true of SPEC ARGUMENTS.  Unless they are relevant to your overall strategy (competition for a CP) or the team has done something egregious I mostly find them a waste of time. I don’t understand trying to go for so many arguments in your last speeches that you are basically just asserting things.  Less, well warranted and debated arguments, do much more for me than more arguments that are barely discussed. Don’t steal prep.  If you are writing, looking at your papers, organizing, or really anything that is not speaking that’s prep.  I SEE YOU PREP STEALERS.  QUIT. It is your responsibility to provide a viewing computer or printed copy of the evidence to the other team.  No exceptions.  If they have a computer you need a flash drive. I have very little tolerance for not making debate accessible for people.  I also think flashing your speech before you start is best practice but I understand there is some contention about this part of NFA LD. Disclosure is good.  You should do it.

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.

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

Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale

n/a

Meghan Cwiok - Harper

n/a

Michael Tate - KWU

Michelle Beving - Simpson College

Mike Storr - Ball State

n/a

Miranda Kang - UIUC

n/a

Nancy Jackson - Marshall

n/a

Nik Fischer - McKendree

Nikki Freeman - UCMO

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.

Nolan Goodwin - Sterling

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!

Richard Tews - UNI

n/a

Robert Markstrom - McNeese State

n/a

Russell Jackson - SBU

n/a

Samantha Begley - UNL

n/a

Sara Maire - U of Minnesota

Experience: I debated 4 years of NPDA/NPTE parli for Wheaton College up through 2017 nationals. I majored in economics and political science for my undergraduate degrees and now I am a Lieutenant in the Army. Overview: I evaluate the debate the debaters have. I am open to policy, kritiks, performance, theory, etc. just tell me why I should prefer it. If you want to mix policy and critical arguments, go for it. That is almost exclusively how I debated and I love critical impacts. Just make sure not to contradict yourself, or go for too much. Weigh. Please. Everyone is happier at the end of the round if there is clear weighing. AD/DA/CP Debate: I will vote on post-fiat impact stories if you win the policy debate and win the importance of those impacts. Make sure you have clear links. If your opponent points out massive holes in your link story, I am inclined to listen. The burden is on you to keep your link story in tact, especially if you have high magnitude impacts. I generally default to probability and prefer systemic impacts, but ultimately, I will weigh however I am told to weigh, with the most compelling reasons. Kritiks: I will vote on the K if you win the K, and that the K has the most important sheets in the round. Make sure you have a clear alternative and alt solvency. Be prepared to provide an alternative text to your opponents if they ask for it. If your alternative is especially long and complicated, providing a text to me would probably be in your favor. I just got out of high level debate last year, so I am following most of the lingo and will understand most literature references, but please don’t assume I know your author, or that your opponents do. If you are new to debate and don’t understand what your opponents are talking about, ask questions. If you feel your opponents are excluding you from the round by failing to answer your questions clearly, invoking terms and authors you don’t know, etc, point it out. Theory: I will vote on theory if you win the theory debate. I ran a wide variety of theory arguments -- common ones and occasionally ventured into new territory. Make sure you have a clear interpretation and be ready to provide a text if your opponents request one. Performance: I will vote for a performance debate if the performing team wins the role of the ballot and/or the role of the judge and/or wins arguments about why the performance comes first. I appreciate the way performance debates bring real world issues to the forefront of debate rounds and confront them head on. I have gained appreciation for performance debates over the years, and believe them to be extremely valuable to our community and beyond. I do not need to be made comfortable or included or added to your movement to vote for you, but I do appreciate clarity, especially in performance debates, about how you want me to evaluate the round. If you are opposing a performance, I would highly encourage you to engage the arguments as best you can. I will vote on framework, if framework arguments are made and properly explained to be the most important. Inclusion: I expect all debaters to be cordial and respectful of one another. If you are asked to make accommodations for a disability, I expect you to comply to the best of your ability. I think that sexism is unfortunately pervasive in our community and challenge male presenting debaters to be conscious of this in your rhetoric and argumentation. I will vote on theory arguments or kritiks that demonstrate exclusion if they are well warranted, and am more lenient about structure in these instances if there is demonstrated abuse. Debate is a game, but it is also the real world. Don’t forget that you are talking to and about real people, and that I am a real person in the back of the room. Speaker Points: 27-30, unless you do something incredibly rude or exclusionary. If you have questions after the round, I would be more than happy to try to answer them. If you would like to talk in person, you are free to come find me, and if you would like to contact me to talk later, ask me to put my email on the ballot.

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 :)

Shawna Merrill - Missouri State

I am a second-year Master’s student in Communication and my debate background is primarily in Parli. For me, debate is about good communication and effective argumentation. I am familiar with and okay with debate jargon, but do not think that throwing out as many debate terms as possible will win the round. Stick to your strengths, what you know, and explain it clearly. DO NOT SPREAD. If I cannot keep up, I cannot evaluate your arguments and you will lose the round. I prefer the affirmative to present a topical, workable plan and defend it. Explain the impacts of said plan and offer real-world examples and analogies when possible. For the negative, disadvantages and/or counterplans should be presented that relate directly to the aff’s plan, and again, explain impacts and take us through your line of reasoning. I don’t love them, but I am fine with topicality and kritiks, but they must be done well. That means they are clearly presented, understandable, and serve a useful function in the debate.  Mind the flow; attend to stock issues; and engage in solid clash.

Spencer Waugh - Simpson College

Spencer Coile - Ball State

n/a

Steve Hagan - McKendree

Sydney Metz - Marshall

n/a

Tabi Secor - JCCC

n/a

Taylor Brewer - Hillsdale

n/a

Todd Rupe - CNU

n/a

Tyler Haulotte - Purdue

n/a

2018 Gorlok Gala