2024 Great Salt Lake Invitational

University of Utah - Jan 13-15 | Status: Completed

Profile Image
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Squad Room   Postings   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Weinstein - CSUF

n/a

Aidan Guzman-Newton - Hired

n/a

Andrew Welhouse - Utah

n/a

Andy Orr - CoSI

As a communication instructor, I believe the purpose of this activity is to prepare students to critically think and engage others in a meaningful way. Ergo, students should deliver arguments clearly with emphasis on effective communication. I am convinced that a few well-developed arguments can prove to be more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.

For constructive speeches, try to address arguments individually. However, grouping is absolutely fine too. With the final rebuttal speech, avoid line-by-line and instead provide a summary of voting area that address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches.

On Policy & Fact Debate:

For organization, sign post your tag lines, and give your citation clearly. Let us know when you have finished quoting material before your own analysis.

Avoid oral prompting or interrupting your partner as much as possible. I consider it to be rude and disrespectful toward your partner. Additionally, part of this activity is learning to work as a team and depending on another person for your success. This is an essential skill in life and you would never use verbal prompting in a business meeting, sales pitch, or political speech. Therefore, it really has no place in an activity designed to create in students those skills.

On Value Debate:

Value debate is by definition, a meta analysis of a topic. The first level of that debate is the overarching value. Students should present and defend a value that has been carefully chosen to have a non-absurd and debatable counter value e.g. capitalism vs. socialism and not freedom vs slavery (forces the opponent to be morally repugnant).

Wonderful debates can occur on by debating value level, but they rarely will win the debate because people (smarter than us) have discussed philosophers, implications, etc. and we still have no concrete answers.

Criteria are the next level of the meta debate. Again we could have a wonderful discussion on the merits of act utilitarianism vs. the categorical imperative, but it would not settle the issue, nor would it persuade the judge on either side of the resolution (although you can win a round by default if your opponent is not able to effectively articulate their value or criterion). Criterions are most useful if treated separately as a test of your contentions rather than a policy-type mechanism for achieving a value.

Your contentions are the real heart of the debate and should be the main focus. Claim, warrant, and conclusion are essential to every argument and can be contested on each or every one of those tenants. The key in value debate is to provide context after giving your argument as to how it affects the criterion and proves your case & value.

On Debate Theory

I have no preference in terms of philosophical, theoretical, or empirical arguments as long as they contain the three parts to make them an argument. Be sure that each part is present: claim, grounds, and warrant. Use this strategy: a. I say.....(claim) b. because......(grounds & warrant) c. and this means.....(impact)

I would find it difficult to vote for a kritik in general, and it would be extremely unlikely in a value round. First, there is already so much to cover in a limited amount of time; I dont think one can do the kritik justice (in other words, I am not often convinced of their educational/rhetorical value because we simply do not have enough time to reach that goal). That being said, if there is an in-round instance prompting a performative kritik, I think there can be a direct link made to education and the ballot being used as a tool.

Second, these arguments by their nature avoid the proposed topic. Thus, they skew preparation time when run by the affirmative and are seemingly a method of last resort when put forward by the negative. Moreover, in a value debate, a kritik provides no ground (or morally reprehensible ground) on which to make a counter case. Thus, the only way to rebuttal is to argue against the philosophical grounding (which leads to a muddled debate at best) or the alternatives which makes it a de-facto policy debate (and is contrary to the purpose of value debate).

The only stock issue that is a default voter is inherency. If the status quo is already addressing the problem, then there is no reason to prefer the plan. Harms and significance are at best mitigations. If you win those arguments, there still is no reason not to do the plan. Solvency and advantages must be turned to become voters. You'll need to prove the plan causes the opposite effect. However if you mitigate either of these, you'll need to pair it with a disadvantage or counter plan to give me a reason not to try the plan.

Each off case position must have a good structure and be complete in its construction (I wont fill in the blanks for you). Additionally any off case argument needs a clear under-view when it is presented (not just in the rebuttals) indicating how it fits into the round, and how I should consider it in my vote.

I prefer debate theory responses to be the first counter/refutation against an argument. In essence, they are a reverse voting issue, and do not easily fit into a line-by-line. Take a few moments and tell me the theory story, then (just in case I don't buy it) get into actually refuting the opponent's arguments.

Andy Christensen - Idaho State

n/a

Ashley Siler - Idaho State

n/a

Ashton Poindexter - Utah

I competed in NPDA and NFA-LD throughout my college forensics experience and currently coach at the University of Utah.

I'm okay with whatever arguments you want to run so long as you do clear warranted analysis, argument comparison, and evidence comparison. A couple of key considerations are:
I have a higher threshold for theory if you don't collapse to it.

Kritiks need to explain what the alternative does.
I'll default to topicality/theory being apriori, so if you want me to evaluate something else first you need to make the arguments.
You can't win just because your advocacy could also solve the issue if you haven't linked them to offense.
I'm good with speed, though there's two reservations. First, I often flow electronically now so I need a bit extra time between page transitions. Second, if your opponents ask you to slow I expect you to slow. If you need someone to slow, you should say slow and not clear, clarity I expect them to bite their pallet while still going quick.
In general - I like good arguments, I don't like bad arguments. Pleasemake good arguments and be a good human being while you do it.

Averie Vockel - Utah

I am of the position that it is your debate, and you should do with it what you want. I do not automatically reject arguments based on the type of argument. There are a couple of things that are important to me as a critic that you should know...

DON'T use speed to exclude your opponent. If you need to go fast, do so. BUT no one (including me) should have to ask you to slow you multiple times. Also of note, slow and clear mean different things so make sure you are clearly expressing your needs.

DON'T be rude.

DON'T assume that I will fill in holes for you. It is your job to give me complete arguments with reasons why they win the round.

DO start flex when the speech ends. Flex doesn't start after you have asked for texts of CPs, plans, etc.

DO provide terminalized impacts and weigh them.

DO be clear on how you would like me to evaluate the round. This means you should compare your arguments to your opponents and tell me why I should vote for you.

DO give me proven abuse on T. I like T, but not if it is incomplete. I like T, I think it's useful. BUT you need to make sure the pieces are present and explained.

DO tell me how you want me to evaluate T against other arguments.

DO engage with the topic in some way. If you are rejecting, I need you to be clear on why that is fair to your opponent. There are many ways to affirm, and I am interested in all ways. If it is LD, I expect the aff to affirm.

Ben Jensen - Hired

n/a

Bob Becker - NWC

As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round. I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so. To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues. Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important. All of that said, I am not an information processor. I am a human being and so are you. If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance.

When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose. Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I dont require competing interpretations.

I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. Im fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. We dont like the resolution doesnt cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some contradictory arguments good answers.

Performance based argument need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you dont tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round.

As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says one million deaths and the other says dehume, but doesnt explain why dehume is worse than deaths, Ill vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then Ill vote for dehume. I think Im telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.

I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast. I will tell you if I can't understand you. Also, one new trend I find frustrating in LD is tag lines that are multiple sentences long. Your tag line is a claim, but make it a brief one. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. Thats why Im here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.

Brayden Chiatovich - CoSI

I appreciate it when both the affirmative and negation can move past definitions and framework and focus directly on clashing and analyzing the arguments brought into the round. Take time to address major issues in the round and make impactful rebuttals and arguments, I do not like it when people bring up repeated arguments or have replies that do not address the core issue of the opponents claim. Quality over quantity of arguments will always win in my book, otherwise I am open to different debate strategies and techniques.

Chris DeFreitas - Hired

n/a

Collette Blumer - CSUF

n/a

Connor Hunt - Hired - Utah

n/a

Damon Darling - Utah

TLDR: Been doing this for quite a while. 12 years total in forensics (if you include HS). 7 years doing Interp/Platforms/Limited Prep. 3 years doing collegiate Debate, specifically all of the areas listed prior as well as Parli Debate and IPDA Debate. Additionally, this is my third year of Collegiate Forensics coaching. I spent two years coaching for San Diego State University and now im at the University of Utah

Debate: My views on debate are very straightforward. Debate is both academic and a game. It is first a basis of argumentation and speech, and secondly an avenue for competition. What this means is I fully understand the ways debate has evolved to become this great source of competition However, I find it necessary to respect its academic roots, so please try your best to make well-educated arguments and analysis in round, rather than running a bunch of asinine arguments because you think you can win on them. With that being said, I don't have a preference for any type of argument and feel that I am a good judge for almost any strategy. I like K debate and case debate equally. I'm highly critical of most K teams because I'm not generally moved by Ks that Frankenstein literature together and aren't grounded in actual scholarly work. I think where the K fails often is through a misreading of the base literature. Additionally, please note that why I may be knowledgeable about a good deal of critical theory. Please make sure that you are fully articulating the argument and not relying on the assumption that I have read D&G or Baudrillard.

^^^ with that, if youre framing your K based on judge background: My area of education/expertise is in Critical Gender Studies, Sex, and Sex Work. So be weary when youre running these in front of me and please make sure you know what youre talking about

Theory/T: Nothing wrong with reading it in the LOC and kicking out of it in the MO - but if the debate is gonna come down to theory just know this is a highly technical collapse to pull off as far as I'm concerned. In the words of my colleague adeja, Topicality is a question of the words in the plan text, not the solvency of the aff. Idk man, I think we all have forgotten how T works. If you're gonna collapse to topicality in the MO please make sure the aff actually violates your interpretation on a textual level. I don't know what "the spirit of the interp" means and I don't think you all do, either.

Flex: Stop stealing flex. Im not waiting 3 minutes while you wait for a copy of the text. Yall should have that ready on either side, please. Lets get this show on the road. I will not let my ballot be the thing that sets our schedule back.

Speed: Youre not gonna speed me out of the round most of the time you just gotta make sure youre clear. With that, my flow is not as tight as it used to be. The faster you go the more likely I am to miss it on the flow though I did hear it.

^^^ if your opponent asks you to clear or slow I fully expect you to do so. Speeding someone out doesnt make you a good debater.

Collapse: You should probably collapse. You cant go for everything

Gabby Garza - Hired

n/a

Jacob Frankenberry - Hired

n/a

Jeannie Hunt - Utah

TLDR: This is your round - do what you want, tell me how I should vote, and don't be mean.

FLEX TIME - stop stealing flex and adding several minutes to each round. You should have a plan text, alt, CP text, interpretation - anything you know the opposition is going to want a copy of - written and ready to go. And flow, ask for it to be repeated when they say it, or let them know before the round starts what you will want in writing. I will not wait more than 30 seconds for you to write it out before I start flex.

I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of intervention on my part. That means a couple of things:

You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round. I don't care what that framework is, but I want one. If there is debate about that, make sure the theory is clear and there are specific reasons why one framework is preferable to the other. That framework is what I will follow, so please don't set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits at the end. More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.

I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, and something tangible for me to vote on. Absent that, I have to intervene. There are no specific arguments that I prefer over others. I will vote on pretty much anything and I am game for pretty much anything (except stealing flex).

I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions or present narratives that you don't want to be attached to the currency of a ballot, which is what presenting the narrative in the round really comes down to. If you run a k you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about. However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out. This is true of any theory-based argument you choose to run.

I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important. If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don't have to spend time flowing it. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well.

Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective. I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K. Make sure the framework is very specific so I don't have to abandon objectivity altogether.

Finally, make your own arguments. If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago. Prompting someone with a statement (like, go to the DA) is fine. Making an argument, and then having it repeated is not.

Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn't mean you should have no style. You should be clear, structured, and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is a team). Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.

Speed is not a problem if it is clear, but never be used to exclude others from the round.

Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round - that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing, I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what could have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is just you saying think you should have won on that argument.

Because I don't want to intervene, I don't appreciate points of order. You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way. Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn't vote on new arguments. I won't. If you feel particularly abused in the round and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill-advised.

I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.

Jeff Toney - Dark Horse

I feel like an OG debate judge, even though several others have been around longer than me. However, I think it is only fair that I acknowledge that I have been a squirrel in several round in the past 5 years. In other words, your rep means as much to me as a Stark in Game of Thrones. With that being said here are my positions.

Counterplan - I do not have a silly disposition on them. However, that doesn't mean I will not vote for good condo bad theory.

Theory - I hate potential abuse - I got pulled over 21 times in one year and received two fix-it tix so... If you are going to run theory I need to know the specific ground lost. Tell me what positions you couldn't run, or what links you cannot logically gain access to because of whatever the other team is doing.

Weighing - I tend to prefer bigger magnitudes over smaller more probable impacts. If you are going to go small then framing probably should accompany your position. In addition, weigh through your framing!

In general, I look for the most straightforward way out of the debate. When I was a new judge, I used to do the most, looking at every sheet 3 or 4 times only to come up with the same decision I had 20 minutes prior. Now, I let yall point me in the right direction. If you want me to vote for you, walk me down the path. I put a lot of weight on rebuttals. So, during your impact framing keep that in mind.

Jessica Jatkowski - NWC

I have been judging debate since 2015. However, this is only my first year coaching.

The most important element for me as a judge is to be respectful.

We are all coming to debate with our own preferences for issues, but I genuinely put my feelings and thoughts aside and will look at both sides to see who is giving the best argument. It is in the general framework of debate for you to tell me as a judge what I am weighing the debate on and bring evidence to the round. If you are unable to do so, then my general stance of how I judge is on the quality of evidence that both sides are bringing to the round.

In terms of actual speeches, it is important for everyone to understand what the issues and topics are, so speed may not be a benefit if I have to tell you to slow down.

Joe Provencher - UTTyler

The allegory of the cornbread:

Debate is like a delicately constructed thanksgiving dinner. Often, if you take time to make sure you donât serve anyone anything theyâre allergic to, we can all grit it and bear it even if we really didnât want to have marshmallows on our sweet potatoes. Mashed potatoes and gravy are just as good as cranberry relish if you make it right. Remember, If youâve been invited to a thanksgiving dinner you should show up unconditionally unless you have a damn good excuse or your grandma got hit by a reindeer because weâre here to eat around a point of commonality unless your great uncle happens to be super racist. Then donât go to thanksgiving. Iâll eat anything as long as youâre willing to tell me whatâs in it and how to cook it. Remember, you donât prepare stuffing by making stuffing, thatâs not a recipe thatâs a tautology. I eat a lot, Iâm good at eating, and Iâd love to help you learn how to eat and cook too. 


PS: And why thanksgiving? Because youâre other options are Christmas featuring a man way too old to be doing that job asking if youâve been naughty or nice at the hotel lobby, the Easter bunny which is just a man way older than youâd think he is in a suite offering kids his definitely-not-sketchy candy (who maybe arenât really even old enough to be eating all that candy), or Labor Day where everyone realizes they canât wear their hoods and be fashionable at the same time.

Joey Barrows - Dark Horse

I competed for three years in LD and one semester in Parliamentary debate. I was primarily a case debater and did not run many critical arguments. I try my best to vote strictly on the flow and have voted for K's even though I don't particularly like a lot of them. I have a tendency to lean towards the K not having an ability to solve whatever the harms are (if that's what is being claimed). Aside from that, I think I am pretty straightforward in most positions. I am not incredibly fast and I flow on paper, so if I say "slow" or "speed" and you do not adjust then you risk the chance of losing me. Please ask me any necessary questions before the round to clarify something you don't understand here or to address any of the things I did not mention. Thanks!

Kayla Griffin - Weber

Give trigger warnings if you talk about traumatic things. I don't like acted out rape scenes - I will give you the lowest score for that.
In debate I look for strong communication, logical links, and strong clash!

Kaylee Tegan - CoSI

DEBATE

My debate philosophy is quite simple, I prefer clear, structured arguments about the resolution. I dont enjoy spending the entire round hearing arguments about framework and definitions unless ABSOLUTELY necessary to the round. I also prefer quality arguments over a mass quantity of arguments. I prefer speeches that are slow and easy to understand rather than overloading your opponent and judge with fast arguments. I tend to not vote on dropped arguments unless it is absolutely necessary in the round. With organization, signposting contentions and on-time, brief road maps are preferred.

Most importantly, I expect all competitors to be respectful and civil when debating. I will not tolerate rude competition.

IE

For individual events and speeches, organization is very important. All parts of a speech should be easily identifiable. I am listening to the content of a speech as well as the delivery. Is there eye contact with the judge and audience? Do you know your speech well? Speeches should not be over the time limit.

Kiefer Storrer - Whitman

Pronouns:He/Him/His

I care a lot about disasters, fires, floods, and killer bees.

Experience: Competed in 4 years 3A Kansas High School Policy and 4 years Midwest-regional and PKD/NCCFI College Parli. I have a background of coaching LD, Parli, IPDA, the occasional very rare Worlds tournament; but IEs are the real undercurrent of my coaching career. I've coached a Parliamentary National Championship at Phi Rho Pi and PKD, but only rarely have been involved with NPDA-circuit competition. Current ADOD/F at Whitman.

Because metaphors are the cool thing to do these days, I view debate like Professional Wrestling; theatrical spectacle with ambiguous rulesets that are sometimes "broken" to up the entertainment and education factor. National-level rounds are hopefully grandiose back-and-forth engagements where either side, made up of larger-than-life personalities, is winning speech to speech. Please don't have me evaluate a Dusty Finish, I'd like a clear winner, so clash like champions and give your best Impact Calc promo.

TL:DR: Cool with anything, don't advocate for genocide or advocates of genocide. Might be a step behind on my flowing ability ("he's still got it *clapclap clapclapclap*"...hopefully). Again, with the wrestling metaphor; please be kind through the round, but especially before and after. We are a reviving community, and our future is in our hands.

Kyle Housley - Weber

n/a

Kyle Bligen - Whitman

2018 NPDA National Champion

I can judge pretty much anything. Just be clear and have fun.

For additional speaker points, consult the below recipe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***Before you strike me, ask your DoF how many times I beat the teams they coached. Now, rethink your strike and pref me higher.***

IngredientsNutrition

Directions

  1. In a medium saucepan, melt butter.
  2. When butter is melted, add cream cheese.
  3. When the cream cheese is softened, add heavy cream.
  4. Season with garlic powder, salt, and pepper.
  5. Simmer for 15-20 minutes over low heat, stirring constantly.
  6. Remove from heat and stir in parmesan.
  7. Serve over hot fettucine noodles.

Lorna Gage - Utah

n/a

Marissa Medina - Hired

n/a

Mark Galaviz - Weber

I remember long ago never to walk in anyone's shadow. If I fail, or if I succeed, at least I lived what I believe.

Michael Neufer - Hired

n/a

Rachel Griffin - Hired

n/a

Ryan Knippel - Hired

n/a

Sabrina Bustillos - UTEP

n/a

Sarah Hinkle - CC

I mostly live in the world of IEs (read: 20 years of either competing or coaching) but have moderate experience training in Worlds and IPDA-style debate.

 

I like speakers who are fair and balanced: Ethics, Argumentation, Strategy, and Style.

Construct your case carefully with well-developed arguments. Build a foundation with clean definitions. Create values/criteria so I know how to weigh out the evidence. Provide Impacts and explain how you get there. I want a lively debate with good clash.  Be well-versed in the topic while implementing high quality and recent research. Respect each other.

By the end of the debate, I should be able to clearly understand the significance of your position to the resolution.

I tend to prefer argumentation to be grounded somewhat in the real world and prefer depth rather than rattling off a list of contentions. Tell me a story. Paint a picture. Speakers who effectively demonstrate why an issue is significant and/or relevant are building strong ethos. I want to be as involved as possible.


Have fun and ignore my non-verbals! I tend to look surly but that's just my face. J

 

Sean Nowlan - CUI

I've done Parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, and IPDA debate for three years competitively. I've read all manner of kritiks, theory, and case debate, so anything you read in front of me goes as far as kinds of debate are concerned. While I read a lot of kritiks around Settler Colonialism during my Sophomore year, that doesn't mean I want to hear them over and over if the arguments aren't going to be good. I'll highlight the most important no-nos.

THIS IS UPDATED FOR NPDA NATIONALS 2024. BOLDED PORTIONS ARE NEW/CHANGED AS OF 03/13/2024

In General-

  • Pessimistic Kritiks:

    • See kritik section, but with specifically pessimistic kritiks. I'm more prone towards voting for actions that build systems or have alternative systems of power rather than just tear them down. I am more prone to vote for optimistic kritiks than pessimistic ones; usually because I've rarely seen a pess kritik where tearing down systems doesn't make things worse for the groups it's trying to protect

  • Speed:

    • I debated fast and against fast debaters. Once you start exceeding 400+ words a minute I won't write down every single minor argument made.

    • If the other team shouts "slow," "clear," or "loud" please do so. Maximize accessibility for everyone. I am receptive to theory if the other team doesn't take reasonable steps to ensure accessibility.
  • Theory
    • Theory is more than a bunch of taglines, the taglines need explanations to matter. Don't just state a voter or a priori, state why it matters.
    • I default to theory as a priori and weigh on the basis of competing interps unless otherwise told.
  • Case Debate
    • Love it. It's my favorite kind of debate by far, it's the whole reason I started debate was to argue about politics around the world
    • Quoting Alex Li: Theory is often a copout. If you are winning case and theory, I prefer case, but do whatever is strategic.
    • From monetary policy to Congressional bureaucratic minutiae to the environment, I love all kinds of advantages and disadvantages. I'm not a person predisposed to hating the United States or capitalism
    • If youre going to say a person or policy is bad, you can't just call it right-wing, Republican, or conservative you have to actually explain why it's wrong or the material action a group takes to harm others. Terminalize your impacts.
    • When it comes to case debates, I need warrants, and more often than not I'm constantly asking for people to specify/quantify in any way their impacts
  • Kritiks
    • Nothing makes me more excited on the kritik than to see links and impacts very contextual to the round/resolution.
    • If your alt has no impact, is not competitive, is generic, or is conditional; it makes me much less likely to vote for you on the basis of a kritik.
    • Many kritikal alternatives I hear very easily can be argued to have no solvency or have solvency which actively makes the world worse; dont be afraid to argue against kritikal solvency.
    • There are very good reasons to reasons to reject some topics, but usually I default to affirmatives upholding the resolution. You have to have good links to the topic, claiming that you need to run your affirmative kritik just because there is a structural problem with debate itself usually doesn't balance out against topicality theory in front of me.
  • Conditionality and PICs-
    • I voted for conditional advocacies and for PICS, and voted against them. There are theoretical reasons for and against both.
    • If you collapse to a conditional kritik, your solvency and the necessity of your advocacy are undermined by the fact you are willing to kick it.

Sean Thai - UOP

I'm open to most stuff.

FOR BOTH ONLINE AND OFFLINE DEBATE:clarity is important. I will now more aggressively clear. If I do it 3 times, I will not vocalise the fourth and probably stop flowing. I understand and have suffered some of the issues that prevents speed, which provides a tangible competitive benefit, but I believe access prioritising the access of your opponents is more important.

Theory/Framework/Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations, unless reasonability is won hard. Spec is good. What are RVI's? "We meet" your counter-interps.

Policy:

I am most familiar with this type of debate. I almost exclusively went for extinction. I will always use judging criterion and impact framing explicated in the debate, but as a last resort, I will evaluate impacts independently - this isn't to say that I will always vote for high mag/low prob, but that I am more open to these than other judges.

Don't delay. Don't Object. Don't cheato veto. Don't cheat. I have a low threshold.

K's:

I appreciate and think Kritikal arguments have done more good than harm for both the real world and debate; but I do believe that it can and has led to identities and peoples being weaponised, whether they wanted to or not. Beyond that, I believe that K's need to clearly explicate how the alt works, the world post alt, and good links. I'm willing to buy a K that doesn't do any of these, but if these get indicted by procedurals or arguments will be damning. I hate simple reject alt's.

I will try my best to understand your arguments, but please do not assume I know your literature base. I am probably more comfortable with pomo lit than any other lit, but you should still explain the basis of your arguments.

In the same vein, I think interps that are some version of "We can do it in this round" hold zero persuasiveness for my ballot. Not only do they not work as a good precedent for future rounds, but also they just also don't provide meaningful (to me) access to the standards debate.General

Debate:

Condo is good. Multi-condo not so much. Don't try to understand my non-verbals, because I don't understand them. Sometimes I'm very expressive, sometimes I'm not.

Tech = truth

Flex time questions are binding.

Stephen Sigman - CC

n/a

Steven Farias - UOP

(March 2022) Quick Read (NPDA/NPTE):

Most debates I watch these days in parliamentary debate discuss structural and/or systemic violence both on the AFF and NEG. The second most common thing I see is theory of some sort. The best debates I see discuss these issues across the debate (i.e.- how does access to the debate implicate the way folks in the round acknowledge and interrogate structural and/or systemic violence). Debates that often end in frustration tend to silo arguments and retreat from counter-arguments in favor of concessions.

I think the AFF should defend a topical advocacy. This does not mean I believe the AFF MUST role play or defend the state structure of the status quo. I believe being creative in how we imagine what state structures can become can allow us to engage in what Native Hawaiian scholar Manulani Aluli Meyer refers to as the radical remembering of the future. Societies and nations have excisted without structures of oppression in the past which means that the current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable. I borrow here because I think there are excellent justifications (although many in debate may end up half-measures) for why the AFF can be topical AND critically interrogate current political and economic systems.

I think NEG advocacies in parli should be unconditional as the concept of testing the AFF and what it means to do so is altered by the structure of parli debate. Theory and advocacies are distinct. Theory is distinct from T. If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then they presumption flips to the AFF as the burden of proof has shifted. Kritik, performance, T, theory, framework, Disads/CP to non-topical AFFs, and Disads/CP to topical AFFs are all open to the NEG. However, I think that the opportunity to indict the AFF in the LOC is often overlooked and many NEG teams allow the AFF infinite offense by conceding case warrants and relying on implied clash.

I think that parli debate is a unique format and that format allows meaningful engagement. While these are things I think the AFF and NEG should do, the only thing you MUST DO is defend a world view at the end of the debate and if you want to win, you ought be comparative in your impact analysis. If you have any questions, I have a lot more below and also am happy to answer any questions at sfarias@pacific.edu.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. In terms of theory I generally have a medium threshold for voting T/Spec except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. However, clever theory is great and generic CONDO Bad is meh. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually have a high propensity to solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.

Section 1: General Information-

While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE PROBABILTY MEANS MORE THAN MERELY CONCEDING AN ARGUMENT/LINK CHAIN.

I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips dont ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say I didnt get that. So please do your best to use words like because followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.

Section 2: Specific Arguments

The K- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality/framework with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that Ks without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves.

In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provided a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how I should perform that role will be ahead on Framework.

For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Please also provide a space for your competitors to engage/advocate with you. If they ask you to stop your position because arguments/rhetoric have turned the space explicitly violent then all folks should take it as a moment to reorient their engagement. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not.

I believe you should be able to read your argument, but not at the expense of others engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.

Topicality/Theory- I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competing definitions and a question of what debate we should be having and why that debate is better or worse than the debate offered by the AFF. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an AFF who is winning that the plan meets a definition that is good in some way (my understanding of reasonability), if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T.

In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized arguments to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win.

Counter Advocacies- Best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team. It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. ALTs, PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with so long as you defend the solvency of your advocacy. Theory can even be a counter advocacy if you choose to articulate it as such. You should do your best to not link to your own advocacy as in my mind, it makes the impacts of your argument inevitable.

With regard to permutations, if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the ALT/CP alone is insufficient and should be rejected as an offensive voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. I do not believe that every link is a disad to the permutation, you must prove it as such in the context of the permutation. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the ALT is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links in both instances as well.

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as I would when I was a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.

LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

Section 1 General Information

Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 12 years coaching experience (2 Grad years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 7 years A/DOF years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific)

General Info: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. I think the AFF should find a way to be topical, but if you are not I then I am sure you will be ready to defend why you choose not to be. I think the NEG is entitled to read whatever they like but should answer the AC and should collapse in the NR. Failing to do one or both of these things means I am much less likely to vote for your strategy because of the primacy of the AFF and/or an inability to develop depth of argument in the NR.

As an academic familiar with critical theory across a host of topics (race, gender, "the state", etc.) feel free to read whatever you like on the AFF or NEG but I expect you to explain its application, not merely rely on the word salad that some of this evidence can use. I understand what is in the salad but you should be describing it with nuance and not expecting me to do that for you. The same is true for standards on theory, permutation arguments, solvency differentials to the CP, or the link story of an advantage or disad. I am willing to vote on any theory position that pertains to the topic (T) or how debates should happen (all other theory). This includes Inherency, or any stock issue, or rules based contestation.

In terms of impacts, I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war, or other black swan events, and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.

Last--I do not think you need evidence for everything in the debate. Feel free to make intuitive arguments about the world and the way things operate. I do think its good if you have evidence for 80-90% of your arguments. I will also say that evidence on issues where it is usually lacking (like voters on theory or RVIs) will be weighted heavily if the only response back is "that's silly"

Section 2 Specific Inquiries

1. How do you adjudicate speed? What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?

I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debaters lack of clarity you will say clear (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debaters excessive speed, I expect you to say speed. In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to report me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.

2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you dont find yourself voting for very often?

I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.

3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achievable at the end of the debate.

4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue

Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons to ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all theory arguments are voting issues.

5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?

Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.

6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months

Yes

7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?

I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.

8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?

No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.

9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?

You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way I am told to weigh them. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.

10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?

My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.

Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!

Taegan Wilson - Whitman

Experience: I debated in Public Form for two years in high school, as well as competed in speech events (mostly oratory and some impromptu and extemp). In college, I competed in parli debate for three years, and spent my senior year in speech (exclusively ADS).

I love to hear new and creative arguments, as long as they are not advocating for things like genocide or based in sexism, racism, or any other similarly problematic rhetoric. Basically, make sure you know the argument well enough to know if there are any potential biases that you might be inadvertently advocating for in round. The most important thing to me in round is that you engage with your opponents arguments, and do your best not to be a total asshole while you do it.

Tasha Robinson - OSU

n/a

Vivian Lee - Utah

n/a

Yolanda Lewis - Weber

n/a