Aidan Craig Sundine - Hired

n/a

---

Alex Silerio - UTEP

n/a

---

Andrew Welhouse - Utah

The most important part of interpersonal communication is whether or not your words connect with your audiencein this case, that's the judge and your opponentes. If your spread, your jargon, your volume, or the way you treat your competiors undermines that, then it's on you.

FYI, I generally flow electronically rather than handwritten.

Your choice of arguments is up to you, and that's part of the challenge. Please be clear on how you want me to evaluate the round, be clear on impacts, and use signposts. Most importantly, be kind to each other even though this is a confrontational, competitive setting.

---

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.

---

Anne Canavan - SLCC

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.

---

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.

---

Chris Blankenship - SLCC

n/a

---

Christian Curtiss - Utah

In my ~10 years being involved in Debate, I've come to understand debate as competitive storytelling. In a round, you're essentially telling me a story about the resolution: who is effected by the res, what happens when we adopt the res, and why that matters. Whichever side best articulates a world post resolution - as well as telling me why that world is good or bad in comparison to the other side's world - wins the ballot.

I want to do the least amount of work possible when making my decision. Your voter speech should make it clear to me what arguments I am voting on, and how I am weighing them in the round. The more that you leave the judge in the dark, the higher the chance the round is just a coin toss. Don't let that happen, make it crystal clear why you win. I don't want to have to sift through the flow to find your winning argument.

Generally, I'm fine with whatever arguments you want to run (Kritiks, CPs, Theory) in any format, as long as you justify that argument well enough. Love me some critical arguments, but please don't just drop "hyperreal" or some equally obscure term and expect your judges and opponents to know what that is.

Any questions before or after round, just ask!

---

Collette Blumer - CSUF

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

---

Derek Pilling - Whitman

n/a

---

Emma Murdock - Utah

Theory/T: I think that theory is a legitimate check for abuse and prefer if you're running it strategically. Make sure that your voters are terminalized. I don't want just to be told to "vote for education and fairness," tell me why those matter.

K- I don't like them but am familiar with the literature; if you are going to run it, you need to run it well, and it needs to be explained well because it creates better debate about the method of the alternative.

Tell me which impact calc evaluation I should care most about.
Debate should be fun, don't be a dick.

---

Gabe Graville - Whitman

n/a

---

Heather Gilmore - Idaho State

n/a

---

ISU-Ashley Lynne - Idaho State

n/a

---

Javier Tejeda - Utah

n/a

---

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.

---

Kiefer Storrer - Whitman

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

• 1?2 cupbutter
• 2 tablespoonscream cheese
• 1 pintheavy cream
• 1 teaspoongarlic powder
• salt
• black pepper
• 2?3 cup gratedparmesan cheese(preferably fresh)
• 1 lbfettuccine, prepared as directed

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.

---

Kyle Barber - Bellevue College

---

Levi Orr - CoSI

n/a

---

Maria Ceballos Paz - NWC

n/a

---

Megan Baus - OSU

Debates should be accessible and educational. I want clear labels and structure with credible evidence, and your speaking pace should always remain reasonable. Ensure that your arguments are easy to follow; don't make me do the work for you.

Always remain courteous to your opponents.

---

Sage Kaminski - NAU

n/a

---

Sarah Walker - NAU

Sarah Walker
Director of Forensics and Debate, Northern Arizona University

Altogether, I have about 15 years of experience in a variety of debate types, as a competitor and judge. Most of that experience has been in Parliamentary Debate.

I have a strong background in Rhetorical Criticism and Argumentation, so I am confident I can grasp any K, Plan Text, CP, or perm you bring up. If your speed, technical jargon, or volume make it difficult for me to keep up however, I may give up flowing, and I cannot judge on what doesnâ??t make it to my paper.
Overall, I have most appreciated debates that have been centered on making well warranted, competing arguments. If you can clearly refute the central arguments of the other team, you will go a long way in creating not only a stronger debate, but also a happier judge.

Things you should know:
1) I prefer debates with clash, where the aff plan is the central space for negative arguments. This means:
(a) Plan texts/advocacy statements are preferred over their absence.
(b) As a general rule, the efficacy of the policy/advocacy probably matters more than how one represents it.
(c) Critiques on objectionable items in the plan are preferred. I like specific K links. All Ks have a presumed alternative, which means the aff can always make a permutation.
(d) I have reservations about judging performance/personal politics debates. I likely have at least a workable understanding of your literature, but I do prefer a debate constructed on a rubric I am more familiar with, and I simply have less experience with this style. I am happy to learn, and willing to judge this type of round, but be aware that the argument does still need warrant, and I will still need to be able to flow something. Please make your arguments clear.

2) Miscellaneous but probably helpful items

(a) I view debate as a professional activity. This means you should not be acting in a way that would get you removed from a professional setting. I understand the purpose behind profanity and the showing of pornography or graphic images, but these should be kept to moderation, and there should be a clear warrant for them in the round. As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no reason for rude, violent, or hyper-aggressive statements in a debate round. Ad hominem is a fallacy, not an effective debate strategy. I will dock your points for it.
(b) When speaking, giving road maps, etc., please speak with the purpose of making sure that the judge heard you. If I canâ??t place your arguments, I am much less likely to flow it. Clearly signposting and providing a roadmap is an easy way to avoid this problem.
(c) I am much more impressed by smart arguments and good clash than I am with highly technical debates. If you drop whole points or arguments in the flow in favor of chasing down one argument, do not expect me to overlook those dropped args.
(d) Evidence is evidence, not the argument itself. Both are necessary to create a good debate. Please remember that evidence without an argument will be hard for me to flow, and thus vote on, and arguments without evidence are rarely strong enough to withstand scrutiny.
(e) I donâ??t grant universal fiat. Saying that something should be done just because you have the power to do it is not a strong argument, nor is it likely to lead to a better debate. Iâ??d prefer you explain WHY and HOW we should enact the plan, rather than simply insisting that it can be done.

3) Clipping Issues: I will stop the debate to assess the accusation and render a decision after the review. While I understand why other people proactively police this, I am uncomfortable doing so absent an issue of it raised during the debate. If proof of significant (meaning more than a few words in one piece of evidence) clipping is offered, it's an automatic loss and zero points for the offending team and debater.

4) Topicality debates: If you truly believe an abuse of the resolution was levied, or if you truly cannot work in the limitations provided, then bring up T. If not, then I am more likely to view a T argument as a distraction tactic. You will get farther arguing ground loss than with an arg about the interpretations of the T.

5) Timing the debate and paperless: You should time yourselves, but I will time to enforce efficiency. I stop flowing when the timer goes off. Donâ??t abuse the timer.

---

Shane Jonson - CoSI

My judging philosophy focuses on the importance of clear and organized communication. The arguments that persuade me are those that are easy to follow and comprehend in a logicalway. Although I don't have a background in forensics, I do have experience teaching Fundamentals of Human Communication courses with multiple speeches to assess each semester. In those courses, I emphasize the benefit of communicating in a manner that minimizes misunderstanding and allows for people of different backgrounds and experiences to understand the speaker's main points and takeaway messages.

---

Stephanie Jo Marquez - CSUF

n/a

---

Tanner Latham - Westminster

I've been a High School coach for 7+ years and have have taught several classes in public speaking and debate.

In Speech, I look at the performance of your speech/interp. I focus on the delivery, body language, and ability to connect your speech to your audience. Similarly with Interps, how well do you perform your piece, and how well do you captivate your audience through your chosen work, tone, and originality.

In Debate, I'm more of a traditional judge, looking to the use of arguments, evidence, ethics, and philosophies to support your chosen position. While I can keep up with speakers generally, if you are 'spewing', I will ask you to slow down. I don't value the quantity, but the quality of evidence and your ability to use that evidence to persuade.

---