FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Abigail Rine - George Fox

n/a

Acacia McCguire - Hired Critics

Alec Baker - Hired Critics

Alex Beck - Hired Critics

Amber Diaz - UP

Amy Bennett - IDAHO

Badger Moore - Hired Critics

Ben Dodds - Oregon

Name: Ben Dodds School: Oregon Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. 2014 NPTE 100% rewrite -- read me even if you know me I think honesty in philosophies is one of the best ways to advance the activiy. Let me be perfectly clear what I am trying to accomplish by writing this: I want to be the top preferred judge at every tournament that I go to. I have judged every NPTE since 2009, and attended each since 2006. Seriously, I want to judge all the debates, all the types of debaters, and I want to judge seniors one last time before they go save the earth. I enjoy nothing more than seeing people at nationals when they are at the top of their game. I will stay in the pool until the tournament ends, Oregon debaters left in or not. That is a promise that may be relevant to you filling out your form, I'll stay till the end like a hired judge.  While, there are people that I don’t think I am an ideal ordinal #1 for, I work really hard to make sure that I get better at whatever flaws are the reason for that, so give me a shot to be your #1. I will proceed to explain why I think I am a good judge in most all debates, and why you may want to consider me for your ordinal #1. The exact question: what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you – I did policy debate for the majority of my career. I ended with a few years of parli at Oregon. I think flowing is a very important judging job that I try very hard at. I will use my flow as the official scorebook. I think letting the debaters use their arguments to win is important, so I try very hard to keep my own thoughts out of the debate. However, where there are thoughts that I think are better served by the debaters knowing them, I will let them know them. In my opinion, the number one reason I should be your number one judge is that you will know how I feel about your arguments far earlier than other judges will let on. I will try my absolute hardest to make sure I have communicated to you what I am thinking about your arguments as you make them. I will use verbal and non verbal communication to get this information communicated. This season I have:  Asked for things to be repeated, asked for acronyms to be broken down, asked for things to be written, asked for people to be clearer, asked for people to be louder, asked for people to have more distinct tags, given people obvious signs to move on or told them to move on, and used other obvious nonverbal to verbal communication like: laughter and smiles, head shaking, exaggerated nodding and knocking, and even flat out telling folks that “I don’t get this, explain it better”. Do not be astonished if I ask you a question like that mid speech. I do all of this because I love you all and love good debates. I want to you be in my head with me the whole debate. I don’t think it is valuable for you to invest 25 min in something that I can’t vote on because I couldn’t hear. Similarly, I don’t want anyone spinning their wheels for 20 min when I got it in two. So, I really want to be your top judge, and should be because you will not have a question about where I am at during a debate, but if you would rather debate in blissful ignorance, I’m not your person. Also, there are things that I will not pretend to know about the world. I took the classes I took. Learned whatever I learned, I remember whatever I remember, but not more than that. There are issues that you, as undergraduates, know more about than I do. If there is a confused look on my face or I seem to asking for more explanation a lot, you have hit on something that I don’t understand. You should not just read this argument to me, it should be clear to you that you have to teach it to me. These two things are not the same. Your ability to know the difference is the greatest skill of all. Reading the audience and dialing your message to their knowledge base. If you have not educated me well enough on your magic fission technology, don’t get mad at me for voting on the argument that it won’t work. Still sound like magic to me, that’s on you. Any judge not willing to admit that there are things that they do not know about the world is lying to themselves, and to you. Strike them, pref me, and teach me your argument. I flow things in columns. I prefer to flow from the top of one page to the bottom of it. I'll be on the laptop, so '4 pages or 1 page' is up to you. Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Please describe your approach to the following. 1.         Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 27-30 I have given 10-20 30s in competitive debates of consequence in my career. Most of them are at NPDA/NPTE. Every year there are one or two people spitting pure fire that weekend, so no, I am not the "never seen perfect" type. Debate is subjective, while there might not have been a perfect speech yet; I have seen people debate without a flaw that was relevant to the debate many times. If that is you: 30. Beyond that, I will say that reward good choices higher than pretty choices. I’d rather watch you explain the double turn for 3 min and sit than explain it for two and then go for your DA for two. I don’t like contradicting arguments being advanced in rebuttals, unless there is some explicit reason for it. I won’t floor people at 27 or lower unless they are repugnant, and as articulated above, you’ll get to know from me verbally before I let you just bury yourself in bad. It is very unlikely that you will get poor speaker points from me, because I will let you know what you are doing that I like mid debate. I am like the bowling bumpers of non-verbal communication. You should be able to score pretty well here. 2.         How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Anyone can do whatever they want. I think this is the right forum for debating about things with claims, warrants, and impacts. I am not scared of arguments based on the titles or format that they are delivered in. No on can make any argument without a claim, warrant and impact. If you have those three things, I don not care what you title it, how you structure it, or really anything more about it. You do you. As I stated above, I don’t like hearing contradictory arguments advanced in rebuttals, as by that time, I prefer to hear one strategy that is consistent being advanced, but I will hold out for a well-explained reason that contradictions are ok. Not my favorite, but certainly a winnable argument, just like all arguments are and should be. If you claim that contradictions are ok, and have a warrant and impact, you have made an argument. If you win the debate over that argument, you will win that argument. If you win an argument, I will filter the debate through that won point. 3.         Performance based arguments… Do whatever you want. I think I would be a good judge to try new things with. I have voted for all manor of performance debate as it has come into parli. I have seen parli evolve from the K being a fringe argument to performance being acceptable. I understand the theory that is in play in this debate as well. I am down to vote for either side of every issue on this discussion I am your judge for a new performance that Ks debate, but you’d better be ready to answer debate is good, because I am your judge for that argument too. I reject the notion that the argument framework: Ks cheat, or the argument framework: fiat is bad, are all that different. Just two sides of a coin, I am totally into watching a debate about those two things against each other. I’ll also entertain Ks vs performances, performance affs vs. performance negs, or whatever other arbitrary dichotomy you have to make between schools of thought. They are all just claims, warrants and impacts to me. 4.         Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I require a full shell to vote on T. The neg needs to prove they have an interp that should be preferred, that the aff does not meet that, and that I should vote on T. I will default to that interp until there is a counter interp and/or an argument that says that I should not evaluate interps against one another (reasonability). I will default that T is a voting issue until the aff convinces me otherwise. However, no, I do not require “in round abuse”, because that is arbitrary. Competing interpretations debate resolves this entirely, if that is how T is evaluated, then the interp is good or bad in theory, not practice, ergo, in-round abuse is irrelevant. If the aff wins reasonability, and has an interpretation of their own, that is usually a good enough out. Now, don’t get confused, the reasoning for arguments about in round vs out of round have a place, its just in the reasonability debate, not just drifting in the ether of T is not a voter. Competing interps might be bad because they don’t force the judge to evaluate in round abuse over potential abuse. See, just a claim, warrant, and impact, placed somewhere relevant. I think case lists make good topicality standards. That encapsulates your ground and limits claims well. This works for the AFF and NEG. 5.         Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? This question is silly. You all determine all of these things for me. Do I have opinions on these issue, yes, and I will list them here, but they are hardly relevant to the debate, because theory is not a hard issue for me to just listen to you debate about and vote on. This is totally up to you in the debate, I promise I have voted on the exact opposite of everything I am about to say about how I feel about theory. PICS – Arbitrary distinction. Can’t be good or bad if it is actually impossible to define. This argument usually boils down to complaints like you should not get that CP, or you should not get that many CPs, both are ok arguments to me, just not likely a reason why PICs are good or bad. There is likely another, better theory argument that your claim, warrant, and impact would fit under more intuitively. Perhaps the problem is that the CP is only a minor repair (CP - treaty without one penny)? Perhaps the problem is that the CP is competing through an artificial net benefit that only exists because of the CP (CP - aff in 3 days)? All arguments are conditional unless otherwise specified. While the neg should state this, and I could vote on the claim (with good warrant and impact :P); "vote AFF, they did not specify the status". Or better maybe, "err AFF on condo bad, they didn’t even specify." This form does not ask my opinion on the actual statuses of CPs, but you are getting them anyway. I don’t believe that conditional advocacies are bad. This is the status I think is best: an advocacy that is competitive should have to be advanced. If there is a perm, the NEG should be able to concede it to make their CP go away. A non-intrinsic, non-severance perm to an advocacy is 100% the same argument as no link. If the AFF and NEG advocacies can exist together without repercussion, the NEG advocacy is testing no part of the aff, and is irrelevant. However, this is just my opinion, you do whatever you want. I have, and will vote on condo bad. If it has a claim, warrant, impact, it’s a winnable argument. If the impact to the voter is reject the team, so be it. A legitimate permutation has all of the aff and part or all of the neg advocacy. I will not insert my opinion on that meaning that the function or text of the CP in your debate, again, that is for you. My opinion is that text comp is an arbitrary tool made up to limit otherwise unfair feeling CPs that debaters have not been able to defeat with the appropriate theory arguments. Text comp and PICS bad are actually basically the exact same argument. They both arbitrarily eliminate a bunch of CPs to try to rid debate of a few. Artificial net benefits are bad is the argument that both of these poorly conceived arguments are trying to get at. You should not get the save a penny CP, but that is not a reason that we must use text comp or that we must reject CPs that include the plan in them. That is a reason to reject save a penny CPs, they are just hard to define. There is the rub on all theory, interpret the rules to restrict the exact set of argument that you intend to. 6.         Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Yes. 7.         In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? This question is just sad. It should read, if the debaters you are watching fail to debate, how will you choose? Well, here goes. I will order things: some Ks, some theory, other Ks, some AFFs, other theory, DAs and other AFFs. Don’t do this to me. Either make it clear that you all think the debate should be ordered the same, or debate about the order of these thoughts. If you let me choose, you have not completed the debate, and the decision will be based on something arbitrary, like me ordering issues on my own. 8.         How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? I won’t. I also don’t think the things listed are as abstract and concrete as the question leads on, nor are they necessarily diametrically opposed. In any case, this question, as phrased, is another example of something you should not do to me. Either, make it clear that you all think the debate should be ordered the same, or debate about the order of these thoughts. If you let me choose, you have not completed the debate, and the decision will be based on something arbitrary, like me ordering issues on my own. I think both of the things listed in the question, death and value of life, are important. I could be compelled to separate them based on number of people affected. I could be compelled to separate them on the time the impact occurs. I could be compelled to separate them based on the likelihood of each occurring. I could be compelled that one of these impacts is reversible while the other is not. I could be compelled that one affects other policy choices while one does not. If there was none of that for me to sort it, I would say death is bad, because that is what I think. If you let the debate get down to what I think, rather than something you said, you failed.

Blaine Denton - Hired Critics

Brandon Merrell - Lewis & Clark

Brian Simmons - UP

I consider my role as the judge in a debate round as being similar to that of a U.S. Supreme Court judge. Such a judge not only assess "who won" arguments between debaters, such a judge also assess the quality of arguments made "to the judge" simply becasue the arguments were brought into the round. That said, I strongly believe in the necessity for debaters to honor their opponent's arguments by directly clashing with them. I am impressed by debaters that demonstrate critical thinking--questioning assumptions, pointing out contradictions, showing how contentions don't meet stated values or criteria. I believe IPDA ought to be a highly communicative event filled with what Qunitillian might call "good people speaking well." That doesn't mean you have to talk to me like I am Forrest Gump, but it does mean that style matters. Finally, I believe there is a proper decorum and courtesy in any forensic context; be nice to each other!  FYI: My background: I was a policy debater in high school, a CEDA debater at Oklahoma Christian University, a CEDA graduate assistant at Pepeprdine University and now I coach IPDA at University of Portland where we previously competed in and I coached BP and NPDA.

Bruce Younger - Boise State

Catherine Nailon - Boise State

Charles Kincy - Bellevue

~~(0) RESPECT THE INCREASED EQUITY CONSCIOUSNESS. Especially with your jokes and language. I don't want to ruin anyone's fun, but keep the humor harmless along lines of sexism, racism, and other frequent hotpoints of inclusivity. If you can't be "humorous" without trashing the feelings of others, then you suck at humor and should stick to business. If you feel at any point your opponents or I have acted in a way that is inappropriate, you have two options. You can immediately call a point of privilege, stop the clock, and we'll get it out in the open. That's especially important if the transgression was minor and probably unintentional, because it encourages us to talk about these things more. Or, if you don't feel comfortable with that, please explain the situation after the round to either the tournament director or the tournament equity officer/ombuds. (1) GROUND-LOSS AND ABUSE COMPLAINTS REQUIRE PERSUASIVE WARRANTS. You all know what's up in NPDA these days and you should expect anything. However, people get out of line, so you sometimes need some redress. (1a) The easiest way to warrant loss-of-ground claims is to run a speculative argument that you would've been able to run but for the loss of ground or abuse. For instance, if you're asking for a ballot on T because of loss of ground, read me the DA you should've been able to run. This allows AFF to concede a link to the DA if they're treading the line and allows the debate to proceed. If they're smart. (1b) If it's egregious abuse (eg. severe abuse of conditionality) calmly state your case and I'll evaluate it. The key thing to remember is you need to try to have a round anyway. If it's something involving social aggression (sexism, racism, harrassment, etc.), see point (0). (1c) Similarly, the biggest. pet. peeve. I have in NPDA is complaining about loss of ground in a pro-forma T argument and then reading 4 DAs with clean links. I know the game was played this way for years but I'm sick of it, and it's the kind of crap that ruins this event. STOP DOING IT. Penalty: If you do this, your opponents can simply say: "WE MEET and their DAs externally link" and I'll consider that adequate refutation of the T. (2) FRAME CONTROL IS THE NAME OF THE GAME. You’re not reading cards, so you need to project rhetorical confidence and power. You must not only tell me what issues are more important in the round, but you should also do this at the end of every non-PMC speech. (3) ESTABLISH THE FRAMEWORK BY STATING IT EXPLICITLY. This is easy--say “value is X, criteria is Y” or something similar. Opposition teams can either accept the framework and show why we should reject the topic OR provide a counter-framework and show why it is better. (4) IN REBUTTALS, ALWAYS ANALYZE CLASH OF FRAMEWORK OR IMPACTS. The easiest way to do this in the rebuttal is to crystallize the framework or impacts and say “we said this, they said that, we win because such and so.” If you need an explanatory overview, go for it. All else being equal, this will win you the round if the other team flubs it. (5) OFFENSE IS BETTER THAN DEFENSE. You can win on terminal D, but it shouldn't be your game plan. If you don’t go on offense, you won’t be able to weigh impacts. Further, you’re not reading cards, so standing for something is simply more persuasive than standing against your opponent. While I don't believe the policy debate notion of "presumption" applies to Parli, I will not vote Gov unless Gov has at least some surviving offense, which has the same effect as presumption. (6a) PRE-PROCEDURALS REQUIRE WARRANTS FOR PRE-PROCEDURALITY. You must explicitly demonstrate how the theoretical, procedural, or kritikal implications of your argument block access to your opponents’ impacts. (6b) USE WEIRD OR SILLY TACTICS AT YOUR PERIL... This includes things like performance, laughably silly stock politics DAs, RVIs, wacky existentialism Ks, K-Affs, plan-minus PICs, Ospecs, and other stuff like that. Sure I'll listen and flow it, but then I'll probably wrinkle my nose and drop you, because I'm old school like that. (6c) ...BUT I'M FAR MORE LIKELY TO ENTERTAIN THE UNUSUAL IN ROUNDS WITH BAD TOPICS.... If I feel the standard approach to your side of a topic is likely to force you to argue something absurd or offensive, I will give you a larger amount of latitude for nonstandard approaches. (Even though I will always intervene like this if I am aware of the imbalance, it's safer to point out to me that this principle should be in play.) A recent example is "USFGS mandate that blood donors cannot be discriminated against based on sexual orientation." Opposition teams are in the uncomfortable position of either advocating for discrimination or bad science if they are forced into the policymaker framework. K's and politics DAs are really the only ground they have, so I'm giving them a lot more weight. (6d) ...OR IF YOUR OPPONENTS ARE ABUSIVE. See point (0) on equity and point (1) on warrants. (7) SPEED DOESN’T KILL, BUT IT PROBABLY DOESN’T HELP. I’m probably about twice your age and don’t follow things nearly as well as I used to. A well-developed single argument wins against eight blippy and hard-to-follow ones. I’ll do the best I can, but it works better for all of us if you save your breath and show some quality of thought. (8) IF I SUSPECT YOU'RE MAKING CRAP UP, I WILL “GOOGLE IT”. I won’t entertain arguments that are patently absurd just because they are theoretically proper, and if the round comes down to a factual dispute, I will do as much research as I can in 5 minutes. If that doesn’t resolve it, I will consider the argument a wash. (9) SPEAKS. Speaks. I use something close to the last NPTE rubric. PMs and LOs start with 27. Members start with 27.5. Then you depart from there in 0.5 increments. Your speaks will be between 26 and 29 unless something highly unusual has happened. In novice or junior, these numbers measure your progress against the progress I expect from developing debaters (that is, it's much harder to get a 28 in March than in October). (10) YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? Seriously, you worry way too much about these things. If you want to know the detailed crap like whether I prefer functional or textual competition or junk like that, just ask before the round.

Chris Pierini - UWash

Background: I debated 4 years in high school, 2 years LD, 2 years Cross X. I debated Parli at UW for 2 years. I'm now head coach at UW and been coaching the team for 5 years. This will be my 15th year involved with debate. In General: ·         My flow is strict and speed is fine. ·         I default “net benefits” if no other framework is engaged. ·        Read any textual advocacy twice (PMC plan, perm, K alt, CP, T violation, ect) or have your partner give me and your opponents a copy of the text during your speech. The last thing I want to judge is a theoretical argument predicated off of text I don’t have word for word. ·         I’m willing to do a “gut check” on absurd arguments to protect the academic value of the activity. If Gov makes an argument that a country does not exist to no link a relations DA that argument is not going to fly. I want to vote for intelligent and strategic arguments. ·         Terminal defense: Sigh…..at some point I guess defense can win you the argument/round. A “we meet” on T or 0 solvency because of a plan flaw, come to mind. 0 risk of a link is just hard to prove. Defense combined with offense is a much easier way to win my ballot. In fact I think defense is undervalued in most debates. ·        If you and the other team have agreed to specific terms before the round like say “we will provide a written copy of CP text if they provide a written copy of plan text”. I must know about it before hand, those ethical debates are nearly impossible resolve. ·        I think debate is fun. Don’t put me in a position where it’s not fun.  ·         POO's: Call them but I'll probably just take them "under consideration".  ·         POI’s: You should probably answer a question or two. If a team can not engage your argument because it’s unclear (usually I’m thinking of a T violation or wtf the K alt means) and you refuse to answer a question….I'm probably going to give a lot a weight to any theory coming your way.  ·         If you have a question please ask, I’m more than happy to answer it. chris.pierini@gmail.com Section 2: Specific Inquiries  1.      Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? ·         26-29.5 standard range. ·         Points are awarded on the basis of strategic decisions made in round. ·         I will only go outside of this range if you are horrifically rude to me, your partner, or your opponents. 2.      How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? ·         The “level” at which the K operates is dependent on the framework. ·         Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? That’s for the debaters to engage or not. ·         Kritiks are like any other argument, they can be run poorly and they can be run well. ·         If you start throwing out hyper specific buzz words (especially in your alt text) OR a melding of 16 different authors it would be prudent to define/terms and explain your argument more than going for laundry list links and impacts. 3.      Performance based arguments… ·         I will evaluate every argument made in round.  Isn’t all debate a type of performance? ·         I will vote for performance based arguments…if you win the performance should win you the ballot.   4.      Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? ·         My threshold for pulling the trigger on a theoretical argument, I would not consider high or low. However, you must have all of the right components to warrant the trigger being pulled. Winning your interp and standards without winning a voting issue pretty much means I’m not voting for the argument. ·         Make sure you’re going for and impacting to the correct voting issues. You should probably have reasons why education/ fairness/ abuse/ jurisdiction/whatever is an impact-able argument. ·         I don’t require competing interpretations to vote for T but it’s probably helpful. ·         I don’t require in-round abuse but it’s probably helpful.   5.      Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? ·         CP’s they are an argument. ·         I have zero bias for CP theory. What arguments are run is purely a question of strategy. ·         I think solvency isn’t necessarily binary. You can solve better or worse in a lot of instances. This means CP vs Case solvency is really important for weighing impacts.   6.      Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) ·         Absolutely   7.      In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? ·         Theory (either throw out the argument or reject the team) then I do straight net benefits: K or/and CP or SQ impacts vs Case impacts….in general. ·         If your losing a K framework without articulating how your K operates in the Gov framework I’m probably going to reject the argument as it no longer functions in a decision making calculus. ·         If you have specific scenarios, I’ll do my best to answer them but with the variety of how arguments interact I can’t reasonably explain every permutation possible.   8.      How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? ·         Without argument interaction, PMs and LOs will be punished in speaker points ·         I have absolutely voted for positions like DeDev which went for value to life outweighing the nuclear war deaths and voted against when the warrants were not present. ·         If things are so diametrically opposed with ZERO argument interaction then my gut tells me I would default Gov as the Opp hasn’t presented a compelling argument to reject the Gov case. This has NEVER happened to me. Someone makes an argument which demonstrates impact interaction which I will evaluate because at this point judge intervention has become necessary to resolve the debate. I will intervene using arguments on the flow not my own personal bias. Basically, the better warranted or more logical argument will win out. ·          I give a lot of weight to specific scenarios vs generic impacts for reasons of probability.

Colin Patrick - WWU

Colin Patrick WWU   Overview: I believe that the round is ultimately the debater’s to control. I will default to Net-benefits unless otherwise told to do so. The best way for you to win my ballot is to compare impacts in the rebuttal. Also, I would like a copy of all plan, counter-plan, perm texts. I’ve had multiple rounds this year where teams have referred to the plan text when making arguments and running procedurals/plan flaws off of misspellings and abbreviations on the written out copy. I feel that this is necessary in these hyper-technical debates. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given. Anywhere between 25-30, but usually around 26.5-28, unless something extremely offensive is said, or there is general meanness exhibited. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I’m open to all K’s run by either side. That being said you will have an easier time winning my ballot if you properly elucidate on how your alternative solves. Unless otherwise told so, I believe that the Neg can run conditional contradictory positions. Performance based arguments… Again, I am open to all arguments, just be clear. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? In-round abuse is not necessary for me. The reason for voting on topicality should be made by the debaters. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? The legitimacy of a CP should be debated out. Unless otherwise told so, I believe the CP is conditional. If you want to lock the Neg into something, then ask a POI. Perms are always a test of competition. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Don’t care. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? The order of argument importance should be set up by the debaters. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? I will default to Net-Benefits unless otherwise told to do so. If you want to win on a dehumanization impact, then argue why that is the most important. If you want to win on a nuclear war impact, then argue why that is the most important. If this is not done then I will probably have to intervene somewhere.

Courtney Walsh - Hired Critics

Damon Martichuski - Hired Critics

Dan Broyles - Pacific

n/a

Dan Adler - Portland State

n/a

Dan Williams - Hired Critics

I competed in Parli early on in the NPTE process, and as a Senior was on the regular season top points earning team. But, having been to law school and now in practice, it would be wise to understand the activity has likely evolved in terminology if not always overall strategy, so be sure to be clear about what you are doing to win the round in that it can be explained without too much jargon. That being said, I am familiar with procedural arguments and the game behind them. As well as other arguments that have debate utility even if not “real world” utility. I would prefer arguments that stem from the resolution on the affirmative in a clear way. The activity should reward broad knowledge, not depth of generic cases. Oppositions should make sure that their strategy makes sense even if somewhat “gamey” or “strategic” early on so that by the end of the debate clear choices are made. Points of order are OK to call, but be sure, or after a while of bad calls I will take it out on your points. While I can understand what you say if you speak rapidly, I would ask that you still pamper my flow. Be clear! Signpost and label clearly! I will reward creativity and depth of discussion on resolution specific knowledge.

Darren Valenta - Linfield

n/a

Dave Kosloski - Clark CC

Dave Childers - Hired Critics

David Airne - U of M

4 years HS Policy; NDT 3 years and 1 year LD in college Coached HS Policy, HS LD, HS PF  NDT/CEDA, LD, IPDA and Parli for +10 years.   Upadated: January 2018 and also on Tabroom.com The quick overview to my judging is really simple. I judge things on what happens in the context of the round and it is up to those in the round to write that ballot for me. If you do not write it for me then you leave it up to me and I do not really want to intervene in the round, so write the ballot for me. So use the rebuttals to write my ballot. Asking me what arguments I like is silly, run what you want and if you are winning it then I vote on it. If you run things I happen to not like that just means you might have a higher threshold needed to win it, but if you are winning it then I vote for it. I typically default into a policy maker, but I am happy to vote wherever the round takes me. Finally, I will openly admit I do not give the highest of speaker points when compared to others (26-28 is pretty typical) but good debate warrants higher speaks when it occurs. Any specific issues you want to know about continue reading or just ask me since I am happy to tell you. However, note I teach, research, and publish in political communication (campaigning) and gender (masculinties, in particular). Those issues are difficult, at times, for me to step away from and while you are not debating against me as the juege, it can make it more difficult for me to evaluate the argument because it those issues are ingrained in my head and I see them in different ways that you may be arguing those issues (especially in Parli since we do not have access to evidence, but in evidence based forms that is different). That does not mean that you cannot run those certain positions, but they get a differnet listen than other arguments due to my work in the area. Framework: If you have a framework be sure you explain how it functions for me in the round. Remember, I tend to default to policy maker so without a clear explanation of it I will use that lens in the framework. So you have to tell me how the AFF/NEG views compete with each other. Critical Stuff: Never have had any problem with it other than I do not like them run poorly and I am not a fan of running them in the 1NC with other contradictory positions so that you can pick which arguments are your winners. It does need to be well developed and explained, especially in forms of debate where there is no evidence that I get to read after the round. Otherwise, feel free to run whatever critical arguments you want but be sure you explain how it compares to the AFF or NEG so I see how it operates in the world. Doing those things make critical arguments always great to hear. Traditional Policy Arguments: All are fair game. Be sure that you give me some way to evaluate the impact and show me how it relates to the AFF/NEG. However things like "RVI", or "T is a voter for fairness and education" do need some form of explanation. Your unsubstantiated claims are not going to work so well against one that is supported and explained. Parli specific notes--Points of order: You are welcome to call them, but just know that they are all under consideration and that is how I will answer to all of them. I tend to feel that me ruling on them has to potential to provide some unfair advantage for the team and it feels like a form of intervention since now you know how I "feel" about an argument so I just default to the under consideration answer to avoid that perception/advantage one side might get from the argument. Any specific questions you have please feel free to ask and I am more than happy to answer.

David Maile - Pacific

n/a

Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell

General information: I did LD in High School, CEDA in College and now coach NPDA.  I have been coaching for 8 years and have been involved in the activity for many more. I don't keep track of the specific number of rounds I have judged this year. More than 40. I am open to a variety of forms of debate.  Each round should take on its own form.  Any form or strategy is fine as long as everyone is the room can communicate.  I attempt to bring as little to the debate as possible although no judge can be totally tabla rosa. Arguments matter to me more than style.  I judge in a clear order. Kritik (if they are in the round) then procedurals (again, if they are present in the round) then case (government must prove that it is worth attempting plan) then weighing advantages against disadvantages.  Specific information: Topicality: I appreciate strategic interpretations of resolutions and will give a fair amount of room for the government to interpret the resolution.  They key is that everyone has some ground and some ability to debate.  I will also give a fair amount of room for novices to work on format and learn the rules.   Counterplans: CPs are great.  Condo is ok if well argued.  Disclose condo or no condo in the first speech.  My strong feeling is that it should not be about tricking the other team but going after a higher level of argumentation. I am not a huge fan of PICs. I would be open to argumentation on the issue. Points of Order are fine. The kritik: Kritiks are great--aff or neg.  Make a good, well-reasoned argument and have a reason for the K.  Then make sure to engage.  Theory: Great.  Go nuts. Disads: Cool.  Link them.

Denise Vaughan - Bellevue

General information: I did LD in High School, CEDA in College and now coach NPDA.  I am open to a variety of forms of debate.  Each round should take on its own form.  Any form or strategy is fine as long as everyone is the room can communicate.  I attempt to bring as little to the debate as possible although no judge can be totally tabla rosa. Specific information: Topicality: I appreciate strategic interpretations of resolutions and will give a fair amount of room for the government to interpret the resolution.  They key is that everyone has some ground and some ability to debate.  I will also give a fair amount of room for novices to work on format and learn the rules.   Counterplans: CPs are great.  Condo is ok if well argued.  Disclose condo or no condo in the first speech.  My strong feeling is that it should not be about tricking the other team but going after a higher level of argumentation. The kritik: Kritiks are great--aff or neg.  Make a good, well-reasoned argument and have a reason for the K.  Then make sure to engage.  Theory: Great.  Go nuts. Disads: Cool.  Link them.

Derek Buescher - Puget Sound

Derek Buescher University of Puget Sound Judging Philosophy This is really a list of things to keep in mind about my approach to judging and parliamentary debate more so than a philosophy. 1. I have judged very few rounds over the last decade. Prior to that time I judged frequently at NPDA/NPTE and CEDA/NDT tournaments. 2. I have no true argumentative preference. I do believe, generally, but not exclusively, that the debate round is the decision of the debaters. I will be open to listening to “traditional” styles of debate (CP/tix), critical affirmatives, and performance/identity styles of debate. I believe it is the responsible of all debaters to engage arguments and propose different views/means for evaluation. 3. I am not as versed in theory anymore as you might wish me to be. What this means is that you have likely adopted a vocabulary and agreed with other debaters about the meaning and operation of certain words, terms, and concepts relevant to the debate. It is unlikely that I share this vocabulary with you. As a result, many of your short cuts will not mean to mean what you want them to mean to me. They will like, in my view, the depth and weight, you may think they carry. It is your responsibility to make such ideas clear to me, although it is not your obligation to make them clear. Just realize that I may make assumptions contrary or with less weight to an idea that is, to me less clear. 4. Clarity in argument structure and depth is central to my process of argument evaluation. Many judges that debaters tend to “prefer” do impressive analysis of the interaction of arguments. In the vast majority of cases, I will evaluate the argument interactions that debaters tell me to evaluate and am not likely to reach the level of analysis you may tend to prefer. I want arguments to have warrants and clear explication of scenarios. If you, for example, say “x leads to nuke war which is bad because nuclear winter and people die blah blah blah” I am not very likely to give the argument much weight despite its likely veracity. I am very likely to dismiss the impact outright if the opponent says anything about the problems of the argument. 5. I do believe the uniqueness of parliamentary style debate rests with the changing resolution. This means I believe, or at least would prefer, the debate engage the resolution. This does not preclude critical or performative affs, but does suggest they be grounded to the resolution. 6. I do think CPs should be competitive. 7. I am likely to be slower than you prefer. You might want to account for that in your speaking rate. Feel free to ask me specific questions.

Deva Temple - Hired Critics

Doyle Srader - NCU

Doyle Srader Associate Professor of Communication Northwest Christian University Debated LD/CX/NDT 1981-1992. Judged NDT/CEDA/NPDA/NFA LD/IPDA 1992-2005, off and on. Since 2007, judged mostly BP and IPDA, and once in a blue moon, NPDA. Very not current, but very caught up on sleep.     You, and your arguing   Whispering lunar incantations Dissolve the floors of memory And all its clear relations Its divisions and precisions, -T. S. Eliot, Rhapsody On A Windy Night   And I must borrow every changing shape To find expression … dance, dance Like a dancing bear, Cry like a parrot, chatter like an ape. - T.S. Eliot, Portrait of a Lady   HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME If you don't like it you can get on with it, I said. Others can pick and choose if you can't. - T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land   Our dried voices, when We whisper together Are quiet and meaningless As wind in dry grass Or rat's feet over broken glass In our dry cellar - T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men       Me, and my deciding   HERE I am, an old man in a dry month, Being read to by a <s>boy</s>, waiting for rain. - T.S. Eliot, Gerontion   I am moved by fancies that are curled Around these images, and cling: The notion of some infinitely gentle Infinitely suffering thing. Wipe your hand across your mouth, and laugh; The worlds revolve like ancient women Gathering fuel in vacant lots. -T. S. Eliot, Preludes   Would it have been worth while, To have bitten off the matter with a smile, To have squeezed the universe into a ball To roll it toward some overwhelming question, To say: “I am Lazarus, come from the dead, Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all”- If one, settling a pillow by her head, Should say: “That is not what I meant at all. That is not it, at all.” - T.S. Eliot, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock   He laughed like an irresponsible foetus. -T. S. Eliot, Mr. Apollinax     This, and the difference it makes   I saw the ’potamus take wing Ascending from the damp savannas, And quiring angels round him sing The praise of God, in loud hosannas. -T. S. Eliot, The Hippopotamus

Edward McGlone - Willamette

n/a

Eric Chambers - UP

Gina McIlvenny - Hired Critics

Greg Young - Humboldt

n/a

Greg Alderson - Willamette

n/a

Halah Ilias - Hired Critics

Hoda Ilias - Hired Critics

Jeff Fisher - Hired Critics

Jeff Stoppenhagen - Boise State

Jennifer Salame - George Fox

n/a

Jennifer Page - Lower Columbia

Jennifer Conner - Hired Critics

Jerry Mooney - IDAHO

Jim Hanson - Whitman

JoAnn Edwards - Ole Miss

n/a

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark

Joe Provencher – Lewis and Clark   The Quick hits for Prep time:   Unless told otherwise, I default to net-bens/policy making.   If you want me to evaluate topicality via competing interpretations, slow down a bit through your interpretations so I have the text exactly as you intend it. You should also probably take a question on your definition/interp if it's particularly long/nuanced/complex/crazy.   I used to tell teams I believed all advocacies in round should be unconditional. However, a lot of the conditionallity debates I saw were really terrible, and probably had PMRs going for the theory without really understanding it, and then expecting me to vote every time for the aff as a result of my philosophy. So I'll try my best to explain it more below, but for your quick evaluation of me now, know that I don't really think conditionality is necessary (maybe not even good), but will do my absolute best to be open to the theory arguments made in round.   I think that counter-plans must compete via net-benefits or mutual exclusivity. Other CP theory arguments are going to be an uphill battle for my ballot.   I don't think I'm biased one way or another on the kritik. I think good K debate is good, and bad K debate is bad (and good theory debate is good, bad theory debate is bad, etc, etc). Just get small in the rebuttals, one way or the other, and pick your winning argument. Like any argument, if you suspect I may not be 100% familiar with the literature you are using, then make the tag line very clear so you can read your warrants as fast as you want.   Take some points of information. Be cordial. Call as many points of order as you want, but it should be limited to the individual calling the point of order, and a response from the opposing individual making the argument. There should never be a debate, or any back and forth, about whether an argument is new. Make your point, respond to it.      Some further reading for your strikes:   On conditionality: I would never explicitly tell a team not to run a certain argument in front of me. However, out of all the reading I've done, and rounds I've seen, I can't imagine a world in which the MG puts out a good Condo bad shell, the PMR goes for it sufficiently, and I do not vote for it. Maybe the reading I've done is insufficient, but I'm not convinced yet, and the limited condo debates I've seen have been bad ones that only reinforce that opinion. However, I'm trying to stay open to furthering my education in the activity and would encourage anyone to come find me and talk (maybe outside of round) so we can keep the discussion going.   On topicality: I believe that T is a discussion to find the best definition of a word in the resolution. The standards debate is a debate about why a particular definition is very good. A lot of times, especially with teams yelling about ground to DAs they're supposed to have, I think that focus gets lost. If a plan doesn't link to your DA, it might not be because they have mis-defined a word. It might just be that the DA is not good. Consequently, the claim that NEG can read DAs is not a reason your definition is good. That just means they can run DAs. Most debaters are good enough to come up with some kind of offense on the spot.   In general: Good debate gets small at the end of the rounds. Rebuttal speeches should be deep and specific, and focussed around why I must prioritize a single given story. Do that, you win.

John Jablonski - Clark CC

John Nelson - Boise State

Jon McCabe - Lewis & Clark

Julia Eisen-Meyers - Santa Clara

Kat Sillonis - IDAHO

Kathryn Starkey - Whitman

Katy Krenecki - Hired Critics

Kevin Stone - Hired Critics

Kori Thornburg - OSU

n/a

Korry Harvey - WWU

Background/Experience I debated a lot (CEDA, NDT), and have coached and judged even more (CEDA, NDT, NPDA, NPTE, Worlds). I teach courses in argument theory, diversity, and civil dialogue, and I am heavily involved in community service. While my debate background comes primarily from a “policy” paradigm, I have no problem with either good “critical” debates or “persuasive communication”, and am willing to listen to any framework a team feels is justifiably appropriate for the debate.   I think that debate is simultaneously a challenging educational exercise, a competitive game of strategy, and a wonderfully odd and unique community – all of which work together to make it fun. I think debaters, judges, and coaches, should actively try to actually enjoy the activity. Debate should be both fun and congenial. Finally, while a written ballot is informative, I feel that post-round oral critiques are one of the most valuable educational tools we as coaches and judges have to offer, and I will always be willing to disclose and discuss my decisions, even if that may involve walking and talking in order to help the tournament staff expedite an efficient schedule for all of us.   Unique consideration I am hearing impaired. No joke – I wear hearing aids in both ears, and am largely deaf without them. I think most would agree that I keep a pretty good flow, but I can only write down what I understand. I work as hard as just about any of your critics to understand and assess your arguments, and I appreciate it when you help me out a little. Unfortunately, a good deal of my hearing loss is in the range of the human voice – go figure. As such, clarity and a somewhat orderly structure are particularly important for me. For some, a notch or two up on the volume scale doesn’t hurt, either. However, please note that vocal projection is not the same as shouting-- which often just causes an echo effect, making it even harder for me to hear. Also, excessive chatter and knocking for your partner can make it difficult for me to hear the speaker. I really want to hear you, and I can only assume that you want to be heard as well. Thanks for working with me a little on this one.   Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) Although I don't see absolute objectivity as easily attainable, I do try to let the debaters themselves determine what is and is not best for the debate process. Debaters should clarify what framework/criteria they are utilizing, and how things should be evaluated (a weighing mechanism or decision calculus). I see my role as a theoretically “neutral observer” evaluating and comparing the validity of your arguments according to their probability, significance, magnitude, etc. I very much like to hear warrants behind your claims, as too many debates in parli are based on unsubstantiated assertions. As such, while a “dropped argument” has considerable weight, it will be evaluated within the context of the overall debate and is not necessarily an automatic “round-winner”.   Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making As noted, clarity and structure are very important to me. It should be clear to me where you are and what argument you are answering or extending. Bear in mind that what you address as “their next argument” may not necessarily be the same thing I identify as “their next argument”. I see the flow as a “map” of the debate round, and you provide the content for that map. I like my maps to make sense.   That said, good content still weighs more heavily to me than slick presentation. Have something good to say, rather than simply being good at saying things.   Additionally, 1) although I think most people speak better when standing, that’s your choice; 2) I won’t flow the things your partner says during your speech time; 3) Please time yourselves and keep track of protected time.   Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making I find that good case debate is a very effective strategy. It usually provides the most direct and relevant clash. Unfortunately, it is rarely practiced. I can understand that at times counterplans and kritiks make a case debate irrelevant or even unhelpful. Nevertheless, I can't tell you the number of times I have seen an Opposition team get themselves in trouble because they failed to make some rather simple and intuitive arguments on the case.   Openness to critical/performative styles of debating See above. No problem, as long as it is well executed – which really makes it no different than traditional "net-benefits" or "stock issues" debates. To me, no particular style of debating is inherently “bad”. I’d much rather hear “good” critical/performative debate than “bad” traditional/policy debate, and vice versa.   Topicality/Theory While I try to keep an open mind here, I must admit I’m not particularly fond of heavy theory debates. I think most debaters would be surprised by just how much less interesting they are as a judge than as a competitor. I realize they have their place and will vote on them if validated. However, screaming “abuse” or “unfair” is insufficient for me. I’m far more concerned about educational integrity, stable advocacy and an equitable division of ground. Just because a team doesn’t like their ground doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have any. Likewise, my threshold for “reverse voters” is also on the somewhat higher end – I will vote on them, but not without some consideration. Basically, I greatly prefer substantive debates over procedural ones. They seem to be both more educational and interesting.   Parliamentary procedure While I have no problem with them, I tend not to follow much of the traditional stylizations or formal elements of parliamentary practice: 1) I will likely just “take into consideration” points of order that identify “new” arguments in rebuttals, but you are more than welcome to make them if you feel they are warranted; 3) Just because I am not rapping on the table doesn’t mean I don’t like you or dig your arguments; 4) You don’t need to do the little tea pot dance to ask a question, just stand or raise your hand; 5) I don’t give the whole speaker of the house rap about recognizing speakers for a speech; you know the order, go ahead and speak; 6) I will include “thank yous” in speech time, but I do appreciate a clear, concise and non-timed roadmap beforehand.   I lean toward thinking that “splitting the block”, while perhaps theoretically defensible, is somewhat problematic in an activity with only two rebuttals and often only makes a round more messy.

Kyle Kimball - Puget Sound

Liz Kinnaman - MHCC

Mack Sermon - IDAHO

Margaret Hardy - UP

Mariella Brown - Hired Critics

Melissa Brown - Hired Critics

Melissa Franke - PacificLutheran

n/a

Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Nathan Wolf - George Fox

n/a

Nick Griffin - Whitman

Nick Robinson - Willamette

n/a

Nigel Ramoz-Leslie - Whitman

Nik Vaughn - Clark CC

Nikki Jauron - Hired Critics

Rachel Mills - Linfield

n/a

Rachelle Harris - WWU

n/a

Ramya Ramesh - Hired Critics

Rob Layne - Texas Tech

n/a

Robert Crenshaw - Whitman

Robert Dal Bianco - Hired Critics

Robert Trapp - Willamette

n/a

Ron Price - IDAHO

Background: Did policy and LD in high school. Debated for Boise State. Have been the assistant coach for C of I for the past 8 yrs. Have been involved with this activity for the past 15 yrs or so. Please make your arguments logical and cohesive. Ok with speed, but if you are not organized or clear then your arguments may get “lost” somewhere and it’s up to you to “find” them again. Will vote on Topicality; include standards, voters, etc. Ok with critical arguments but make sure your advocacy doesn’t contradict itself. Make sure your links story is solid. A to B to C works, but A to B to Z is a no go.  Have a plausible link/ impact story (not everything has to lead to or end in nuke war and extinction). Also not a huge fan of morally repugnant arguments (i.e. all gays will psychologically damage their children when raising them) so don’t make them.   Hmmm, so basically I will vote on the most convincing and logical arguments you present in the round so make smart choices and arguments, have fun and we’ll see what happens on the flow.

Sam Pagano - Boise State

Sam Timinsky - UWash

Samuel Cunningham - Hired Critics

Sanjay Ramprasad - Hired Critics

Sanjay Ramprasad NDT debater at Oregon, and 4 years of high school policy debate I will start of by saying that I do not judge very much NPDA, this will probably be the only one I will judge at all year, and as such I may need to be reminded of some of the structural procedures. There are really no arguments I am morally opposed to hearing. I, like many judges, try to be as impartial as I can be. Ideally I would like to evaluate every round objectively and within the framework of the debate. If the framework of the debate is not clearly articulated or is undeï¬ned, I will default to becoming a policy maker, evaluating the plan vs the status quo or some alternative advocacy. I like critical arguments, and tend to favor creative argumentation. I ï¬nd however, that while many teams have great ideas, these ideas often fail in execution on either the link level or the framework/alternative level. While I enjoy listening critical arguments my threshold for voting on them is pretty high. My threshold for voting on topicality is also pretty high. For a team to loose on topicality, they have to actually not be topical. This means the negative must prove some substantial in round abuse, either via ground loss, or strategy/time skew, or loss of competitive equity. The same goes for theory args. I will and have voted for them but I really will not be inclined to vote for your conditionality abuse arguments if the negative has advocated the c/p the entire round. Being on the side of truth when it comes to these types of debates will really help you win my ballot. I tend to err negative on most aspects of counterplan theory. The afï¬rmatives ability to choose the focus of the debate necessitates substantial argument ï¬‚exibly for the negative. For me, good debate depends fundamentally on argument resolution. Debaters often concentrate on constructing and rebutting arguments without resolving them, leaving most of the important work for the judge. Debaters that focus on creating a framework and resolving arguments within the framework will win my ballot and earn good speaker points. Finally, I will not vote on arguments that make no sense, simply because you tell me. Just calling something a “voting issue” does not make it an issue I will vote on. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.

Sara Seyller - Clark CC

I have enjoyed participating in the collegiate debate community since 2007. I have participated in, coached, and judged NPDA, IPDA, and BP debate. I think any form of debate is both fun and educational!! While I enjoy sharp, pointed styles I am averse to disrespectful treatment of competitors, and find that it detracts from the whole of the debate.   Overall, in each form of debate I am well versed in rules and expectations and hold firm to them.  They are there for a reason and ought to be respected.  This does not mean I lack flexibility, but it does mean that outright violations will be noted in nowhere else but in speaker point awards. In many ways I consider myself a hybrid, I am a flow judge with a speed govern of just short of ludicrous speed (IE spittle running down face as they gasp for air every few minutes), but I also appreciate arguments that use persuasive rhetoric and style rather than reliance on an excess of words to win solely by tabulating dropped arguments. As far as Procedurals, liked or otherwise, is becoming an important if not critical component to debating in NPDA.  As such, I am open to all forms of arguments so long as they are connected to the case, it doesn’t take much to make it applicable.  I am not a big fan of winning on dropped arguments alone unless the drop so large that the gaping hole left is enough to sink the case.  I leave it up to the competitors to set the rounds as they see fit.  In IPDA and BP there is a heavier reliance on style and persuasion rather than procedurals.  As such, I tend to be less about detailed flows and more attentive to the connections made both within the cases and through clash provided connected to the opponents case.  In these rounds, the devil is in the details.  I am most appreciative of competitors that can connect to the people in the room by explaining how it might impact us, why it matters to us, or the harms and benefits we would be exposed to should something occur.  Ivory tower syndrome, arguing so far up in the building that it become abstract concepts of competing theory, is extraordinarily hard to do given the time frame and is more often isolates competitors and judges from the argument rather than including them.

Sarah Hamid - Oregon

History/BG 1         Academic: I completed my undergraduate degree with a double major in Literature (focus on Gender Criticism and Theory) and Post-Colonial Studies, minor in Art History, Gender Studies, History, and Film Studies. I am currently an MA candidate in Media Studies at the University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communication. My research interests include nation branding, anthropology of the state, and “globalization”. 2         Debate: I am in my third year of coaching at the U of O’s Parliamentary Debate/Policy Debate program. I also direct our fledgling IE program. As a competitor, I spent 3 years in the NPTE/NPDA circuit, 2 of which were spent debating for the University of the Pacific in Parliamentary Debate and NFA-LD. 3         Judging: This will be my third NPTE/NPDA, and the conclusion of my third season of judging. 4         Topic Areas: I was heavily involved in the research of all 3 topic-areas, though am most versed in science/technology and the Latin America resolutions. I am comfortable evaluating deep, well-researched debates on all resolutions.   Global I believe hard, educational debate is good debate. I like to see strong research ethics, clash, and a willingness to engage a variety of methods and arguments. I do not like to see blips, claims, lies, and attitudes that seek to exclude. I recognize the participatory disparities in this activity – the diminishing voice of representation from 2-year institutions and the ever present absence of debaters of color – and tend to approach rounds with the kind of ferocious open-mindedness that will allow as many people to participate as possible.   Local 1         I have no hang-ups about voting for any ‘type’ of argument, regardless of manner of delivery or genre of argument. I have voted for and against all arguments. 2         Rate of delivery is rarely a problem; I keep a neat flow and will audible for clarity with little hesitation if needed. IMO, ideal rate of delivery is determined by what is most conducive to the pedagogic value of the round. 3         Order of operations (unless convinced otherwise): (1) framework/theoretical legitimacy, (2) solvency or “solvency”, depending on nature of advocacy and (3) impact comparison. 4         I will not vote for an argument I do not understand. I am perfectly comfortable disregarding arguments that fail to meet a basic threshold of sense and explanation. 5         Theory is rarely a reason to reject the team, rejecting the argument should solve your impact. 6         Permutations are a demonstration of non-competitiveness, not an advocacy. 7         Framework is not a voting issue – that does not make sense to me. 8         “No warrant” is an observation, not an argument. Gee wiz, I can flow too. 9         More often then not, link controls the direction of the link. I am not compelled by uniqueness ‘dumps; with no cohesion of comparative claims. 10      I do not ‘believe’ in any theory argument. I enjoy watching multiple conditional negative advocacies, and do not consider counterplans that rely on normal means for competition to be ‘cheating’. That’s silly. 11      I don’t really understand what the distinction most teams draw between ‘potential’ or ‘articulated’ abuse on procedurals, and rarely see a demonstration of abuse at all, so don’t care about how ‘articulated’ your abuse is. This ought to be resolved via impact calculus. 12      I don’t believe fairness takes primacy. I don’t believe being topical entitles you to anything. I believe that should be debated and resolved in round. 13      Terminal defense exists and I will evaluate it. 14      I will not vote on an argument as “dropped” if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech. 15      I don’t care if you call points of order, but will only allow 1 response before I deliberate. 16      Don’t split the block.   Flowing I flow Kritiks on one sheet of paper, flow the LOR on its own sheet of paper, and tend to flow answers/MG/MOC arguments next to where I am directed to do so. I am a flow-centric critic as I find this helps me check subjective bias, so will not disregard the flow unless you provide a compelling reason to do so.   RFDs This is NPTE, so I believe you can all flow and find explaining the nature and weight of every single argument that was conceived of during the debate to be a waste of time. I will do my best to clearly explain why I evaluated key arguments that helped resolve the debate for me the way that it did. If you would like to me reflect on how I felt about a certain argument, or why certain arguments did not weigh into my decision, the onus is on you to ask.   Theory You should strive to create as much of a distinction as possible between your opponents’ and your interpretation; case lists that demonstrate the nature and depth of the ground at stake are helpful. I err on competing interpretations absent being told otherwise, and will vote on the interpretation that provides the most offensive justification in its defense. I don’t care how little your interpretation/violation relates to the topic, and have no gut-checks on fairness and theft of ground. I don’t enjoy watching asinine debates, so just ask questions for clarification and avoid the spec debate entirely.   Disads Fine, no qualms.   Kritiks Fine, no qualms. Although, don’t assume I’ve read, agree with, or care about your authors.   Counterplans Fine, no qualms.   Speaker Points I am ambivalent to the practice of allocating speaker points. I have no problem with giving straight 28s. I usually range from 28-29, and will hand out a 30 every couple of tournaments if I see a particularly clever deployment of strategy.   I reserve the right to: 1         Ask for any and all texts after the round. 2         Audible when something is unclear. 3         Deliberate on all points of order, even on a panel. 4         Deduct from speaker points if your language is offensive. 5         Deduct from speaker points if you have nothing interesting to say besides generics on a given topic area; this is nationals, do research.

Sean Partch - MHCC

Shannon Valdivia - MHCC

Simone Walter - Lewis & Clark

Simone Walter – 2012 Judging Philosophy   Background: I competed for Oregon for 4 years. This is my second year at Lewis & Clark.   How I conceptualize the round: the duty of the affirmative is to provide a policy action* that will provide a substantial benefit to the resolution-specific context; the duty of the opposition is to prove why the affirmative should be rejected (ie. why the disadvantages of the AFF plan outweigh its advantages). I will conceptualize ‘the world’ in which the round is located based on how I am ‘told’ to adjudicate the round, the ballot, and the in-round arguments. On a side note, this is not to say that I enjoy being ‘spoken for’ as a critic.   *I am not opposed to hearing critical affirmatives. In fact, I think they can be awesome if deployed strategically. If you do not read a plan text, you still must defend a stable advocacy. To win my ballot with a critical affirmative, it is imperative for the AFF – a) If you do not read a plan text, you still must defend a stable advocacy; and b) demonstrate that the critical affirmative is topical, competitive, and permissible.   Debate is a game, a really fun game; most so when the players engage in ways that best suit their interests and knowledge base. As a judge, I will listen to anything. But do not be morally repugnant. Even so, I find tricot to be silly (in other words, awful). I saw a few of these rounds last year. They were bad and just got worse. As a judge, I will do my best to not intervene. Except for tricot. So, just don’t do it.   Prior to giving my RFD, while I am making my decision, I would appreciate your silence. You can leave the room if you would like. If you have questions following the round, please talk to me immediately. Three rounds later, I guarantee that I have already stopped thinking of YOUR round.   Arguments:   Theory – Raising theoretical objections to whether a team’s strategy is justified is always permissible. Demonstrating tangible in-round abuse over potential abuse is preferable.   I assume theory arguments to be voting issues on competing interpretations. The specificity of the standards in justification of your interpretation is imperative to providing an effective comparison of why I should preference/reject an interpretation.   The Kritikkkk –   Discursive implications are real and so we should be held responsible for our rhetorical choices. Thus, my default mechanism for evaluating the K is that the critical implications presuppose the impacts of the affirmative. If the AFF team does not want me to default to this assumption, then explain to me how you would prefer me to evaluate the K in juxtaposition to the affirmative. For an AFF team to pick up my ballot against the K, I need tangible reasons as to not only why I should weigh the case against the K but also why doing plan is still a good idea.   I enjoy the critical debate. I will preference unique topic-specific critical arguments over generic backfiles. Nevertheless, I am often disappointed by the lack of explanation awarded to the nuance of the literature from which the K is derived. So please, fully articulate the thesis of your argument, its application (ie. framework/link arguments) and thus, its implications to the “world” in which the debate is located.   I believe that the most effective critical arguments are topic specific and function essentially as disadvantages that turn the affirmative. If you choose to operate outside the realm of “playing as policy-making,” then you must still defend a stable advocacy. Thus, your alternative should DO something. Often times, critical debates frustrate me because the alternative does not solve and/or the function of the alternative is not adequately explained, which causes me to err that plan is still a good idea. Though I may default to the assumption that the impacts of the K presuppose the case, if the alternative doesn’t do anything, then you will not win my ballot.   Counterplans – Please read text twice (This also applies to the PMC plantext, perm texts, the alternative to the K, and the T violation). A written copy would be preferable if the CP text is particularly long/convoluted.   In regards to specific CP theory arguments (ie. PICS good/bad, the status of the CP, textual v. functional competition, etc.), I assume these to be negotiable questions to be decided in the round and not based on my predisposition towards these arguments. So long as they are deployed strategically, I do not perceive to Consult/Delay to be inherently illegitimate. I tend to favor the arguments that best support topic-specific education, rather than fairness or predictability.   For me, CP theory arguments are most effective if accompanied with nuanced impact calculus as to their implications upon decision-making processes. In other words, the substantive solvency evidence in favor of your CP (or AFF plan) is what is going to win my ballot on this part of the flow.   LOR/PMR – please help me by providing substantive comparisons of the world of plan/perm and counterplan. How actually am I suppose to evaluate the risk of the solvency deficit to the risk of the DA if you do not explicate this for me?   Disadvantages – I will award full potency to defensive arguments. Even so, (particularly in the rebuttals) I would like a clear articulation of how the probability/risk/timeframe arguments interact with offensive arguments on magnitude. Also, be realistic about what offense you are winning and what offense the other team is winning. Don’t assume that you are winning ALL the things because then you will fail to explicate why what you are legitimately winning is more important than the other team’s offense.   If there is a NO link to the DA, then there is no link. If there is a link turn argument without any arguments at the uniqueness level, then I will still evaluate the argument (assuming the no link argument is fully articulated): for me, the no link isn’t washed away by what is happening at the uniqueness level.   Presentation:   Speed is fine; delivery that is unclear is not fine. If the other teams calls you out for your poorly articulated plantext/cptext/whatever, then do not assume that it was clearly articulated to me either.   In terms of speaker points, I award them based on a few things – <ol> <li>fulfilling the duties of your speaker position</li> <li>good smart arguments – multiple warrants are better than claims with none</li> <li>you debate the side of the resolution that you are given, but I don’t think that this is an excuse to be a prick</li> <li>if you teach me something</li> </ol>

Sophia Sanders - Seattle

n/a

Steve Woods - WWU

Debate Background: 14 years at WWU Coaching since 1987 overall (K-State, Florida State, Vermont, Wm. Jewell) Overview: I tend to default to a policy maker framework. However, I am open to a variety of paradigms if explicitly introduced and supported in the debate.  As such, I do NOT automatically dismiss an argument based on its "name" (DA or Kritik for example), BUT I do put a premium on how well the argument fits the context of the round.  Often, policy arguments are incredibly generic and poorly linked to the PMC, and critical approaches may be well linked and appropriate (and vice versa).  So, concentrate on the substance of the issues more than the "type" of the argument.  I can tolerate high rates of delivery, but clarity is your responsibility. I also find that high rates of delivery are a cover for a lack of strategy rather than a strategy.  If you go fast, have a reason.  Specifics: Topicality--I tend to give Govt extensive leeway on topicality. Proceduerals/Spec arguments--must be more than plan flaw issues and show real in round abuse. Solvency--I do weigh case versus off case, so Solvency is a part of the overall decision factor.  While it may be tough to "win" on solvency presses and mitigation, good case debate is useful to set up the link directions for the off case arguments/case turns. Disadvantages--HAVE TO BE LINKED to Plan text.  Generic positions tend to get weighed less likely. Counterplans--Issues of competition and permutations neeed to be clear.  I don't need perm "standards" and the like, but clear delineation between the policy options is required. Critical--Acceptable if well linked and relevant.  I tend not to be impressed by appeals to philosophical authority.  Team introducing has an obligation to make argument understandable. How to get High Points: Be polite and collegial to your opponents.  Use clear structure (labeling and signposting).  Have a good strategy and display round awareness.  Generally strong substance is more rewarded than speaking performance.  However, the combination of both is appreciated :)  Good rebuttals and clear strategic choices that make the RFD your work instead of one I have to concoct will help you.  Humor and good will are always appreciated as well. Strike or No Strike? I feel that I am pretty tolerant of a variety of styles and approaches.  I have a policy background but have coached parli for 13 years, so I have seen a lot of different styles and approaches,  I try to be tabula rasa to the extent both teams seem to be in agreement for the paradigm for the round--but do reserve the right to be a "critic of argument" when issues are left unresolved by the debaters, but I do try to limit intervention in those cases to a bare minimum.

Tim Wilder - Whitman

Tom Schally - Oregon

Schally Doctrine TL;DR Version (NPTE '13) I've been told this is my year to be most preferred critic, so I'll keep this brief. Coach at Oregon 4 years parli/policy. I make an effort to thoughtfully evaluate and reward good debate, and help you improve it. I expect a lot but if you want your hard work rewarded then I am a probably a good critic to prefer. Thanks for reading. Since no one is tabula rasa, here are some of the things that are on my tabula: • In front of me you are almost always better off doing what you do well rather than attempting to cater to my partiality. You want to read two counterplans? Make it rain. Read a poem? Frost me. • I will not vote on an argument as “dropped” if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech. • I am perfectly comfortable passing judgment. If an argument does not rise to a minimum threshold of sense and/or explanation, I will disregard it. • Debate is a communication activity and good debaters recognize that fact – time pressures and all – they can afford to explain, be funny, and identify failures and correct them. • Rule 1 of winning debates is control the frame: is conditionality good/bad to be decided on education or fairness, is timeframe or magnitude more important, is social welfare or maximizing liberty more important? . . . These meta-level comparisons, or arguments that resolve arguments, are more important than smaller line-by-line issues in 11 out of 10 debates. • I like jokes. Even mean jokes, but not cruel jokes. Actually, even most cruel jokes. But only if everyone can agree with that they are jokes. How do you know? Social skills. It's a matter of risk/reward. I enjoy competitive debates that illustrate that this is a collegial activity. This activity is very intense, but recognize that everyone present feels the same pressures. Enjoy what you do. I suppose that honor is a bourgeoisie value, but I am a supporter.  STOP HERE! You're better off spending your time researching, but if you'd like to proceed, here's last year's NPTE philosophy. 2012 NPTE: <a href="http://www.net-benefits.net/showpost.php?p=233088&postcount=3" target="_blank">http://www.net-benefits.net/showpost...88&postcount=3</a>   Schally Doctrine NPTE 2012 Director’s Cut   Even the best classic works occasionally require modernization to match the times, yet other observations simply grow finer with time. So, here’s the new update everyone, thanks for reading.   E-harmony Blurb: This is not a game that someone wins, but rather a form of play that is successful the more people get to play, and the longer the game is kept going. I approach judging as a constant challenge for personal betterment and make a genuine effort to thoughtfully evaluate and reward good debate and help you improve it. I want to be preferred at tournaments and see the very best debates. I think that debate is unquestionably one of the best games ever crafted and embrace its eccentricities with a fair amount of jest; yet recognize its value is determined by our collective expectations and willingness to be challenged. If you demand a lot from yourself and want your hard work and practice rewarded, then I am a probably a good critic for your to prefer. Debate/Academic Pedigree: I am in my third year of coaching and judging both policy and parliamentary debate for Oregon. I have judged at approximately 12 parli and 5 policy tournaments this season and rarely get a break. I competed for three years at Western Kentucky University (don’t read into it) in both NPTE/NPDA Parliamentary and NFA Lincoln-Douglas debate (strike two, I know). I also competed in CEDA/NDT as a freshman with Macalester College. As an undergraduate I studied political science (mostly comparative and international relations) and gender studies/philosophy. Now as a graduate student at the University of Oregon, I study public policy and my major research areas include ethical philosophy, security studies, and environmental issues. About This Philosophy: Proceeding with the adage, “the only bad judging philosophy is a dishonest one,” I have made a noteworthy effort to reveal my known predispositions. Of course, (requisite judge philosophy qualifier ahead) these are purely my opinions and I can be dissuaded from them unless explicitly noted. Since no one is tabula rasa, here are some of the things that are on my tabula. Read and then get back to researching. GLOBAL THOUGHTS: • In front of me you are almost always better off doing what you do well rather than attempting to cater to my partiality. You want to read two counterplans? Make it rain. Read a poem? Frost me. • I will not vote on an argument as “dropped” if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech. • I am perfectly comfortable passing judgment. If an argument does not rise to a minimum threshold of sense and/or explanation, I will disregard it. • Debate is a communication activity and good debaters recognize that fact – time pressures and all – they can afford to explain, be funny, and identify communication failures and correct them. The Schally Doctrine addresses my musings and jest on substantive argument categories first and then matters of debate practice follow. Substantive Debate Issues: Rule number 1 of winning debates is control the frame: is conditionality good/bad to be decided on education or fairness, is timeframe or magnitude more important, is social welfare or maximizing liberty more important? . . . These meta-level comparisons, or arguments that resolve arguments, are more important than smaller line-by-line issues in 11 out of 10 debates. If you control the frame, you will almost invariably win. CRITIQUES: Providing a clear and persuasive explanation of your argument is vastly more important than advertising your mastery of a cultural studies vocab list. People seem to often lose sight of the fact that critiques are just arguments, so don’t strive to mystify your argument on either side. Don’t assume that I have read and/or understand your author(s)—this is generally a problem in K debates—where people assume that terms are packed with implicit meaning. Teams are usually better off attempting to engage the kritik than spewing down a list of “pomo ain’t good.” I would rather listen to smart analytical arguments than the standard curriculum of “not fair” and “ policy/realism good”. -Tips for Neg – Kritiks should typically provide an explanatory framework for evaluating the world or advocacy in a manner that deviates from the framework assumed by the other team. I am unimpressed by frameworks that seek to inflate the relevance of the Kritik by excluding the Aff. Kritiks should not literally exclude other impacts, but rather provide a specific mechanism for evaluating and prioritizing different types of impact claims and/or contains implications that logically make other impacts non-existent or irrelevant. Framework – Framework debates are much like theory debates to me. The explanation of your position on what debate should be, and the consequences to debate of a particular practice or position are just as important as winning specific claims. If you want to debate about debate, then you need to articulate an impact statement about what debate should be. That being said, I’ve voted both ways on most framework debates, so you should defend the debate practices that you feel most comfortable defending, and not worry about my views of debate practices. -Critical Affirmatives - I am inclined to believe that affirmatives should be tied to a topical advocacy statement. Beyond that I have no evident presumptions about critical arguments that are not equally true of the negative. -Contradictory/Conditional K’s – Although there are obvious exceptions, critiquing the thinking or representations of an advocacy do not seem exclusive with also questioning its political consequences (to me). An idea can be wrong for relying on faulty assumptions, making wrongful conclusions, or both. Similarly, it is possible to have both ethical and pragmatic objections to particular action. I can be convinced that conditional K’s are bad, but do not begin thinking they are any worse than a counterplan. -Performance – I don’t see a lot of performance in parli and when I have it was done haphazardly and mostly uninspired. I am happy to judge performance debates, but would like for the performance to be purposeful; that makes or enhances a merited argument. If you deploy an argument and debate it then you can definitely pref me, but if your intention is to be ambiguous and unhelpful with the hope that I will conjure an explanation of your argument and reason it beats the other team, you may want to stick to getting Cheesewright’s ballot. TOPICALITY: Obviously topicality is a question of competing interpretations, but it seems just as apparent to me that if the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact to topicality i.e. fairness or education, then there is no compelling reason to vote negative. So, if you win that your interpretation is marginally better in a relatively unimportant way, then you must justify why it is that I should reward you with the ballot. Within this framework if you do not “meet” any interpretation in the round then it is difficult to vote for you because you have not provided a justification for how you affirm the topic, so offer a counter-interpretation. Too often debaters neglect the “impact” of your interpretation and what their world of debate looks like, so get with it. -Topicality intuitively precedes consideration of the merits of the affirmative advocacy assuming no effort is made to change the conventional framing of these arguments (if T isn’t first, it’s last, right?). This principle does not apply to non-topicality arguments such as specification relative to theory, etc. -T is not genocide—however, “exclusion” and similar impacts can be good reasons to prefer one interpretation over another. COUNTERPLANS: I think that the “gold standard” for counterplan legitimacy is specific solvency. Obviously, the necessary degree of specificity is a matter of interpretation, but, like good art, you know it when you see it. I tend to believe that counterplans that focus the debate on substantial elements of the plan are good for debate and counterplans that rely on ‘normal means’ for competition are not. Many of the assumptions about aff bias in choosing their case and having full/infinite prep are almost always untrue in parli’s current topic area => resolution procedure, so make theory forum-specific. I rarely see teams creatively counterplan away affirmative advantages or generate uniqueness and wish this happened more often. LOC Theory – I think that negative teams benefit greatly by including a theoretical defense of their counterplan in the LOC, otherwise the debate starts in the MG and I often have a difficult time figuring out how to reconcile new’ish PMR impact comparisons on these theory debates.                                                 Legitimacy – As a general guideline, I think CP’s shouldn’t contain a world where the entire plan could happen.     I am skeptical of delay, consult, small exclusion PICs of things unqualified by the plan.             Competition – I do not think that anything is “implied” by the plan. I prefer that counterplans compete both textually and functionally, however I can easily be made to favor solely functional competition. BTW, textual competition means a counterplan is competitive based off of something explicitly in the text of the plan. It does not mean what most debaters say it does in rounds…..(IE excluding a word counts) DISADVANTAGES: In assessing risk I tend belong to the ‘link first’ school of thought regarding disadvantages. To clarify, I find that if a disad is extremely unique then it obviously requires a high magnitude of a link to trigger the impact, but on the converse, if a disad is brink’ish then the neg has to win a high magnitude of a link to distinguish the plan from the conditions that created the brink. In either case, the question is the degree to which the aff causes the link. Uniqueness is, of course, very important however I find “we control uniqueness” to be code for “our link is terrible.” I do not believe in “1% of a link” and I am comfortable saying that there is not one, you should win your link and then you may assess risk of an impact. I think that if you “link turn” a disad and control the net-direction of the link but have no uniqueness answers that the risk of the disad is probably still zero. I think that intelligent defensive answers are under-utilized in most debates that I watch. THEORY: Does topic education outweigh analytic/process driven education? Does ‘judge intervention’ have a unique impact in relation to other theory impacts? You should answer these questions. I am likely to assume that rejecting the argument solves your impact, unless persuaded otherwise. I try my best to check my biases at the door, just recognize that some theoretical arguments make more sense (to me) than do others. Arbitrary interpretations are one of the stupidest trends in debate right now. If your interpretation of debate theory is wholly arbitrary and made up it doesn’t seem very useful for me to uphold it as some new norm and reject the other team. I am likely to believe that plans that fiat a number of actors (especially private) are abusive. The argument that “the aff will be vetoed/rolled back by the Pres or Congress” is laughable. By this I mean that, on occasion, when I am depressed, I think about this argument, and I laugh out loud. Specification arguments may be dismissed with maximum flippancy. IMPACTS: Lately, I think that impact comparison is one of the least sophisticated levels of analysis in most debates that I watch, which is very unfortunate. I welcome creative ways of framing the importance of differing impacts and would like to see rebuttals employ more “tiebreaker” arguments. Defense – Smart defensive arguments are an invaluable part of any good impact debate. Impact defense is severely underrated, especially against particularly silly impacts.                                                      Silly Impact Turns – Arguments deemed “counterintuitive” are welcome, but before unloading your early 90’s backfiles you should recognize that most of these arguments are intellectually weak and require some finesse to pull off.                                                                                                                  Buzzwords – Recent judging has made me irritated with the way any impact other than nuclear war is typically characterized. “That’s dehumanization, which is the internal-link to all violence,” has become a vacuous and lazy stand-in for every non-mass death or systemic impact framing. There are compelling reasons to value/prioritize actions that address racism or poverty, so argue this some integrity. This observation has also led me to make public my following inclinations. Things that probably do not negate personhood and/or erase life of meaning: • making difficult choices • lacking universal healthcare • Americans living in conditions that people elsewhere in the world already live in • abiding by laws or conventions Things that probably do negate personhood: • death • points of order • Soulja Boy                                                     Debate Practices HUMOR: I like jokes. Even mean jokes, but not cruel jokes. Actually, even most cruel jokes. But only if everyone can agree with that they are jokes. How do you know? Social skills. I know, not high on debaters’ list of talents, but it's a matter of risk/reward. It is refreshing to see debates that illustrate that this is a collegial activity in which all participants dedicate a significant amount of time and effort. In particular: StarCraft jokes are good. Star Wars are better. Pokemon jokes (except Dewgongs) Franz Kafka College sports Hipsters and PUNS PARLI ODDITIES: Prep – All materials should have been written in prep time; apparently this is a necessary clarification. Questions – The “protected time” rule is outdated and irrelevant to me; you are welcome to accept/decline questions within your speech as you choose. Points Of Order – I do not require points of order to be made in order to exclude new arguments, however I understand the strategic utility of them and am unlikely to punish you for using something that is put at your disposal by the rules. Texts – I prefer that textual advocacies be written down in a legible and shareable format if you are not going to repeat them in your speech, so that I have a definite form somewhere. I will not however contribute to the proliferation of arbitrary procedurals concerning the “right” to a written copy of plan or counterplan; it’s a courtesy. Demand a copy of “perm: do both, perm: do cp” or any of the like and receive 26 speakers points. Ask me why and I will write you a text. Opposition Block – The LOR does not need to make explicit extensions from the MOC. However, expounding upon certain arguments can affect the relative strength of that argument when I evaluate it. I will also defer to the nuance of argument explanation and comparison offered by the rebuttals. I think that “splitting” the block is particularly unfair and probably heavily bias. If you want me to “box in” your opponents, then you should provide a good explanation of what you could not argue and why that was critical. That being said, I do not like sandbagging and I will exert close scrutiny on the rebuttals. Make better arguments and you wont have to be sneaky. New MG Args – I’m not really one to give the PMR “golden answers,” especially on the positions that came out new in the MG.  I’m perfectly willing to evaluate your arguments.  Going for something stupid in the PMR on the basis that the negative doesn’t get second lines is a bad strategy in front of me. FLOWING: I keep an excellent and detailed flow. However, winning for me is more about establishing a coherent and well-reasoned 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 arguments on another sheet of paper or later on the line by line. In a close debate, I will evaluate the final rebuttal of the team I am voting against on a separate sheet of paper, to make sure I have sufficiently evaluated each argument. I also flow the LOR on a separate sheet.  I do a lot of comparisons between the PMR and the LOR.  I flow every distinct case contention and off-case argument on a single sheet of paper spaced out appropriate to what I expect to need for answers. I typically flow responses to those arguments from top-to-bottom unless explicitly told to do otherwise (and maybe even still because I likely know better). Any attempt to alter this should be purposeful. I will not move back up the page, I will write your next argument in the order it was delivered. For example, if your mg says, “framework, perm, aff outweighs” I will not move down to the alt to flow your perm and then move back and end up cramming things together. So you should reference arguments by their tag/content and respond to them in a logical order that follows the previous speech. p.s. I sometimes flow permutations on a separate page if I expect that debate to get big (i.e. if it’s “one-off”), but that shouldn’t affect anything. DECORUM: I recognize that this activity is very intense, but try to understand that everyone present feels the same pressures. If you are decisively beating a team (particularly a younger or less successful team), then there’s no need to be rude. I suppose that honor is a bourgeoisie value, but I am a supporter. DISCLOSURE: I welcome post-round discussion—even if it is confrontational—it lets me debate again.

2011 Steve Hunt Classic