FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Blood - UNL

n/a

Anthony Cavaiani - William Woods

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

Ashley Harlow - Evangel

n/a

Chris Outzen - Truman

Judging Philosophy: NFA-LD I take the position that any form of public communication, including debate, is an audience-centric endeavor. The role of each debater is not to convince each other of their rightness in an isolated box at the front of the room; it is to convince the judge that they are the more right debater in that round. To that end, adaptation of strategy and delivery of argument necessitates consideration of both your opponent AND the experience of the judge. To that end, the following are some of my expectations and constraints as a judge. Judge’s General Debate Experience: I am the primary IE coach at my program and this is my 2nd year judging LD regularly. I have 1-semester college policy experience from and undergraduate class, so you can expect that I will understand most debate terminology but that my flowing and listening speed will not be up to par with those who have been in the debate community consistently for years. Speaker Speed: I believe that LD inhabits a unique position where both argumentation and strong speaking skills can be valued. However, I have noticed with the advent of digital files and including judges in sharing chains that these are treated as permission to spread, even in front of judges without years of spreading/flowing experince. At this point, we reduce debate to a comparison of evidence, not a speaking and oral argument exercise. Therefore, I am fine with a faster than conversational rate of speaking but I have no tolerance for true spreading you might see in NDT/CEDA or some parli formats. If you are looking for a brightline, consider the climax of a Poetry Interpretation. A little faster than that would be fine, but not much more. If agreed to by both debaters, I’m willing to alert you in-round if you are going too fast for my comprehension. Argument Explanation: You are welcome to run any arguments you wish in front of me in varying levels of complexity. However, remember the audience-centric principle. Your audience/judge may not be familiar with every aspect of this topic. Thus, your debate is not just debating; it is a teachable moment where you can give information about the topic in order to justify your win. This means you should be practicing breaking down complex concepts and providing strong links between the different pieces of your argument. Ethical Speaking: Engaging in unethical or obfuscating behavior, including misleading card cutting, deliberate spreading against judge preference, ignoring the audience as consumers of your message, or styling your arguments deliberately to be overly complex/dense, are not acceptable as a speaker. You are also expected to grant your opponent the same ground/courtesy as you expect. Example: If you cut off their answers in CX to move on to your next question, do not talk over/ignore them when they do the same thing in their CX. Topicality-I’m open to T arguments. Proven abuse is the best course to win a T argument, but I’m willing to consider potential abuse if the possible abuse is of a significant magnitude. Kritiks-I’m open to K debate. However, I expect K-affs to pass the test of Topicality; make sure you can explain how it links to the resolution. Additionally, do keep in mind that K debate is still a growing area of argumentation in the LD community, so please consider the principles laid out above with regard to Argument Explanation if you run a K on either side of the debate. To summarize, I'm open to all forms of argumentation on the premise that a) They are understandable and follow basic ethical guidelines; and b) They are justified by you as fitting in the round and resolution.

Claire Grothe - Truman

Craig Hennigan - Truman

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

David Bailey - SBU

n/a

Derek Pritchett - UCM

<h3>NPDA</h3> Overview I competed in Policy Debate for four years in high school and did Lincoln-Douglas and Parli all throughout college. I am currently a graduate student coach at the University of Central Missouri and I coach and Judge LD and Parli. I tend to default policymaker, but if you want to put me into something else I’ll listen. The debaters should define the round, not the judge. Procedurals I like Topicality and Procedurals if they're warranted (using them as time sucks is a useful strategy as well). For Topicality I usually can be pretty swayed by reasonability claims from the aff, but if there is demonstrable abuse it easily overcome reasonability. Competing Interps are good to use, but I wouldn’t punish an affirmative team for just meeting neg’s interp (assuming they actually do). Disads These are probably the easiest to evaluate, just make sure you do impact calculus for me. I don’t really like politics Das unless there are specific links, brinks, and Internal links. CPs I like CPS a lot, but will vote on a good perm if the competition isn’t good enough. I’ll also listen to theory positions on CPs, but there needs to be proven abuse. Kritiks I’m up to date on several kriticisms, but not so much on others. Just make sure the information is clear. Kritiks need clear links and framework. Alternatives need to be something other than “reject aff” and be something I could actually accomplish. The alt solvency and role of the ballot claims are really important to me when I comes to evaluating the K Kritical Affs/Projects I haven’t judged a ton of projects so far, but I’m fairly receptive to them. I think its negatives job to challenge the methodology of the 1AC. I don’t think procedural arguments/fairness are particularly persuasive against these affirmatives unless leveraged as framework. Speed I should be fine with most speed, but make sure you are clear and enunciate (if not slow down) on taglines and things you need to make sure I flow.   If you have any other questions you can ask me before the round.     <h3>NFA-LD</h3> This same general stuff is true for LD as it is for Parli, but I do default to the rules and need a really good reason to change that.

Dylan Rothermel - Truman

I did 4 years of policy in high school on the national circuit, then 4 years primarily debating Parliamentary (with some LD sprinkled in) in college.  I'm perfectly happy voting for anything, but the sole caveat to that rule is that I'm sorta stupid with critical arguments.  I'm willing to pull the trigger on arguments that are pre-fiat, critical, rhetorical, or whatever your framework-de-jour is, but you may need to slow down and perhaps explain them a little more than average with me.  I like the arguments just fine, I'm just a little too literal minded to grasp them easily.   Another couple warnings - I did plenty of speedy, technical debate in my day, but that wasn't exactly yesterday.  I may ask you to slow down or be clear if I can't understand you.  I won't necessarily hold it against you, though.  I'm also unfamiliar with the topic, so don't rely on any pre-existing specialized knowledge, 'cause I won't have much.   The best way to earn my vote is to write my ballot for me.  Your last speech should be filled with phrases that I can use to justify my vote.  What's dropped, what you're winning, why those things matter, and why the things that you dropped or are losing don't matter.  The more work you do for me, the happier we'll all be.

Gina Jensen - Webster

n/a

Gregory Owen - CMU

n/a

Gregory Tillman - Lane

n/a

Hope Gutierrez - William Woods

Jason Roach - Webster

n/a

Jason Phillips - Lane

n/a

Jason Edgar - MoWestern

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

Jeff May - UCM

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

Joe Blasdel - McKendree

Joe Blasdel McKendree University Section 1: General Information 1. I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University.  After a three year hiatus studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so since 2003. 2. In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues).  I am very unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments. 3. On 'trichotomy,' I tend to think the government has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that they are topical.  While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debate, I am open to people choosing to do so.  I’m also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality. 4. If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised.  The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion.  If you’re calling multiple POOs, I will probably not be pleased. 5. I do not think the rules permit splitting the block.  Any responses in the LOR to MG arguments that were dropped by the MO will be considered new.  Additionally, it is rare that I will vote on MO arguments that are not extended in the LOR. 6. I’m not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then warranting them in the MO/PMR.  I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ‘new’ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ‘new’ PMR arguments. Section 2: Specific Inquiries 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given). Typically, my range of speaker points is 26-30, with an average of 28. 2. 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 Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for competition and alt solvency than most judges.  I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical.  If they are not topical, I have a very low threshold for voting on topicality/framework. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K. 3. Performance based arguments… Same as above.  I’d be hesitant to run them with me as your critic if they are not topical/competitive. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary.  A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position that’s run – it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground.  I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework – I’m not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an ‘average’ threshold.  I don’t vote on RVIs. On spec, I have a ‘high’ threshold.  Unless there is in-round ground abuse, I’m probably not going to vote on spec.  I would only run spec arguments in front of me if you’re using it as link insurance for another position and the affirmative refuses to answer your questions. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition? All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay), but am growing more frustrated with tiny PICs and other arguably abusive CPs – so this trend may change.  I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized. 6. 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?)? All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework. 7. 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 tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise.  If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.

John Markley - UCM

Jordan Compton - SBU

n/a

Justin Raymundo - Webster

n/a

Justin Stanley - JCCC

n/a

Kiefer Storrer - UCM

I default Policy Maker. I enjoy realistic impacts but if y’all want to get into competing terminal impact scenarios I wouldn’t be opposed to that. If you’re going to run theory or kritical positions (with the latter not being just a linear DA) impact out how I’m affected in the round as well as the debate community as a whole. On topicality abuse wise I’ll accept a healthy medium between proven and hypothetical abuse, so if you don’t want to waste two minutes of your speech running a non-unique DA to prove abuse you can just give me the flow of the argument. On the other hand, reasonability is a totally valid counter standard most of the time for me, so while T is definitely a debate to be had, again, there is a reason I default policy maker. Speed is a non-issue, I can flow it fine, but I will say specifically for Parli (because there isn’t carded evidence) I’m not the biggest fan of levels that require double clutching and such…at that point I’m going to feel like you just canned out every word of your position and you’re reciting it instead of arguing it. Rapid delivery is cool, spreading is a legitimate strategy but I’d much rather have you go in depth on two DAs instead of running four or five that just aren’t as well articulated. Experience wise, I competed in Kansas high school policy for four years, did four years of Parli in college, took a year off to judge parli/ld/forensics, and am now assistant coaching at UCM. I believe that debate is a pedagogical activity and that the most important parts of it will be the parts that bleed out into the real world. We are future politicians, lawyers, scholars, rhetoricians, and professors; so ideally all of us involved with this activity will take realistic, impactful ideas and bring them to fruition in the real world. And for those of us that are current or future coaches, I believe we should be striving to instill those real world changes in the future. Have fun, be polite.

Kristen Stout - Crowder

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

Marty Feeney - Simpson College

Matthew Gilmore - ISU

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

Nik Fischer - McKendree

Nikki Freeman - UCM

Richard Heyne - ISU

Sarah Wonder-Agbehia - Truman

Scott Jensen - Webster

n/a

Shanna Carlson - ISU

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

Spencer Waugh - Simpson College

Steve Hagan - McKendree

Tom Serfass - Webster

n/a

2016 MAFA Championships