FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Adam Testerman - Lewis & Clark

Background   Hi there!  I have competed in debate and forensics for over 10 years.  I participated in parliamentary debate during college, with two years at Southern Illinois University and two years at Texas Tech University.  I feel comfortable judging any “genre” of argument and have no real argument preference beyond the desire to see clash.  This is my second year coaching for Lewis & Clark College.    General Issues   It is my goal to involve myself in the debate round as little as possible.  I have no preference for any particular kind of argument and generally feel that almost every debate issue can be resolved in the round.  I will vote for arguments with warrants. I will try my best to synthesize your arguments, but I also believe that to be a central skill of effective debaters.  The only thing that I hate is awkwardness.  Please don’t be rude or overly confrontational with your opponents, because it makes me feel awkward and I will probably try to reassure myself with your excess speaker points.  I will vote for arguments I think are stupid 10 out of 10 times if they are won in the round.    Etiquette   Emphasize explanation early… don’t let your argument make sense for the first time in the LOR or PMR etc.  All constructive speeches should take a question if asked, and it’s strategic to ask questions.  Theory interpretations and advocacy statements should be read slowly and read twice.  It will be difficult to explain why fact or value debates aren’t horrible, so roll that way at your own risk.  Points of Order should be called, but I will also do my best to protect new arguments… don’t be excessive with them though [I’ll be vague about what that means, but see above for awkwardness.]  RVI’s have never been good arguments, read them at your own risk.  <a name="_GoBack"></a>I am not the best judge when it comes to speaker points.  I tend to average a 28-point something, but I don’t vary outside of that range much.  I am trying to adjust my scale, but fair warning that I’m not the judge giving everyone 30s.    Theory/Procedurals   I cut my teeth on procedural arguments in college, so I understand why they can be useful.  It is probably true that debates are less substance-driven when they become about procedurals, but that won’t impact my decision at all.  To vote on a procedural, I require an interpretation explaining how the debate should be evaluated, a violation detailing specifically why the other team does not fit within that interpretation, standards that explain why the interpretation is good, and a voter that outlines why I should vote on the argument.  PLEASE read your interpretation/definition slowly and probably repeat it.  I think bad T arguments are REALLY bad, but good T arguments are some of my favorite debates to watch, so… have an interpretation that makes some sense.    DAs/Advantages   DAs and Advs. Require uniqueness arguments that explain why the situation the affirmative causes is not happening in the status quo.  If you plan on running linear DAs, please spend time explaining how the affirmative triggers a new impact that is not present in the status quo [or makes a current impact worse.]  Defensive arguments are useful, but they often serve to make offensive arguments more impactful or serve as risk mitigation, as opposed to terminal takeouts.    I ran politics in a majority of my negative rounds and I coach my teams to read the position often as well.  So, I will totally vote on politics every time when it’s won.  That being said, I’m finding the position to be one my least favorite and least compelling these days.  The obscene nature of congress these days makes the position even more laughable than it was in the past [and it’s always been sketchy at best, without cards].  Read the DA if you’re a politics team, but there are almost always better arguments out there.    Critiques   Critique debates can be fun to watch, but only when the position is clear at the thesis level. If your shell argues that the K is a prior question or something like that, spend some meaningful time explaining why that’s the case instead of “shadow” extending an argument from the shell.  I am familiar with a lot of the literature, but you should argue the position as if I am not.  I really hate when critiques prove the “people who hate critiques crowd” right, by being excessively confusing and blippy.  Critiques are totally dope, but only because they have the potential to make compelling arguments… not because they are obtuse.    Framework debates are a waste of time a vast majority of the time.  I don’t understand why teams spend any substantive amount of time on framework.  The question of whether the affirmative methodology/epistemology/whatever vague term you want to use, is good or bad should be determined in the links and impacts of the criticism.  I see almost no world where framework matters independent of the rest of the shell.  So… the only K framework questions that tend to make sense to me are arguments about why it’s a prior question.  It makes sense that if the critique wins that the affirmative impacts are threat constructions that I’m not going to weigh the affirmative impacts against the position.  That’s not a framework debate though, that’s a question determined by winning the thesis of the position.    Critical affirmatives can be cool, but they also put me in a weird position as a judge sometimes.  If your affirmative is positioned to critique DAs, then I still want to see specific applications of those arguments to the DAs.  I need to see how the DA demonstrates your argument to be true in some specific way.  By that I mean, if the negative outright wins a DA, I would need to see why that would mean the affirmative shouldn’t lose early, often, and specifically.  The same is true of any set/genre of negative positions.    CPs   There are probably enough arguments on both sides to justify different interpretations of how permutation or CP theory in general should go down, that I don’t have strong opinions about many CP related issues.  In general, the CP/DA debate is probably what I feel most comfortable judging accurately and I think CPs that solve the aff are very strategic.  Multiple CPs in the round is probably bad for education and not strategic.

Ali Cook - OSU

n/a

Amanda Merck - Rogue CC

n/a

Amanda Merck - RCC

n/a

Andrea Cripps - Rogue CC

n/a

Andrea Cripps - RCC

n/a

Beau Woodward - UP

I am ok with meta debate arguments (Topicality, Ks, etc.) as long as they are called for.  In NPDA, I don't mind speed, as long as it is understandable. We don't pass cards so please be clear. In IPDA, speed is not encouraged because the format encourages the public to attend and judge.  I really like structure and clear links. I am not going to do work for you, so make sure you are laying out a link story that is rational.  Impacts are necessary for me to judge the round, so give them to me. I love values and critiria, and I will use any resolutional analysis you give me.  Please try to act like your opponents are people, with valid opinions and points of view.

Bryan Hunt - MHCC

Bryan Beeson - Rogue CC

n/a

Bryan Beeson - RCC

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.

Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia

Dr. Dan Schabot Lower Columbia College Years Debating: 5 total (1 years NFL LD; 4 years CEDA/NDT ) Years Coaching/Judging: 15 Total (2 years CEDA/NDT; 13 Years NPDA)   General Philosophy: Each team should make good (well supported and well-reasoned) arguments and clash with each other. I prefer 2 or 3 in depth positions to 5 or 6 blipped positions.   Specifics: Affirmative teams:  At this point in my judging life I am no longer interested in listening to debates that do not at least make an attempt to address the topic in the resolution.  You can run any position you want as long as you explain why what you are arguing deals with the topic.   Negative Teams:  I also feel that negative teams have the responsibility to address affirmative arguments as well as presenting their own.  Positions just run for the sake of filling time (such as generic T) have little weight with me.  Each position should be part of a coherent strategy to win.   Speed and Presentation:  If you feel the need to go fast that is fine.  However, running a bunch of positions just so you can go fast is useless.  Speed as a strategy (in and of itself) will not be rewarded.     RFD:  My preferences are listed above.  I have and will vote for just about any argument type. A team must clearly explain why their advocacy is superior to other team’s advocacy to win a round.

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.

Dominic Lopez - UWash

Debate background: In high school, I debated 3 years of PoFo in Oregon. Then I debated for 4 years of Parli at UW. General things you might find useful: 1. Don’t lie. There are many ways to win debate rounds, there is no need to lie to win a ballot. That being said it will affect your speaks, so technique before truth. 2. I consider myself very politically aware. I’ve professionally organized ballot initiates in Washington and Oregon. Speaks: I normally give 26-29 with the majority being 27s. Normally give one 28 or 29 each round. Kritiks: I think methodologies matter. However, how they function in a debate round can be very problematic. I do not enjoy kritiks that do not have significant aspects of solvency for the alternative explained. Often time’s teams throw tag lines and buzz words around that are claims but not actual warrants for solvency. You would be well served to explain how the alt and framework function in the round and/or in the world of fiat in depth. DA/CP/On Case: This was my "style" when I debated. In a "straight up" debate, showing argument interaction and doing impact calculus are very important. I don’t want to do it for you and if you dont i'll probably default to probability. T/Theory: I think all aspects of debate are debatable thus competing interps are my default evaluation if nothing is given. Finally, if you are rude, inappropriate, or mean I will give you 0 speaker points or as low as Joe Gantt will let me. Being civilized is an essential part of keeping our community an inclusive place for everyone. Golden rule everyone, it’s not hard.

Elizabeth Hartley - UP

Eric Lowe - MHCC

Erin Mastoras - Lower Columbia

Gabrielle Guerrero - MHCC

Heather Jacobs - Lower Columbia

J Wylie - Lower Columbia

Janelle Davis - UW Bothell

General Information: I competed in Parley and LD in high school, NPDA and BP/Worlds in college, and now help coach both NPDA and BP/Worlds. I retain a respect for structure, creative and well-laid arguments, criticism of foundational worldviews, economy of arguments, and thoughtfully proposed alternate approaches to both debate and the world around us. Though I reject and find problematic the concept of a tabula rasa judge, I make an effort to see and set aside my own biases in order to judge a round based on the arguments as they are made by debaters. Specific Information: Topicality: In my view, this strategy exists to respond to blatant abuse on the part of the government and should be used to check power of interpretation rather than to avoid engaging inconvenient or unexpected arguments. As such, I consider it a court of last resort that is rarely necessary. Counterplans: An effective means of taking the offensive by rejecting false binaries in order to seek a third option. I respond well to counterplans that think about the problem and challenge the status quo in a different way. Kritik: A well-deployed kritik challenges fundamental assumptions and proposes alternate ways of approaching the world or the problem at hand. Used well, a K takes the debate to a deeper level and allows debaters to unpack the world in a way that plan/counterplan debate rarely does. If you are using a philosopher/theorist to back up your analysis, make sure you understand what they said and how others have used them, or you run the risk of looking silly and ill-informed. Ultimately, advantages and disadvantages rest on impacts, which rest on links. Calculating impacts should take into account probability as much as scale - high probability outweighs high scale as long as that probability has been demonstrated.

Jeff Lewis - MHCC

Jim Hanson - Bellevue

~~Jim Hanson Executive Director, Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate Parli Judging Philosophy I began judging in 1980 (I’m an old man!) My default is to weigh the benefits of the topical parts of the affirmative advocacy versus those of the competing negative advocacy. STYLE ISSUES 1. Please speak loudly; speak with emphasis and meaning. 2. Please give clear thesis statements for your arguments especially any position you want to go for in the MO, LOR and PMR. 3. Please extend arguments with a reference to where it was on the flow (eg 5th answer). 4. I dislike a) arguments that advocate purposely or actively killing thousands of people (e.g. "spark" “wipeout”); b) “They are stupid” comments; c) Personal attacks on opponents and carried too far could be the cause of a loss. 5. I think teams tend to cry “no new arguments” too much especially when they have a one line argument in the LOC that turns into several minutes of additional links and impacts in the MO/LOR. I am lenient about new arguments until the PMR. If you want me to “box-in” your opponent, then you will need a good explanation of what you could not argue and why that was so critical. THE MO-LOR BLOCK I will follow the rules of the tournament however these are my thoughts . . . 1. If you are going to debate line by line at high rates of speed, then do it throughout the debate—line by line right through the PMR. If so, I support MO’s and LOR’s splitting the block. MG’s should put out lots of offense and PMR’s should go for the 3 to 4 key answers on each position. 2. If you want to run old style (and I like that), then the LOR should have clear voting issues “Our first voting issue is . . .” DO NOT GO POINT BY POINT ON THE FLOW repeating the MO. And, you MUST WEIGH AND COMPARE LIKELIHOOD OF YOUR ARGUMENTS AND THEIR IMPACTS. 3. If you want to argue splitting the block is abusive—you have an uphill battle unless the tournament rules state splitting the block is not permitted but do so by presenting your argument in the MG or via a POI during the MO which lists off the reasons you want to go for. 4. Why I think the MO and LOR should split the block: 1) the MO has to race too fast with blippy arguments to cover everything; it ruins the quality of argumentation in the debate; 2) the LOR usually repeats the MO. I already heard it; 3) What am I supposed to vote on? Only what the LOR says? Can I vote on a specific MO answer that the PMR didn’t respond to but wasn’t directly in the LOR? I honestly don’t get it—you want me to vote line by line but with the split—I feel like I am voting on MO arguments that weren’t extended or I ignore them even though I found them persuasive and the PMR didn’t answer/had bad answers. (these concerns do not apply if the opp debates traditional style) TOPICALITY AND THEORY 1. I have a strong predisposition that affirmatives must be topical. I’m lenient on topicality including for post-modern/performativity/“we support but don’t traditionally fiat a plan”/"we support the resolution from this perspective eg transgender, race, gender remembering that the topic asks us what we should do" types of cases. However, affirmatives should not count on me voting that topicality oppresses you or that your case outweighs topicality; I’m very predisposed to believe that an affirmative does have to be topical. 2. My predisposition is that the negative must show a clear violation and that it has significant harmful effect (my default is not "competing interpretations"). Show the topic size explodes, becomes unpredictable for prep, kills core negative ground (eg the negative can't run "usfg action is bad" arguments; if you can't run a particular politics disad, i'm less likely to care). 3. I think my basic view of theory is: as long as an advocacy is clear, then argue it. Attempts to win theory with me on arguments such as “Conditionality bad” and “T is a reverse voter” and “A-Spec” tend to be uphill battles. To win such an argument, you should show that your opponent’s strategy destroyed your ability to debate effectively--not just that you lost an ability to run "x disad" or "y counterplan." Theory arguments that I find more convincing are: plan is so vague, it is not clear if any arguments apply; the affirmative severs or changes part of their plan; the negative runs two positions that straight turn each other. 4. My default is the negative gets the status quo, a counterplan, and a kritik alternative. 5. My default is that non-permable counterplans are ones that are functionally opposite to part or all of what is advocated explicitly in the text of the plan. 6. I have leanings (though not super strong) against consult counterplans--I think plan is usually enacted normal means and if the cplan alters the normal means, then that is consistent with the plan since it did not endorse a specific normal means. 7. I strongly default to "its severance and that's a voter" when affirmatives use perms that jettison a "functional" part of their plan needed to make it topical. e.g. the topic is "the usfg should pressure china" the aff. plan submits a complaint to the wto; aff. says the complaint would lead to sanctions (so the plan is topical pressure); then aff says "perm--do plan without sanctions." that is severence and/or intrinsic as far as i am concerned and it is a voter (and yea, that plan as reconceived in the perm is probably also not t). 8. International Fiat: Fine; I'm not likely to drop a Japan or EU Counterplan. 9. Multiple Actor Fiat: More debatable but the Aff. will need to give good args why I shouldn't consider such cplans. 10. Object Fiat: I think it is debatable and might depend on the situation. Affirmatives should typically be ready to defend US action but there's a debatable limit to how much the negative gets to counterplan out of harms. 11. Multiplank counterplan conditionality: I believe kicking out of parts of your counterplan in the MO but still advocating other parts is severance and creates a grossly unfair debate. DISADS Links, links, links. Explain to me why the plan causes the disad. KRITIKS Overall, I'm good on kritiks especially for the neg in parli debate where I find most gov answers not so compelling. I'm not a big fan of project/ignore the topic kritik arguments (as noted above in topicality) though I try to keep an open mind. That said, I have some key points that are important to winning/answering kritiks: • Negatives should have specific links, clearly stated implications/voters, and strong answers to perms. • I probably should either be able to envision an alternative or you should lay out a clear alternative—and it would be nice if it appeared in the LOC. If it isn’t, I give the PMR tons-o-latitude. • I'm not really big on kritiks of a word (eg “your evidence said the word ‘man’ so you lose”). Absent a team dropping the arg/making real weak responses, I avoid voting on such issues unless the word is so bad it prevents debate (e.g. using an epithet to attack another debater in the round). Now, if both sides agree that representations are key, then "word kritiks" matter. • Arguments about “pre-fiat” “post-fiat” “in-round is all that counts” and “fiat is illusory” aren’t real persuasive to me. Both sides made arguments in the round—so argue them. If the debate centers on representations, then show your representations--including the policy implications--are more important. K Teams: This means I almost always weigh the aff. advantage impacts against your K impacts. • “This kritik completely turns solvency” arguments are often not persuasive to me especially if the affirmative can depict one of their advantages as being independent, as being something specific and empirically proven, happens before kritik consideration, etc. • Ethical imperatives are fine but if you drop or lose badly nuclear wars/mass death/suffering--I have a hard time finding your argument persuasive. Put at least some defense against the consequences or you will have an uphill battle getting my ballot even if you have flaming "ignore the consequences" arguments. • Affirmatives should try to perm kritiks, show how the benefit of their case’s advocacy is more important than the harm of the kritik, and how the perm alters the aff in a way that makes it solve the kritik. • "Framework" arguments can help but in my opinion, they usually end up with one side just slightly winning and that usually isn't enough for me to throw out the kritik nor to throw out the aff. case advocacy. Wanna win a framework argument? Do like I suggest for theory/t arguments: show serious harm to your side; and frankly, most of the time the problem is the aff isn’t really topical—argue that. Otherwise, both side's arguments count. • Negatives that run performativity kritiks against affirmatives often leave me wondering how they answer the affirmative case especially as of the LOC (meaning, after you truly explain your K during the block, I let the PMR make new responses). Make sure you link your performance to the affirmative clearly; make it clear how the performance defeats the affirmative.

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.

Justin Wiley - MHCC

Kehl Van Winkle - Lewis & Clark

“The radical questionings announced by philosophy are in fact circumscribed by the interests linked to membership in the philosophical field, that is, to the very existence of this field and the corresponding censorships.”  - Bourdieu   I understand that it can appear to be a competitive advantage to read the arguments you think I want to hear, i.e. the arguments I read as a debater. This saddens me. I'm not here for me so that I can listen to all of you just bolster my beliefs. I'm here because people before me showed up and let me say what I wanted to say to them, so now it's my turn to listen to what you have to say. Whatever that may be.   What this means - don't perform just because that's what I did. Don't read my arg book back to me just because I wrote it and must think everything in it is God's gift to debate. Of course, I'm not saying don't read it (that would defeat the purpose of making it available) just use it only if you need it. This also means that I'm not particularly persuaded by positions that say "you aren't allowed to read that in debate." While its not impossible that I would vote on such a position, if a team is able to successfully defend why they are choosing to debate whatever way they do, I will allow it.   I like to think I am at least competent enough to evaluate 98% of debates that happen. I debated for Oregon for 4 years, debated at the NPTE for 3, have coached high school policy, and am currently a coach for Lewis and Clark. I have no trouble with speed, I read very lefty performative arguments my senior year, more traditional (i.e. Marx) Ks my junior year, and I was a straight up, CP & DA debater before that.    I stipulate to the 2% because there are just some knowledge bases I do not possess and a very technical debate about those issues could fly over my head a bit. I am quite ill equipped to talk about the economy outside of marxist terminology, I don't understand stocks, bonds, the Fed, etc. at a very high level at all. I pretty much just said whatever Will Chamberlain told me to and assumed that it was correct. I have a fairly broad familiarity with critical literature with the biggest glaring hole being Psychoanalysis.    Being as objective as I can about myself, it may not be a bad idea to call POIs in front of me. I was a rebuttalist my entire debate existence, and as such, I recognize that I perhaps am a little more lenient than some when it comes to "adding nuance" in the rebuttals. I will do my best to protect, but don't assume your definition of new and mine match up. If you think it could really be a round decider, point it out. That being said, the vast majority of times I see new args in the rebuttals, it is someone grasping at straws in a round they've already lost, and excessive POIs in that instance are very unnecessary and quite annoying.   Any more specific Qs, holla at me.

Kevin Thruellson - UW Bothell

Kevin Craig - MHCC

Krista Simonis - UP

Leah Moore - Lower Columbia

Liz Kinnaman - Clark CC

n/a

Liz Van Winkle - Lewis & Clark

Liz Van Winkle The debater formerly known as Liz Fetherston.  I am the same person as Liz Fetherston.   I debated for the University of Oregon for 4 years, and now I coach for Lewis & Clark College.  If it’s relevant to you or if you’re curious, I’m in a M.A.T. program at L&C where I attend classes and student teach in a 6th grade classroom.     I read a lot of kritiks and performance-based arguments my senior year, but I spent my sophomore and junior years almost exclusively going for DA/CP strategies, so I have quite a bit of experience with straight-up debate and enjoy those arguments as well.   I understand that given the kinds of arguments that I read my senior year, there might be a temptation or perhaps competitive incentive to want to read similar things purely because I’m in the back of the room.  Please understand that I said the arguments I said because I believe in them.     I truly believe that debate is for debaters, and my goal is to strive as a judge to create safer spaces for the kinds of arguments that I read by being open to listening to and evaluating them fairly, but I’m not biased against you wanting to defend or do something else.  I did what I did because I believed in our arguments and our methods.  I wouldn’t want to foreclose on that possibility for you as a debater.   I gave the MG and MO, so I am usually quite protective in rebuttal speeches.  Thus, you don’t really need to call a point of order unless you’re dying to.   Specifics:   Theory - You can read whatever theory you think is relevant and know how to construct.  You need to structure theory with an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters for me to vote on it.  On T, I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.  I don’t need in-round abuse to pull the trigger, but I think it is useful, especially when you’re talking about the impacts to your standards.  I enjoy a nuanced T debate, but wouldn’t call myself a hack.  For what it’s worth, I liked going for T in the MO.   Counterplans -  I enjoy a good counterplan/disad debate and am quite familiar with it, as it was once my bread and butter strategy as a debater.  Conditionality is probably good although I’m sympathetic to “it’s bad to have multiple conditional strategies that don’t jive with each other”.  However, feel free to read as many conditional strategies as your heart desires if you think you can defend it.  I tend to think counterplan/perm theory means I reject the argument, but if you want me to reject the team, tell me so and give me reasons why.  I do think some counterplans are less theoretically defensible than others (delay, veto, consult), but that’s why theory/”perm: do the counterplan” exist.     Disads:  Because Will Chamberlain taught me how to MG, I think uniqueness has two components: awesomeness and fragility (the SQ is really great, but can change at a moment’s notice).  As an MG, I found that disads often ran into trouble when the uniqueness was missing one of these components.  As a judge, I appreciate uniqueness comparison from the MG and MO on a particular disad so that I know what things are the best economic indicators or why some country cares the most about certain things over others.   Kritiks -  I’m familiar with a variety of kritiks as they are read in debate rounds.  I am most familiar with the lit bases for the kritikal arguments that my partner and I read as debaters, but don’t let that deter you from reading something you want to, just clearly explain your thesis.  I would say the debate kritiks I’m least familiar with are psychoanalysis arguments.  Here’s some of what I read most often: Marx, biopower, security, transhumynism, CRT, CLS, Freire, Feyerabend, nonviolence, positive peace, orientalism, development, ecofeminism, and anthropocentrism.   I think kritiks are often most successful when the links are plan-specific, or specific to the other team’s discourse/reps and not just “you use the state”.  In addition, I appreciate a clear alternative text and solvency, as I believe it is both strategic to you and helps me understand how you solve the aff/why they can’t perm your alt.  I don’t think that all K’s HAVE to have an alternative, but I think that it behooves you to have one.   Disclosure:  I do not feel comfortable voting on something that did not happen in the round, in front of me.  For example, statements like “they said they were defending X, and now they’re reading Y” or “they did not disclose” make me uncomfortable and unsure what to do as a judge, because I was likely not there listening to your conversation or reading your texts or Facebook messages.

Mark Porrovecchio - OSU

n/a

Micah Waterlander - MHCC

<ul> <li>Background of the critic: I competed in high school policy as well as competing 2 years in NPDA in college. This is my 2nd Year coaching, I coach both IPDA and NPDA formats.</li> <li>Approach of the critic to decision-making: I consider myself to be pretty tabula rasa and will vote for whatever the debaters tell me is important for me to vote on. I think that the trichotomy argument is a worthwhile argument, as well as most procedural arguments. I will vote on T if there is clear abuse, but I don't think the team has to only go for Topicality to show abuse. While I will listen to any argument ran in front of me I don't particularly like kritiks, especially in NPDA style debate, since any real evidence need to back up the kritik can't be brought into round. Furthermore, I think the kritik needs to show real world impacts to outweigh. But with that being said, if the kritik is necessary for your strategy then by all means run it. Also, I tend to think that a lot of debate hinges on solvency so this could win or lose a round easily. </li> <li>Communication/presentation: I'm pretty comfortable with most aspects of speed, but feel like clarity and signposting should falter because of your speed. Also I am a pretty expressive judge so if you pay attention you will know if I am getting down what you are saying. </li> </ul> <ul> <li>Preferences on calling Points of Order: I have no issue with POI being called, I think that if it is warranted you should call your opponent out on it. </li> </ul>

Paul Boudreaux - Lower Columbia

I try to approach rounds as Tabula rasa as possible. I think you should do what you specialize in to ensure the highest quality debates. I had a long policy background but spent my last few years running a lot of criticisms’ in college. I have three years of high school policy experience and four years of NPDA and Two year of NPTE Experience. I was an all American in college and have recently graduated from Washburn Law. My legal background probably makes me have a higher tolerance for well-articulated procedurals. I enjoy both substantive and theory debate. I just finished taking the bar so my current events knowledge is not as in depth as it was in college but I have a degree in Economics and have followed international relations since high school. I don’t have any real problems with speed, so long that it is not used exclusive for exclusionary reasons with proper substance. Run the debate your way and justify why your way is best and you’ll likely pick up my vote.

Phil LePoidevin - MHCC

Richie Laursen - Clark CC

n/a

Ryan Rhoades - MHCC

Steve Bonner - UWash

Name:    Steve  Bonner  School:    University of Washington   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.   The most important thing about debating in front of me is to know that I try to vote exactly as I’m told. Please take time in the rebuttals to explain which arguments matter and why. I’m open to pretty much any framework for debate.  Just please tell me which one I should use and how arguments should be weighed. Please clearly compare arguments and how they interact. The team that does a better job of that will normally get my ballot. I’ll vote for the most probable arguments if I’m not told to otherwise.     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)? a.       I normally give 26-29 with the majority being 27s. Normally give one 28 or 29 each round.   2.       How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? a.       Critical arguments are just like any other argument, I will vote for them if they are well argued and make sense. I am ok with Critical Aff’s but keep in mind that you still have to win Topicality. (unless of course you run your K topically) Contradictory arguments are only a problem if the opposing team makes them a problem. If you run a performance or rhetoric based criticism, you should probably not be contradictory, but only because it guts your solvency. Though if the other side doesn’t make the argument, I won’t make it for them. I really like good K’s (especially ones that are relevant to the topic and function in a Policy/Fiat world) BUT I really dislike bad K’s.   3.       Performance based arguments… a.       I haven’t seen any of these done well, but if I see one, I can think of no reason I wouldn’t vote for it.     4.       Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? a.       To vote on T I only need arguments for why I should. I think that T’s need frameworks so that I know what to do with them. I guess I would say that my default way of resolving them is to decide if the Aff is so abusive that a fair round was impossible. I am more than happy to dump that framework and adopt any that either team makes.  In round abuse is not necessary to get a ballot, but you need to give me some reason to vote for the T. In-Round abuse, Prep skew, Lost DA’s and CPs,  and such are all good reasons to vote for a T, but not the only ones.   5.       Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? a.       I am open to all kinds of CP’s and all the Theory arguments for why they are good or bad. PICs are fine, but I’d vote for a theory position that claims they are not. Same with Agent CP’s, Timeframe CP’s, etc. Fair warning though, it would be pretty easy to win that Delay CP’s are abusive.  As for identifying status, competition etc, I think it is a good idea and it makes for better debate, but not a must. I’ll vote however I’m told to.   6.       Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) a.       Yes. Just keep in mind that I won’t be seeing them.     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?)? a.       PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me how to vote. I hate making decisions. Make them for me. But if I have to, I first would vote anywhere someone says “A priori” or “most important argument in the round”. If there are multiple I guess the order would be Theory, K’s, High Probability Impacts and then High Magnitude Impacts.   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")? a.       If arguments are not compared at all, then the only way to compare them is to intervene. I don’t like doing that. I read a lot and if forced to I will use the things I know to figure out which argument should carry more weight. Please don’t make me do that. My bias for weighing arguments is toward more probable impacts. If I have to weigh Dehum v Death, I slightly lean toward Dehum, but again, I’ll err on the side of probability.

2015 2nd Greater Portland Parliamentary Debate Tournament