FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

AJ Jenkins - Joe Hired

n/a

Aaron Donaldson - Joe Hired

n/a

Adam Kretz - CC

Alec Baker - Lewis & Clark

n/a

Alex Smith - PDB

Updated Philosophy, 11/8/13: I debated for Berkeley from 2005-2009 and have been coaching for Berkeley (in whatever capacity I can) since then. I have always felt uncomfortable writing judging philosophies. Debate rounds are complex and dynamic, and it’s hard to boil my approach to judging them down to a discrete set of “preferences” – and even if I could, I don’t believe that my preferences (as opposed to your arguments) should decide the debate round.  Being tab is obviously just an aspiration, but it's still a worthy aspiration, at least as a default. That said, I do have some quirks and preferences, and I will try to describe them as usefully as I can.    Overview: I tend to believe that explanation trumps both technical precision and “truth,” and I do not believe that any arguments are strictly off-limits. I tend to think that most debaters make somewhat too many arguments, and way too many “filler” arguments in relation to their good arguments. I tend to evaluate debates fairly globally. I am not usually receptive to arguments like “the MO’s number 12 only responded to our first do both perm, not our third one.”  I find it difficult to evaluate a round without imposing some sort of order on the arguments that were made, and I will probably do so myself if no one does it for me. I tend to believe in offense/defense for the most part, but I also think that there are some arguments that are so dumb or fundamentally incorrect that there is zero risk of that argument being true. Since this is the “overview” paragraph, I will note that I am a huge fan of global overviews that substantively resolve central questions in the debate (particularly in the MO), but I think most of the short “we win this round for 2 reasons” overviews are totally useless.   Straight-up Arguments: These arguments are most teams’ bread and butter, and there’s not a ton to say about them. These debates tend to come down to three questions: (a) who controls the uniqueness; (b) who wins the link debate; (c) which impact should I prioritize if both sides win a link to their argument? You will do better in these debates if you don’t pretend to win every argument – you should identify the most important arguments and explain why they are more important or compelling than those of your opponents. I do believe there is such a thing as terminal defense, zero percent risk of a disad, etc. Like most parli judges, I am a sucker for inevitability/”try or die” arguments. I don’t have strong feelings about “high probability/low magnitude v. low probability/high magnitude” impacts in a vacuum. I do think that you should try really hard to explain why the disad turns the case.  I am totally fine with more "conservative" arguments (abortion bad, racial profiling good, west is best, anti-discrimination legislation bad, etc.) and think that it would behoove a lot of teams to run these types of arguments more often.    Theory/Topicality: These arguments are fine and I vote for them frequently. The most common mistakes I see include: (a) failing to identify and explain the difference between your interpretation and your opponents’: (b) not using the standards debate to isolate exactly what sort of ground is at stake, exactly what sorts of arguments each interpretation allows or disallows, etc.; (c) referring in broad strokes to “abuse,” “ground,” “disad ground,” rather than specific arguments; (d) failing to compare between standards arguments; (e) going for too many arguments and failing to explain any of them in sufficient detail. I tend to believe that some version of “reasonability” is probably correct, but it is difficult to define and operationalize reasonability in a debate speech. You can decide for yourself whether you think it is worth trying to defend it.  “This is a solvency argument, not a reason we should lose the debate” is a good and under-utilized answer to a whole host of theory arguments. I tend not to believe that in-round abuse is necessary, but would rather hear that issue hashed out in the debate.   Counterplans: Again, these arguments are fine and can be singularly devastating if deployed correctly. If you concede that the counterplan solves 100% of case, you will probably lose. I am a huge fan of “advantage counterplans” and other counterplan strategies that try to punish poor advantage selection. I am also a fan of counterplans that try to take advantage of poor plan-writing, although I suspect that some of these counterplans are theoretically illegitimate. I tend to be suspicious of process counterplans or counterplans that compete on an extra-textual basis (although I am more easily convinced that consultation is acceptable than delay, veto cheato, etc.). I am inclined to think that conditionality is acceptable but I’ll listen to arguments that it’s not. A solvency advocate and/or a literature base is pretty good evidence that a counterplan is legitimate.   Criticisms: I like these arguments. I ran these a lot when I debated and coach my teams to run them a lot (both as “one-off” strategies and as part of balanced horizontal strategies). I have read some of the literature, but don’t presume that I am familiar with the substance of your criticism because you cite an author or vaguely allude to a phrase used by an author. Most teams engage in way too much hand-waving and not enough articulation of what their criticism means. Possibly moreso than any other argument, criticisms reward teams that explain their argument well. If you are aff, you should make the negative work to win their argument. Do not let them get away with spurious claims like “critique turns the case,” “alt solves 100% of case”, “your representations make your impacts inevitable,” etc.  I think that reject alternatives are generally fine and perhaps are the only legitimate way to formulate an alternative. I generally think that most framework questions are irrelevant, except to the extent that they explain (a) what the role of the ballot is and/or (b) what arguments are included or excluded by the framework. I love ethics arguments and wish more teams made them, particularly because they free you from the burden of having to solve whatever problem you criticize.    Performance: Sure, why not? I have voted for these arguments in the past and am not opposed to doing so again. Make sure to be very explicit in explaining the role of the performance vis-à-vis the rest of your argument and make sure to engage the other side’s arguments.  All the general stuff about criticisms applies here as well.    Non-Intervention: I wanted to add a separate paragraph about this because I have noticed both critics and debaters becoming more and more dogmatic about what they will and will not vote on.   I take nonintervention seriously and really mean it when I say that I will vote on anything.  I'm not in the business of "buying" or "not buying" arguments - if I wanted to buy something, I would go to the mall, not to a debate tournament.  Saying "LOL Spec" or "LOL Trichot" is not an argument.  Feigning outrage that someone would read such a dumb or offensive position against you is not an argument.  If you really believe that a position is dumb, you should be able to think of lots of compelling answers.  It's not my job to enforce my preferences - or your preferences - against the other team; it's your job to answer their arguments, and my job to evaluate the debate based on the arguments that were actually made.    Other Things: My speaker points tend to range from 27-28.5 at national tournaments. I use .1 points liberally.  If you get below a 27, you had serious problems with argument quality and/or execution. If you get above a 28.5, it means you were outstanding and should probably get a speaker award. Getting a 30 requires either a flawless performance (I’ve given two 30’s in four years on this basis) or a truly odd set of circumstances (e.g. a novice round in which all four debaters agreed to the criterion of “what is best for Al Qaeda” and left me in stitches at the end of the round).  I flow in Excel and generally tend to flow in narrative or transcription form. I do not generally number arguments when I flow. I am extremely expressive and you would do well to look my facial expressions/body language when you debate. I appreciate points of order, but I do not want you to argue about them: the person who calls the point of order should state their point, the other team should succinctly respond, and I will either rule on it immediately or take it under consideration.  If you can reference specific arguments from the MG or MO speech, you will have much better luck on a point of order than if you merely assert “that’s new!”  I don't have a problem with speed, sitting down, partner communication, or anything like that. I am personally of the opinion that exclusion in debate is inevitable and that most things that people label "exclusionary" are simply the byproduct of competition and inherent differences in skill, but that doesn't mean you should go out of your way to exclude your opponents, and it's not an excuse for being a jerk.  Don't hesitate to ask me questions about my decision or challenge me if you think I'm wrong; I'm not going to change my decision once I make it, but I don't think I'm a perfect judge and often these sorts of exchanges end up being productive for everyone involved (as long as you are respectful and civil and all that).  I usually don't write much on the ballot or give extended RFDs, but I'm happy to answer any questions or give you free coaching if you ask for it. Good luck!

Amanda Taylor - Carroll

n/a

Antonio De La Garza - NAU

n/a

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.

Brad Krupicka - Lewis & Clark

Brian DeLong - IU

n/a

Brian Horton - Rice

n/a

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.

Chuck Walts - UT-Tyler

Colin Patrick - Texas Tech

n/a

Cory Freivogel - McKendree

CORY FREIVOGEL JUDGE PHILOSOPHY Hi! My name is Cory Freivogel. I did four years of policy debate in high school in the Chicago area. After that, I spent four years doing Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate at McKendree University. I’m currently the assistant coach there. I will preface this philosophy in the way that most people do - I think you should debate however you debate best in front of me. That being said, I obviously have certain biases and I think you should be familiar with them. Some general notes…. 1. I think debate is first and foremost a game. I think you should do whatever it takes to win that game, and I respect people who play the game with a lot of heart and lot of intensity. 2. I like people who do work. This doesn‘t mean that I won‘t vote for lazy, trite strategies - I have no problem doing that. It just means I respect people who put in extra effort to develop or update sweet arguments. 3. I like people that talk pretty. I certainly don’t think you should ever sacrifice strategy and execution for eloquence, but if you can give a smart speech that’s funny and engaging it will bode well for you. Also, don’t try to be funny if you’re not. 4. Don’t dismiss defensive arguments. Of course I think you should be making a wide variety of offensive arguments, but do not assume you’ll be fine by saying that 9 smart, defensive answers to your affirmative are just defense. DISADVANTAGES I like these arguments a lot. Running well-researched disadvantages with a diverse set of link arguments and huge probable impacts is the easiest way into my heart. Generic disadvantages like politics, business confidence, etc. are fine as well so long as they’re specifically tailored to the affirmative and properly executed. Similarly, I think smart negatives (and affirmatives as well) will do a great deal of work comparing impacts. If you do not do this I will make my own determination about the probability and magnitude of a disadvantage’s impact. I am also probably more concerned about probability than some other judges may be. I am not often impressed by massive impacts that are highly improbable and under-explained. Phrases like “even a 1% risk of our impact outweighs the entire risk of the aff” are typically code for “our impact is absurd and our disadvantage barely links.” COUNTER PLANS These arguments are sweet as well. I typically err negative on arguments like PIC’s bad, conditionality bad, etc. I will vote on these arguments, but it will be an uphill battle. The argument that I should reject the argument rather than the team is usually a winner. I think condition, consultation and other silly process counter plans are of questionable legitimacy and I can definitely be more persuaded to drop teams on theory if they’re extending these arguments. That being said I like counter plans of all shapes and sizes and think that if you aren’t reading one or straight turning the affirmative, then you’re probably in trouble. KRITIKS I am not as hostile to these arguments as most people probably think I am. I am, however, probably as unlikely to understand these arguments as most people think I am. I have not and probably will not ever read any traditional or post-modern philosophy unless someone requires me to do so. I’m not trying to dog on anyone that does, but it’s just not my thang. This is mainly meant as a word of caution. If you run the kritik I will listen, flow and do my best to make a fair decision. But, I am not the best critic for you. If you somehow find me in the back of the room and you have nothing but your criticism, it will serve you well to slow down and eliminate all the jargon you imagine I may be familiar with. That being said, if you’re an affirmative answering these arguments do not assume I will let you get away with answering kritiks poorly. If you mischaracterize the criticism, concede framework arguments, or rely on defense then I’ll probably notice and you’ll lose. TOPICALITY I like good topicality debates a lot. If you are affirmative, then you need to meet the interpretation or you need a counter interpretation. Absent one of those things, you will probably lose. If you are going for or answering topicality you should be comparing standards and voting issues in the same way that you compare impacts. If you do not compare standards, it will make it very difficult for me to make a good decision and it will be bad for everyone. I am also more persuaded by arguments about ground than limits. I could care less if your interpretation “explodes the topic” given that the topic will only exist once and you don’t have to do any research in the future. ASPEC / OSPEC / FSPEC / BILL NUMBER SPEC / COMMITTEE ORIGINATION SPEC / BLAH BLAH SPEC…. These arguments are really not my cup of tea. This is mostly because I don’t like giant pieces of shit in my tea. I understand the strategic utility of introducing these arguments in the LOC, but I cannot understand why one would choose to extend them in the MO unless there was some incredible example of abuse. It is difficult for me to imagine giving any higher than a 27 to even the most persuasive extension of a generic specification argument. THE CASE People forget about the case all the time. That makes me sad because I love a good case debate. If you’re the LOC and you don’t have an incredible counter plan, then you should be putting a lot of offense on the case. Similarly, the MG should be extending and utilizing the case throughout his or her speech. It frustrates me to no end when affirmative teams assume they can entirely ignore the case until the PMR when it suddenly becomes the focus of the debate. Personally, I think you should have to extend the affirmative throughout the debate. POINTS OF ORDER I keep a pretty decent flow and think I can detect new arguments on my own. That being said, they are allowed by the rules and if you think there is a particularly egregious example of an abusive new argument feel free to call it. However, if I know an argument is new I will protect the opposite team regardless of whether or not you say it's new. If you call a bunch of unnecessary points of order on teams just to disrupt their speech or be funny or whatever I will be very unhappy. I hated when teams did that when I debated and I imagine I will hate it even more as a judge. Don't do it. POINTS OF INFORMATION I think as a general rule you should probably accept two of these per speech. I could pretty easily be persuaded to pull the trigger on a "they didn't take any questions" type of procedural. Also, no means no. If someone won't take your question don't yell that question or jump around waving your hands like an idiot or yelling "Please!! Just one!!" The only exceptions to this are in instances when you need to know the status of a counterplan or to have a text repeated / handed to you. I don't think you should have to raise your hand to ask for those things. Maybe there is no legitimate justification for that, but that just happens to be what I think. COVERAGE - I wanted to make a point of discussing this because at some point late last season I found myself voting on weak impact prioritization arguments and extinction claims that others chose to disregard. I’ve found myself doing this more and more. I believe that Claim + Warrant = An Argument. Whether that warrant is fantastic, idiotic or just okay is not for me to decide. Conceded arguments are true arguments - no matter how stupid or abhorrent they might be (I‘m looking at you “Dehumanization outweighs everything!“). If you ignore a potentially round-changing argument because you thought it was dumb or you just missed it, you’re probably going to lose.  Some judges don’t vote on these types of arguments because they are not thoroughly explained, they aren’t “fleshed out” or they aren’t given priority in the rebuttals. I understand and respect that philosophy, I just don‘t share it. I am constantly pushing myself to keep a flow that is as organized and detailed as humanly possible. In the context of debate, I find few things more resplendently beautiful than an immaculate flow. There are no computers, blocks or prep time in this game. As such, It is impossible to become a great debater without first mastering the art of the flow. I refuse to reward debaters that do not excel at the fundamentals. Perhaps it is unfair of me to push my dorky fetishization of the flow onto you, but I'm going to do it anyways. You should be aware of that.  DISCLAIMER: I love good, smart debates with dope strategies on both sides. Please DO NOT use this philosophy to justify ruining the debate with a whole mess of garbage arguments. I’ll probably give you a 17 or have Ben Reid wring out his sweat-soiled clothes on you.

David Worth - Rice

n/a

David Erenwein - CC

Gina Iberri-Shea - USAFA

Gina Lane - Jewell

n/a

Glenn Prince - Rice

n/a

Jacob Stutzman - OKCU

22 years in debate, HS policy, NFA-LD, but mostly NPDA (judging for the last 14 years).  This year I’ve been in tab a lot, so I haven’t judged many rounds. I want the debaters to decide the form and substance of the round.  I’m not opposed to any particular argument or strategy that you feel fits the purpose of the debate. Framework debates are good, but rarely dispositive. Absent a specified framework for viewing the round, I default to whatever makes it easiest for me to render a decision. I get very frustrated by debaters who do not think their way through the round. This shows up when debaters don’t make connections between positions or go after obvious deficits in the other team’s arguments. If you can’t compare solvency of the plan vs. the CP or give me specific link analysis on the K, then something is wrong. On the flip side, debaters who do those things usually make it easy for me to vote for them. Smart debaters are the ones who take the easy ways out of the round. I’d like a copy of plan and CP/alt text. Perm text too, if possible. I tend to prioritize probability in impacts, so tell the better story on your positions. Regardless of how fast you’re going, I’ll let you know if you’re not clear. Please take into consideration the size and shape of the room and any other atmospheric factors that may complicate my hearing you. I prefer that you only call points of order on arguments that are likely to be very important to my decision. Calling points simply to disrupt the speaker or to contest minor arguments will be given very little leeway before I start docking speaker points. Absent punishment for that sort of stuff, exclusive language, or otherwise improper behavior toward your opponents, speaker points are usually 25-29, very rarely above that, and are decided based on the amount of enjoyment I get out of your participation in the debate round. Make smart choices and explain those choices to me well, and you’ll come in at the top of that scale. Don’t assume I know your lit on the K. Explain the warrants to me and make the links very explicit.

Jared Bressler - Texas Tech

n/a

Jeff Fife - CC

Jess Jensen-Ryan - Wyoming

n/a

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.

Joe Gantt - Texas Tech

n/a

Jordan Innerarity - UT-Tyler

n/a

Josh House - Joe Hired

n/a

Katie Lucas - PLNU

n/a

Kevin Garner - Jewell

n/a

Kirby Brooke - UMT

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.

Kristen Owenreay - Joe Hired

n/a

Kyle Cheesewright - SIU

Kyle Dennis - Jewell

Name: Kyle Dennis School: William Jewell College     I record nearly all of the debates that I judge on my MacBook. During the debate, you will see me creating position/answer markers so that I can easily recall any portion of the debate during my decision. I have developed a basic system to govern the conditions under which I will review the recording— (1) if I think I have missed something (my fault) I will note the time in the recording on my flow, (2) if there is a question about exact language raised by the debaters in the round, (3) if there is a Point of Order about new arguments in rebuttals, (4) I will review the exact language of any CP/Alt Text/ Theory Interp. Outside of those circumstances, I typically will not review recordings.   This new process has had a couple of important impacts on judging. I don’t miss arguments. I will take as much time to review the debate afterwards if I believe that I’ve maybe missed something. It has made my decisions clearer because I can hold debaters accountable to exact language. It does, however, mean that I am less likely to give PMR’s credit for new explanations of arguments that weren’t in the MG. It also means that I’m more likely to give PMR’s flexibility in answering arguments that weren’t “clear” until the MOC. I don’t provide the recording to anyone (not even my own team). Within reason, I am happy to play back to you any relevant portions that I have used to make my decision.   If you have questions about this process, please ask. I encourage my colleagues to adopt this practice as well. It is remarkable how it has changed my process.   If your team chooses to prefer (or, in the case of the NPDA, not strike) me, there are a couple of promises that I will make to you: I understand that the debaters invest a tremendous amount of time and energy into preparing for a national tournament. I believe that judging any round, especially national tournament rounds, deserves a special level of attention and commitment. I try not to make snap decisions at nationals and it bothers me when I see other people do it. I know that my NPTE decisions take longer than I will typically take making a similar decision during the rest of the year. If you spend 4 years doing something, I can at least spend a few extra moments thinking it over before I potentially end that for you.    I flow on paper. I find that I am more connected to the debate and can deliver more complete RFDs if I am physically writing down arguments rather than typing. When I watch my colleagues multi-tasking while judging debates, I am self-conscious that I used to do the same thing. You will have my complete attention. I can also guarantee you that my sleep schedule at tournaments will not hinder my ability to give you my full attention. I have made a substantial commitment to wellness and, if I am being honest, I have seen/felt significant improvements in my life and my ability to do my job at debate tournaments. Once again, you will have my complete attention.   Finally, I can tell you that I have come to a point that I am unwilling to categorically reject any argument. I have voted for negative teams with a 1NC strategy of a K, CP, DA, and case arguments (who collapse to an MO strategy of the criticism only) more times this year than I ever thought I would. Smart debaters win debates with a variety of strategies—I don’t think that I should limit your strategy choices. The debate isn’t about me. If we can’t embrace different styles of argument, this activity gets very annoying very quickly.   If I get to judge you, there are a couple of promises that I want you your team to make to me: Please slow down when you read plan texts, theory interpretations or perm texts unless you are going to take the time to write out a copy and provide it to me. Please do not get upset if I misunderstand something that you read quickly (an alt, for example) if you didn’t give me a copy. I will review exact text language on my recording, if necessary.   Please do your best to engage the other team. I like watching critique debates, for example, in which the affirmative team engages the criticism in a meaningful way rather than reading common framework or theory objections.   Please make all of your interpretations on theory as clear as you possibly can. This isn’t exactly the same as asking you to read it slowly—for example, a PICS Bad debate should have a clear interpretation of what a “PIC” is to you. I have generally come to understand what most members of the community mean by “textual versus functional” competition—but, again, this is a theory debate that you need to explain clearly.    Finally, please do not assume that any of your judges are flowing/comprehending every single word that you’re saying at top speed. As long as I have been involved in this activity, the most successful debaters have recognized that there is an element of persuasion that will never go away. I think that the quickness/complexity of many of the debaters have far surpassed a sizeable chunk of the judging pool. I often listen to my colleagues delivering decisions and (in my opinion) many struggle or are unwilling to admit that portions of the debate were unwarranted, unclear, and difficult to understand.   I have often observed an undue burden to make sense of 2-3 second blips placed on critics by debaters—this activity doesn’t work unless you help me to understand what is important. I have the perspective to acknowledge that if a critic doesn’t vote for one of my teams, that there is something that we could have done better to win that ballot. I would simply ask that you dial back your rate of delivery slightly. Understand that there are times that slowing down makes sense to put all of the arguments in context. The most successful teams already do this, so I don’t imagine that this is a very difficult request.   Other notes: I flow the LOR on a separate sheet of paper. My speaker point range is 27-30. I don’t give out many 30’s, but I am happy to give quite a few 29’s. I will protect you from new arguments (or overly abusive clarifications of arguments) in the rebuttals. I will be involved in all aspects of prep with my team. Regardless of what I would disclose, for me, clarity is your best bet. I generally advise my teams to assume that your judges don’t know what you’re talking about until you tell them. I generally try to remove my previously existing understanding from the debate as much as possible.   TL, DR: I want to make the best decision that I can, given the arguments in the debate. If I’m going to end your NPTE, I will do so thoughtfully and with my full attention—that’s a promise. Make the debate about you, not me. I love this activity and all of the people in it. I make a conscious effort to approach decisions (especially at nationals) with respect for the activity and the people in the debate.

Luke Sanford - Whitman

n/a

Luther Landry - Willamette

n/a

Martin Harris - Washburn

Frankly, if you or your coaches don't know me, I don't really think a philosophy, much less this one, will be of any help. I have been doing this for too long and too little to know better. I haven't held many ballots in the last three years, so my best advice is don't assume. Don't assume you know me. Don't assume you know what I am thinking, and most important, don't assume your truncated argument that represents what most people think is currently the hip theory of the moment is going to have any much less powerful salience with me. In a nutshell, make an argument, I will evaluate that argument. The more you make, especially smart ones, the better you should fare.

Matt Hogan - Joe Hired

n/a

Michael Middleton - Utah

Michael Middleton Judging Philosophy A Quotation: “The present situation is highly discouraging” –Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari A Haiku: Debate is Awesome Judging Makes Me Cry Softly Do I weep in vain? Some things to consider (when debating in front of me): 10.  I DO NOT support speed as a tool of exclusion 9.    I DO NOT like deciding for myself what is the most important thing in the round or how to evaluate the competing arguments; You should do this for me.  You will like it less if you don’t. On the other hand, I will like it more. 8.    I DO like well-structured debates. I also like interesting structures. 7.    I DO like creative interpretations; I DO NOT like when you don’t explain/provide a rationale for why I your interpretation makes for a productive/rewarding/interesting/good debate. 6.    I DO NOT like nor understand potential abuse arguments; I DO like and reward teams that demonstrate compellingly that the quality of the debate has been compromised by an interpretive choice made by the other team. 5.    I DO NOT vote for any given argument or against any given type of argument.  Run whatever strategy you like; Be clear about your strategy. 4.    I am a participant in the round also.  While I make my best effort to vote on who is winning and losing the debate based on the arguments, I use speaker points to evaluate and highlight both excellent and poor behaviors, i.e. if you create a hostile environment, you get massively low speaker points. 3.    Jargon does not equal argument. Nor does it equal a good time. 2.    Cross-application does not equal new argument. It doesn’t really equal anything. 1.    Debate is not life.  Losing a ballot will not steal your humanity.  I tend to prefer rounds that demonstrate everyone in the room knows this. 0. Have Fun

Nicholas Russell - Utah

n/a

Nick Robinson - Whitman

Nicole Brown - Texas Tech

n/a

Patrick Muenks - Drury

n/a

Paul Bingham - WWU

n/a

Phil Sharp - UNR

I competed in HS Policy and College NPDA. I was formerly the ADOF at WWU (3 years) and the DOF at Univ of Montana (2 years). I took two years off to go and teach debate in Korea. I am now the DOF at UNR (9 years). I evaluate the round as a flow-based policy-making critic of argument. Not a fan of the original argument being nothing but a tag with no warrant and the PMR back-filling. I hold you to the arguments you made and as a critic of argument, I will evaluate the degree to which you have warranted and convinced me of that argument. If your argument did not make sense the first time you said it, it is not likely to win my ballot. At the end of the debate, all judges must do work to make their decision. I feel that I attempt to make my involvement in the decision something I am consciously aware of as opposed to pretending that debates somehow decide themselves. In the event that the decision is not clear-cut, I will attempt to use a standard and fair method. Some things that you should know: A. I will weigh arguments through the frameworks the debaters provide. If a team wants me to vote on an Education standard on a T but they are losing an RVI on Education on the K, How do I weigh who has harmed Edu the most? Procedurals and kritiks are ultimately a request for me to employ a different paradigm in the debate (not post-fiat policy-making). B. In the event of clash, I will side with the team who has the more reasonable story and articulates the best standards to prefer their argument. In the absence of standards, I will default to the team whose argument is most intuitive as presented. C. In the event of dropped or under-covered arguments, I will vote based upon how well you warranted the argument. If a team drops a 20 second T that didn't make any sense, I won't vote on it. If you think your arguments are winners, make them sufficiently the first time you present them. Additional Considerations: 1. I DO think that an AFF should be an inductive proof of the res, but I also think that as long as they are reasonable, the NEG should be quick on their feet with arguments. I might not vote on T but I will consider how well a Neg team does when caught by surprise and give them the benefit of the doubt a little. I like creative and strategic movement within a topic area, AS LONG AS YOU EXPLAIN HOW YOUR CASE IS A PROOF OF THE RES BEING TRUE. I prefer a policy, if the res allows you to do it. 2. I think that the current policy of blipping and back-filling is yucky. I don't mind how fast you talk but I think it is intellectually bankrupt to simply spew out a bunch of buzzwords and taglines and try to win without actually knowing what your arguments mean or explaining them. Please note that I haven’t judged a ton of rounds this year and so my pen is slow. 3. A lot of debaters get lost in the minutia and don't understand the purpose of the particular argument they are making. Then they say something like, "The Uniqueness controls the direction of the link." Which is true but is NOT persuasive to hear in a rebuttal. Explain what you mean and how that affects the outcome of the debate. All arguments should be impacted to my decision. 4. Rebuttals should not be line-by-line repeatals. You must crystallize the debate and provide some guidance into my decision making given the negotiated frameworks. The less you do this, the more I have to figure out how to vote. I will flow the LOR straight down the page (like a big overview). Once the PMR is over, I will look back at the LOR arguments before I vote. 5. I find Kritiks to be interesting (if people explain the critical perspective in a way that makes sense) but I find debate to be a problematic format for them. If you run a K or performance on the aff, please provide a clear Role of the Ballot and defend the fact that you defend the topic. If you run a K on the neg, I expect to see a unique link in the debate with a functioning alternative and solvency. Case-turns from critical theory perspective often work better through the policy-making paradigm. 6. Over-reliance upon buzz words like dehumanization will not be persuasive to me. Explain what it is and why it is bad and don't say things like "Dehum is worse than death" unless you have a good reason that is true. 7. Your internal link story is more important than big, wanky impact stories. 8. I would like to be entertained in the back of the room. Judges all enjoy good intellectual throwdowns with solid clash and warranted arguments. Few of us enjoy the dry, combative, boring rehashing of theory blocks and race to the bottom that teams are choosing in an attempt to win. 9. Watch my freaking non-verbals. If you continue to say "we are the most limiting interpretation" and I am holding my hands up and shaking my head, I probably am looking for you to explain how you’re obviously under limiting interp is actually providing for better limits. 10. I am liberal. I will vote in as unbiased way as possible based on the arguments in the round and my predisposition on questions of debate theory, but I thought it was fair to tell you my political leanings. 11. Don't be rude. Avoid sexism, racism, homophobia, general inappropriate behavior and all the other isms. Be a good sport. Some of the things you say are inevitably going to be less good comparatively. Don't act like you should win every single argument.

Rachelle Harris - Puget Sound

n/a

Rob Layne - Texas Tech

n/a

Sam Timinsky - UWash

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.

Sarah Crachiolo - Long Beach

Sarah Hinkle - CC

Savannnah Sandberg - Cameron

n/a

Scott Ross - McKendree

Scott Weaver - Boulder

n/a

Seth (Pinto) Ellsworth - IU

n/a

Shanna Carlson - Washburn

Sim Butler - CC

Stephen Moncrief - WWU

n/a

Steve Doubledee - Washburn

Debate is a game of strategy and persuasion. Those who can strike the perfect balance between these two will always win my ballot. Things I prefer... 1.I prefer debaters embrace the topic... Topic specific Aff, DA, K, CP, Politics-(specific links), Case, T, Specs etc...are all appreciated. I also understand sometimes you have to run a critical aff via poor ground for the Aff.If you like running identity based arguments I am probably not the judge for you but I will listen. 2.I prefer debaters give impact analysis via timeframe, probability, and magnitude. I will always privilege high probability small impacts over low probability big impacts. 3.I prefer debaters not attempt to speak at a rate they cannot handle. Things I demand... 1.I want a written copy of all texts Plan, CP, Alts, Perms etc... if overly complicated...if plan is the rez then no need. 2.Be kind to each other. If you are rude it will hurt your speaker points. I am not a big fan of cursing in debate rounds. Theory thoughts...All theory arguments are fine. Below is my only "theory pet peeve". Conditional strategies are fine but should be justified through the lens of Aff/Neg flex. So many times debaters want to list off all the advantages of conditional strats but fail to justify why they deserve the right to conditionality in the first place---Aff/Neg flex is how you do so. If the Aff has high flex--(meaning a lot of possible Affs, bidirectional resolution etc...) then the Neg probably has some good justifications for why they need the reciprocal right of conditionality to counter the Aff's use of parametrics.. If the Aff has low flex--(meaning one possible Aff) then the Neg probably will have a harder time justifying why they should have the right to conditionality....Seems like a PIC would be better in this instance. peace dd

Steve Mitchell - Texas Tech

n/a

Tiffany Dykstra - Texas Tech

n/a

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.

Will Chamberlain - Joe Hired

n/a

2011 Mile High Swing, Pt 1