FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Abigail Thomas - Mizzou

•   I was on the William Jewell Debate Team my first and second year of college. The second year, my partner and I got a first round bit to the NPTE, made it to octafinals at the NPDA, and finished 31st in NPTE rankings if I remember correctly. I think we might have been the second best all-female team, maybe.  •   I’m certainly not as fast as I once was, but I think I can probably still keep up with speed.  •   I ran some Ks in college, but you might have to lay it out for me if that’s your thing.  •   Anything on case, DAs, CPs, T, and whatever else there is is fine with me as long as you explain why it is important. I err not the side of not making connections for teams.

Adam Testerman - TTU

Background Hi there!  I participated in parliamentary debate during college, with two years at Southern Illinois University and two years at Texas Tech University.  I feel comfortable judging any “genre” of argument and have no real argument preference beyond the desire to see clash.  I coached for three years at Lewis & Clark College; this is my third year as Director of Forensics at Texas Tech.   General Issues Parliamentary debate is the most fun and the most educational when a variety of argumentative styles, people, knowledge bases, and strategies are given room to thrive.  I feel lucky to have judged a vast array of different arguments in my judging career.  One of my main goals as a judge is to allow teams to run the arguments they feel are most compelling in front of me.  I’ve picked up teams reading structural indictments of debate about as many times as I’ve picked up teams reading policy affirmatives and defending incrementalism.  It is my goal to involve myself in the debate round as little as possible.  I have no preference for any particular kind of argument and generally feel that almost every debate issue can be resolved in the round.  I will vote for arguments with warrants. I will try my best to synthesize your arguments, but I also believe that to be a central skill of effective debaters.  I will vote for arguments I think are stupid 10 out of 10 times if they are won in the round.  I rely on my flow to decide the round.  I attempt to flow performances and I do my best to write down what you’re saying as close to verbatim as my fingers allow me.  If there is an expectation that I not decide the round based on the way I understand argument interaction on my flow, that should be stated explicitly and it would be a good idea to tell me how I am intended to evaluate the debate round.  Emphasize explanation early… don’t let your argument make sense for the first time in the LOR or PMR etc.  All constructive speeches should take a question if asked, and it’s strategic to ask questions.  Theory interpretations and advocacy statements should be read slowly and read twice.  Points of Order should be called, but I will also do my best to protect new arguments… don’t be excessive with them though [I’ll be vague about what that means, but be an adult]  RVI’s have never been good arguments, read them at your own risk.   Theory/Procedurals I cut my teeth on procedural arguments in college, and I am still a huge fan.  To vote on a procedural, I need an interpretation explaining how the debate should be evaluated, a violation detailing specifically why the other team does not fit within that interpretation, standards that explain why the interpretation is good, and a voter that outlines why I should vote on the argument.  PLEASE read your interpretation/definition slowly and probably repeat it.  It is good to have an interpretation that makes some sense.  DAs/Advantages DAs and Advs. require uniqueness arguments that explain why the situation the affirmative causes is not happening in the status quo.  Defensive arguments are useful, but they often serve to make offensive arguments more impactful or serve as risk mitigation, as opposed to terminal takeouts.  Critiques Critique debates can be fun to watch, but only when the position is clear at the thesis level. If your shell argues that the K is a prior question or something like that, spend some meaningful time explaining why that’s the case instead of “shadow” extending an argument from the shell.  I am familiar with a lot of the literature, but you should argue the position as if I am not.  Critiques are totally dope, but only because they have the potential to advance compelling arguments… not because they are obtuse.  Framework debates are a waste of time a vast majority of the time.  I do not understand why teams spend any substantive amount of time on framework.  The question of whether the affirmative methodology/epistemology/whatever vague term you want to use, is good or bad should be determined in the links and impacts of the criticism.  I see almost no world where framework matters independent of the rest of the shell.  So… the only K framework questions that tend to make sense to me are arguments about why it is a prior question.  It makes sense that if the critique wins that the affirmative impacts are threat constructions that I’m not going to weigh the affirmative impacts against the position.  That’s not a framework debate though, that’s a question determined by winning the thesis of the position.  Critical affirmatives can be cool, but they also put me in a weird position as a judge sometimes.  If your affirmative is positioned to critique DAs, then I still want to see specific applications of those arguments to the DAs.  I need to see how the DA demonstrates your argument to be true in some specific way.  By that I mean, if the negative outright wins a DA, I would need to see why that would mean the affirmative shouldn’t lose early, often, and specifically.  The same is true of any set/genre of negative positions.  Performance I tend to not have super strong feelings in favor or in opposition to “performance” style arguments.  Several of the teams I have coached have run non-traditional arguments and I have seen those be incredibly beneficial for the debaters and have a positive effect on education garnered from their rounds.  I have also seen people really struggle with performance-style arguments on an interpersonal level, in both advocating their positions and responding to others doing so.  I defer to the debaters to wade through the various issues related to performance-style debate.  For me, performances [and this is definitely for lack of a better term that groups non-policy/non-topic oriented approaches] have the potential to make very compelling arguments.  However, I will vote for framework as answer to these arguments if the other team “wins” the position. I'll also say, smart K aff teams should be reading a 1ac that levvies a lot of offense against the internal logic of most framework positions.  Framework teams should consider to what extent the affirmative acts as a DA to their interpretation and wade through such issues carefully.  CPs In general, the CP/DA debate is probably what I feel most comfortable judging accurately and I think CPs that solve the affirmative are very strategic. There are probably enough arguments on both sides to justify different interpretations of how permutation or CP theory in general should go down, that I don’t have strong opinions about many CP related issues.   I tend to think objections to conditionality are rooted in some very valid arguments, however I find myself concluding conditionality is probably more good than bad in my mind.  That only means the conditionality debate is totally fair game and I probably have voted conditionality bad as many times as I have voted it is good.  Cheater CPs are cool with me, so feel free to deploy delay, conditions, consult, whatever.  I tend to think the theory arguments read in answer to those positions are more persuasive than the answers when argued perfectly, but that in no way makes me more predisposed to reject any kind of CP strategy.

Andrew Lake - Washburn

I debated for Washburn for four years. I now coach at Topeka West High School. I am a flow centric judge and I am willing to vote on anything that is articulated well with a clear framework. I can handle most levels of speed so long as you are articulate. It is in your best interest to start relatively slow and speed up as the speech progresses (crescendo). The rest of this judge philosophy is how I will default in the event that you don't tell me how to evaluate a position. Overall, net-benefits. Theory: I love theory debates. Generally I will evaluate them through competing interpretations based on the standards and which standards I am told are most important. Advantages/Disadvantages: Generally, uniqueness controls the direction of the link; extinction and dehumanization are terminal impacts. A 1% chance of a disad/adv occurring gives that team "offense" for the ballot. CP: Counterplans should be competitive and switch presumption from the negative to the affirmative. Thus, the CP has to give me a net-benefit over the case or a perm to warrant a ballot. I am willing to vote on CP theory if those arguments are won. K: I wasn't a big K debater, but I have argued them and judged them frequently. You should be able to explain your K, its framework, link, impx, alt and alt solvency. Buzz words, and name dropping are not a substitute for the former explanation. I am willing to vote on framework and similar arguments if those theory arguments are won.

Andrew Hart - Mizzou

Anthony Cavaiani - William Woods

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

Brent Nicholson - McKendree

This philosophy should give you a look into the way I think, but I believe that it will be totally sufficient given my outlook on debate. In the past, I’ve tried to be comprehensive, but I think that that lead to folks misinterpreting my thoughts on debate. Do not take my brevity to mean that I don’t have thoughts about debate, but rather that I think my own opinions ought not matter to you as a debater – this is, after all, your activity. My goal as a judge is to adapt to the round that the debaters have. This may seem to be empty to y’all, and that’s fine, but my goal as a coach and judge is to facilitate debate rounds that debaters want to have. I feel capable of judging any debate and would encourage you to do you when I am your judge. With that said, you’ll probably want a few things that I start off with to keep in mind. - I assume all negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. - I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts. - Give your opponents’ arguments the benefit of the doubt. They’re probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning. - Role of the ballot arguments do not make sense to me: if you have to win that the aff/neg does something good to meet the role of the ballot, it seems like you’ve already won the regular-old impact debate. Keep trying! But be aware that I was probably already voting for you if you won an impact.

Calvin Coker - Mizzou

Experience: 4 years NPTE/NPDA Debate @ Washburn University, 1 year coaching policy at MSU, Misc. parli judging in the last 4 years   So, debates about the topic are good. If you agree, we are probably friends. I don’t mean debates that offer homage to the topic. I don’t mean debates that involve a dance, or a Lilliputian gesture, or an ironic representation to or of the topic. I mean debates that invoke an assessment of the impacts wrought from the passage of a topical plan text.   There. All the cheaters* stopped reading and struck me.   I don’t actually have a static view of debate, but I do have predispositions, which inform the way I tend to evaluate rounds. So, here are those, in no particular order.   Theory:   All procedurals, to me, come down to ground. Education is an impact, sort of. Predictability and limits are internal links to ground, which is an internal link to education. This should only really impact you in two ways. First, proven abuse on a procedural is very compelling. I certainly don’t require it, but a smart procedural that shields the link to an LOC position can become a game winner in the MOC if the MG is either sloppy, or abusive. Second, the notion that ground is the deciding factor should impact the framing of the debate on procedurals in the rebuttals. Which interp is best for aff ground, for neg ground? Is the MG more important than the LOC in the context of CP theory? These questions should be resolved in the debate.   CPs   Outside of artificial competition (like jacking the aff’s funding), they are all up for debate. I have a pretty high expectation of what an MG theory shell should look like if the PMR is to go for the argument as a reason to reject the team; clear interp, violation, well explained standards, and complete voters to say the least. Overall I think CP theory should be intrinsic to the debate itself. There are some resolutions that would allow for a Delay CP, or a super small PIC. There are others that discourage those strategies. Debaters should isolate these distinctions, and debate them.   Ks   I only really have two predispositions on the K/Performance. I think that, absent a fairly compelling argument to the contrary, the affirmative advocacy should be a defense of the implementation of a topical policy option. Second, I think the negative should not get a floating PIC. Seems reasonable, as floating PICs are cheating. Other than that, read the K when it is strategically valuable.   Obligatory Condi section:   Multiple Conditional advocacies make some amount of sense in a world of backside rebuttals. They make much less sense in parli. I think a reasonable bright line is that the LOC should get a K, a CP, and the SQ. That being said, the collapse should resolve outstanding issues on a sheet of paper. You can’t just say “not going for the dedev impact turn, going for the econ disad.” You need to read strategies that at least appear to be consistent with each other. Similarly, there should be one worldview in the block. Also, smart MGs should point out arguments that present substantive inconsistencies in the LOC strategy. Did they read a representational framework on the K and then link to the K with a DA? Well, their own framework indicts the notion that representations are conditional, so you should point that out. I guess, what I am really saying boils down to two things.   1.      Condi is okay within reason and when done well 2.      MGs can beat condi with many different tools, but many don’t deploy them effectively.   Other things that may or not inform your decision to strike me:   If you balance speed with clarity, it will be very difficult for you to lose me on the flow. Blindly and unintelligibly spreading is good for no one, as I will almost certainly miss, and misinterpret, arguments. For this reason, please repeat meaningful texts in the debate. Plans, CP texts, interpretations, alternatives, complicated permutations, the like.   I think the aff should have a stable plan text. Normally that should manifest itself as a policy. This, I feel, should make everyone happy.   I really don’t want to vote on “take a question in the MG/MO.” These arguments are stupid. Take a question in the LOC and the PMC.   I will under no circumstances vote on an independent voting issue. Reverse voting issues are in a similar boat.   If you are incredibly rude or disrespectful to the other team, I reserve the right to tank your speaks. Average speaks will range from about 26-28. Above a 28 means you done talk real good. 30s are rare.   LOC offense should solve or turn the case. Only a silly negative team gets to let the MG weigh the totality of their aff.   *Critical debates are not cheating, really by any stretch of the imagination. They are just often done in a way that makes me angry. The debates, and debaters, can be intentionally obtuse. I hate obtuse debates. Why don’t you just explain what you are doing and debate instead trying to be tricky?

Dan Lyon - MoWestern

Four years high school policy/LD/PFD for Fort Scott High School in SE Kansas. Four years NPDA/NPTE experience for Washburn University in Topeka Kansas. Debated NDT/CEDA at Harvard 2011 and UMKC 2013. First year coaching and judging in parli as I finish my undergrad Political Science degree from Washburn University. General Information: The simple version of my paradigm is do what you are comfortable doing and I will enjoy the show. Speed is rarely issue, clarity is of utmost importance. Pay attention to my nonverbal responses to your arguments. PLEASE read all advocacy statements and interpretations slowly and twice. This includes all plan, CP, and alt texts, perms, any role of the ballot, and interpretations. I keep a pretty legible flow but if you sacrifice proper signposting for speed expect me to miss your arguments. Please slow the debate down if the neg is collapsing to theory (not a voting issue, just a request for clarity). Education in my opinion generally outweighs fairness but in round/potential abuse is a voter. Conditionality is great! But if you disagree I promise to objectively evaluate your condo bad blocks.You should probably avoid reading disablism, Nietzsche, and arguments that rely on pessimism for their solvency. These are the arguments which I have biases towards. Please be cordial to each other. I have a lot of anxiety that arises when debates become hostile or unpleasant. Please keep this space safe for everyone.If you challenge or light me up after the round I will ignore you and immediately dock your speaker points to zero. Please approach me after I turn in my ballot if you have a problem with my judgement.The kritik changed my life. It interested me early on in my debate career and helped educate me on how problematic my conservative socialization was. However, policy centric education and reformism in my opinion has been proven to be beneficial. I love a good politics/case turns debate as much as any anthro debate. (NPTE) Specific Issues Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? In my opinion speaker points don’t matter. They only matter to those who win awards and programs that place more pressure on individual rather than team performance. But I’m not going to arbitrarily mess with tab by giving everyone 30’s (which is what I want to do). Therefore, 28.5 is my average. I am pretty generous though so that average is subject to rise in the near future. I want debates to be enjoyable and fun so if you are interested in what you can do to get more speaker points here is a list of things you can do... Close the debate in your speech. Lots of debate humor. Give awesome analysis about feminism, environmentalism, or indigenous rights. I like those arguments. Include NBA or NFL references (bashing on the Raiders, Cowboys, Knicks, and Lakers is one of my favorite past times). Naruto, WWE, Marxism, The Walking Dead, and Pokemon jokes will get you drastically more speaker points. Political puns, dry humor, and funny CX responses are appreciated. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I defer my response to the honorable Joe Allen, “I love the K. It makes me a happy, happy hippy. The resolution, as it turns out, is oppressive. Instead of passing a plan, you should dance about liberating everyone, or do something post-modern.” Performative contradictions are necessary to point out. Please isolate how specifically the conflicting ideologies is problematic (read an impact) and if necessary feel free to go for solely the perfcon in rebuttals. Performance based arguments... I love identity politics debates. Make the link to the other team clear. Justify your argumentation. Micro aggressions and identity politics are voters. I’ll be looking primarily at your root cause claims and links to prioritize your arguments. With that in mind framework (aff should read a plan text) is a very persuasive answer to the critical affirmatives in my opinion but that is largely reliant on the offense you can generate against the PMC. Critical education is pretty neat, I want to learn in these debates and not felt obligated to interrogate my or others privilege which I can assure you I do periodically. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? T and other theory arguments are assumed to be A-priori. I will consider RVI’s but they better be well developed. Time skew is never a voter (HAHA) and I prefer all T debates to be framed through competing interpretations. Please slow the debate down if the neg block is going in on T and please read all interps SLOWLY, TWICE. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? If you aren’t defending the squo or an alt I better hear a CP out of your LOC. Love CP theory. I am not biased towards evaluating if PIC’s are good/bad, delay bad, text comp good, etc. I will vote on whatever theory you justify. Also, I personally love condo but have voted on condo bad numerous times. Make the debate what you want and I will try to objectively evaluate it. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) You do you. 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?)? Procedurals, K, DA, CP, then case turns. Unless you are reading time cube, then I believe Gene Ray wants me to evaluate the flow in a different order for every dimension of time. How do you weigh 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")? You don’t want me to weigh your impacts absent clear analysis from the LOR/PMR. If that happens I may vote on the 1% risk of nuke war one debate and then for systemic violence the next in an unpredictable manner. Whether you choose to discuss high magnitude impacts or systemic violence is irrelevant to me. Just please make impact CALC a vital component of the debate. Other Issues Delivery: Speed is fine. Don’t sacrifice clarity for quantity of arguments. Disads: Pretty vital to the activity. I’ve been out of the game for a while so any politics DA or other timeframe sensitive DA’s need to have a plethora of uniqueness analysis. Spec: If you are reading a SPEC I probably don’t expect you to go for it unless there is actual abuse. However, if you want to try to surprise me go ahead and read OSPEC. Tropicallity is a voter...

David Worth - Rice

David Worth, Ph.D.   D.O.F., Rice University   Judging Philosophy   My decision is based mostly on how the debaters argue I should decide the round; I try to avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible but will when the round demands it.  There are many cases where this might be necessary: If asked to use my ballot politically for example, or if both sides fail to give me a clear mechanism for voting, or if I know something to factually incorrect (if you are lying).  In these cases I try to stay out of the decision as much as I can but I don’t believe in the idea that any living person is really a blank slate or a sort of argument calculator.    Decision-making Approach: I’ll judge based on given criteria. I can think in more than one way.  This means that the mechanisms for deciding the round are up for debate as far as I’m concerned.    Warrants: I will not vote for assertions that don’t at least have some warrant behind them. You can’t say “algae blooms,” and assume I will fill in the internals and the subsequent impacts for you. You don’t get to just say that some counter-intuitive thing will happen. You need a reason that that lovely regionally based sustainable market will just magically appear after the conveniently bloodless collapse of capitalism. I’m not saying I won’t vote for that. I’m just saying you have to make an argument for why it would happen. NOTE: I need a good warrant for an "Independent Voting Issue" that isn't an implication of a longer argument or procedural. Just throwing something in as a voter will not get the ballot. I reserve the right to gut-check these. If there is not warrant or if the warrant makes no sense to me, I won't vote on it.    Offense/Defense: Defense can win, too. That doesn’t mean that a weaker offensive argument with risk can’t outweigh defense, it just means that just saying, “oh that’s just defense,” won’t make the argument go away for me. Debate is not football. There’s no presumption in the NFL, so that analogy is wrong.   Assessing Arguments: An argument’s weight depends on how strong it is.  I think line-by-line vs. "big picture" is an artificial divide anyway.  This can vary by round.  I would say you need to deal with all the line-by-line stuff but should not fail to frame things (do the big picture work) for me as well.  It’s pretty rare that I vote on one response but it’s equally rare that I will vote on the most general level of the ideas.   Presentation: All good as long as you are clear. I’ll tell you if you are not, but not more than a couple of times. After that, I will try, but I make no guarantees.   Strong Viewpoints: As I’ve said before, I probably won t vote to kill everyone to save the planet/galaxy/universe. Otherwise I haven t found "the" issue yet that I can t try to see all sides of.   I vote on procedurals a bit less than other arguments but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t run them. I am getting kind of tired of purely strategic procedurals. However, even though they aren’t favorites they are sometimes necessary.   Points of Order: Call them, or don’t call them; I’ll probably know whether the argument is new and not calling them does not change their status as new.  Also, if you’re clearly winning bigtime don’t call a ridiculous number of them in your opponents’ rebuttal. Just let them get out of the round with some dignity (if you don’t, speaker points will suffer). It’ll be obvious when I think you are calling too many.   Other Items to Note:   If the round is obviously lopsided and you are obliterating the other team (e.g. if they are novices), then be nice. I will obliterate your speaker points if you aren’t nice or if you simply pile it on for the heck of it.   You don’t need to repeat yourself just to fill time. If you’re finished, then sit down and get us all to lunch, the end of the day, or the next round early.   I’m not going to weigh in on the great theoretical controversies of the game. Those are up to you to demonstrate in the round. T can be more than one thing depending on the round. Counterplans can function in more than one way. Critical debates can have many forms. I’m not going to tell you what to do. I am familiar with pretty much all of it, and have been around for a long time. I don’t pretend to think any of the issues are settled.  Actually, I’ve learned or at least been forced to think about theory issues from debaters in rounds far more often than from anyone else. If I had pontificated about The Truth As I Knew It before those rounds, the debaters would have simply argued what I said I liked and I wouldn’t have learned, so it’s in my interest as well as yours for me not to hand you a sushi menu with the items I’d like to see checked off. PICS, Framework, Competing Interp, in-round abuse, etc. These are all interpretable in the debate. I will say that I probably most naturally think in terms of competing interpretations on T, but, as I mention above, I can think in more than one way.   I will also say that I dislike the post/pre-fiat issue. I am kind of over it.  Find a way to compare the impacts/implications and the plan/alt, etc. for me. It really annoys me to have compare things after the round that I was told throughout the round were “not comparable.” If you don’t find a way, don’t get mad at me for comparing them however I choose to compare them.   My “Debate Background:” I did CEDA/NDT in college. I coached policy for years, and also coached parli from the days of metaphor and holding-the-wig-on-as-you-stand all the way into the NPTE/NPDA modern era. I have also coached NFA-LD.   Finally, everyone in the room has sacrificed something to be there. A lot of resources, time, and effort went in to bringing us all there. Be sure to show some basic respect for that.

James Mollison - Purdue

Largely out of laziness, I have decided to copy and paste an old version of Calum Matheson's judging paradigm. I agree with it, though it may be worth noting that Calum no longer seems to and has changed his paradigm considerably. It follows: Do as thou will shall be the whole of the law. All styles of debate can be done well or done poorly. Very little offends me. If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause and you should lose. If it’s so wrong and you’re so right, then it should be easy for you to win. Is that really too high a bar? If so, then I have a 26.5 here for you. Do you like it? I made it myself. Just for you. Debates are almost always decided in part by preconceived ideas which we presume to be shared. The same holds true for debate-theoretical issues. Due to time pressure, size, or whatever, many debates leave some element that a judge must decide for themselves, like “What is the standard for a new argument?” or “What does it mean for something to be conceded?” As a result, I have rewritten this to focus on those factors. All of these are defaults. Contrary arguments by a team in a debate always override them.  I would like to intervene as little as possible, but am unwilling to pretend that anyone's objective. 1. An argument contains at least a claim and a reason.  It constitutes intervention for a judge to ignore a dropped argument on the basis of its soundness, rather than its validity. If you don't know what that means, you should look it up--it might be helpful more generally. 2. One makes an argument, and then reads evidence to support it. The evidence is not the argument. Many judges read too much evidence, which invites them to intervene. In thebest case, reading fifty cards and taking forever to make a decision means you’re reading too much into cards, forgetting the debate, and thus taking the debate away from the competitors. You should use your evidence carefully and sparingly with me. I’d rather you read a few high-quality cards than a big pile of crap. The quality of arguments matters, not the quantity of evidence. 3. “Any risk” is inane. Below some level of probability, signal should be overwhelmed by noise, or perhaps the opposite effect might occur. Pretending that one can calculate risk precisely is stupid.  Are you really sure that the risk of a disad is fifteen percent? Are you sure it’s not, say, twenty? Or maybe ten? Or, God forbid, twenty-five? If you are able to calculate risk with such precision, please quit debate and join the DIA. Your country needs you, citizen. If not, recognize that risks can be roughly calculated in a relative way, but that the application of mathematical models to debate is a (sometimes) useful heuristic, not an independently viable tool for evaluation. 4. Uniqueness cannot determine the direction of a link. This is not an opinion, just a statement of fact. Some outcome is more or less likely to happen in the future, but because it’s a prediction, the probability is almost never 100%. The link is a net assessment of how the plan changes this—it’s a yes/no, up/down thing. So if one team wins the direction of the link, they should win the argument (although winning the sign of the change doesn’t mean that its magnitude is necessarily enough to result in a particular outcome).  Here’s an example: the Aff has three advantages. The Neg has a counterplan that definitely solves two of them, and definitely does not solve the third. The Neg only has inherency arguments on that advantage, which is the only net benefit to the counterplan. Does the Neg win? No. They have no offense so the counterplan can’t possibly be better than the Aff alone. This situation is identical to the case when a counterplan solves all of the case, the Neg wins uniqueness to the net benefit, but the Aff wins (non-unique) link turns. 5. An argument that is conceded is “true” for the purpose of the debate and joins the set of other usually unspoken presuppositions, like “things can cause things,” “death is bad,” “the Obama mentioned in the cards is the president of the United States,” and so forth. This means that if something is conceded by the negative bloc (for example) and then becomes relevant again as a reaction to the 2nr, the Aff’s extension of it is not new. 6. My criteria for “new” applications of an argument: if I could see it coming when the team made the argument originally then their use of it later on is not new. I know this isn’t a perfect standard, but I can’t think of a better one. If a claim or reason is not made until the rebuttals then that component of the argument is new, but not necessarily the whole argument. It’s not enough to say “this is new.” You must say that that’s bad for some reason. 7. Offense/defense isn’t always appropriate for theory arguments. The team that makes the argument has the burden to show that it’s okay to do that, but they don’t need to prove that something is particularly good—just okay. Theory arguments should be rooted in something fundamental. There are hypothetical benefits of debate, then practices that further them, then specific arguments that are examples of those practices. These principles rarely result in a counterinterpretation that isn’t an arbitrary, self-serving turd shat gracelessly into a shallow theory debate. 8. The idea that the Aff determines the meaning of words in the plan is wrong. If so, then nothing would stop them from saying “by Iraq we meant Iran,” “decrease means make more,” or whatever. Topicality arguments would be impossible. Competition and disad links even worse. Cleverly written Affs could have some ambiguity in their advantages so that words in the plan could be suddenly and arbitrarily redefined in ways that still allow the plan to have advantages. The meaning of the plan wouldn’t be predictable. Here’s the plan you hand the Negative before the debate: “The USFG should set fire to children. Survivors will be eaten by cobras.” The Neg spends half an hour prepping (some “cobras aren’t big enough to eat kids” cards, maybe a PIC out of children who agree to join the Marine Corps, a "Russia likes cobras/hates children" card, etc) and then the debate starts and the 1AC is about why the war in Iraq is immoral and we should ban depleted uranium shells. Seems to me that a better interpretation is that both sides should debate over the meaning of the words in the plan text—which the Aff should be ahead on since they chose the words. 9. Unless the Negative makes an argument to the contrary, going for a counterplan in the 2NR means that the only relevant comparison is the counterplan versus the plan. If the plan is better than the counterplan, the Aff does not need to be compared to the status quo. It is “logical” for the judge to compare the plan to the status quo if the counterplan is a bad idea, but it’s similarly logical for the judge to vote for only part of the plan, or the plan plus some undiscussed-but-implied alternative, delay the plan for a couple of months, or to unilaterally decide that a disad isn’t intrinsic. Saying “status quo is always an option” doesn’t resolve this—an option for who? The 2NR or the judge? If you want the status quo to be considered along with the counterplan, you should say so clearly. 10. Debates should be about opportunity cost. Disadvantages should be intrinsic to the plan. Many people seem not to understand what this means. If the impact to a disad is that the same actor doing the plan would then do something bad, this disad is not intrinsic—i.e., nothing about the plan means that the disadvantage necessarily results. Example: the plan has the US Congress withdraw US troops from Iraq. The Neg says “Congress would then choose not to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment and that would hurt US-Russian relations.” This disadvantage is not intrinsic, because the same actor—Congress—could do the plan and still repeal Jackson-Vanik. A legitimate Aff response is “Congress could do the plan and still repeal Jackson-Vanik.” Here’s where some people seem to get stuck: the Aff argument “we could do the plan and Congress could give Alaska back to Russia” is not a legitimate argument. Intrinsicness arguments are like permutations of the status quo—they test to see if the Aff could do the plan and still maintain the decision that the negative says the plan trades off with (Jackson-Vanik). They can’t introduce new options to solve the same impact because that tests the necessary magnitude of the cost, not whether or not two courses of action are actually exclusive of one another. The “plan plus return Alaska” argument tests competition with a hypothetical world where we’re giving back Alaska, which is not the world that the Negative defends. There are many, many ways around this intrinsicness requirement for the Negative, and I have very rarely voted Aff on this argument. 11. In critical debates, the role of the judge is very important (“critique” is not spelled with a “k” in English, and we didn’t fight the Boche on and off for thirty years just to revert to their barbarian customs). If the alternative uses an agent other than that proposed by the Aff, it is necessary to make this clear and justify the change. I don’t think the default position for the judge is as a government policy maker—without further instruction, I will suppose that the judge should just select the best option regardless of the agent, but this presents a number of serious problems that are worthy of attention by both teams, as whoever wins the “role of the judge” generally wins the debate. 12. All debates are impact debates. If team one wins that (impact x risk) of their arguments is larger than (impact x risk) of team two's arguments, team one wins. Although the standards for evaluating impacts is different in different debates (e.g., "liberty outweighs life," "moral action outweighs consequences"), this is true in theory debates, policy debates, and critical debates because the "impact" is just the reason to care about whatever you said. Impact calculus is thus very, very important, probably more important than any other aspect of a debate. Oddly enough, I think this is also the least-developed part of most debates. Bear in mind how conceded arguments influence impact uniqueness--in many debates, someone kicks a disad with a nuclear war impact by conceding that it's not unique and doesn't link. This means that the judge is making a decision about two opposing contingent worlds, both of which contain a nuclear war, usually in the next few years. Shouldn't timeframe matter more then since we'll all be fighting Super Mutants and learning to make our own bullets in a couple of years? In a related note, it's strange to me how little people exploit the impacts that they do win since the scale of impacts people discuss would clearly effect one another not just at the internal link level (e.g. "econ collapse hurts heg") but at the level of terminal impacts vs. internal links (a nuclear war might cause pandemics, or collapse the economy, or whatever--at the very least, we'd probably quit enforcing the plan once the time came to discuss the finer points of radioactive cannibalism). 13. Nearly always, what Aff teams call "not unique" arguments are actually brinks. Because most disads are cartoonishly stupid, they are also unique, because the magnitude of change that they're talking about is extreme. Example: "the plan spends money; hurts the economy; econ collapse = nuke war." If the Aff says "economy low now," that's probably good for the Neg, because their impact ev is talking about a situation where the economy has completely collapsed, so the Aff claim arguably adds plausibility to their argument. Link uniqueness is different of course. 14. Debate is ultimately about communicating your ideas to a judge to persuade them to vote for you. If I cannot understand you, I will not be persuaded to vote for you. It is the burden of debaters to communicate clearly. I will not say “clear.” I will just ignore you without remorse, since the most basic goal of a debater is to be understood by the judge. This doesn't apply if it's not your fault, e.g., you're too far away and I can't hear you. 15. A few notes on language: Speaker points are entirely subjective. They reflect how much I like a set of speeches as a performance; feel free to fight with me about them but be aware that I have never cared. If you have an accent, speak a dialect, or whatever, I would not penalize you. That said, if you think that the first syllables of "tyrant" and "tyranny" are pronounced the same way, I wish you ill. Similarly, the aff does not "cause the Holocaust," unless this is an unusually bizarre counterfactual debate. "Knight Ridder" is a news agency; "Night Rider" was an 80's television series. "G.A.O." is an acronym, not a name. "Genocide" is a noun. The adjectival form is "genocidal." "Genocide" is not a verb. "Critique," as previously mentioned, is spelled with a "C," and as a rule, unnecessary use of German never made an argument sound less insidious. "Spec" is an annoying abbreviation; "tix" is one whose users should be condemned to a short life of hard labor in a Siberian uranium mine. Again, all of these are defaults, and I ignore them when teams I judge make contrary arguments.

Jared Bressler - CSU

New much shorter judging philosophy I judge the round by the arguments made in round through the flow, I am not capable of judging another way (I'm not claiming to be perfect, but I always use the flow). Being autistic means that the flow is the only way that I can see the round. If you think that makes me a bad person you should strike me.  I hold PMR responses to MO responses to MG theory to a high standard. While I judge rounds in the flow there are some things that will kill your speaker points if you read them in front of me (I have given people one speaker point before) Saying I should not use the flow (this is an attack on me as an autistic person) Most critical ableism literature (Again these arguments make me feel attacked as an autistic person) Any framework that says that X identity or form of oppression should come over all others Being racist, sexist, ableist,homophobic, trabsphobic ect. Being a jerk to your opponents One other request, I get audioly over stimulated, so if your speech act involves yelling please keep in mind that causes me physical pain.

Jason Edgar - MoWestern

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

Joe Provencher - TTU

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

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.

Joel Reed - Mizzou

Joel Reed Graduate Teaching Assistant- University of Missouri NDT/CEDA Debater for 4 Years @ Missouri State NDT/CEDA Graduate Assistant Coach for 2 Years NFALD Graduate Assistant Coach for 1 Year   Be clear. Speed is a strategic tool only insofar as I can understand what you are saying and transcribe it, in some form, onto my flow. As long as there is clarity, speed does not detract from the persuasiveness of your appeal (sorry, Cicero). I think that most things are debatable. With that said, I think that some things are a waste of time to debate. I have little desire to listen to your poem about how the time cube means that the Mayans really thought the world would end in 2027.   The flow is very important to the debate but only insofar as it helps me to evaluate arguments. An argument consists of a claim and a warrant. I will write down both. A claim without a warrant will get very little weight from me when making my decision. I only expect the opposing team to respond to arguments with a claim and a warrant.   Topicality should be a strategic option. It’s the aff’s job to define what they mean by reasonability.   Theory- I enjoy these debates. My default on theory is to reject the argument and not the team. Counterplans- I would much rather listen to a topic specific counterplan than states, courts, or xo. I have never voted against a counterplan because it is topical, but perhaps you will be the first one to persuade me.   Critiques-As a debater I went for critiques and framework with equal frequency. I am more than happy to vote for these arguments, and I am more than happy to vote against you for reading them. I will let the arguments in the round be my guide.  I think of the critique like any other argument. There should be a clear alternative text. If you wish to shift the framework for the debate or advocate something other than the text of the alternative that should be very explicit. I have a rather strong preference against dying. Let that guide your argument choices as you will.    Be respectful. If I think you were mean or rude, I will let you know. I will then ask you to publicly apologize before I give my decision.

Jon Price - Mizzou

·         Speed is fine but clarity is key. ·         Procedural arguments do not need in round abuse to get my ballot, but it would help your position if you had in round abuse to prove your point. ·         Kritical debate is welcome but requires a clear framework and alternative that is more than “rethink” or “use your ballot as a tool”. ·         Impact calculus and a clear internal link story is the easiest way to get my ballot. ·         I consider myself a flow judge. ·         Warrants are key the key to a good debate, and good debaters should be ready to contest each other’s warrants. ·         Be considerate to your opponents and make good arguments.

Josh Bolton - Mizzou

·         Only in for Octofinals ·         HS debate experience, no rounds judged this year ·         PhD Candidate in Political Communication, critic of argument ·         Preference for clash and in-depth analysis of impacts ·         Preference for clear and articulated decision calculus in the rebuttals ·         Speed and excessive technical jargon probably a non-starter.

Kathryn Starkey - CSU

Judging Philosophy: Kathryn Starkey   Section 1: General Information I debated at the University of Wyoming from 2006-2011. I coached at Texas Tech University for the three years following UW. Now, I am the Director of forensics at CSU Pueblo in my 3rd year.  As a debater, I tended to read policy-oriented arguments with the occasional cap-bad or constructivism K thrown into the mix. Debate is a game; be strategic. This is one of the most incredible educational activities out there. Treat it as such.   Section 2: Specific Inquiries   1. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given. So far my range tends to fall in the 26-30 category. Things to help your speaker points: strategy, intelligence, and wit. Adjustments will occur when debaters are inappropriate in round. Please be civil! I know that debates can become intense, but your speaker points will also be a reflection of your ability to treat your opponents with respect.   1. 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?  I have voted k’s for them since I have stopped competing, but a word of caution: I am probably not as well versed in the literature as you. This being said, if you run a K in front of me, make sure to thoroughly explain your argument. Several unwarranted tags coupled with name-dropping authors isn’t going to be as persuasive as a thorough explanation of the thesis of the K. The alternative must be able to solve the mpx of the K, which make both the alt text and the solvency contention pretty important in my book. I’m not a fan of using the K to exclude the aff. It makes the discussion solely about the K, which I think takes away from the merit of parli. Despite this, it’s your debate. The aff can run critical arguments, but there is a way to do so and be topical at the same time. The resolution exists for a reason. Please be topical. I’m very persuaded by framework arguments. As for contradictory arguments, it probably depends on your ability to defend conditionality as a beneficial thing in parli. I’m down with conditional arguments, but demonstrating why you are not abusive to the other team can be difficult at times and is your burden to fulfill. This also probably means you need to have a coherent strategy going into the block to deter possible abuse if you are going to run critical arguments that contradict other facets of the negative strategy.   1. 3. Performance based arguments… Not a fan….. I’ll vote for whatever you tell me to vote for in a round, but I’m not going to enjoy listening to a performance if read in front of me. I’d like to enjoy what I listen to.   1. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?  For the aff, you should probably be topical. Aside from this, I love T debates as long as they aren’t the generic, stock T debate that gets rehashed every round. Nuanced and educational ways to interpret the resolution tend to spur interesting debates, at least in my opinion. I’d prefer to have in-round abuse, but it’s not necessary. Without a specific weighing mechanism, I’ll default to competing interpretations. To vote on T, it clearly needs an interp, standards and a voter. In a paradigm of competing interpretations, there must be a net-benefit to one interpretation that the other fails to capture. I don’t see T as a win-all for the Aff. I don’t think I’d vote for an RVI on T.   1. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? With a substantial net-benefit, PICS are great. I welcome the theoretical level of the counterplan debate as well. That being said, it would be difficult to persuade me that arguments like PICS bad or PICS good are more than a way for me to view the round. I.e. Voting for the arg: PICS are bad, which means they lose. If a solid abuse story is established, I can probably be persuaded otherwise. I also think the neg should state the status of the counterplan in the LOC. It forces the theory debate to begin later in the debate, making it difficult to evaluate the end of a debate in which the PMR goes for that theory. Why hide your status? If you’re going to read a counterplan, be ready to defend it. Counterplans need to be functionally competitive, or there seems to be no point in running one. It must have a NB that the aff cannot solve. As for textual competition, I’m impartial. It probably helps to prove the competition of your counterplan, but it doesn’t seem as necessary to me, though I can be persuaded otherwise. Perms are tests of competition; they are not advocacies. If a counterplan is non-competitive, then it goes away, leaving the rest of the debate.   1. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Impartial. It’s probably in your best interest to make sure you flowed an argument as the other team stated it, but it’s up to you. Sharing texts is probably a good idea as well. I also don’t care if you ask the other team something during a speech (this isn’t a POI – it’s the other communication that occurs) as long as I can still hear who’s speaking. It seems to be a trend that’s picking up. Doesn’t bother me.   1. 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?)? As a disclaimer: this is your job, not mine. Please do this for me. Procedurals come first, then usually other theoretical objections, impacts. It all still depends what kinds of arguments are in the round.   1. 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 would honestly prefer to NEVER have to do this, so please don’t make me have to do so! A thought, though: Extinction>dehume   Other Random thoughts J <ul> <li>I LOVE disads.</li> <li>Please read texts and interpretations more than once. If you want it down word for word, please repeat it for me!</li> <li>POI’s: Seems like a good rule of thumb to take one per constructive speech. Clarification on texts, especially, is sometimes necessary for a coherent strategy.</li> <li>Spec positions are awful. I understand their utility to guarantee a strategy, but they’re not very convincing in front of me if you go for it.</li> <li>Overviews are good; you should use them.</li> <li>Please make sure to compare positions and give impact calculus throughout the rebuttals.</li> <li>I’ll protect against new arguments in rebuttals. You should still call points of order in the event I may have missed something.</li> <li>Any questions, please feel free to ask. I love this activity, and I love to talk about it.</li> </ul>

Keenan Hogan - Washburn

4 years of high school policy debate 4 years of parliamentary debate at Washburn 4 years of debating why I went to medical school   I have seen some extremely extensive judging philosophies from those who have spent a great deal of time in the debate community. Frankly, my ideas about debate structure and theory are not that well-developed, which my judging philosophy will reflect. If you have a specific question, feel free to ask me and I will try to answer. Also, that is just how my face looks - it has nothing to do with you or your arguments. This is my third parli judging experience this year and my flowing wasn't top-notch to begin with, so your top speed may be overwhelming (not to mention you are way less articulate than you think you are). If you ask, I will gladly let you know if your speed or clarity has become an issue. Heck, if the mood takes me, I might even yell, "Clear," but probably not. If I stop flowing, you have lost me. Overall, I view debate like a numbers game (or robot-like, as Doubledee might say). I believe a winnable impact must have uniqueness controlling the direction of the link and an internal link to a prioritized impact more probable, faster or larger than theirs. Nuance makes a story more probable, defensive arguments make a story less probable, etc. The team most likely to win my ballot tallies the balance sheet on the arguments by the end of the debate. I believe a procedural issue must have a standardized interpretation being violated and why I should care. Abuse is not a prerequisite, but is simply one way to view a procedural debate (but a pretty convincing way, nonetheless). As above, competing claims/warrants will be tallied, with nuance and offensive arguments providing legitimacy. I don't mind conditional counterplans or conditional counterplan theory. Proper competition for a counterplan is open for debate. As in the rest of the debate, quips, lingo and exclusively debate phrases may have escaped my brain in the past few years (or you may have invented some new ones). Regardless, you're better off saying more than, "Invisible Perm," and just moving on because I may not (definitely won't) have any idea what you're talking about. I was never great with critiques and I probably haven't become an accidental savant in my time away. You should include a thesis page to get me on board, solid solvency with the role of the ballot to keep me interested, and interact with the resolution/PMC to protect my sanity. I can only guarantee that I try to make the correct decision at the end of the debate, but I can only judge what I understand. No arguments that I can think of would cause me to stop listening or prematurely sign my ballot, but there are several that would make me think less of you as a person and make it easy for the opposing team to win. Be respectful, if not nice.

Keith Corley - Jewell

My name is Keith Corley and I currently am the Assistant Debate Coach at William Jewell College. My experience in the activity is 2 years at Moorpark College and 3 years at Concordia University Irvine. My goal with this philosophy is to try and be as honest as possible with those who read it as it is my experience that quite a few individuals tend to mislead in order to be part of the in group. KvsPolicy: During my debate career I spent a majority of it debating policy and case debate. That being said my final year in the activity I debated the K more than 70% of the time. As far as policy debate goes, I expect warrants for arguments. I know that all judges says this but I want to make it extremely clear that you need specific warrants to back up your claims. If you do not have it, often times I will accept the other team to just articulate a lack of warrants in order to refute the argument. Other than that I feel like I view policy in the same way that almost every other person does. Theory: When I was debating I was really into theory debate, it was something that I really enjoyed winning on. While I am more than willing to listen to you read these, I think it should be pointed out that I really dislike listening to theory that is not strategic or meaningful, aka something that is meant just to waste the other team's time. More often than not I think that the questions that theory is asking is important and as such in this aspect of the debate I do not like gamesmanship.  Conditionality I was coached by Kevin Calderwood and while I buy into his thoughts in regards to conditionality I want to make it clear that I do not think that one conditional advocacy is necessarily bad. That being said I will definitely listen to a condo bad shell for a variety of reasons. Specifically, I suggest you not run an argument such as whiteness or fem conditionally as I believe that is ethically bankrupt. However, I will not vote anyone down for this if the other team does not win a condo bad theory position. The K: Like I said, I ran these quite a bit during my last year, however, I do not want you to think that I am up on every single bit of critical literature. I prefer a very explained out thesis for K's that arent cap or something basic. Additionally, you need to explain to me in a very clear way what the alt text does. I truly dislike utopian alternatives with no explanation as to how they function. As far as K's on the aff go I am fine with them, but I would prefer you to make it resolutional. I do not need you to make it topical or use fiat (though that can and should be argued by the neg if they so choose) but I would prefer if the resolution was incorporated somewhere. Miscellaneous If you only read one part of my philosophy please read this part: Debate was my home and identity for a long time. However, I realize that they type of debate and the space in which I engage in it are not home for many people that do not have my privilege. I want everyone to be able to run the type of arguments that make them feel most at home. That being said, I think that on some occasion in an effort to run arguments that they feel most comfortable with debaters will do so at the expense of the team that they are facing. What I mean by this is that I believe there is a way to run arguments that do not make your opponent feel like shitty people. I understand that some arguments can get real. I think those arguments are fantastic. However, I do not think that it is beneficial for anyone involved to traumatize someone in order to win a ballot. I believe that this space is a place for us to grow an think and learn a bunch of new and different types of education that aren't offered anywhere else whether that be upper level international relations or very critical queer theory. My belief is that our community is at our best when people can experience these hard truths without being brought to tears because the round made them feel like shit. My last note is that most of the fastest speakers in the community often times were not clear enough for me to flow at full speed. If you believe you are in this group please drop to 80% of your speed or wait for me to clear you, whatever you prefer.   TL;DR THESE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ME <ol> <li>Do not make the other team want to leave the activity</li> <li>No matter what you are running, please make sure that you have a solvency that explains how your plan, alt, advocacy, etc. function</li> <li>I NEED WARRANTS</li> <li>Please for the love of god somebody do impact calculus</li> <li>Totally down with theory, just not as a time suck</li> <li>If you make a good Hamilton reference, 30 speaks</li> </ol>

Korick Sisomphone - AppState

Section 1: General Information  I debated for 2 years at Appalachian State University. I am now the Assistant Debate Coach for App. Debate is game so have fun and learn!  Section 2: Specific Inquiries  1. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given. Typically give the top speaker 29 points and then 28, 27, 26 for the rest of the debaters accordingly. Exceptional performances will be awarded with 30 points. I typically think the best speaker in the round was the most strategic, had the most clever/creative arguments, was very clear and articulate (especially at speed), etc.  1. 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I love criticisms! I personally think that even when running a policy case it should be critically framed. I'm decently well versed in critical literature, but a clear and well explained thesis can go a long way for both me and the other team.  Yes aff k's are totally fine. I do believe that they have to be topical and it would some strong justification and framing to convince me otherwise. I don't think it's terribly hard to do the research and link the res to your criticism, so please do.  I don't really think any argument should contradict another argument you plan on running and I feel the same about k's. Be consistent in your advocacy.  1. 3. Performance based arguments… So in the end I'll evaluate whatever argument I'm presented with, but if performance based arguments are your thing, I might not be the best judge for you.  1. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?  For me to vote on topicality I would prefer to have clear articulated abuse. In the end though I'll evaluate the arguments that I get, articulated or potential. T's should have an interp, violation, standards, impacts, and voters. I evaluate procedurals before any other argument.  1. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? PICs are bad, but the other team has to call them out with a full pics bad argument (interp, vio, standards, impacts blah blah). If the other team lets it slide I'll happily pull the trigger on a PIC.  Please disclose the status of your counterplan.  I'm not a real fan of textual competition. CPs should be functionally competitive.  1. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Sure   1. 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?)? Procedurals, kritiks, everything else. Unless there are arguments telling me to do otherwise, then that is my default.  1. 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")? The more warranted argument will beat a less warranted argument.  I typically prefer systemic impacts. Dehuminization will typically outweigh mass death. But if told to evaluate otherwise I totally will.  My default impact calculus is probability > time frame > magnitude, unless told to do otherwise.

Kristin Stout - Mizzou

Judge Philosophy – Kristen Stout Debate Experience: 4 Years competing for Missouri State in NDT debate 6 Years Assistant Coach/Judge for Missouri State in NDT debate 2 Years Head Coach/Judge for Crowder College in NFA-LD I have judged 15-20 parli rounds in my career General Philosophy As you can see from the above information I am used to debates that heavily rely on evidence to support their position.  Therefore, I can only assume I will have a much higher threshold than most people for explaining the warrants for your arguments and why those arguments are true/should be preferred.  I also have a higher expectation than most about explaining WHY winning an argument matters.  Saying “they dropped X argument, extend it” basically means nothing to me.  Why does the other team dropping that argument matter?  How does it help you win?  I am unlikely to do that work for you.  I also like when the parameters for how I should evaluate certain arguments are laid out for me.  This means taking the time to do impact calculus/comparison and turns the case arguments are a must.  Same with competing ontologies or methods of how to think about impacts.  All of that being said, I am pretty good at evaluating the debate as it happens.  I don’t have a lot of preconceived notions or ideological preferences (other than I will default to you should talk about the topic provided unless you give me a pretty good reason we shouldn’t) so I can judge the debate that happens in front of me.  Conditionality – Good.  My default is that conditionality is good.  It would be hard to convince me they should lose for dropping the counter plan and advocating for the status quo.  However, given the lack of backside rebuttals I think less is more.  I don’t think there is any world where you need more than one (maybe two) conditional advocacies before I could think about it differently. Spec arguments – unless they are integral to your strategy they probably aren’t an independent win condition for the negative.  I’m not saying I can’t be convinced but I haven’t been yet.  Other Things Don’t be a jerk.  I don’t have any tolerance for it.  Debate is a place where we test ideas and learn how to argue but none of that requires being nasty to each other.  Win with class.  Lose with grace.  Be a person.  I don’t have a lot of experience with Parli so I am probably not the best person to ask to make a split second determination about an argument during a speech.  I will probably “take it under advisement” and have the debate progress. Feel free to ask questions if there are things I have not included or you need clarification.

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.

Lauran Schaefer - Jewell

Overall, I honestly want debaters to do what they do best in round. I do have a few caveats, however. First, I was never a theory debater and I can get lost in them very easily. I would suggest a few things, most importantly, slow down on the most relevant parts of the theory debate, specifically interpretations. So be advised, I need a clear story and proven abuse to feel comfortable with a decision on theory. I understand in some cases where the other team meets your interpretation, but you don’t have any good positions to go for, in that case be as clear as possible. Second, I prefer probability to magnitude and I will explain that in a later section.â€¨â€¨ â€¨â€¨I’m probably too generous with speaker points. I generally give between a 27-29 and avoid 30’s unless the speech is close to perfect. If the round is full of speakers who are generally at the same level, I default to giving the best a 29, the second best a 28.5, etc. (Rob Layne is quickly making me change my point fairy-ness, so bear with me.)â€¨â€¨ â€¨â€¨I really like critical debates. Affirmatives can run critical arguments, but I think they need a clear framework with an interpretation and standards. Specifically, tell me why this particular critical aff is warranted. Your interpretation can’t be some “reject blah blah” that are somehow mutually exclusive and some bs solvency telling me how the world will all of a sudden change their mindsets from collapsing some “ism.” Although, I ran arguments like that, I now see that made me a bad debater.  Explain your solvency. What does the world look like after the action is taken? â€¨â€¨Performance based arguments…â€¨â€¨I’m fine with them, but I need to know how to evaluate them. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? â€¨ Like I said, I prefer proven abuse. Competing interpretations is probably your best bet. I’m not sure I would even know what to do with out one unless you’re critiquing T. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?â€¨ PICs are a good strategy. The opp should identify the status IF they are asked to, otherwise it’s fair game. Perms should be functional in my ideal debate world. If you’re going to go textual comp you’ll probably want to run more theory than you would with functional telling me why I should prefer it. â€¨â€¨ Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)â€¨ I think as a courtesy, you should always give a copy of any plan text or counterplan text, especially if asked. I don’t care if teams want to share anything other than that.â€¨ 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?)?â€¨ Procedurals are obviously first. Next, I would go to framework, if necessary, to determine if the K comes first. Then the substance. I default to the impact debate. â€¨â€¨ 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")?â€¨â€¨I look to probability, first. Then magnitude. Finally, timeframe. If you want me to vote on huge impacts that are incredibly unrealistic, you should warrant exactly how these impacts will occur. Not some x country is pissed, the US gets involved, boom, big explosion because some random action causes a war in which rational actors would absolutely have to use nuclear weapons and it would cause a dust cloud that covers the sun. Although I did this, it’s because I had no idea if what I was saying was actually true. â€¨â€¨ Other Things: â€¨Making fun of Colin Patrick would make me smile. Forrest Gump, Keith Stone and Honey BooBoo references are a good idea.

Mark Bentley - AppState

Mark Bentley, Appalachian State University Section 1: General Information I approach debate as an academic exercise with critical rhetorical implications. I vote on arguments, not people. I will not vote for a team based upon personal characteristics they were born with or somehow acquired. I do not consider myself capable of judging the merits of an individual's narrative, and I am not generally disposed to personal narratives (that I cannot verify, and am not willing to dismiss) used as competitive leverage to win a ballot. I believe the debate space should be about critiquing ideas, not attacking people. I really like specific, well run critical debates. They are my favorite, but I'm also totally good with non-critical arguments. So, if critical arguments are not your thing, don't feel like you have to run them in front of me or I won't vote for you. I vote for plenty of non-critical arguments. Likewise, just because you run a critical argument doesn't mean I'm automatically going to vote for you. I evaluate arguments in whatever framework I am presented with, as long as it's warranted (don't just tell me something is important, tell me why it's important). I usually do not vote on defense alone, and prefer offensive arguments on positions rather than just defensive. When weighing arguments, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and timeframe, but I will weigh them differently if you tell me why. I have a rather high threshold for spec arguments and need to see clearly articulated in-round abuse, or I will not vote on them. This usually manifests itself as obvious underspecified, groundshift-ready plan situations. Spec arguments generally function best for me as link insurance for other positions. Asking questions are a must when running spec arguments (also, as a general rule, answer at least some questions). Generally, the Neg gets 1 conditional advocacy and the status quo. I am willing to vote on conditionality with multiple conditional advocacies. However, even if an argument is kicked, its rhetoric has already been introduced into the round and I still consider valid link access to that rhetoric. I tend to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but like POO’s called when whoever’s giving the rebuttal thinks they’re getting away with sneaking new arguments in.  I tend to protect the PMR against arguments suddenly blown up in the MO, and the opposition from arguments suddenly blown up in the PMR. 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)?           25-30. 27-30 is my typical range, 25 and below is for really bad speeches a/o abusive individuals. 2.  How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I definitely prefer critical arguments that are “grounded in the specificity” of the resolution, over generic, over-run kritiks (if your criticism is as important as you say, you can certainly link to and specifically engage with any res/arguments the other team runs). I will vote on permutations and theoretical objections. I also give weight to performative contradiction arguments as deficits to solvency (or however else you would like to use them). I get bored with highly generic kritiks. I will also vote on topicality for nontopical Aff K’s (again, if the issue is that important, it's also embedded in the resolution). That said, I really like critical arguments when they’re not generic and the ideas are clearly articulated. Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think it’s important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction the criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don’t drop or omit solvency of the criticism. Also, don’t give blanket blips of “alt solves all” because, no, it doesn’t. I understand that argument as a game piece, but if your advocacy is worth voting for you need to have more analysis than that. Use solvency as a way to justify the need for the criticism through analysis of what it actually does.   3.   Projects and performance based arguments… I don’t tend to find "performance based arguments" particularly persuasive, and aren’t really my thing. Unfortunately, I think the structure (meaning actual structure like speech times, speech order, ballots, win/loss, number of judges, etc.; not white, sexist, cis-centric, etc. structures) of the debate space and inherent competitive nature of the exercise is too constricting and self-defined to allow for "performance" solvency. The way "performative arguments" are often run makes it too easy for the other team to non-unique the "performance" with links to existing power structures/discourses/performances. I don’t buy arguments that your in-round "performance" solved for more than what it might have in the immediate context (if you advocate for suspending the illusion of the debate world). I also hold that the act of debating, criticizing, and advocating itself is a performance, and so you will need to do extra work to justify how and why yours is extra unique. I do think "performance" as critical metaphor can have access to rhetorical solvency, but it's harder for me to access literal solvency. For "projects": I have and will vote for "projects" that engage with the topic of the resolution and the other team’s arguments. I will not vote for a team based upon personal characteristics they were born with or obtained. Avoid debates about the personal characteristics of the people in the room. This leads to bad things for lots of reasons. As I've said, I am not in a position to be the arbiter of personal narrative validity, and really dislike being in that position. There is so much we don't know about everybody involved in this activity, I have no right to decide what somebody is/isn't and I don't think you do either. By all means, PLEASE indict rhetoric, but not individuals in the round. If you place me in a position to judge the validity of an individual's personal narrative, at best I will ignore your arguments putting me in that position. 4.   Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I tend to weigh topicality through competing interpretations (make them clear what they are), but a clear “we meet” by the Aff can also be sufficient if it’s obvious. I prefer specific ground abuse stories when voting on topicality, though they don’t have to always be “articulated in-round” abuse. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? I tend to view most counterplans as theoretically legitimate and like to leave it up to the debaters to determine what is or is not legitimate in the given round. I don’t like delay counterplans, and will not be likely to vote on a PIC when the resolution calls for a specific plan action on the part of the affirmative. I am open to voting for a PIC bad argument. Neg should also give CP status. 6.   Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Yeah, I don’t really care what you share...but that also doesn’t mean you don’t have to flow and just use the other team’s flows. Also, I don't think teams are necessarily under any sort of obligation to share their flows with the other team, but this can also be contextually dependent. 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?)? First off, you should definitely tell me which order I should evaluate and why. If you haven’t, this usually tells me you haven’t done your job. I usually evaluate K’s and T’s, then impact calculus. As stated above, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and timeframe. 8.   How do you weigh 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")? Again, if it gets to this point, you haven’t done your job and I won’t be real happy, and you probably won’t be happy with my decision. I don’t automatically weigh death more than dehumanization, but can go either way based on the context and arguments. Well warranted impacts are always preferred over poorly warranted ones.

Phil Tschirhart - Mizzou

·         Orientation: I think my judging paradigm can be debated in the round. I begin rounds as a tabularasa policy maker attempting to evaluate the arguments using all that I can. If debaters wish to argue for an alternative judging paradigm, I’m happy to entertain those debates as well, though these arguments should emerge early in constructive rounds and not during rebuttals. ·         Procedural Threshold: I will vote on procedural arguments without abuse if the negative’s presented voters clearly and consistently indicate the need for a negative ballot premised on the argument itself. In these instances, affirmative’s should argue that losing the procedural does not justify losing the ballot. In instances where the negative demonstrates in-round abuse I will vote on these as equivalent to offensive argumentation. In these instances, the affirmative must disprove the in-round abuse. ·         Critical Threshold: I am willing to welcome critical debates, however, the philosophical framework and alternatives must be clearly outlined. Critical debaters should be prepared to defend the premises of their critcal orientations to their end points. The stated alternative must engage the world of fiat and offer a strategic option that exceeds “rethinking” or using the “ballot as a tool”. The exception is for discourse critiques resulting from in-round language, these need not engage discussions of affirmative fiat and may offer rejection as a sound alternative / ballot instrument. ·         Speed Threshold: During time debating and coaching, I was able to keep up with the flow of most every round I saw. However, I’ve been out of competition for some time. I’d ask that you emphasize clearly and speak at a pace that accelerates in rate, please avoid jumping into the flow and tearing into your round overview. ·         Key to my Ballot: Clear overviews (and if necessary underviews) should be used in the rebuttals to effectively synthesize your arguments and those of your opponents. These global overviews should perform a clear impact calculous that resolves any debate over the links to offensive argumentation (including case turns). Importantly: Have fun and be ethical competitors. ·         Debate Biography: Two year graduate debate coach at Central Michigan University (2010-2012) Four year college debater in NFA-LD and NPDA (2006-2010) 3rd place national semi-finalist in NFA-LD, 8th place speaker award (2010) Double-Octs finalist at NPDA Nationals (2009) Former 3rd place division two high school policy debater  (2002-2006)

Sarah DeBruyckere - McKendree

I did parli debate for 4 years at McKendree University (2010-2014). I've been out for a few years, so keep that in mind. If you want to have a K debate, have a K debate. However, slow down in those instances a little because K's were never my thing. I'm fine with speed. I'm fine with conditionality. It would be hard to win a round on condo bad, but not unattainable. Not a big fan of generic politics unless it actually has solid links.

Sid Rehg - Mizzou

Sidney Rehg SIU 2013   Experience   • 4 years national circuit collegiate parli • Semi-Finals at NPTE 2011 & NPDA 2013   General   • I am not actively engaged with the debate community anymore, so don’t expect me to be up to speed on your scenarios – Don’t make assumptions with me. I am a nationally performing Performance Poet and work at a software company in custom development, affiliate support and product testing. I have a strong working knowledge of tech, business and the national craft beer market. • You can do what you want. I’ve run positions across the board and will vote the way you tell me to. Interact with your opponent’s arguments and make sure you take care of impact analysis. If you both win impact scenarios and do not weigh them against each other, I will choose my own adventure. • I had a preference for running critical arguments at SIU, but can handle anything you throw at me as long as it is explained well. On a personal level, I would prefer to encounter arguments I am not familiar with and learn something each round instead of getting your generic CAP shell every round. That said, I will vote where it counts regardless.   Rounds   • I can flow at a generally high speed, but remember that this is not my weekly activity anymore. Give extra space for signposting/tags/texts/etc. • I evaluate the debate based on what you tell me. You must win this framing question if both teams do not agree on a framework. • If only one team gives me total round vision and weighs the round with interaction, they typically win. • Without impact weight, I tend to preference probability first.     Counterplans   • Be competitive with the plan. I am unlikely to vote on textual competition unless it is presented very well. • I highly prefer unconditional counterplans. If you are defending condo good, you have a much harder road to fight in front of me. It can be done, and I will feel very dirty voting for it.  T   • T is the gateway to gain access to the round for the affirmative. I default to evaluation by competing interpretations. • If the affirmative loses T it is game over unless the NEG read a terrible shell that doesn’t tell me to take this action. • Silly Ts are silly. You are hurting your own credibility.    Other theory   • Honestly, you can do what you want in the round, but the cleaner the strategy and more concise the story, the more likely you are to take my vote. Theory should only be used to justify access to your arguments. I will drop the argument before the team unless you can convince me that a grave error was made.    The K   • Run what you like. I hope I like what you run. Do something not generic to make me have the feels. • AFF defending – Kill solvency, link turn or impact turn. I like the K, but also recognize they tend to be weak positions unless very skillfully crafted.   Affs   • Just be topical – Then do what you want.   Speaker points   • Clarity + efficient and concise communication = points. • Blatant offensiveness will garner a loss in points

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

Whitney Coker - Mizzou

Whitney Coker   Background:BA in Mass Media from Washburn University, MA in Communication from Missouri State University.   As a point of reference, I’ve been out of the community for a bit. I do not have previous debate experience, but I have watched quite a few rounds (mainly Washburn rounds) over the last 4 or 5 years. I judged at NPTE in 2015, and this is the first tournament of the year for me.     Specifics   Speed: I come from a non-debate background, so incredibly fast debates are a sure fire way to lose me. You don’t have to speak conversationally (though that would not upset me), but I wouldn’t go top flight. Speaking at a good clip, faster than one would speak normally, is probably optimal to ensure that I a.) Get arguments down and b.) Understand their relevance to the debate.   CPs- There should be a clear difference between the affirmative and the counterplan. I don’t like highly theoretical debates on counterplans; if there is a common sense perm, or reason to reject the CP, explain it that way. Similarly, isolate the disads to the perm. I prefer substance on CPs overall.   Conditionality is bad in parli. If you introduce a CP, you should have it through the entire debate.   Das/Case Debate. This is the area where I am most comfortable, if only because this will normally mean people will address the topic. I view the resolution, and subsequently the aff, at the center of the debate; strategies that don’t speak to the resolution are bad. Debating substance, however, is good.   Procedurals: I am not big on debate theory. I understand how and why ground is important, and I could be compelled to vote on theory such as topicality, but this is an area where a focus on the highly technical aspects of the debate will probably not be good. If something really egregious is happening, by all means read a procedural to protect yourself; its not that I won’t vote on them. I just would prefer a solid, cogent explanation of how the procedural works in the debate proper, and why it matters.   Ks: I do understand aspects of criticisms, but non-traditional strategies are sort of non-starters for me. These debates, in my experience, have been very convoluted and obtuse. If you can explain the function of the alt clearly, and the link and impact in a way that relates to the aff, I am happy to listen to these sorts of positions. Intense and complicated framework debates, constant references to authors I haven’t read (who has, really?) and super fast extensions with the assumption I understand the full nature of the K are ways to lose the debate in front of me.   Decision calculus: I implore the rebuttalists to do the work for me. I don’t want to have to agonize over how to frame the impacts in the debate; I would prefer that debaters resolve outstanding questions and prioritize their arguments so that I don’t have to.

Zach Schneider - AppState

Hi! I’m Zach. I debated for 5 years of NPDA/NPTE parli (4 at Cedarville University and 1 at SIU) and this is my second year coaching/judging at SIU. I aim to remove my argumentative preferences from the debate as much as possible and allow you to argue whatever strategy you think is best. I’m involved in debate because I love the activity and I want to judge you regardless of what style you prefer. With that said, I provide the following as guidance as to my opinions and predispositions. Quick Hits <ul> <li>As a competitor, I debated a variety of strategies, about 2/3 policy and 1/3 critical. On the critical side of things, I’ve spent a lot of time in debates reading Nietzsche, DNG, Wilderson, and disability based positions.</li> <li>I’m fairly predisposed to believe that the affirmative should defend the resolution (not necessarily fiat) via a topical plan or advocacy. I also think most teams are bad at reading/going for framework and I'm very unpersuaded by generic framework arguments. Take that as you will.</li> <li>I strongly prefer to evaluate debates based on the arguments on my flow. Since this seems to be a small trend, you should know that I have ADHD; if you ask me not to flow your speech, I will honor your request, but I will also probably literally not remember your arguments when I'm thinking about my decision. I'm happy to listen to your speech in whatever form it takes, but if you don't want it flowed and you also care about competitive success, it's in both of our best interests that you strike me.</li> <li>Tech > truth. Debate is a competitive game composed of moving argumentative pieces that are only occasionally indicative of reality. It's your job to identify the faulty (factually incorrect) pieces and tell me to disregard them.</li> <li>Generally, speed is good. Don't use speed to make people hate the activity and/or to punish novices for being novices. Enunciate; if I clear you, you probably need to be clearer, not slower.</li> <li>I keep stats on all the rounds I judge in a <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OAE7LV2off4DLvcNdRLNAmMDAUPYOQtDJ9R6UMpWnZI">Google doc5</a> to hopefully give some data on how I actually tend to vote in debates.</li> </ul> Offense/defense <ul> <li>Offense wins championships, but smart defense is underutilized. I am quite willing to assess terminal defense/no risk of something. I generally evaluate defense as either probability (arguments that the impact is unlikely - e.g. MAD checks) or possibility (it is structurally impossible for the impact to happen - e.g. Brazil cannot launch a nuclear first strike because they do not have nuclear weapons). If you concede your impact is impossible, I will assess 0 risk of it. If you concede your impact is improbable, I will compare the strength of the two claims and decide how much risk to assess (or, ideally, you do this comparison for me in a rebuttal).</li> </ul> Disads <ul> <li>Intrinsic, specific, well-sourced, big-stick disads are beautiful to watch, particularly if they implicate economic stability or hegemonic certainty. Use words like timeframe, magnitude, and probability in the rebuttal to contextualize your disad to the affirmative.</li> <li>"Extend the defense" is not an argument, please take the five seconds to say "extend MAD checks nuclear war" or whatever. I am often enamored of affirmatives that exploit lazy kicking of disads.</li> <li>Compelling politics disads require a robust description of the status quo (both the bill/process that the disad is centered around, and the motivations that hold the status quo together) as well as a coherent link to the affirmative; I find that the best politics disads are top-heavy, while the ones that give politics a bad reputation have few/blippy uniqueness/link arguments stuck on top of a big impact.</li> </ul> Case debate <ul> <li>It’s good and you should do it. Counterplans can be a useful component of a negative strategy but anyone who thinks you need one to win is wrong.</li> <li>I don't care if you read mini-disads and kritiks on case but please let everyone know if you plan to do so extensively (more than 2-3). Few things are more annoying than trying to piece back together a messy case flow after the debate.</li> </ul> Counterplans <ul> <li>PICs are good unless the topic is a whole bill or (maybe) permits only one topical affirmative. Agent CPs are good. Consult is fine if accompanied by a compelling argument that consult is not normal means.</li> <li>Delay, veto cheato, object/utopian fiat, and whatever other obviously cheater CPs people come up with are bad (which isn't to say I won't vote for them if the aff doesn't answer it correctly/read theory).</li> <li>Text comp is an artificial standard that has never made much sense to me. You're better off reading PICs bad or other, more specific theory.</li> </ul> T <ul> <li>I default to evaluating the debate through competing interpretations. Feel free to argue another framework, but I think I’ve yet to hear a credible justification (or even definition) for reasonability.</li> <li>The affirmative should lose every debate if they fail to read either a "we meet" or a competitive counterinterpretation to T. I do not require in-round abuse to vote on T.</li> <li>T is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue; the aff does not get to win because they were topical. (K of T is a bit different - I am quite inclined to believe that T is good/does not lead to genocide, but I will not dismiss the argument with prejudice as I will generic RVIs.)</li> </ul> Spec <ul> <li>I will not vote for spec arguments of any variety under any circumstance unless you can demonstrate actual ground loss because of egregious vagueness on the part of the affirmative. I won’t punish you for reading it in the 1NC (other than perhaps with an annoyed glare) but you will lose the debate and probably get terrible speaks if you go for it in the block and the affirmative wasn’t blatantly abusive.</li> </ul> The K <ul> <li>I love the K debate. I went for the K in about a third of my negative rounds and occasionally on the aff as well. A knowledgeable, deep MO going for a specific K with strong, intrinsic links to the affirmative is one of my favorite speeches to watch.</li> <li>I don’t automatically let the aff weigh their aff. The aff should defend why the aff should be weighed, which usually involves defenses of consequentialism, threat response, scenario planning, and/or empiricism.</li> <li>I’m often suspicious of alternative solvency, particularly "alt solves the aff" claims -- but many affirmatives lose debates simply because they don’t answer arguments. Tags like ____ comes first/is a prior question, no value to life, root cause of violence, or alt solves the aff should be setting off alarm bells if you’re giving the MG.</li> <li>The permutation is always a test of competition and never an advocacy. The recently popular argument that "you don’t get a perm in a methods debate" doesn’t make much sense to me; the permutation is then a question of whether it is possible or desirable to employ both methods in the same world. Specific permutation net benefits are always more compelling than your memorized generic block.</li> <li>Unless the aff fails to identify the contradiction, I don’t think it’s possible to win the K debate if you read the K along with positions that double turn it (e.g. cap with an econ disad). If you get to sever or somehow handwave away your link then so does the aff.</li> </ul> Identity based/performance/not-about-the-topic positions <ul> <li>I do not think that identity-based positions are well-suited to parli; these debates are extremely difficult to fairly adjudicate (particularly without evidence to contextualize critical claims), and I sincerely believe in parli as a unique forum to have academic discussions on a wide variety of topics. If you find it liberatory to discuss your experiences with systemic oppression in debate, I don’t think it’s my place to tell you what arguments to read; but you should also know that, like all judges, I am more compelled by positions that reflect my own personal views. In more concrete terms, I’m probably a low B or high C pref for you if this is your kind of debate.</li> <li>As I mentioned at the top, I am fairly predisposed to believe the affirmative should defend the topic. Even if you read the same position in every round, adapting it to the specific context of the topic will help you a lot in front of me. If you don't contextualize your position to the topic (or even if you do), I prefer if you focus your argument around the defense of a specific method in a specific context.</li> <li>When reading or answering framework, comparative impact analysis of the standards and counterstandards is important to me; for that reason, I think the best framework shells function as disads to the method of the 1AC and/or net benefits to policymaking. As a debater, I essentially think of framework as a counterplan/countermethod of policymaking, contrasted with the method/advocacy of the 1AC; I thus often find arguments that "there's a topical version of the aff with a net benefit" (topic education, policymaking good, etc.) to be compelling.</li> <li>Outside of framework, I think reading a countermethod, a PIC out of some portion of the affirmative's advocacy, or even just case turns can all be effective strategies. I think reading your memorized panic K is often a less effective strategy.</li> </ul>

2017 Missouri Classic