FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Blood - UNL

n/a

Amy Arellano - Doane College

n/a

Andrew Hart - Missouri State

Experience: 3 years of high school policy debate, 5 years of NDT/CEDA debate at Miami University and Missouri State University.    I am open to most positions, but I usually default to in round argumentation, analysis and clash over other factors that might occur in a debate. I generally have few biases about how a debate should go down and what few I have I will do my best to lock away during the round.    Most of my experience in debate was on the policy side of thing. That doesn't make me uncomfortable with kritiks, but I  also wouldn't say I'm familiar with much of the critical literature base.  Even more so than in policy rounds, solid evidence analysis and application is very important for me to vote on a critical issue on either the affirmative or the negative. For critical affirmatives, I do think it's important to answer any topicality or framework arguments presented by the negative. For kritiks against these types of affirmatives, I think it's important to contextualize the philosophies and arguments in each in relation to the other side. Maybe even more than in policy v critical debates clash here is very important to me.    On the policy side of things, I love to see a good case debate, and think that evidence analysis(of both your own and your opponent's evidence) is of the utmost importance in these debates.  I love a good discussion and comparison of impacts.    I'm also open to most counterplans, especially if they have a solvency advocate. In terms of CP theory, I will probably default to rejecting the argument rather than the team in most instances if the affirmative wins the theory debate. On conditionality, the affirmative must have a pretty specific scenario on the negative's abuse in the round for me to vote on it. I much prefer the specificity of that distinction over the nebulous "bad for debate" generality.    Cross-X's importance, I think, is usually undervalued by most, and an effective use of CX time is very important. I will likely not flow it, like I would a speech, but I am more likely to note important concessions or admissions made in CX.     Speed is fine, but I think clarity is far more important that showing me that you can read a bunch of cards.

Andrew Moffitt - Concordia

n/a

Blair Waite - KWU

n/a

Brian Swafford - Northwest MO

n/a

Chad Meadows - WKU

Debate should reward hard work. Your strategies and in round execution should reflect intensive research and thought about the topic/your opponents arguments. My speaker points AND ballot will be used to reinforce a curriculum that normalizes debate practices I believe are needed for the overall health of the community. 1 -Evidence Debate should be a referendum on the quality and quantity of research done first, and then a matter of execution later. I will reward debaters who do excellent and thorough research over debaters who have “slick tricks” to win debates. I think evidence is VERY important, its quality and qualifications should be debated. I will usually prefer excellent evidence to spin. When comparing a good card which was not well explained/had no spin vs. no card or a bad card with excellent spin I will typically prefer the good card. I will call for cards after the debate. I will generally only call for evidence which is referenced in the final two rebuttals. Refer to evidence by last name and date after it has been cited in the first instance. If you do not READILY share citations and evidence with your opponent in the round - I WILL be cranky, probably vote against you, or at the very least give you TERRIBLE speaker points. 2 - Speed/Flowing If speaking at a more rapid rate is used to advance more scholarship in the round, I encourage debaters to speak quickly. If speaking quickly devolves into assaulting the round with a barrage of bad arguments in the hope that your opponent will not clash with them all, my ballot and speaker points will not encourage this practice. I keep an excellent and detailed flow. However, winning for me is more about establishing a coherent and researched explanation of the world rather than extending a specific argument. An argument is not “true” because it is extended on one sheet of paper if it is logically answered by evidence on another sheet of paper or later on the line by line. You can check your rhetorical bullying at the door. Posturing, repeating yourself (even loudly), insulting your opponents (except during cross-x), or insisting that I will "ALWAYS vote here" are probably a waste of your time. 3 - Argument Selection Any argument that advances argument on the desirability of the resolution through valid decision making is persuasive. The source of argumentation should be left up to the debaters. I am very unlikely to be persuaded that the source of evidence justifies its exclusion. In particular I am unconvinced the methodology, epistemology, ontology, and other indicts pertaining to the foundation of the affirmative are unjustified avenues of research to explore in debate. Above all else, the content of your argument should not be used to duck clash. Specific Issues: 1 - Topicality is a voter and not a reverse voter. "Proving abuse" is irrelevant, well explained standards are not. 2 – The affirmative does not have to specify more than is required to affirm the resolution. I encourage Affirmatives to dismiss specs/vagueness and other procedurals without implications for the topicality of the affirmative with absolute disregard. 3 – Conditionality is logical, restraints on logical decision making are only justified in extreme circumstances.  4 – There is nothing implied in the plan. Consult, process, and other counterplans which include the entirety of the plan text are not competitive. 5 – I will decide if the counterplan is competitive by evaluating if the permutation is better than the counterplan alone or if the plan is better than counterplan. Ideological, philosophical, and redudancy standards for competiton are not persuasive and not useful for making decisions. 6 – I mediate my preferences for arguably silly counterplans like agent, international, and PICS/PECS primarily based upon the quality of the counterplan solvency evidence. 7 – Direction/Strength of link evidence is more important than “controlling uniqueness” This is PARTICULARLY true when BOTH sides have compelling and recent uniqueness evidence. Uniqueness is a strong factor in the relative probability of the direction of the link, if you don't have uniqueness evidence you are behind.  8 - I do not have a "threshold" on topicality. A vote for T is just as internally valid as a vote for a DA. I prefer topicality arguments with topic specific interpretation and violation evidence. I will CLOSELY evaluate your explanation on the link and impact of your standards. 9 - I am very unlikely to make a decision primarily based upon defensive arguments. <a href="mailto:chadwickmeadows@gmail.com">chadwickmeadows@gmail.com</a>

Chris Outzen - Truman

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

Chris Schneider - UNL

n/a

Chris Medina - Wiley

Christina Ivey - Doane College

n/a

Courtney Hensley - Sterling

n/a

Craig Hennigan - Truman

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

Daniel Hogan - Sterling

Danny Ray - Marshall

n/a

Darren Elliott - KCKCC

Darren Elliott “Chief”------Director of Debate and Forensics—Kansas City Kansas Community College  Head Coach—16 years.  I competed in college at Emporia State. I was a Graduate Student coach at Wichita State in the late 90's when WSU returned to the NDT for the first time in a couple decades, and in my two years there we qualified 3 teams to the NDT. At KCKCC I've coached multiple elim participants at CEDA, NDT qualifiers, coached numerous CEDA CC and PRP National Title winners, NPTE qualifiers, NFA LD National Tournament Qualifiers, in 2015 we won the NPDA National Championship. A first for any CC, and also in 2015 became the first CC in the history of the NDT to qualify two teams in one year, and the first to qualify a team 4 years in a row.  In 2016 we became the only CC to win the NFA LD National Championship. I enjoy and support all formats of debate and think each one provides unique opportunities to students. I am convinced there are really only 2 things debaters want to know and 1 thing you SHOULD know.  What you want to know:  1) Will I vote for you on your argument? Does not matter to me how fast or slow it is or what genre (performance, policy, project, theory, procedural) your arguments take. I have voted for and against everything imaginable. Probably the least interventionist judge you know. You need to frame the debate so I know “what happens” when I vote for/against you. Impact your arguments and undercut the impacts of the other team. Pretty simple. I have zero preference as to the type of arguments you run and enjoy a mix of arguments. Do what you do best. I think given that many of my teams recently have engaged in "personal politics debates" or "performance debates" that people assume that is what I want to hear. I will vote on T, framework, disads, cp's, k's, etc.  I am certainly not a "pigeon hole" judge and quite frankly love coaching and hearing all kinds of debate arguments. It is why I choose to coach so many different formats.  Good debate is good debate and that can take many forms.  Bottom line is I will always give you and your arguments a fair shake and I hope we can both learn from each other. 2) What kind of points do you give? Probably tend to be on the high(er) side but I view the 1/10th scale like this—30 is a 100%. 29.9 is a 99%. Etc. I will award points based on a combination of percentages for the speeches you give, any question you answer and any question you ask-Do you control cx, is it strategic, is it worthwhile? Speeches—Do you do everything you need to do, put offense where it needs to be, have defense where it needs to be, engage the other teams arguments, close doors, make impact calculations when important, not drop important args, fulfill the duties of the speech you are giving? Think of it like a speech grade and if you are perfect I have no problem giving a 30. If you need a lot of revisions and suggestions for improvement and are below average for your Division, than a D or something in the 26’s might be appropriate.  It is a cold day in L.A.  when I ever give anything in the 26’s unless you are rude/offensive. What you need to know:  One thing that will affect speaker points other than what addressed above is this—excessive rudeness and/or offensive language/cursing will not be rewarded and likely affect your points. Here’s the deal—I cuss at times. I should do it less. I never did it in debate rounds. I think we need to appear more educated than that and we need to do a better job looking like a worthwhile activity to Administrators. I wonder how many debates I tape would cast that positive light on the schools in those debates and how they would be perceived by their Admins if posted publicly. I, and many others, also bring their kids to tournaments. I don’t really want my 14 year old daughter hearing it. Her vocabulary is much more advanced than that and yours should be too. Maybe this makes me cranky. So be it. But I am right. (One caveat—if your argument/performance is such that using that language is called for because of artistic/educational purposes I will not hold that against you. It probably/maybe needs to have a grounding in the lit though and not just a cx response of “F your hegemony”!).   I think civility and professionalism has seen a significant drop in the last few years.  Be professional and respectful to each other in the debate, before the debate, and after the debate.  This includes coaches who I see yelling at/cursing at undergrads from other schools.  How would your Administrators react?  I am certain you are not allowed to do that in your classes. Don't let competition blur the line between adult and undergrad.   I love debate. You should too. Good luck, have fun, and I am always a fan of humor!

David Bowers - Sterling

Generally speaking I think that you should do what you like in debate and I will do my best to evaluate whatever that may be, the more clear you can be the better RFD you’ll receive I imagine.  Please, ask questions if you have them, my email is <a href="mailto:dbowers01@sterling.edu">dbowers01@sterling.edu</a> if you have any prior to the tournament.  I debated in various places and in varied formats. Collegiate competition in CEDA, PARLI & LD for Hutchinson Community College, Barton Community College, Kansas City Kansas Community College and Sterling College. Theory—Competing interps makes the most sense to me, always, abuse in round is an impact to a standard.  This is probably the only place that I would make a definitive stand on anything.  Impacts to standards are critical in evaluating any procedural question, that doesn’t mean “education is important” it means “education is important because…” Counter plans—I don’t have any problem with any cp.  The only thing I’d have to add here is that is in regards to theory.  PICS, ect theory is probably a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Disads—These are neat things to do.  I need you to spend a second extending arguments that are winning you the round but PLEASE do not feel like you have to extend the entire shell.  Any impact is fine, I really don’t care as long as in some point in the debate there’s impact calc. Da K—This is fine.  I think that in order to vote on it I need more than “State bad”.  I also rarely think that framework means that you drop the team, but rather it means that you get to weight the aff. Performance—These are cool, and I know this sounds stupid but do them well.  Don’t do it because it’s weird, or fun, or something.  I feel like I haven’t said much, mainly it’s because I don’t have a ton of preferences.  Like I said above, I’d much prefer to let you do what you do in debates.  But please, if there are questions please ask.

David Bowers - Jewell

Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.  Overview—I very much believe that in terms of debate you should do what you do best and I will try and evaluate it my best.  That being said I think there has to be a very clear way to evaluate the round come the LOR or the PMR, absent that I would probably default to a utilitarian calculus.  Experience—3 years of Policy, 5 years of parli, 3 years of NFA-LD. Stuff that you will care about—I generally think that more than one conditional advocacy is not good in parli, this does not mean that you will win if you just say those words, you still have to win that condo is bad.  I also think that T is easiest evaluated in terms of competing interpretations.  If you have questions beyond that on things that I find important please ask.  Speed—I will be the first person to admit that flowing parli is difficult for me, it was while I was debating, I will flow as many words as I can but if there’s something that you really want me to know I would suggest pointing that out or slowing down for it to guarantee that I get it.  I very much want debate and especially parli to be a space where people can read arguments that they want to and have conversations that they want to as a result I don’t have a predisposition against any argument (absent arguments the community has decided are not cool), so you should always do you. Also, I cannot emphasize this enough, I want any debate community I participate in to be open and clear, so if there are questions about what little I’ve written here please ask me prior to the round, or if you see me in the hallway.

David Bailey - SBU

n/a

Dawn Lowry - Wiley

n/a

Derek Pritchett - UCM

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

Eric Woods - UIS

n/a

Eric Arganbright - KWU

n/a

Gabbi Ray - Northwest MO

n/a

Garrett Walker - Marshall

n/a

Gary Harmon - KWU

I have coached a long time.  I am familiar with theory and practice.  I believe argumentation is a search for the probable truth and not game playing.  I believe arguments should be prima facie when presented.  I don't hear as well as I used to.  It does affect my ability to listen to speed.  If you are clear, I can handle a pretty fast rate.  However, use speed only when you have so much to say that you need it to meet time restraints.  Speed plus poor use of time is not good.  Procedurals should only be used when there is abuse. I enjoy good argumentation.

Gemma Buckley - Wiley

n/a

Gina Lane - Jewell

Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.  I try to be open to a variety of debate arguments, but I default to a policy analysis in a net-benefits paradigm.  I think the critical element of any debate is for debaters to compare argument impacts in the round and tell me what my decision calculus should be.  The most common mistake I see is debaters who run several arguments and leave them all in play to see what sticks.  This nearly always creates shallow debate that invites judge intervention.  The second most common mistake I see is debates that are both too fast and lack warrants.  I have worn hearing aids for a decade, and I just invested in new ones.  It is your responsibility to do what you can to make sure that all of the participants hear your arguments accurately.   If I can’t understand you, I promise you I will not see the round the same way you do.  Please slow down for plan texts, counterplan texts, t interpretations, k alternatives, perm texts.          Other issues you want to know –  1) I’m not a fan of fact debate; I think it is difficult to weigh arguments on a preponderance of evidence standard.  I will listen to this approach, but I will also listen to arguments that argue that policy advocacy is superior.  2) Topicality: I vote on topicality when there are clear counter-interpretations that prove abuse of ground.  I prefer not to vote on RVIs, but I have when they are mishandled.  I am open to a variety of interpretations on T – both the ground abuse and the competing interpretations approach are ok with me (but if you use the latter, you have to debate out the standards).     3) Counterplans: I will vote on topical counterplans – they must be competitive via net benefits.  I prefer not to hear a lot of theory arguments in counterplans, but I will listen.  4) Kritiks: I always like kritiks on an abstract level, but to win a kritik in front of me I need to hear you conceptualize the alternative debate.  You have to win that the alternative is more compelling that a net benefits approach.   5) Narratives, projects, performance, alternative debate, etc.: These are creative approaches, but I prefer a clear explanation of how to weigh such arguments versus traditional debate arguments. I also prefer a link to the resolution.  I’m sorry, but I have a difficult time understanding the oppressive nature of fiat.  I have voted for this argument, but I don’t find it particularly persuasive.   6) Speed.  I flow at a pretty fast level, but you need to articulate well.  Unlike other forms of debate, I can’t ask for cards at the end of the round to reconstruct arguments, so I have to get your arguments on the first hearing.  You have the responsibility to communicate. Again, a lot of debates are too fast and lack warrants.  Please stop assuming that I will vote for this kind of behavior.           7) Points of Order and new arguments – I don’t flow new arguments, but if you believe it is critical, you should call it.  8) Impact calculus: I am hearing a lot of arguments in which the warrants and internal links between a relatively small plan action and human extinction in some form are glossed over or non-existent.  Whose idea was this?  It is a bad one.  Although magnitude is attractive, I will listen closely to probability analysis as a means for determining whether to vote for a particular argument.   9) Post-round behavior: Feel free to ask me a question or two about my decision.  If you disagree with my decision and you feel like verbally assaulting me, please refrain.  And if I am on the panel and you feel like verbally assaulting my judging colleagues, please refrain.  10) Sitting, standing, cussing, etc.  I don’t care if you sit or stand.  I personally think you have better air control while standing, but it is your call.  If you talk during your partner’s speech I will not pay attention to what you are saying, so your partner better repeat it if you want me to flow it.  I know cussing in debate rounds happens, but I don’t see why you would use empty, emotion-laden language that is often offensive when a word with content and substance is more strategic.      Finally, if you know me at all, you know that I love the debate community.  I believe we should respect and care for each other even as we compete against each other.  I will do my best to treat you with respect and give you the best judging experience I can offer.  Please give me and all the participants in the room the best debate experience you can offer.  Have a wonderful tournament!

Gregory Owen - CMU

n/a

Hananiah Wiggins - ISU

Heather Walters - Missouri State

In my ideal debate world, the affirmative would read a topical plan and defend the implementation of that plan.  The negative would read disadvantages, counterplans, and case turns/defense.  Topical research is probably my most favorite part of debate, so I would assume that I would have a tendency to reward teams that I see as participating in the same way I view the game. I get that my ideal debate world isn't everyone's ideal debate world.  I also vote for teams that prefer to run Topicality, Kritiks, or other arguments as their "go to" strategies.  Good critical debaters explain specific links to the affirmative case and spend some time discussing how their argument relates to the impacts that are being claimed by the affirmative team. I also think it helps a lot to have specific analogies or empirical examples to prove how your argument is true/has been true throughout history. I expect that paperless teams will be professional and efficient about flashing evidence to the other team. It annoys me when teams flash large amounts of evidence they don't intend to read or couldn't possibly read in a speech to the other team and expect them to wade through it.  It should go without saying that I expect that you won't "steal" prep time in the process of flashing, or any other time really.  It also annoys me when teams don't flow just because they are "viewing" the evidence in real time.     I expect that teams will post their cites to the wiki as soon as the debate is over, and ideally before I give my decision and otherwise participate in information sharing efforts.   I like to have a copy of speeches flashed to me as well so I can follow along with what everyone else sees in the debate and because I think it makes the decision making process go faster. The best way to get high speaker points from me is to be clear, be polite, participate fully in your cross-examinations and use them to your advantage to point out flaws in your opponents’ arguments, try hard, and use appropriate humor.  Ask me questions if this doesnt cover what you need to know or you can't find the answer from someone else that I have judged/coached.  Obviously there will be tons of other things I think about debates that I haven't posted here.  Have fun.

Jamie Downing - UNL

n/a

Jason Roach - Webster

n/a

Jeff May - UCM

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

Jennifer Clark - KWU

n/a

Jeremy Frazer - WKU

Jeremy Hutchins - Tx State

n/a

Jessica Furgerson - WKU

Joe Davis - Concordia

n/a

Joel Reed - Missouri State

Joel Reed- Graduate Teaching Assistant at Missouri State University- I participated in NDT/CEDA debate for 4 years as an undergraduate and I'm in my second year of coaching and judging for Missouri State. While judging is old hat for me, NFA LD debate is quite new. I have adapted some of my general preferences to reflect the new format and subject matter.  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. I only expect debaters to respond to arguments. An argument consists of 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. This is also true of condo/dispo bad debates. When asked “What is the status of the counterplan?” I think that it is perfectly acceptable for the negative to say “That is open for debate.” I think of counterplan status debates in much the same way that I think of framework debates. By winning your interpretation you have established how I ought to evaluate counterplans. For example, if you win that cps/alts ought to be unconditional I will stick them with every cp/alt in the debate. I think that multiple counterplans bad and conditional counterplans bad are two separate arguments. Counterplans- I would much rather listen to a topic specific counterplan than states, courts, or xo. Critiques-I have been told these are generally discouraged. I don’t agree with that viewpoint but I’d also hate to break the rules for this community that I am new to. 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.

John Carney - Truman

John Markley - UCM

Jon Carter - UNL

n/a

Jordan Overstreet - Missouri State

Jordan Compton - SBU

n/a

Jory Baker - Northwest MO

n/a

Justin Stanley - JCCC

n/a

Katie Brunner - Simpson College

Kiefer Storrer - UCM

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

Kristen Stout - Crowder

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

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.

Mark Turner - KWU

I have judged for a long time.  My children debated in high school, and I have judged since.  I mainly judge individual events. I look for the message being sent by the performer and look for consistancy and support.  I expect normal presentation skills.  I like to be entertained as well.

Marty Feeney - Simpson College

Matthew Gilmore - ISU

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

Michael Tate - KWU

Nick Pasternak - Cameron

n/a

Nik Fischer - McKendree

Sarah Dweik - Mizzou

I like nicely warranted debates with impact calulus. I will always have a default framework of net benefits, so if you would like me to evaluate the round in a different way, please say so and why this is a superior framework. At the end of the day, I will vote on what you tell me to vote on and what is flowed down on my paper. Please repeat all plan texts, alternatives, perm texts, and counterplans twice. If you just would like to give me a copy of the text, that works as well. I also value debate ettiquete, so please be respectful, allow your opponents to have at least one question, and don't say abusive things in round.   Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? I always start out at a 27 and move up and down from there. I evaluate speaker points more on argumenation versus how nicely you could speak in round. Speed doesn't affect speaker points, but if you are going too fast, I will yell clear.    Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Do you require competing interpretations? Topicality requires an interpretation, standards, and voters. If you want to win on topicality, I will need good reasons why, especially an interpretation. Giving a counter interpretation on the opposite end is always a good idea and I encourage it. In-round abuse is necessary to evaluate T.   Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? Counterplans are a great idea to use on the negative side. PICs are always good to use, but like any counterplan, I would love to hear solvency and mutal exculsivity. I always would like to know the status of the counterplan, but I appreciate unconditional counterplans a lot more than conditional ones. Perms are always welcome into counterplan debates. Just give me good reasons to value the perm over the counterplan.   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)? I appreciate being told what you would like me to vote on. If that doesn't happen, I will vote first on topicality or procedural arguments, then counterplans/kritiks, then proceed to look at impacts or solvency of the debate. The way I evaluate impacts are probability, timeframe, then magnitude. I am used to terminal impacts so magnitude usually isn't the biggest issue. If you don't use terminal impacts, tell me why your impacts should be valued and precede the terminal impacts given in round.

Sarah Collins - Cameron

n/a

Scott Jensen - Webster

n/a

Spencer Orlowski - WKU

I view much of policy debate as a question of net- benefits which I do not believe is mutually exclusive with the stock issues. More specifically… I dislike solvency defense masked as a procedural. This doesn’t mean I will not vote on contrived procedurals, but it does mean I am likely to be persuaded by arguments focused on why they are not a logical reason to reject the affirmative.  It is important to note that standards are impacts to interpretations and abuse is just a standard, albeit a persuasive one.  Inherency should be on case by the way. Topicality is a voting issue, not because the rules say so, but because a non-topical affirmative is not a reason to vote for the resolution. As the negative read a definition or I will not be persuaded. Ks are great, just be familiar with the literature and be able to explain your alt and role of the ballot Please be nice. We are all here to learn. Solvency defense isn’t a voting issue unless you tell me why. Impact calculus is super important, do it, tell a story, tell me what to write on my ballot. Speaker points are arbitrary but generally based on strategic choices.  See Chad Meadows paradigm for further questions or just ask me in the round.

Steve Hagan - McKendree

Tim Overton - Simpson College

I'm comfortable with speed, but DO NOT forget proper speech technique. I'm generally a Games Player, I will vote on K, T, theory or anything that has been properly established and carried through the round. No clash on the flow might mean a conceded win, either way.

Tom Pinney - Northwest MO

n/a

Tom Serfass - Webster

n/a

Victoria Ledford - Marshall

n/a

Wayne Kraemer - Tx State

n/a

Zack Dodson - MoWestern

Debated for the University of Central Missouri Experience: 4 years NFA-LD, 4 years NPDA Affiliation: UCM, MWSU<a name="_GoBack"></a> Forward- It has been quite a long time since I reviewed my judging philosophy in debate. And, in the interest of providing detailed information to you, the debate community, I will attempt to consolidate my views on theoretical issues in debate. To me, some of the information contained herein are what I view as “best practices,” but they, in no way, reflect an unchangeable way to approach the round. In many rounds, debaters give me persuasive reasons to deviate from my established paradigm. Topicality/Procedurals- My views are different based on the event. In NFA-LD, topicality is a jurisdictional issue, and the rules dictate that the Affirmative must win topicality because it is a stock issue. Consequently, arguments about being “reasonably topical” are not very persuasive. Generally speaking, you need to clearly articulate how you are meeting your opponent’s interpretation, provide a counter-interpretation that is substantiated within the topic literature, along with reasons why this interpretation is better for debates. Absent meeting these criteria, you will not likely win a topicality debate in front of me. In parliamentary debate, there is some leeway I give to PMCs who are problematizing the resolution in some way. See my thoughts on kritiks and kritikal arguments on this subject. Disadvantages I love a good disad debate. In my personal experience, the best debates I have been a part of have involved DAs! Now, to be clear, I am less inclined to vote for generic DAs (i.e. politics, spending, etc.) because there is usually a chasm on the link level. However, I have voted for these in the past, and I do not want to discourage debaters from running these arguments.  To win a DA debate in front of me, you need to have nuanced impact calculus in the round. To be clear, Negatives need to win timeframe and probability of their DA before I can reasonably assess the magnitude of their impact claims. Otherwise, it is a superfluous doomsday scenario with little merit.   Counterplans Again, there is an event-driven delineation here. In NFA-LD, counterplans need to demonstrate the same propensity to solve the AFF’s problem area. Minimally, they need to be functionally competitive. To demonstrate this, the counterplan needs to have a net-benefit that the counterplan solves for AND have reasons why the Affirmative is not able to access the net-benefit. Counterplans can be topical. The question of the ballot to me is whether I endorse the Affirmative plan text as if I was a policymaker with the deciding vote needed to get the legislation through. There has been some discussion throughout NFA community about whether counterplans are, by their nature, conditional, and whether those types of counterplans are permitted via the rules. The rules do not clearly indicate that conditional counterplans are not permitted by the rules. Again, my ballot is an endorsement of whether I think the 1AC plan text is a sufficient policy that can solve the identified problem area. As a result, the Negative can, and should, challenge the Affirmative claim that the 1AC plan text is the best of our policy options that are “on the table,” be it a counterplan or a defense of the status quo. However, if the Negative does run a counterplan, they better be willing to defend all components of the counterplan. That is, I would strongly advise not running a dispositional counterplan in front of me. Counterplans are, to be, conditional by default unless otherwise questioned by the Affirmative. It is the responsibility of the Affirmative to ask the status of the counterplan. It does not need to be in the counterplan text. I will also assume that permutations are conditional unless otherwise stated by the Affirmative. Additionally, permutations are tests of counterplan competitiveness unless otherwise stated.   Kritiks/Kritikal Args General caution with Ks - Despite the fact that I have ran multiple kritiks and K AFFs, I think I am with the rest of the NFA-LD community in saying that there just is not enough time in the activity to run and fully develop the kritik. Most of the arguments that philosophers and scholars make on these issues are a lot more nuanced than what can be expressed in a 14 or 15 minutes (depending on what side you are). I will listen to kritiks, and I invite them like any other argument. With NFA-LD, I would highly advise kritikal debaters to consult the rules about specific kritiks. That is not to say you cannot use the forum to discuss topics relating to your K; however, you are strategically starting out on the defensive because you are going to have to answer the 1AR framework block before you can engage the arguments made against the K. You have to win framework AND alternative to win the round with the K. I do not like plan-inclusive kritiksbecause there usually is a philosophical incompatibility with the thesis of the kritik that makes the debate muddled if left unaddressed. There should be some exploration of what the ballot and the resolution means as it relates to the K. The debate community is governed by customs, rules, and theoretical understandings. And each community has their established nuanced practices. For the NFA-LD community, we are governed by a stock issues paradigm via the rules. The K represents a radical departure from that paradigm, so an explanation for why we should do that is vital.

2015 The Missouri Mule Swing Speech & Debate Tournament