FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alexis Lopez - SJDC

Allen Amundsen - SJDC

Amanda Aikawa - SJDC

Ana Petero - Solano

1.   I DO NOT FEEL THE NEED FOR SPEED, so DON'T DO IT IN FRONT OF ME! If you don't speed when you're having a conversation or in your platform speeches or in your limited prep events, then don't do it in debate. Debaters often talk about being excluded in a debate round; don't exclude your critics. 2.  Do not speak when it is not your turn to speak. Each of you has your own special time to speak, so don't interrupt your partner. It's rude to interrupt people when they're speaking...yes, even in debate, unless you're asking them a point of information. 3.  Have fun; be clear, and above all, be structured...

Anabel Solano - Concordia

Angelica Grigsby - Concordia

Ariel Alvero - SFSU

Ashley Gordon - SJDC

Benjamin Mann - Pacific

Brief version: I take my role as a critic very seriously. My goal is to judge in the most fair, neutral, and open way possible through a careful evaluation of the flow and strategic decisions made by debaters that avoids judge intervention and minimizes adaptation under the framework the debaters provide (or fairly resolve said framework if it is contested). Because I care about this activity and love to see competitors on their game, I enjoy judging a lot and strive to be the best critic I can be.   I believe you should debate in the most comfortable and strategic way for you. I’m open to and experienced with a variety of arguments, including advantages/disadvantages, kritiks, counterplans, performance, procedurals and critical affirmatives. I would much rather have you debate the way you like rather than alter your strategy because you have me as a judge. I don’t necessarily prefer certain types of arguments over others: the best debates come from people running the strategies they want.   Everything else is more specific but elaborates this general theme as well as my experience with the activity. Feel free to keep reading, but I realize time is often tight.   2015-16 updates: -My philosophy is fundamentally the same as last year. I realize it’s a novella, but I aim to be thorough, clear, and predictable as a critic, so I decided to avoid too much condensing. I also did some rearranging to put the most important parts at the top. -Added a small section at the bottom specific to NFA-LD. While everything before it is parli-specific, relevant aspects apply. -Regarding trichot: I personally find policy debates significantly more educational and easier to evaluate than fact or value, and I believe advocacies can be derived from fact/value resolutions. That being said, I respect competitors who want to have those debates and will do my best to assess them as fairly as possible, as well as any theory for or against trichot. -I find that extensive judges’ responses to points of order tend to heavily alter the rest of rebuttals. Still call them: I’ll hear the point and response, but I will need time on the flow to do a fair assessment of newness. Expect to hear “under consideration” unless I am very certain, in which case I will say “point well taken” or “point not well taken”. -2014-15, I judged at: Jewell, (both halves) GGO, Lewis & Clark, Reno, UOP, Mile High, (both halves) NCFA   This is my second year out of competition and my second year and final year coaching while pursuing my Master’s in Communication as a Graduate Assistant at the University of the Pacific. I competed for a year of high school Lincoln-Douglas debate followed by four years of college parli for Lewis & Clark from 2010-14 on the national circuit, with the team name Lewis & Clark HM my senior year. Overall, I competed in over 50 college parli tournaments and in my time as a competitor ran several different types of debate arguments, from politics to Foucault. From 2013-14, I also worked as a high school speech and debate coach, extensively judging both CX and parli.   The rest of this philosophy is divided into two parts: general notes and more in-depth discussion about my views on particular arguments.   General notes: -I do not aim to steer the direction of the activity with my ballot or use it to force people to debate in a certain way in front of me. -I approach theory in a neutral way, including conditionality, PICs, and textual competition. In other words, these procedurals are neither autowins nor dead in the water: I will evaluate them via competing interpretations unless an alternate criterion is offered and prioritized. Under competing interpretations, I examine which definition or interpretation is the best internal link (via the standards debate) to the impacts of the procedural through the arguments made by debaters. -Unless an alternative framework is offered, I default to a net-benefits evaluation of the round that examines the advantages against the costs between the hypothetical, post-fiat implications of the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option. This evaluation considers the risk of timeframe, magnitude, and probability, but does not necessarily prioritize one over the other: if impact prioritization is made by debaters in rebuttals, I will alter my evaluation of impact framing devices accordingly. -My speaker point average is 27.5. Things that will buoy your points include: argument and speaking clarity, strategic decision-making and collapse, argument diversity, strong warrants, aff-specific links, efficient time management, and comparing, resolving, and prioritizing warrants and impacts in rebuttals. Things that will hurt speaker points include: rudeness and personal attacks, dropping key arguments, needless repetition, counterfactual and warrantless claims, excessive cursing, going for too much, and lack of thesis level work in rebuttals. -I was trained to follow quick debaters while competing and similarly can flow fast debates as a judge. I will yell “clear” if your enunciation isn’t comprehensible to me, and will yell “slow” in the event that you are going too fast for me to flow. Generally, this should not be a problem, however… -Please slow down or repeat plan/counterplan/alt texts as well as interpretations for procedurals. Slowing for the thesis level of kritiks or the top of complex politics disadvantages is also preferable to help me understand the nuance of the position. -Though I competed extensively in IEs as well, that does not inform how I approach parli. The two activities have very different norms and expectations, so only debate in a “speechy” way if that’s how you want to debate. -Offense is generally more valuable in debate insofar as it gives me reasons to vote for you, but strategic defense can do a lot, especially if impact framing prioritizes probable impacts. -Unless told otherwise, I evaluate permutations of advocacies as tests of competition. -“Perm do both” is a sufficient perm text, but means I will evaluate the texts of the two advocacies in their entirety together. Thus, alts including “vote negative” are probably not the best places to read these kinds of perms and “do the plan and…” perm texts would work better. -Unless otherwise specified, I will assume affirmative advocacies are unconditional and negative advocacies are conditional. -I will not vote teams down on this basis unless theory is read and won by the other team, but my knee jerk reaction is that all constructive speeches should take at least one question unless CX is offered and a copy of an advocacy text should be provided, or have the text repeated. -Only call points of order if you feel an argument is close. I will protect against blatantly new arguments in rebuttals and it is not in your best interest to call points of order for arguments clearly on the flow in an attempt to get the rebuttal off its game. -While I’m fine with some partner prompting, I will only ever flow what’s said by the debater giving their speech, so they’ll need to repeat what’s prompted. -It’s in your interest to make extensions in member speeches, however brief, (e.g. extend the entirety of the advantage) of PMC/LOC arguments to avoid messy points of order in rebuttals and force me to evaluate the newness of extensions. -I’m here because I love this activity, community, and judging. Debate’s a fun and incredible limited time offer with a great group of people: please don’t misinterpret my tendency to be serious and aloof as apathy or condescension. At the same time, while I can be a silly person, I leave that at the door when judging rounds. My aim for RFDs is to clearly articulate my decision calculus and also to offer feedback of the round from my perspective as an educator.   My views on specific arguments are below:   Topicality I value T as both a viable strategic tool and an important check against abuse. If I’m not told otherwise, I will examine T a priori and default to competing interpretations unless a different criterion such as reasonability or a kritik of topicality is explained and prioritized. Under competing interpretations, I examine which definition is best via the standards debate for the impacts of topicality. As a result, I will consider potential abuse unless arguments are made against it. T is fundamentally a question of the best definition: it asks whether you should have links to an argument in the first place, not whether you’ve been no-linked out of a position. Good T debate includes a nuanced definition that’s clear out of the LOC, a coherent violation, compelling standards, and voters. I enjoy internal collapse for teams that go for T or answer it in the PMR, leveraging a few standards and prioritizing either fairness or education. While I will listen to RVIs, I generally think they’re not particularly strategic or compelling arguments. Arguments such as effects topicality or extratopicality are fine as either standards or standalone procedurals.   Other Procedurals As mentioned above, I’m neutral on other theory positions and tend to believe abusive techniques in debate (as well as the question of whether the technique is abusive in the first place) can be resolved in-round through these arguments. The deeper, more nuanced interpretation, the better. I similarly look for clear standards and impacts for these procedurals and also evaluate them under competing interpretations absent another framing device provided and explained. In answering these procedurals, I tend to think people can be too dismissive or defensive in MG standards, so offensive reasons why your interpretation is preferable will get you far.   Kritiks Strategic K debate solves, gets to the root cause of the aff, or provides a framework that precludes a standard evaluation of PMC arguments while beating back the perm and other offense. I enjoy K debate and am familiar with a lot of the classics (Nietzsche, Cap/Marx, Fem IR, etc) but am always open to different Ks or new spins of old favorites. Going a little slower through more obscure K literature is preferable so I can capture the argument. I do think that Ks can be too eager to find something to criticize while giving an alternative that resolves little offense or isn’t a good idea in the first place, and tend to think disadvantages to alternatives or impact turns are underutilized. I’m also not a fan of Ks designed to be confusing out of the LOC so the MG mishandles responding to them; it’s better to have a clear argument from the get-go you’re willing to defend. Perms and offense, including disads to the alt and either link or impact turns, as well as leveraging the aff or giving a different framework, are some strategic ways for the MG to engage the K. While I’ll listen to them, I’m less persuaded by K frameworks designed to moot the entirety of the PMC: whether or not they’re granted post-fiat implications, I tend to think the aff should be able to weigh the representations of their speech. Finally, please signpost clearly when going through different parts of the K, especially in rebuttals.   Counterplans Clever counterplans that capture the aff and avoid specific offense, such as strategic PICs, can be a thing of beauty, though as mentioned, I’m open to MG theory against them. As a result, run delay, veto, and other counterplans of that variety at your own risk. Please slow down or repeat CP texts. Without specific theory and under a standard framework, I believe that all CPs need to compete through net-benefits as a more desirable policy option than the aff or the perm. This means the CP need not be mutually exclusive: it becomes a question of whether the permutation should be done, verses whether it can be done. Clear explanation of the CP’s solvency mechanism is also essential: don’t name a nebulous bill that apparently solves the aff without any details. Aff teams that utilize solvency deficits, offense against counterplans, permutations, or theory to respond are well-equipped against these arguments.   Disadvantages/Advantages Nuanced uniqueness, deep warrants, specific links, and clear, varied internal link/impact modules can turn these good arguments into great ones. I’m familiar with a lot of generic disadvantages, such as politics, relations, and business confidence and understand their utility, but they become much more compelling when they’re tailored to the aff, especially on the link level. Teams often read a laundry list of econ/relations/etc uniqueness that accurately portray the state of affairs, but don’t give a clear trajectory on how something being low actually leads to collapse or give explanation in how the aff offsets this trajectory. Extinction level impacts are part of the game and I understand their utility, but also believe there should be an explanation of how you reach these impacts rather than blipping “extinction” or I’ll hold them to a high level of scrutiny. Small, systemic impacts are underutilized in debate and can be compelling, especially for teams that tell me to prioritize probability in rebuttals. For very specific positions, such as politics disadvantages, thesis-level clarity and slower explanation in the beginning is preferred to help me understand your argument. I also think that affirmative teams too often structure advantages on solving the status quo without shielding them against predictable counterplans. Brief source citation builds legitimacy to warrants, especially when warrant accuracy is brought into question by the other team and since cards aren’t used in parli. I enjoy internal collapse on these arguments as well. Rather than simply extending these arguments in rebuttals, final speeches should explain, compare, and resolve both warrants and impacts. Lastly, I think LOC arguments on-case are underutilized and can often be the best sources of clash. Neg teams can be quick to assume the solvency of their counterplans or Ks while missing big chunks of the aff.   Performance I want teams to run the arguments they enjoy, benefit them strategically, and are personally important to them, and I absolutely believe that performance-based arguments are good for this activity. If it’s supplemented with a robust defense of your approach should the other team brings it into question, I’ll follow the argument under the framework you provide. This being said, I am extremely uncomfortable with performance-based arguments that demonize or engage in personal attacks against programs, critics, or debaters without an extremely good justification. I would much rather see performance-based arguments that address important issues rather than target or scapegoat individuals or hurt the activity, but if those strategies are integral to your advocacy, please do them with extreme caution and understanding of their implications. I also think that neg teams can be too easily spooked by these arguments or deem them unwinnable when a lot of strategies, including compelling counteradvocacies or PICs can be extremely effective.   Critical Affirmatives Similar to performance, I think that teams should run the arguments they want to run and I will work to evaluate them fairly under the framework provided, or resolve the framework debate if two interpretations compete. Aff teams don’t always have to engage in rounds through utilitarian, net-benefits calculus and there are many topics where that approach isn’t advantageous. Unless told otherwise, I will evaluate impacts through the lens you provide.   Special Note on the LOR The LOR is easily the most misunderstood and underutilized speech in parli. At its worst, it can be a retread of the MO, but at its best it can do a ton for negative teams. Though I protect against new arguments in rebuttals without theory on splitting the block, smart LORs differentiate from MOs by giving thesis level explanation, unwrapping and re-explaining offense, and preempting PMR strategies. The LOR can only turn the dial more toward neg teams and make it harder for the PMR to turn it back.   NFA-LD Relevant aspects of parli apply. I assess postfiat implications as fairly as possible and do not have particular argument preferences. -I will fairly evaluate any rule violations or theoretical objects, but am open to impact turns against these. After all, sometimes there are things more important than the rules. -I generally will not need to see cards after the round, but reserve the right to ask. -Please time yourselves and monitor your use of prep. If you need a minute to get something on a flash drive, that’s fine, but try to be swift. -Generally I am more persuaded by carded evidence, but this ought to be explained and prioritized over other cards and cardless warrants. -I am inclined to believe that SOURCE, DATE warrants a full citation, but will fairly consider theory against it. If you have any additional questions about my coaching philosophy or decisions, I’d be more than happy to communicate with you via email at benwmann@gmail.com or by talking to me at tournaments. Happy competing!

Brian Nelson - Solano

Please be structure, debate the resolution, and be polite. There is no need for speed. And please don't speak over your partner (feel free to pass notes).

Carina Aikawa - SJDC

Chris Collier - SJDC

Darren Phalen - Solano

Be courteous and structured. Make sound arguments, and tell me why you have won the debate. Please debate the resolution, and do not spread. There is no need for speed.

Emily Akers - MJC

Holly Rule - SJDC

Jake Poff - Chico

I competed in parliamentry debate for two years and also have been judging parlimentary debate and NFA debate for over four years now. I am open to all arguments as long as the voters and impacts are justified. You will pick up my ballot by focusing on impacts especially in the rebuttals. I really look to vote for teams that weigh out arguments in the rebuttal, or focus on proecedural voters that prove abuse was given in the round that I must vote on. Overall win the impacts in the rebuttals and you will pick up my ballot.

Jamal Nagi - MJC

Jared Tumazi - SFSU

Jason Hough - Hartnell

n/a

Kelsey Caldwell - Butte

n/a

Kimberly Bozeman - SJDC

Koji Takahashi - BerkeleySpeech

The round is yours and it is your job to tell me what I should vote on and why. I’m down for any argument as long as you win on it and tell me exactly why it is important and how I should evaluate it. Good rebuttals make my job easier, so please use them wisely. I will vote first and foremost on the arguments that are brought up as voters in the rebuttals and prefer to only evaluate other things on the flow if the arguments are a wash. I’m fine with some speed, but my flow is not as fast as it used to be and I prefer to be a flow judge. If you want me to have all your argument on my flow, I would not recommend going full speed. Medium fast. I prefer systemic impacts to outlandishly big ones, but it really is up to you to explain to me why I should be voting for any impact and I will defer to you. If an argument is a wash, I’ll defer to me and I like systemic impacts better. Please understand perm theory and be able to explain it well. I’ve judged a lot of rounds that were lost because open teams didn’t understand how to make basic perm arguments, so don’t let that happen. Down for Ks, but make sure the alt is sound. I am a firm believer that the rhetoric in round is important and am super down for pre-fiat impacts, but please make the arguments good. Also, I’m super down with queer theory. PET PEEVES -Shallow dehum arguments I don’t particularly like most dehum arguments that are thrown around in debate and don’t consider it a terminalized impact on its own unless you explain exactly how your conception dehum functions. If you don’t, my default is to view it the way I’ve been trained to-- as a social process (i.e., poverty is not inherently dehumanizing—people who perceive or portray those in poverty as living or being subhuman are dehumanizing). If someone throws out dehum in an uncritical way, call them on it and I will be happy. -Root cause arguments that are just wrong I know how root cause arguments function strategically, but I don’t like the way most people run them. They are far too often either wrong or poorly articulated to the point of sounding wrong. Run them if you feel you have solid analysis to defend it, but be warned. -Teams that bite their own K Please don’t do this. If your opponents do it, please don’t let them get away with it. I’m down for good Ks, but I really don’t like people telling me what I have to do with my ballot if they won’t do it with the rest of their advocacy.

London Donson - SJDC

Mark Shilstone - Hartnell

n/a

MaryNella McLaughlin - SJDC

Natalie Kellner - Ohlone

Nathan Steele - CCSF

What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I aim to subdue my bias and objectively adjudicate rounds, voting for the team that presents the most logical, well-reasoned, organized, creative, clever and dynamic arguments. Debaters should provide/contest criteria for evaluating the round. Highlight key voting issues during your final speech. What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters? Be respectful of your opponents at all times. You can be a little snarky but do not make it personal. Attack the arguments and behaviors in the round rather than the people. Avoid obnoxious nonverbal-behaviors. Partner communication is acceptable, but don't parrot or puppet your partner. Heckling is acceptable but everyone (partner and opponents) should minimize interruptions to the debate and the flow of the speaker. I will listen to you throughout the round, and I hope you will continue to listen to each other. What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote? Don't lie. Convince me of how I should evaluate the debate and what the affirmative or negative team must do to win my ballot. I'm capable of believing any well-reasoned and supported claim, but I favor cogent, criteria-based arguments that are ultimately weighed against other issues in the round. When well warranted, I can vote on well-structured and clearly explained topicality arguments and kritiks. Debaters should be specific in their argumentation and provide clear voting issues in rebuttal speeches. How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements? The debate should be accessible to your opponents and judge(s). Delivery can be accelerated beyond a conversational rate, but I value clear articulation, emphasis, inflections, pauses, and vocal variety. Delivery style may affect speaker points but will not factor into a decision. Points of order can be called when rules are broken; I will stop time and hear briefly from the opposing side before ruling.

Patrick Moe - DVC

You should argue whatever you want, but never assume I know why you are arguing it until you tell me why.  Continuously answer the question: "So what?!"   The longer I do this the less impressed I am by debate jargon.  After competing in and coaching both high school and college forensics (including 7 years as the Director of Forensics at DVC), I speak debate fluently, but I very much prefer English.  Telling me, "Jargon, jargon, jagon therefore I win" rarely actually wins my ballot.  Instead what wins my ballot is an understanding of debate with examples, precedent, narrative, delivery, and a sense of humor. I fully understand and appreciate line by line refutation, but in rebuttals I very much prefer story-telling and persuasion over technocratic debate.  Also in rebuttals when it comes to impact calculus I am much more likely to be swayed by probabilty over magnitude than I am magnitude over probability.  Angry and yelling debate almost never wins my ballot.   I dislike speed--I'd prefer if you talked to me like a human being rather than like a flowing robot. Most important, have fun and learn.  If you are not having fun and learning, stop giving up your weekends to do this.

Robbie Rickauger - SJDC

Robert Hawkins - CCSF

Sarah Hinkle - CC

Shannon LaBove - Rice

Shannon LaBove MA, JD ADOF Rice University Judging Philosophy   Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.) I started debating at age ten when I could not see over the podiums in Junior High LD and loved it...still do.  I competed LD in High School, Parli in college (I was in NPDA-90’s style with hands on the head questions) and have coached a combination of  Parli, IPDA and NFA-LD for 12 or so years for a combination of NPDA, PRP and PKD. Needless to say I understand that there are many styles of debate and consider myself a Tab/Flow judge who likes to evaluate the round presented. I am very keep it simple and give me a place to vote.  Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) I do have what many call an “old school” debate preference which includes the following: Don’t Like: <ul> <li> I don’t do flow work for debaters. If you want it flow it through. </li> <li> I don’t like bad law. If you don’t know it don’t get complicated with it. </li> <li> I don't like performance. This is not to say I don't see it as a valid mechanism this is to say it is not my preference in a round to watch.  </li> </ul> Do Like <ul> <li> Clash-don’t just dismiss and assume I know the position. I like link and clash work. </li> <li> Easy decisions-tell me where and how you want me to vote. </li> <li> Run what you would like-I try not to be interventionist  </li> <li> Aff to define round-Will buy a trichotomy/framework issue if it is blatant and abusive. </li> </ul> Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making I don’t mind speed but am a stickler for organization and clarity. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making I like Clean case/off-case structure and for things to be run correctly.  For me the Aff has Burden of Proof and the Opp to refute. Clash on case is great and preferred but will vote off/critical. Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks No real preference here but you have to link up to round. Generic without clear link does not fly well with me. Preferences on calling Points of Order. If you see it call it. Anything else feel free to ask. I look forward to watching great debate!

Sherris Minor - Palomar

I have been in and out of debate since 2003. I competed in parli for 3 years and have since coached parli/ LD for 5 years, this is my 4th year coaching since I came back to the activity in 2010. My background is in political science, anthropology and philosophy. My current course of study is in conflict management (specifically conflict transformation) and the rebuilding process through a critical gender lens.     I see debate as a game with possible real world implications. This means I evaluate the round in the way you tell me.  I would consider myself a flow critic, I will listen to any round you would prefer to have and will evaluate my decision based on how you tell me I should vote.  Unless told otherwise I will default to a net benefits paradigm.   Framework is important because it sets up how you want me to evaluate the round. I see it as a tool that should help you prioritize what arguments you are winning and why that means I vote for you. In framework debates I find that a lot of teams tell me why their framework is good but not why I should prefer their framework. I will not do the work for you tell me why your framework is better and why that means you win.    Rate of delivery doesn’t really matter to me. Most of the time I can keep up with the arguments coming from the speaker. I will yell slow down if it does become an issue.     Clarity is a separate issue for me. This goes for both speaking and what is said. If I cant hear you because you are mumbling and I am missing things on my flow I will say clear.  If you are saying a ton of tag lines without warrants you will not win my ballot, be clear with how your arguments function in the round and why they mean you win.    Procedurals are awesome, but I do not vote on potential abuse. Please have a clear interpretation. I default to competing interpretations unless I am told otherwise. I don’t vote on RVI’s especially if the justification for it on T is “time suck they abused us.”     I think critical discussions are great within the context of debate. That being said you need to justify your framework for evaluating the round, and tell me how I vote using this framework. You need to explain your links don’t just say they link tell me how they link/ why that link is important. These discussions tend to get very convoluted it is your job to clearly explain your argument(s), I shouldn’t need an interpreter to understand what your k says.      Counter plans are a great strategy tool but they should be competitive and have some sort of net benefit to them beyond this doesn’t link to the disad. Don’t kick an unconditional counterplan in front of me I will not vote for you.    Theory is awesome please explain to me why your theory/ interpretation of theory means you win the debate don’t just blip out any perm is severance/ or intrinsic. This is one not true but also doesn’t explain how your theory works in the context of this debate.  I believe all perms need to have a text. It provides something stable in the round that I can look at when I am making a decision. I think for the most part that Perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy but if you have a compelling reason why your perm could be the latter please run it.   I believe the debate should be smaller by the end of the round don’t be afraid to kick arguments. Issue selection is great because you can get more in depth on arguments you think you are winning.   Warrants for your claims are awesome because that means your arguments are not just tag lines. I will not fill in the blanks for you so please give a clear tag and warrant for why you argument is true. This is critical in debates with competing uniqueness stories where the objective is for me to decide which scenario is the most true.   I don’t mind partner communication. Don’t let it be excessive: I.E. one partner should not be giving 2 constructives and a rebuttal.   Impact calculus and prioritization are important to me. It allows you to tell me where to vote and why I look there before I look at other arguments. Don’t expect me to do the work for you.   Overall, if you do the work you should be able to win my ballot. I don’t care what you run.  I expect that your k, ad, disad has impacts and I want you to tell me how I weight them at the end of the round. Don’t be afraid to collapse to arguments you are winning, and be clear about what your case is and how it functions in the round.

Steven Graham - SJDC

Taure Shimp - MJC

OVERVIEW Debate should foster civil discourse and honor the educational integrity of the event. I see it as my responsibility to listen to the arguments you choose to make and evaluate them as fairly as possible. However, I do have some personal preferences. The rounds I enjoy the most have a lot of clash, fewer but higher quality arguments, and clear impact analysis. GENERAL PREFERENCES In IPDA: The rate of speech should be conversational. I expect to hear well-structured arguments with clearly delineated sub-points. I also expect to hear source citations--you have thirty minutes of prep, so please indicate where your information came from and use it to your advantage. While I get that IPDA discourages the use of jargon, procedurals, and kritiks, I am open to hearing arguments about definitions as well as arguments that identify problematic assumptions/worldviews within the debate. However, these should be articulated in a way that remains accessible to an intelligent, informed lay audience.  In NFA-LD: Please set up a <a href="https://speechdrop.net/">speechdrop.net</a> room for evidence and share the code. I like to see evidence during the debate. Speed is fine as long as your tags are slow and clear and I am able to read along. If you are a paper-only debater or do not share a digital version of the evidence, you will need to go at a more conversational pace. Even if I am not able to see your evidence during the round, I do have the expectation that debaters will freely share their evidence with their competitor for the duration of the debate in compliance with the <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/nationalforensicsassociation//about-nfa/governing-documents">NFA-LD rules. </a>Specifically, the rules state: "Both speakers in a debate are required to make available to their opponent copies of any evidence used in the round, including the affirmative constructive speech. The evidence must be returned to the speaker at the end of the debate. If the evidence is only available in a digital format, the debater is required to make a digital version of the evidence available for the entirety of the debate at the opponent's discretion. For example, if an affirmative case is only available on a laptop, the negative should be allowed to keep the laptop for reference until the debate is over." In other words, it is in your best interest to have additional paper copies of your evidence and/or a viewing laptop that can be used by your opponent during the round. In Parli: Faster-than-conversation is fine, but I do not like spreading in this event. For me, it decreases the quality of analysis and becomes counterproductive to the in-round education. However, I will not ask you to slow down during the round or say “clear.” Procedurals and Kritiks can make for good debate… …but I find AFF Ks are often gratuitous and I tend to dislike when they are run as a strategy to win rather than out of ethical necessity. If you choose to run a Kritik (on either side), it is very important that you explain the theory clearly and accurately; have a strong link; and identify a realistic alternative. If you are unable to articulate—in a concrete way—how we can engage the alternative, I am unlikely to be persuaded by the argument as a whole. Rebuttals are most effective when the debaters provide a big-picture overview and a clear list of voters. I evaluate the round by looking at Topicality and Specs, CPs and K Alts, then Advantages and Disadvantages. Etiquette: I enjoy rounds with good humor where everyone treats one another with respect. This does not mean you need to begin every speech with flowery thank yous, but it does mean you should avoid rude nonverbals (scoffing, making faces, etc.). Basic guideline...if you would not speak to family members, co-workers, teachers, and friends in a certain way then don't speak that way to competitors. MISCELLANEOUS FAQ Sit or stand during your speech; I do not have a preference, so do what's comfortable for you. Partner communication is fine with me, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says. Try to avoid puppeting one another. Do NOT confer audibly with one another if the other team is giving one of their speeches.

Terry Peterson - SJDC

Tony Bernacchi - DVC

Please run whatever you want! I judge based on what happened in the round, but I am not going to waste a bunch of my time defining what should be run in front of me.  So bring it! I was a policy debater for 4 years so I am going to be able to keep up with your 'speed'........HOWEVER, I dont really like that parli-debaters spread as if they are in policy debate.  If spreading is a core strategy of yours you should probably add evidence to your speech and join CEDA. Oh.......impact analysis/voting calculous is appreciated. Finally, be respectful of one anotherin the round. If you are overly rude, consistently interupting your partner, or try to influence my decision with obnoxious facial expressions and non-verbals......DON'T! a) it wont work, and b) it will reflect in your speaker points.(negatively) debate well

2014 Mustang Invitational