FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Allison Niebauer - Wheaton

I have coached parli for Wheaton for 3 years.  I debated for Wheaton for four years and did policy in high school.  I will vote on the arguments made in round as much as possible.  I don't have any specific preferences about what kinds of positions you run or any particular thresholds on arguments.  I value clean, engaging, well-warranted and well-impacted debate with a clear weighing calculus.  I don't mind speed as long as it enhances your communication efforts and doesn't make you a worse communicator.  Feel free to ask questions before the rounds.  I prefer debaters to stand when they give their speeches.

Alyson Fetzer - Azusa

n/a

Amy Jung - Azusa

Andrew Grimalda - Concordia-CA

n/a

Andrew Moffitt - KWU

Andrew Whaley - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Ann Lawson - Malone

n/a

Barbara Harmon - KWU

I have judged individual events and debate for a long time.  I still consider myself as a novice judge in that I am not an expert on the language and theory involved.  I have heard a lot of excellent presentations in every event and and have a good idea of what a good presentation should sound like.  I enjoy this activity.

Brad Bull - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Braniann Molby - Cedarville

n/a

Brian Austin - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Brianna Nishie - Vanguard

<h2>Brianna Nishie – Vanguard University</h2> Question 1 : Background of the critic While my high school did not have a debate program, I spent my high school weekends at PSCFA tournaments watching rounds of debate.  Upon entering Vanguard University I immediately joined the speech and debate program.  I was a modestly successful debater who spent much of her Junior and Senior years as a competitor working as a peer coach.  I graduated VU in May, 2011 and worked the last 2 years as the assistant coach at Vanguard.  I currently work in social media as well as a speaking coach for professionals while continuing to help the forensics community with coaching/judging.    My academic background is in communication with an emphasis in PR.   I was trained by what can best be described as an “old school” parli coach – and I have several of her fundamental traits in my own philosophy.  I have, however, more tolerance for some technical arguments than my former coach may have had.    I do not look at debate as a game.  The fundamental reason for this is that there are too few “rules” and the “rules” get to be “interpreted” for each team….this to me is problematic in terms of fairness.  I do feel that parliamentary debate has its foundation in the ideal of generally educated people being able to present an argument on a topic with limited preparation time Question 2 : Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) As a former debater who lost more rounds than I can count because I ran value on what I considered a value resolution but lost to a judge who thought that the only “true” weighing criteria was through a policy lens, I have to say I’m a bit sympathetic to trichot arguments – assuming there is an adequate justification for the argument.   I believe that there are certain stock issues that should be argued; if nobody talks about definitions or a plan or who enforces the plan (for example) then how do I know if the plan is a good idea?  Tell me where I’m voting and why.   Sometimes resolutions do call for debaters to act as policymakers – in this case one should clearly delineate what the harms are, how the harms are to be solved and what the advantages of solving the plan are….It might help you to know that my political leanings are probably more conservative than the average judge on the circuit when making a plan…   Finally, in the age of group preparation – make sure you understand any specialized case that was constructed in prep time.  Please remember that this is parliamentary debate, don’t just read your plan text and PLEASE don’t toss an extra copy to the opposition so you feel exempt from the obligation to explain your case – this is not CEDA.   Question 3 : Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making   Parliamentary debate was founded in response to what had become a loathsome communication event – CEDA – and it seems that a lot of the reasons people left CEDA (speed, spread, reading evidence with no audience connection whatsoever) are seeping into Parliamentary – that doesn’t make me happy about it.  Speak plainly and clearly – sometimes you have to go fast – ok, but if you go too fast so that the communication has left the event – don’t expect high speaker points and if I can’t keep up don’t expect to win.  This doesn’t mean speak to me like I’m an idiot.  Be persuasive.  You can be a horrible speaker making fabulous arguments and win – you can be an incredibly persuasive, articulate speaker making horrible arguments and you can lose.  Moderation is a good thing here. Question 4 : Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making On-case argumentation is important – if you make it important.  Dropped arguments can also be very important in terms of what your opposition decides to do with them.  Not every argument needs a ton of attention – so use your time wisely.   Question 5 : Concerns about any particular argumentative approach/arguments which the critic rarely/never will vote for   I am not a fan of critiques – I feel this is more an issue of the way they have been flung around as largely non-linked disadvantages.  I could probably vote on a K if it was very well articulated – but that’s your job.  I’m not a big fan on procedurals – again, a personal bias – but procedurals are an available tool – so if they are necessary – use them, but explain why I should weigh them in the round.   One more thing – each speaker is given a set amount of time to speak – don’t talk over your partner during their time – I’m only flowing the person who’s turn it is to speak – so, make each other look strong and credible by giving your own speech.   I am not a fan of claims that aff did not have to fufill primae facia because poi's "check back". Opps ability to ask questions is not a responsibility to make sure Aff is doing their job.   Be personable, have some fun, and be brilliant.  Tell me what matters in the round.  Tell me what wins.  Give me every opportunity to give you the ballot.    <hr />

Brooke Adamson - NNU

n/a

Bryan McCampbell - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Chip Hall - CNU

n/a

Chris Leland - CCU

Debate has always been and always will be an academic lab for the articulation of good argumentation.  I have competed, judged and coached programs at the university level in IE, CEDA, NDT and Parli.  As such I am not a novice to debate, but I am relatively new to some forms of theoretical arguments and especially the more recent lingo that surrounds them.  I have been out of coaching for 14 years, but have been putting into practice the debate skills in the public forum against philosophers, theolgians, cultural critics, politicians, free thinkers, etc.  So I have seen what debate does in the "real world."  As such I am not yet convinced that some of the culture of debate doesn't force us into a box that is really pretty particular to our little world.  I say that to say,  I am not opposed to T or "Kritique" (which I guess is the hip postmodern spelling) or any other theoretical arguments but I can say I would much rather see clearly articulated and communicated arguments that are well constructed and well thought out.  It is fair to say I have a much higher threshold for those types of arguments.  Debate, I recognize, is also about strategy, but not at the expense of solid argumentation.  Having coached CEDA and NDT and now Parli for the last couple of years, I can flow.  Have to use my glasses to see what I wrote, which is different from the good ol' days, but ...  I will say that the thing that has shocked me the most this year is the casual way in which language is thrown around.  I fully don't expect it at this tournament, but there is no room in academic debate (even with the idea of free speech in  mind) for foul language.  It is unprofessional and rude.  Might be considered cool for some, but it is not accepted in any of the professions for which we are training up this group to move onto in the future.  Otherwise, I am excited to be back in the debate realm the last couple of years.   Chris Leland, Ph.D. Asst. VP for Academic Affairs, Professor of Communication & Director of Debate Colorado Christian University

Christian Collins - Liberty

n/a

Courtney Woolard - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Daniel Elliott - Biola

Experience: <ol> <li>Competing: I was trained for CEDA though our small school did not have the time or funds to keep up with the research so I did Parli for two years back when Parliamentary Debate was just getting started in the west, 1996-1998.</li> <li>Judging: I have since = judged in many different tournaments as an assistant coach. I took a couple of years off to get married and now I am back as the Director of Forensics at Biola University. I have judged too many rounds to sit down and try to do the math. I have been around a while.</li> </ol> Decision making: <ol> <li>I first make my decision according to my flow. I could totally disagree with you but if you say something is important or critical to the round I will write it down. If there is no response from the other team then that argument might win the round.</li> <li>I make my decision according to logic. I do not believe in tabula rosa. I will look at the arguments, especially in a round of a lot of clash, and decide what is supported with the best evidence and what makes the most sense.</li> <li>I accept procedurals. You do not need to prove abuse to run a T. You can run solvency presses, specs, Kritics, and tricot. I will listen to them all. I do not buy the risk of solvency arguments. If you have a plan that is likely not to solve that is the place where I will pull the trigger for the neg.</li> <li>Finally on Kritics, I do not like Kritics that are really nonlinear disadvantages in disguise just dressed up like K’s so that you can kritic the mindset. They K itself is nonlinear. The harm is already in the status quoe. There is no bright line to suggest that the rhetoric will make it worse. So save yourself the trouble and do not run them because I do not want to hear them.</li> </ol> Presentation: <ol> <li>I think speed is antithetical to debate. Debate is about persuading your critic. Debate is supposed to train you for real world debates. How does talking at 200+ words per minute train students to argue in the real world? It robs debate of Ethos and Pathos which are just as important to logos in Aristotle’s paradigm. Logos is the most important of the triad but I want to see the other two.</li> <li>So please rise and speak if there is a lectern available. If not then you may speak from your seat.</li> <li>Be as professional as you can. It makes you more credible as a speaker. The more credible you are the more persuasive your arguments will seem. There is plenty of great research to support this.</li> </ol> On Case arguments: <ol> <li>I like on case arguments. I don’t want the debate to become like two ships passing in the night.</li> <li>I do not want the Aff to spend 30 minutes of prep only to spend the hour of our lives listening to Neg’s off case positions. Since logic is very important to me I would advise Neg teams to try case turns and presses in addition to K’s and DA’s It can only help you.</li> </ol>

David Lindrum - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Derrick Green - Cedarville

n/a

Drew Stewart - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Erik Fox - NCCFI Hired

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.

George Wise - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Glenn Cragwall - CNU

n/a

Griffith Vertican - Concordia-CA

n/a

Ian Sharples - PLNU

Ian Sharples Fall 2012 DEBATE EXPERIENCE - 2003-2006: Mostly LD and Parli at Centennial High School in Bakersfield, CA. I also did Congress and one tournament of Public Forum. - 2006-2011: NPDA/NPTE Parli and NFA-LD at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego, CA. - Currently Coaching at PLNU JUDGING INFO - My general philosophy could be described as 'argumentative anarchy': if you can justify it, you can go for it. But, like everyone, I still have biases, which is what judge philosophies are for. - I am willing to vote on any argument that is made in the round, but I have no problem ignoring things that are not arguments. - My basic threshold for an argument is that it must be warranted, internally coherent and have a terminalized impact. - Overall strategic choices almost always have greater influence on my decisions than line-by-line details. Knowing how you are going to win the round before it starts will go a long towards a ballot in your favor. - Most debates are lost in the LOC/MG or won in the MOC/PMR. The first scenario is far more common. - Most of the rounds I watch are in PSCFA. I have noticed that 'National circuit' teams generally do a better job of using strategy and warrants compared to 'PSCFA/Com' teams. Problems with internal coherence apply to both circuits. - I haven't seen too many rounds this year between really good teams that are evenly matched, so I am still learning how I evaluate those situations. But for the rounds I have seen, line-by-line is more important, because they tend to be doing the basics right. POSITION SPECIFICS - Framework debate is important, but I usually resolve it by evaluating case and K on the same level. The exception is when teams give clear and justified prioritization. - I think all positions are conditional all the time, unless otherwise stated. - On topicality: I go for an abuse/fairness paradigm in Parli, and competing interps in LD. The difference has to do with changing v. stable resolutions. - For other procedurals/theory: Out of laziness, I tend to default to an abuse paradigm, because that is what I am used to with T, but I am extremely vulnerable to competing interps, so just say it. The reason has to do with the implications of this theory debate on future parli rounds. - I like the strategic value of critical arguments, but I still think most K lit is not very good. I will listen to it in round. - I like positions that play with the boundries of argument, or radically reimagine what a competitive debate round could be. I enjoy good theory debates. OTHER STUFF - Points: 27 = should break at this tournament, 29 & up = top tier for this tournament. I use half points. - PSCFA has a rule that you can't tie points, and I've gotten in the habit of following it. Apologies in advance if this inadvertently screws you out of a speaker award. - Physical limitations on flowing: I cannot hear in my left ear, and my typing speed is ok but not super fast (but still faster than I can write). Super fast and intricate rounds (which I love) will give me problems, sorry. - Like: Aristotle, Locke, Mill, Foucault / Dislike: Marx, Kierkegaard, Lyotard, Derrida / Entertaining: Nietzsche, Friedman, Hitchens, Zizek - Things I am currently interested in: Neuroscience, Political Psycology, Cities, Early Modernity.

J. Edward Stevenson - Azusa

n/a

Jana Hall - CNU

n/a

Jason Edwards - GCC

n/a

Jason Stahl - Belmont

n/a

Jennifer Grey - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Jessica Samens - Bethel Univ

Jessica Samens, ADOF - Bethel University Debate Judging Philosophy <hr /> Years judging Debate – 6 Number of Rounds judged – 50 + Tournaments judged – 25 Average Speaker points - 27 <hr /> While I am a relatively new Parli judge, I have a strong grasp on what I like and dislike in a debate round.  I have worked hard to become a respected judge on the circuit and have proven myself to be such. Overall, I want this to be a good learning experience for all involved, which translates into what I like and dislike. <hr /> I like a round that is civil, well set up, and easy to understand. While I expect students to stand firm in their arguments, I do not tolerate being rude to the other team. Sarcasm, being disrespectful, and bullying do not make me happy. I also like a debate that is well presented and follows an organized fashion set out by the Gov. This way I don’t have to make the decision if you dropped arguments or not, plus it makes it easier for everyone to follow (especially the judge who will be making the ultimate decision).  A messy debate forces all involved to make a lot of assumptions. I also like a round that is easy to understand – I fully admit to not always following the news as well as I should.  Please explain arguments for the sake of the judge and the other team. <hr /> Speaking of Topicality, I am fine with you running this as long as it is justified.  However, don’t spend precious time arguing it hurts the education system and is abusive.  I know what the grounds are and do not want you to waste time you could be spending on the case.  I am accepting of counter plans as long as they are not just the gov plan modified – I also need to see they are justified by the opp.  I feel the same out K’s, etc – impress me with your debate skills. <hr /> In order to win my round, I want to see that you have learned something about debate and fought a clean round. When teams are equally paired, I am fine with a little humor and sarcasm to each other (while this may seem to go against my earlier claim, I do appreciate the spirit of debate when done fairly),  but not when you are the stronger team – you take away from the other team's ability to learn. Also, be sure to tell me why you win – I appreciate voters in the rebuttals to tell me why you are the winning team. Never leave the debate in the judge’s hand, there is a lot of information going back and forth and you don’t want me to miss the main arguments you have provided. <hr /> Happy Debating!

Jessica Peterson - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Jessica Fielden - CNU

n/a

John Listach - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Jon Loging - Bethany

<h2>Jon Loging - Bethany Lutheran College</h2> Question 1 : Please provide significant details on how your approach and evaluate debate rounds. Especially helpful are details about approaches or arguments that you either enjoy or dislike. Years of competition in Parliamentary Debate - 4 Number of years coaching/judging Parliamentary Debate - 14   I firmly believe Parliamentary debate is an excellent Communication activity and should be carried out with that intention.  I like to observe all the formalities that go along with Parli.  Delivery should be clear, well paced, and organized.  Debaters should use logic, wit, examples, and style to convince a person that their perspective of a resolution is the correct one.  Overall, I want you to persuade me on the issue presented in the resolution.  I don't want you to stand up there and tell me the other team is stupid.  Stand up there and tell me why I should vote for you.  Persuade me!  Don't simply bash the other team. Technical debating does not impress me.  I don't care how many levels you have for your topicality argument if the Government team was topical.  If the Government team goes way off base with their case, then a simple explanation of why they are not topical is called for.  DON'T tell me that they are decreasing the educational value of the debate.  Using the same old, tired arguments is what is decreasing the educational value of debate.  Meta-debate is a fun activity, but when we are talking about cutting taxes, I don’t want to hear argumentation theory; I want to hear why we should or should not cut taxes. I dislike "road maps".  In normal public speaking, a preview is incorporated into an introduction.  When you start speaking, I start timing.  When my timer says you are done, I stop listening.   I judge a round based on the quality of debate, not quantity.  Some arguments might be dropped by the other team.  That is not a reason that they should lose.  It might be they spent time on the arguments that mattered and not the 12 disads you sped through in 1 minute.   Other idiosyncrasies:  I don’t flow rebuttals.  Anything you bring up in a rebuttal should have been talked about in the constructives.  Anything brought up in a constructive is fair game in the rebuttals.  I don’t care if it wasn’t touched by their partner.  (Read the rules of debating, I have!)  I dislike “conversational” debates when everyone decides to speak.  The person at the podium has the floor and should be the only one speaking unless a point of information is raised.  (By the way, points of information can be a question or a statement.) At the end of the round I ask the question:  Who did the better debating on the resolution at hand?  That is the team that will get the win.

Jonathan Burrello - Biola

n/a

Josh Adams - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Josh Hicks - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Julie Welker - HPU

n/a

Justin Whaley - CNU

n/a

Karen Cragwall - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Karen Nishie - Vanguard

<h2>Karen Nishie - Vanguard University</h2> Question 1 : Background of the critic Two and a half years college parliamentary debate 11 years coaching parliamentary debate.  DOF at Vanguard University.   Question 2 : Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) I am often called an "old school" critic -- which I think means I adhere to trichotomy (believing that there are three distinct types of resolutions with three types of argumentation that follow), I also follow stock isues with the rationale that they make for a cleaner debate than not. While I am well read I am not in the round -- meaning you don't have to argue the other team AND my biases/opinions. You should appreciate this. I have voted on positions that are, frankly offensive to my world view because that's where the debate went. I have never (to my knowledge) voted because the debaters did not cater to my world view nor have I assigned ballots to bad arguments that supported my personal world view -- I think that answers the question on tabula rasa. I may be the last judge standing who believes that opposition has presumption entering the round and that affirmative has specific burdens (like upholding the resolution, defining terms etc -- see stock issues). I am not a fan of claims that aff did not have to fufill primae facia because poi's "check back". Opps ability to ask questions is not a responsibility to make sure Aff is doing their job. Question 3 : Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making Very. This is a communication event preparing (in my mind) you to be better citizens and better communicators. I can keep up with speed, I just don't want to have to. You should be persuasive, this activity is great training for a future in advocacy, law, education, ministry, homemaking...fill in the blank -- and in no profession (other than auctioneer or voice telling me the potential harms of some new medicine) is speaking as fast as you can possibly spew words out a positive. In fact, a lot of what I see (lack of professionalism, lack of politeness, lack of respect) will likely COST you in the "real world". If you are speaking so fast that you spit on me -- it will not reflect well on the ballot -- and if you have to breathe in so hard that you break a rib let it be known that I do not know first aid.   Also, as a side note, I don’t appreciate foul language at all, but particularly in public presentations that are meant to be persuasive.  Dropping the F bomb in front of me is likely to earn you ridiculously low speaker points. Question 4 : Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making Very. Especially for the affirmative. For opposition you can stay off case, but all aff has to say is flow across and every argument they made stands -- in net benefits this may not benefit opp. Unlike some critics I think the opp has very few burdens (I believe they begin the debate with presumption and aff must prove other than the SQ is good) other than refutation and good argumentation. I will never drop an opposition team that did not run a counterplan.   One more thing – each speaker is given a set amount of time to speak – don’t talk over your partner during their time – I’m only flowing the person who’s turn it is to speak – so, make each other look strong and credible by giving your own speech. Question 5 : Concerns about any particular argumentative approach/arguments which the critic rarely/never will vote for I find Kritiks over used and under impacted. I like links so if the kritik is well articulated, well linked and well argued, I will buy it -- otherwise leave if for other critics. Arguments about how vampires have rights, or how the X-men function are probably better left for other critics also. I am a pretty pragmatic person so being overly creative (modern dance, hand puppets, arguments in the form of Haiku) are probably lost on me. I see my role in rounds simply to evaluate the claims you make and weigh them in the ways that you tell me to. If you fail to tell me how things weigh out then you give me permission to make up my own weighing paridigm -- and that will be bad for you. <hr />

Kay Flewelling - PLNU

n/a

Kenan Boland - HPU

n/a

Kim Bryant - HPU

n/a

Kyle Biery - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Lacy Larson - Bethel Univ

Laura Broyles - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Lawrence LaPlue - Bryan

n/a

Letha Quinn - NNU

n/a

Lorina Tamayo Schrauger - Biola

n/a

Mallory Graham-Ellison - Malone

n/a

Mandy McNeely - CNU

n/a

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.

Matt Grisat - LSU

n/a

Matt Johnson - FC

n/a

Meagan Roper - Liberty

n/a

Mel Hicks - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Michael Palmer - Bryan

n/a

Michael Marse - CBU

I am a traditional debate theorist.  I have coached and competed in Parli, NFA L/D, and CEDA for more than fifteen years.  I have been a DoF and taught Argumentation full time for 10 years. What I do not like: Kritiks - I have never voted for a K, because nearly every one I have ever heard is a non-unique DA dressed up in the shabby clothes of an intellectual argument.   Topical Counterplans - I have a resolutional focus, not a plan focus.  If the neg. goes for a topical counterplan, I vote in affirmation of the resolution regardless of who "wins" the debate. Speed - Going faster than quick conversational rate robs the activity of many of its educational outcomes, though not all.  It is good for winning in some instances, bad for education in many others.  Therefore I will allow you to go as fast as you would like, but I will vote quickly on any claim of abuse on speed.  Asking a question in the round like, "Do you mind speed?" in such a way as to really ask, "Are you going to be a stupid judge?" is going to annoy me.  The emperor has no clothes, many debaters are afraid to say anything for fear of looking stupid in rounds.  Same goes for most judges who are proud of their ability to flow quickly.  The best you can do if you spread in a round is to win with very low points. What I do like: Topicality Arguments - The deeper into linguistic philosophy, the better.  Have bright lines, don't kick-out of T without demonstrating how they have truly clarified their position since the 1st Aff. speech.  Otherwise, it is a timesuck and I will vote on abuse in those instances.  My opinion on T comes from my resolutional focus.  I don't believe it is good debate theory to argue that the affirmative plan replaces the resolution, since that would lead to more pre-written cases and a devaluing of the breadth of knowledge required to be an excellent citizen after graduation. Negative going for a win on stock issues - If it's a policy round and the negative wins (not mitigates, but wins outright) any stock issue, they win. Collegiality - I believe in debate as a tool of clarity and invitational rhetoric.  If you are mean, or deliberately use a strategy to confuse, you will lose.  Common examples are affirmatives not taking any questions to clarify on plan text in Parli, using unnecessarily academic terms without given adequate synonyms, etc.  If you win on the flow, but demonstrate unethical practices, you lose in life and on my ballot. To conclude: The proper metaphor for debate is not "a game", but is instead "a laboratory".  The laboratory is looking to achieve truth, and have proven methods for getting there.  We should be experimenting, and in some cases pushing boundaries.  We must also be able to deal with the failures that sometime come with those experiments.  The point of debate is not to win rounds, but to produce good people who know how to think and speak effectively after they graduate. Please feel free to ask and question to clarify these statement, or anything I might have missed.

Michael Dreher - Bethel Univ

Michael Dreher Director of Forensics, Professor and Director, M.A. in Communication, Bethel University Number of debates judged             (2013-2014): 6                (2014-2015): 10 Number of parli debates judged      (2013-2014): 5                (2014-2015): 10   Speaker point average - 2013-2014 NCCFI: 26.63, sd = 1.40 No. of years judging parli: 21; 32 years of being active in debate in one form or another (that makes me feel really old). In 2013-2014, I only judged parli at two tournaments because I was in tab a lot (15 out of 18 tournaments last year). Please don’t confuse my lack of rounds as a lack of interest/being around debate (as witnessed by this really long philosophy). I’ve judged quite a number of parli, LD and policy debates, but only 1 IPDA debate, so if I’m somehow in the pool for IPDA, then know that I’m not as familiar with the format. When I judged it at the 2014 NCCFI, I didn’t have any idea of the rules – so while I may be slightly more familiar with the rules now, as we all know, there’s a difference between knowing rules and being familiar with how those rules are practiced and interpreted. We simply don’t do IPDA in our part of the country. Know that I’m more likely to follow the letter of the rules rather than actual practice when those two concepts are in conflict. I assume that the IPDA ballot style is the way in which I’m supposed to vote. I’m not sure how much of what I write below applies to IPDA (it’s more so for parli/LD), but it’ll give you a sense of how I process arguments. Specifically, when it comes to quantity vs. quality of arguments: Yes, I do flow. You’ll recognize me - I’m the one who uses the really giant sketch pad. I’ve used large sketch pads for 32 years. I write big – it’s Biblical (see Galatians 6:11). I use the flow as a guide to help me remember; that doesn’t mean you’ll necessarily drop the round if you miss the 8th point off the third subpoint on the impact scenario. What it does mean is that I look to the reasonability of both positions before determining whether that matters. “Lump and dump” done well is just fine with me. If you can cover everything by grouping, go for it. There is a need to strike logical, structured argument along with persuasive abilities. Many people come into parli with a policy background, which is fine.  What separates the top parli (and for that matter, NFA-LD) debaters is their ability to adapt to whatever kind of audience they have. You’ll find that I tend to default to a policymaking paradigm unless the debaters argue otherwise. I’ll listen to other kinds of debates (fact, value, etc.), but I’ve heard quite a few teams that have terrible criteria when it comes to weighing value or fact rounds. If you’re going to run fact or value – give me very clear criteria as to how to weigh the arguments – I’ll filter all the arguments through whatever becomes the criterion. And please (for all that is good and holy) don’t run preponderance of evidence as a fact criterion. Those rounds just lead to unwarranted speed and bad, blippy arguments. Opp in fact/value rounds shouldn’t be afraid to bring up countervalue/countercriterion, but opps can still win even through the gov criterion. If you’re a big fan of tiny brink, large impact DA’s, I’m probably not your type of judge.  I’m not likely to buy that a $10 million increase in the budget deficit will lead to nuke war. Remember the trinity: probability, timeframe and magnitude; I tend to look at the three in that particular order. Speed: I tend to prefer moderate speed in large part because I’m a “deep flow” judge. I don’t flow only taglines; I flow the underlying warrants and backing underneath the taglines. So, the more I hear (not in a speed sense, but rather a “what I understand” sense), the better I understand your arguments, and that means more that you give me to think about for your side at the end of the round. Accordingly, I tend to take a long time in terms of rendering the decision. I’m likely not to tell you my decision right away not because I am anti-disclosure, but I find that writing my way through the arguments in the round helps me to clearly articulate why I end up voting a certain way. I’ll be happy to chat about the round right away and give you some helpful advice, but it does take me a few minutes to work through your arguments. You can find me later and I can talk about round specifics in more detail. Know, though, that your ballots won’t just have “see oral disclosure,” and your ballots will have a strong sense of how I understood and weighed your arguments. Case side vs. DA’s/Kritiks: I think case side debates are underutilized, and dissecting a gov case can be a thing of beauty. I still vividly remember a Creighton-Grove City round from NPDA several years back where Creighton basically tore apart the entire case without a single DA or T argument – because they could. K’s need impact, and a clear story of how they apply to the gov case, which includes the alternative and a sense of whether the K is pre or post-fiat. Many teams forget to weigh out their DA’s adequately – make sure that you tell me why your DA is more important than any accrued or potentially accrued gov’t advantage. Don’t just rely on “cross-apply the DA to case” – really show me how the DA’s intrinsic analysis outweighs the government’s specific case side analysis. Topicality: I’ll vote on it. My quirk is that you don’t need to give me a long abuse block. Tell me the violation(s), and why they’re violations, and move on! Either I’ll vote on the violation or I won’t. I’ve never seen a round won on “Gov decreases education.” If I’m a one-judge panel and I hear a huge abuse block, I’ll probably stop flowing and start to get annoyed. If I’m on a 3-judge panel, I’ll live with it, but don’t be surprised if I stop flowing. As far as citation of evidence in round is concerned, I'm not the world's biggest fan. However, if someone does ask you where you found some information, I'd hope you would have an answer. I’ve already had to adjudicate one evidence challenge this year; as a result, I'm a bit more sensitive to made-up arguments/sources.  Plan text: I don’t need a copy unless you’re really fast, and in that case, I’m probably having other problems keeping a deep flow. Do make sure that we all understand the plan text though. Give the opp a chance to clarify plan and you won’t bite into a spec argument. I have been known to pull the trigger on spec a time or two, but that comes from my policymaking paradigm – if I don’t know whose job it is to deal with plan, then I’m not sure why I should accept that policy. I don’t have to know every specific, but I do need to have a general sense of how the plan functions. Not answering a legitimate question about plan only increases the propensity of a spec argument. Performance arguments: The reason I tend to have problems with them is that they essentially run as privileged narratives, which makes it really hard for the opp because the ground is so skewed. Arguments based on personal history violate Section 4B of the NPDA Rules of Debating, so for me, there's even a higher threshhold in terms of why someone would break rules everyone has agreed to by entering the tournament.  New arguments/points of order: I do protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals. So POO’s aren’t necessary. Run 'em if you want or if you’re afraid I’ve missed something. Offense/Defense: Defense is underrated. If a team can mitigate the effect of an argument, that can often be the most time-efficient strategy available, particularly if the other team’s argument didn’t have much of an impact scenario anyway. Tag-team debate: I’ve accepted that it’s now part of the activity. That said, one of my roles is to evaluate you as a speaker. If your partner keeps answering all your POI’s for you, or becomes a significant part of the speech, then I have no choice than to give the speaker points to your partner. NFA-LD rules: I follow the 2014 rules. In particular, they do tend to limit study counterplans. One last thing – NCCFI is a special tournament. While not all of us share the same Christian commitment, I would hope that we can agree on a few common beliefs: a) civility, b) respecting other’s interpretations of faith, even if we don’t necessarily agree with those interpretations ourselves, and c) helping to keep the NCCFI a special place. I’ve been here since the beginning (when NCCFI didn’t conflict with Novice Nats, which I directed for a few years).  I worry that over time, I’ve seen less and less difference between NCCFI and other tournaments. Debate is one of the best places to show that, while we can use debate to “sharpen iron,” as it were, we can do it in a way that is ultimately a blessing and an honor to God and each other. The 2014 tournament brought me a bit of hope in this area. I hope that the 2015 tournament will continue to expand on that hope.

Michael Valentine - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Michael Ernest - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Michelle Emert - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Michelle Emmert - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Nathan Wise - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Natonya Listach - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Paul Davis - Azusa

Paul Tucker - CNU

n/a

Peter Ludlam - Biola

Phill Demarest - Malone

n/a

Robert Burleson - JBU

n/a

Ryan Greenawalt - Belmont

n/a

Sara Smith - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Sarah Colome - Wheaton

Scott Heinrichs - Malone

n/a

Sean Malone - FC

n/a

Shannon Scott - SPU

n/a

Sheila Gaines - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

<h1>Skip Rutledge                                                                 Point Loma Nazarene University</h1> 25 +/- years judging debate                                                    14+ years judging NPDA Parliamentary 6 +/- years as a competitor in policy debate (college and high school)   Academic Debate Background: Competed 6 years +/- in team policy in High School and College (NDT at Claremont). Then coached and judged at the high school level for a number of years as a part time volunteer.  Returned to academia and have coached since 1989 in CEDA, we switched to Parli in about 1995. In addition to coaching teams and judging at tournaments I have been active in NPDA and helped at Parli Summer Workshops to keep fresh and abreast of new ideas.  I have also tried to contribute conference papers and a few journal articles on debate.  I love well reasoned and supported theory arguments where debaters are aware of the foundational issues and prior research on topic.   Judging Paradigm: For lack of a better term, I embrace what I know of as the Argumentation Critic paradigm, but certainly not to the exclusion of appreciating strong delivery skills.  I encourage fewer, well-developed arguments with clear claims, reasonable warrants, and strong evidentiary support to back up those warrants, rather than the shotgun method of throwing lots of claims out, hoping something slips through the others’ defense.  That probably makes me more of a big picture critic, rather than one that gets fixated on the minutia. I do recognize too, that big pictures can be defined by small brushstrokes, or that details can count heavily in proving big arguments. I don’t hold Parli case/plans to the same level of proof that I might in CEDA/NDT since they are constructed in 15 minutes without direct access to deep research, so spec arguments are not very compelling in many cases.  Disadvantages, solvency arguments, or counter-plans share the same burden of proof that the government does. Impacts are very important, but the establishing the links are critical. Debaters should be well read in current events, philosophy and especially political philosophy.  Poorly constructed arguments and/or blatant misstatements will not prevail just because someone happens to not respond to them.  While I attempt to minimize intervention, claims like “200 million Americans a year are dying of AIDS” does not become true just because it might be dropped (taken from an actual round).  I think your word is your bond.  If you say it with conviction, you are attesting that it is true.  If you are not quite certain, it is preferable to frame a claim in that manner.  The prohibition on reading evidence in a round is not carte blanche to make up whatever unsubstantiated claims you think may advance your arguments. I enjoy case clash, smart arguments, exposing logical fallacies, using humor, etc. . .  I dislike rudeness, overly quick delivery, or presenting counter warrants rather than engaging case straight up.  I will try to make the decision based the content of the arguments and also rely on delivery for determining speaker points.  It is not uncommon for me to give low point wins.  I also think it is the debaters’ job to debate the resolution, not my own views on styles of debate I prefer to hear.  If a resolution has strong value implications, please debate it as such. Likewise if there is a strong policy slant, debate it as such.  Additionally, I do not feel that there is only one way to debate.  I will not try to implement unwritten rules such as the Government must argue for a change in the status quo.  They certainly should if the resolution requires it, but may not have to if it does not.  I think the resolution is key to the debate.  This does not negate Kritiks. It invites sound logic and framing of Kritiks and alternatives. I do have some a priori biases.  I believe the resolution is what is being debated. That has implications on counter plans.  My a priori bias is that they should not be topical and should be competitive.  Just because the negative team finds another, perhaps even “better way” than the affirmative chose, to prove the resolution is true, does not seem to me to automatically warrant a negative ballot. I am though open to good theory debates, You should first know my beginning basis of understanding on this issue.  And although I enjoyed debating in NDT and CEDA, I think the speed of delivery in that format was built around the need to read evidence and specific research to back up the claims and warrants.  The absence of such evidence reading in NPDA should invite more considerate and slower argument analysis, not provide opportunities to shotgun out many more, less developed arguments.  I believe the reason for not allowing researched evidence briefs to be read in this particular format of debate was to encourage public focused debate, which implies a slower rate of delivery and genuine consideration of case.  The gamey technique of negatives throwing out lots of flak, or obfuscating issues to throw off governments time use, only to collapse to a few key arguments, does not seem to advance strong argumentation development, a fair testing of the resolution, or solid speaking skills..

Steven Jones - GCC

n/a

Susan Rasnic - CNU

n/a

Tim Milosch - Biola

Tim Landefeld - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Tim Smith - Belmont

n/a

Tori LaPlue - Bryan

n/a

jay bourne - cumberlands

Background of the critic: Debated policy 2 years in high school, CEDA and NFA LD in college, coached at Asbury College for 8 years, where we competed in IE, NFA LD, and Parli, and coached past 9 years at University of the Cumberlands, where we do mainly parli,  IPDA and IE's Rounds judged this year- 50 + Judging/ Coaching - 20+ years (CEDA 2 years, NFA LD 6 years, 15 years NPDA) Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I am a flow judge. I don't subscribe to the tabula rasa approach- I think that everyone has preferences and biases, overt or latent. However, I attempt to remove any of my personal beliefs from the debate round (try to have metaphorical horse blinders) and let the debate be what the teams construct during the round . Personally, I fit best with a gaming paradigm, where everything is pretty much fair within the basic debate framework and guidelines. I do believe that there are other formats to debate than just policy, so yes, I am open to the trichotomy. For me, resolutions of fact are a legitimate form of debate- although I prefer a detailed level of analysis more than an example war with that approach.. If teams want to take a resolution of fact with a policy res, and the other team clashes, then that is fine with me. Since I also have a background in CEDA, value debate is legitimate also. Policy is what I judge most often in rounds, and I am very comfortable with that format. Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making : Minimal in decision of win loss. Does factor into speaker points. I dislike cursing. Speed is not a factor for me with CEDA background, but I don't believe parli was a format meant to be done at CEDA speed- that it should be at least a bit slower. Ideally, parli can cover a variety of issues at a good clip and throw in a good joke or two whereby a general audience could understand most of what was said, save for procedural jargon.   Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: whatever provides clash is fine with me. Ideally, opp will have a lot of on case argumentation in their speeches, but sometimes gov frames the debate poorly, so the round makes more sense and can be more organized off case. I prefer it when gov teams don't ignore their entire case argumentation after the PMC. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: Kritiks are fine with viable alternative frameworks provided. I have voted on them a few times, but to be honest, it seems they often were run as a time suck or an attempt to snow the other team with debate jargon. I guess I am old school.   I really don't go for performance styles, or using debate as a platform to discuss an issue that may be of great importance to you personally but does not fit into the framework of the resolution. Any additional comments: <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:24.1pt; margin-left:.25in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 0in left .25in; text-autospace:ideograph-numeric"> 1.I prefer NOT to intervene- make my decision for me. Tell me how to vote. <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:24.1pt; margin-left:.25in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 0in left .25in; text-autospace:ideograph-numeric"> 2.If I nod my head during the debate, it means "I got it"- so if you want to move on fine- if not, fine also. Nodding my head does not mean I buy your position, just that I understand your argument. <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:24.1pt; margin-left:.25in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 0in left .25in; text-autospace:ideograph-numeric"> 3.I prefer nontopical counterplans 4.One of my majors in college was philosophy, so I prefer in depth argumentation. Give warrants, don't just blip responses 100% of speaking time. Tell me why your argument is better, impact it out.   5. Regarding POI's, I will give everyone plenty of time to make the arguments they wish, don't interrupt each other here.  Usually you will do best in defending yourself by exactly pointing out on flow where you think you addressed the issue or where you are cross applying previous comments made.

2012 National Christian College Forensics Invitational - 2012