FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alex Johnson - 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.

Brittany Colbert - JBU

n/a

Cameron Gardner - Biola

Cary Chavis - Wiley

n/a

Chasity Gunn - Bethel

Chip Hall - CNU

n/a

Chris Medina - Wiley

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

Col Andy Grimalda - Concordia

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>

Derrick Green - Cedarville

n/a

Eddie Gamboa - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Erick Roebuck - JBU

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.

Hilary Sherer - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Jana Hall - CNU

n/a

Jason Edgar - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Jason Stahl - Belmont

n/a

Jeree Forbes - KWU

JeriKris Langston - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Jeriah Forbes - KWU

Jessica Samens - Bethel

Jessica Samens  - Bethel University<o:p></o:p> Debate Judging Philosophy<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Years judging Debate – 4<o:p></o:p> Number of Rounds judged – 50 +<o:p></o:p> Tournaments judged – 25<o:p></o:p> Average Speaker points - 27<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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 our debate skills. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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 teams 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. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Happy Debating!<o:p></o:p>

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.

Justin Jose - Covenant

n/a

Kacie Galloway - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Kamilah Kirksey - JBU

n/a

Kim Bryant - HPU

n/a

Kris Stroup - Wiley

n/a

Kristen Goff - JBU

n/a

Kym Davis - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Lacy Larson - Bethel

Leah Freeman - Biola

Lorina Schrauger - PLNU

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 Lenell - CCU

I’m a recent graduate serving as an assistant coach, with 5 years competition experience in high school and collegiate debate. As with anyone recently changing sides at a tournament, I understand the difficulty arising from the vast differences in judging paradigms. I’ll listen to any reasonably sound arguments you want to make, but I do judge through the lens of logic.   Don’t make up facts; I’ll probably know…   I tend to be mostly flow based and tabula rasa when I can stifle my personal opinion. Sarcasm is acceptable, and persuasion is a must. I will vote on whatever criteria and voters you offer within reason. Whatever you do, don’t run a procedural half-heartedly. Example: NEG offers T and claims education as a standard/ voter, NEG then proceeds to adapt DA’s to apply to on case; BAD IDEA, you just delinked your own T. Debate lingo is fine. Spread debating is not. I’m looking for quality ideas. Adding metaphors to explain link stories is also a plus.   Any other paradigm Q’s may be asked in round.   ML

Matt Dye - JBU

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.

Michelle Gibson - JBU

n/a

Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Miriam Burns - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Molly Brown - ORU

n/a

Paul Davis - Azusa

Peter Ludlam - Biola

Rebekkah Veldhuizen - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Ryan Greenawalt - Belmont

n/a

Sammy Johnson - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Sarah Rainey - Wiley

General Paradigm: Sarah Spiker Rainey<o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Background: 2011 NFA LD National Champion and Top Speaker. 4 year LD competitor at WKU with outrounds at nationals every year. 2011 State Champion in Parli. 4 year Parli competitor at WKU, although only 2 years were at the national circuit and I was a complete n00b back then so it doesn't really count; outrounds at NPDA/NPTE nats.   <o:p> </o:p>   Presumption: I presume neg, unless a CP is introduced in the round. Then presumption flips aff. Do NOT just say “Perm: Do both”. I need an exact perm text, preferably written down so that I can view the exact wording if it becomes an issue at the end of the round. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Defense v. Offense: Terminal defense is a winnable neg strategy, but you put all your eggs in one basket that way…it’s a risky way to get my ballot especially since most Affs will still show a propensity to solve. Your Terminal D better be baller. <o:p></o:p>   Extensions: I will not vote on arguments that are incompletely extended in rebuttals. If the warrant and impact are not articulated, I will cross out the argument from my flow. You need to extend your impact scenarios. Too many debaters get caught up in the link/link turn debate that they forget the impact. If an advantage or DA is dropped, tell me to “Extend Adv 1….this was 100% cold conceded with a dropped Nuke War/Global Warming/Extinction/5 million in poverty impact…at the end of the round, this is the most probably impact because there is zero defense/offense on the link or impact level.” Then give reasons why Adv 1 impacts o/w whatever other impacts are in the round. Just don’t tell me “Extend Adv 1” and move on. Do some impact calc. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Impact Calculus: I prefer impact calculus preferably in the 1NC (at the end of each DA or case turn). The 1AR at the latest. I flow impact calcs and consider them dropped weighing mechanisms for the ballot if unresponded to. If you don’t give impact calculus (or try/die or risk analysis), I default to probability over magnitude. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Counter Plans: I’m partial to good Devolve CPs. I’m definitely not a fan of poorly constructed Devolve CPs. Run them at your own risk…you may get chewed out on the ballot if you substantially mishandle a Devolve/States CP or Federalism DA. You need great topic-specific evidence to make me happy here. As for CPs in general, you need strong, intuitive mutual exclusivity arguments. Speaks: You should care about speaker points. They are absolutely critical to seeding and close breaks out of prelims. At NFA, your speaker points will certainly matter as you adapt back and forth between IE crossover judges and experienced policy judges. ADAPT. Speaking points and the flow are two separate issues. In general, wins are correlated with higher speaks, but that isn’t always the case. I deduct one point automatically for not reading full citations. You won’t lose the round for not reading full cites (unless there is a full cites procedural in the round) but you will lose one speaker point. I won’t hold it against you but I think the best debates occur when credentials are fully read as required by the rules (author’s name, qualifications, date, and publication source). If you are scoffing, laughing, snorting, etc during your opponent’s speeches, what’s wrong with you? 2 point deduction (or more depending on degree of infraction). Show some decorum! I won’t hold facial expressions against you, just don’t audibly interrupt your opponent. Double breathing and gasping while spreading will get you docked as well. Speed: Speed and clarity are two separate issues. Monotone speed reading, not a fan. Punch your words if you’re reading fast—articulate, articulate, articulate. Do pen drills. I also believe in accessibility. If your opponent cannot understand you, they have the right to call out “clear!” for clarity issues and “speed” for speed issues. Rules do states speed and spread is antithetical to this event. I believe that as long as everyone can access the round, I see no problem with speed delivery. And if your opponent really can’t flow that fast, you probably still won’t have issues winning the round at a slower pace anyway. Topicality: I do vote on T. However, too many T shells have generic violations/standards and not tailored to case. If you’re claiming ground abuse, I prefer you run the position you claim you should have access to (the DA or solvency press) and the T together. When your opponent no-links the DA/turn, then you collapse to T. Otherwise, I hate the mumbo jumbo of “I lost vague/nebulous/generic ground but I won’t specify what exactly” type T standards. Don’t just tell me “Limits good”. What kind of limits are good? Why are they fair? If you’re running Extra or Effects Topicality, your interpretation should include the words “direct” or “directly”…your violation should state “the plan is Extra/Effect Topical…[insert brief explanation]”. Effects/Extra T is NOT a standard. It is a violation. Your standards are why Extra/Effects T is bad. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   I rarely if ever vote on RVIs. I think they are easily answered. Negs can answer the RVI fairly concisely then kick T. 90% of the time, RVIs are run by people who were top heavy and couldn’t allocate time in their rebuttal properly. I’m not going to punish the Neg because Aff has poor time management skills. <o:p></o:p>   Reasonability begs judge intervention. Theory: Reading theory is fine…just tell me to “add another sheet on top of the CP” or whatever before you do. Otherwise, my flow gets crammed with the theory half and the on-position half of the debate. I may not like the particular theory shell you’re reading, but it’s not my fault if debaters can’t navigate answering the shell. I will not vote on theory if you forget to extend the internal link between the standard and the voter (or any other part of the shell, for that matter). Theory arguments should not be 10 second blips…you must development the argument if you plan to win on it. Otherwise, it’s wasted time for us both. Critical arguments: I stole this from a high school judge’s paradigm, but it fits what I believe: “I'm fine with critical arguments and am familiar with the basic gist of most arguments by continental philosophers, but I have not read any particular texts. I'll be upset if a debater's rebuttal massively clarifies the dense rhetoric of the constructive. I'm sympathetic to "if you didn't understand/flow it, don't vote on it" types of arguments. I will not vote on an argument that I do not understand.” I believe that far too often individuals hide behind the vocabulary of their K author without explaining its practical application in common language. This leads to frustrating CX as the opponent attempts to determine how these terms impact the debate. If you can’t explain a K position to the masses (i.e. imagine a bus driver judge) then you aren’t doing it right. I’m not stupid, but I won’t do K work for you by presuming you/I are on the same page regarding what these terms mean. K alternatives should have solvency. I much prefer CP alternatives as opposed to “reject ___________ and reconceptualize __________” alternatives. Reading the judge: I’m a fairly animated judge. If you (or your opponent) say something that is absolutely ridiculous and unwarranted, expect me to make a face. I grimace, nod in affirmation, and give quizzical looks regularly. Just giving you honest facial feedback throughout the round. It would be great if you could act accordingly because then we will all be happy. If I look like I’m not flowing in your rebuttal, that doesn’t mean you’ve lost. In fact, it may mean you’ve already made the argument that wins the round. Only in close rounds am I flowing up until the final second of the 2AR. I do read evidence when either a) you call for me to read it or b) the claim/counter claims are just too close to play by ear.<o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Sharing evidence: If you read it in round, you’re sharing it. Period. Your opponent and/or judge must be given a copy of anything and everything you read in the round if requested—during CX or immediately following the round. I don’t care if they hand write out the citations, take photos, or scan it with one of those fancy pens that capture digital text. Your integrity is at stake. Take pride in the quality of your evidence and your ability to debate. I strongly believe one of the only ways to verify that evidence is being accurately cited is to allow competitors to check the evidence of their opponent’s in between rounds or after tournaments. On more than one occasion, I would find individuals who were being unethical in their evidence. We were able to uncover such abuses only by verifying the evidence after round. Therefore, you must share (if requested) if I’m your judge. If you have any other questions, my email is <a href="mailto:srainey@wileyc.edu">srainey@wileyc.edu</a> or <a href="mailto:sarah.spiker@gmail.com">sarah.spiker@gmail.com</a> <o:p></o:p>

Sean Allen - Wiley

Shannon Scott - SPU

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..

Tim Milosch - Biola

Todd Rainey - Wiley

Tori LaPlue - Bryan

n/a

Vincent Smith - CNU

n/a

William Coover - NCCFI Hired

n/a

Zach Koym - NCCFI Hired

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.

2013 National Christian College Forensics Invitational - 2013