FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alex Lamascus - Pepperdine

My forensics experience consists of three years of policy in the high school homeschool league and four years competing for California Baptist University. At CBU I spent most of my time in NFA-LD, Parli, and limited-prep individual events.   I, just like any other critic, come in to the debate round with preconceived notions and biases. The following are relevant biases that you may find useful.   I fundamentally view debate as a learning activity for all involved, including myself as a judge. I think recognizing this as such requires three additional conclusions: 1)    I think it requires us all to recognize me as an incomplete human being. Regrettably, I do not have a brilliant mind that is capable of perfectly evaluating each and every argument in perfect fashion, and I will certainly not always make the “right” decision. It is for this reason that I prefer to view the round as a game of persuasion rather than a verbal, mechanical chess game where “this type of argument always trumps that” because it grants accessibility to individuals like myself who may not have impressive mental calculation abilities. It also functions to humanize the activity and keeps us from approaching the debate as humans striving to become purely logical machines. My incompleteness is realized in the fact that I the judge am learning from you the competitor and, hopefully, you are also learning something from me. I do take my judging very seriously, and I do believe I owe my best efforts to the competitors in every round. 2)    I think we must recognize that I cannot please everyone in every debate round. The binary nature of most formats can potentially make rounds very frustrating where there is no clear winner. This is an extension of my first point in that I recognize I am capable of making (and probably already have made) poor decisions as a judge according to the judging philosophies of others. 3)    Finally, I believe that recognizing debate as a learning activity means that we should not take it so seriously. This is somewhat paradoxical because I also believe that we should take the “learning activity” aspect very seriously. However, I believe this is manifested in our intentional actions to ensure that debate remains an enjoyable, fun experience for all of those involved. This attitude generates a comfortable environment for the thoughtful expression and evaluation of ideas.   Evaluating debate rounds: I tend to prefer evaluating a round through a particular lens, whether it is criteria, frameworks, a priori, etc. I am not married to the policymaker paradigm, but impacts are the easiest way for me to weigh a debate. It will be very hard for you to win a round with solvency presses, but they are an excellent way to make your opponents look like they didn’t do their homework, which I find very effective when paired with some impactful offense or a counterplan.   Speed: I hold two different (potentially conflicting) views on speed in debate. On one hand, I think it is excellent for our mental fortitude and an enjoyable challenge to evaluate arguments that have been given in a speedy manner. I believe that it is a healthy mental exercise and allows some talented individuals to achieve great depth of argumentation on any given subject. On the other hand, I fear that my effectiveness as a critic declines the faster the debate round is. I unfortunately was never one of those talented individuals who could craft deep, quality arguments in fast speech. I also was not especially good at debating against them. Additionally, I recall very well a period of time in my debate career that I felt speed was highly exclusionary, inaccessible, elitist, and frustrating. My best recommendation to debaters who are stuck with me as their critic would be to go ahead and spread in a round if you so desire unless there is a very dense theoretical concept being discussed, such as highly advanced debate or economic theory. I generally will not have a hard time flowing you, but if evaluating the argument requires intense use of my mental faculties I may end up falling behind and your point may not be received as intended. Do keep in mind that I am sympathetic to speed procedurals run after a competitor who feels excluded from the debate is rejected when respectfully requesting slower speaking from their opponents.   Theory: Since I spent most of my time in NFA-LD where I did not have to engage in especially theory-laden debate rounds, my understanding of extremely advanced debate theory may be somewhat incomplete. I am of course interested in continually learning about new frontiers in debate argumentation, but my evaluation of your round may not go quite the direction you were hoping if you lose me in theory packed clash. This is becoming especially evident to me in my understanding of advanced counterplan theory.   What I do not like to see: <ol> <li> I don’t really like it when a team runs a critical position that emphasizes the meaning, power, and effects of language followed by abuse of that power later in the round.</li> <li>I also don’t really like it when a team tells me that fiat is illusory, then proceeds to paste arguments on my flow that assume fiat is real.</li> <li>Outside of the actual debate, I am disturbed, given my admission of my own imperfection earlier in this post, when competitors have little respect for my decision as a judge and challenge/argue with it during my oral critique.</li> <li>I am disappointed by judges that abuse their power as a judge by disrespecting the teams with their words or attitude.</li> <li>Finally, I am appalled when coaches of teams engage in the ludicrous act of verbally disrespecting a judge’s decisions, either publicly or privately. This is inherently disrespectful to the teams, judge, and activity as a whole.</li> </ol>   All of that said, I look forward to judging your debates! My apologies to teams whom I have judged before posting this, it is difficult to argue before a judge when you are unsure of their leanings. Best of luck to you all!

Amy Jung - Azusa

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.

Barry Regan - Grand Canyon

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 />

Brittani Farrington - Wheaton

I was a policy debater in high school and then debated 2 years open parli for Wheaton College. I'm familiar with standard position types and am not opposed in principle to voting on any type of argument. Procedurals are fine; Kritiks are also fine, though both teams should be crystal clear about their frameworks (especially with how to weigh distinct theoretical positions against each other). I'm not opposed to speed in constructive speeches (though, when giving intricate analyses, it can be counter-productive), but in the rebuttals, emphasis should shift toward crystallization: for example, "we're beating them on the following three arguments," followed by a numbered list, sounds like a helpful organizing framework. Finally, be courteous and respectful to opponents, especially when asking/receiving points of information!

Brooke Adamson - NNU

n/a

Caleb Rawson - CCU

"My background is that I competed in parli for multiple years in college and now do some assistant coaching on the weekends while I get my PhD in Business. I’ve been told I am a very expressive judge so feel free to utilize that to your advantage. I hold to a very ideological view of debate, especially that access to debate (both as a competitor and as an audience member) should be open and non-discriminatory. This manifests itself in some of the following points.   -Courtesy. Both teams need to not only be polite with their words, but also with their nonverbal signals. If an opponent asks a question (and they should ask, and you should answer) be polite with your answer. Dramatic sighs or eye rolling will result in a significant drop in speaker points.   -Speed. Having debated I know that a fast speaking speed can be beneficial. However, your speed must be at an understandable pace for everyone in the room (including audience members). I will not flow anything I cannot understand and I will not call “clear” or tell you to slow down. If you talk fast you must pay attention to my nonverbals (i.e. do not read directly from a page at a fast pace and expect me to flow everything). -Probable Cause. Impacts, K’s, and abuse must be probable, not just possible. -Generic Politics Argument and Resolutional K’s. See above point. I don’t care if you “feel” the resolution is discriminatory or unfair, you must prove that it is. -Use rebuttals to actually refute your opponents and show why you win instead of using them like a constructive speech. That’s why debate has rebuttals in the first place…. I like to have fun as a judge and I like my competitors to have fun."

Cameron Gardner - Biola

Carl Simmons - CBU

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

Chris Jamison - CBU

Colin Dowd - Liberty

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>

Derrick Green - Cedarville

n/a

Donald Roth - Dordt

Overview: I come to parli from a non-technical background.  I did not compete in debate as a high school or college student; however, I was trained as an attorney and am passionate about good oral advocacy.  I am familiar with much of the jargon and terminology of debate, but I only see its usefulness in how it can serve to facilitate a more clear and effective debate.  I am decidedly not in the camp of those who favor quantity of arguments over quality.  I will flow the debate, and both having several arguments and being broadly responsive are features of a good debater, but a flurry of mediocre arguments will not stand up against a handful of good ones.    I also tend to respect debaters who are able to think creatively within the constraints of what they’re given.  That is, I prefer government cases that tackle even a leading resolution head on (rather than trying to come up with a clever alternative interpretation) but then push to anticipate opposing arguments and develop a nuanced, creative position.  Similarly, I favor an opposition that is able to use clever turns on the government’s arguments or rises to the challenge of a government plan that backs the opposition into a corner.   What I like to see: <ol> <li>Good signposting and organization in speaking</li> <li>Debaters who can differentiate between major and minor issues that have arisen and address each appropriately</li> <li>Good clash</li> <li>Inventive (but valid) argumentation, I love it when debaters make subtle arguments that result in, for instance, a clever turn</li> </ol>   What I don’t like seeing: <ol> <li>Rounds that run off down a rabbit hole and confuse everyone</li> <li>Teams taking an unusual or metaphorical read of a resolution solely for the purpose of throwing the other team off (largely because of the tendency for this to result in 1)</li> <li>Unnecessary topicalities.  Argue it if it’s appropriate, but don’t hang your hat entirely on my belief that a position can’t be opposed, as I’m unlikely to buy that.</li> <li>Overly argumentative PM and LO rebuttals.  These are like closing arguments in a trial, and too many students can’t resist the temptation to extend the debate rather than wrapping it up in a nice package.</li> </ol>   My stance on: <ol> <li>Speed: Moderate speed is best.  Some people are naturally faster talkers, and that’s fine, but quick fire delivery tends to de-emphasize the importance of quality of arguments over quantity, and that’s a bad thing.</li> <li>Kritiks: I’m happy to hear them, but I prefer a good clash.  Don’t hang your hat on this line of argumentation unless unusually necessary.</li> <li>Preferred Resolution Types: I tend to prefer policy over value, mostly because it’s rare that a value debate avoids getting convoluted and tangential.  Fact cases are hard to argue well, but I find them interesting when both sides address it well.</li> <li>Topical counterplans: I don’t mind them, but they need to be competitive and should not be pursued to the exclusion of opposing the government’s case.</li> <li>Topicality: When it’s appropriate, you get points for bringing it up, but it should never be the sole theory (or even main theory) that the opp. team relies upon.</li> <li>Warrants: I want solid warrants in argumentation.  I believe that it is fair to ask for a general citation of evidence if it seems fabricated or overly specific.  I don’t favor the tendency of some debaters to invent information for debate, and I don’t like it when students give in to the temptation to use their smart phones for more than timekeeping if the internet is off-limits during prep.</li> </ol>   Voting Issues: It’s very important to consider these.  I ultimately select the side who gives me the best reasons to vote for their side.

Erin Dahl-Koneval - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Gaby Hidalgo - CBU

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.

Heather May - CBU

James Valdez - Vanguard

Judging Philosophy James Valdez—Vanguard University 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Background of the Critic <ol> <li> I have competed for three years for Vanguard University. I was an adequate competitor, having reached open level competition in extemporaneous and impromptu speaking. I was also top novice dramatic interp at the 2008 Concordia Invitational. </li> <li> I have graduated from Vanguard University in 2009, with a B.A. in Religion with an emphasis in Christian Formation and Discipleship. </li> </ol> Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) 1. I believe in strong argumentation, and would consider myself "old school." <ol> <li> I believe in trichotomy and to stock issues. </li> <li> I may not be well read, but I do not claim to be tabula rasa. </li> </ol> Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making <ol> <li> Very. It's important to be clear communicators. I do not appreciate speed, so I find no value in spreading. </li> <li> I place little value in swearing in a round, having learned the hard way that swear words have a negative impact on speaker points. </li> </ol> Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making 1. For the affirmative, very. I need to see some clash, and the best way for me is to see that on-case! No on-case battle on the affirmative side, I will vote against most of the time. Concerns about any particular argumentative approach/arguments which the critic rarely/never will vote for 1. Kritiks will be taken under consideration if they're well thought out, well- impacted and credible. 1. However, I find Ks overused and brain numbing. 2. Performance Kritiks are of no value to the debate round and I will always <img alt="page1image18312" src="file:///page1image18312" style="height:0.240000; width:42.852000" /> vote against teams that utilize this "tool. Moreover, let's remember that we are brothers and sisters in Christ, and that this is fun!

Jana Hall - CNU

n/a

JayLynn Ingram - Whitworth Univ

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 Rush - CBU

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.

Josh Kammert - Azusa

Background I have coached for five years; formats have included Lincoln Douglas, Parliamentary, and IPDA. I competed for four years prior to that in LD, Parli, and one tournament of CEDA. This year I have judged something like 60 rounds. None of this should really matter to you except to clarify that, yes, I am intimately familiar with the rules of debate. Approach to Decision-Making General Concepts I have a niceness paradigm; this means I can -and will- drop someone for being a jerk to their opponent. Obviously ad hominem is a definitively poor choice, but I'm looking for enlightening discussion not destructive manipulation -and there is a difference; in fact, if I'm your judge, just be as polite as you can to your opponents and the topic; I'm your audience, adapt to me. I loathe speed; I find it detrimental to an activity that is supposed to be focused on effective communication when there is literally no other moment in life where speaking at 250+ words per minute will be of benefit (it will, as a matter of fact be of great detriment since people will just tune you out). For me, Debate is a classroom, not a game; it is meant for education on a topic, not for being manipulative to achieve a win. Yes, I know I just annoyed 85% of you, I'm good with that. :) Argument Specifics As far as arguments go: I will buy just about anything, though I have yet to hear a Kritik that was not a non-unique DA in disguise, and that's bad. Don't run non-unique DA's and call them K's, I won't buy that. I'd also like to echo the words of Gary Ribold when he says, "I disapprove of the tactic of pushing automatic privileging of any postmodern theory as the superior position, possessing the moral high ground over all other arguments (especially since I am a Christian)." Oh and here's a big one: NO TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS; if you are both arguing to do as the resolution says, then I am only left to vote to affirm which means the Neg may have won the debate but the ballot will go to the Aff because the Neg convinced me to vote for the resolution to pass! I love Stock-Issue Debate and On-Topic Debate, Meta-Debate is boring. That said, if you truly feel you're being abused, feel free to run procedurals, but there had better be articulated abuse. My goal in every round of debate is twofold: Have Fun, and Learn Something. Do that while keeping to the above recommendations, and we'll get along famously.

Josh Cangelosi - SDCC

Background: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Current parli coach and philosophy, communication, and English instructor  ·      Past collegiate parli debater Preferences: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Debaters who present their ideas with passion, personality, spirit, spunk, liveliness, affability, respect, and conviction.  ·      Anything you want to do is fine with me! I will make my decisions based on the arguments in the round and don’t have any preconceived dislikes of any debate positions or strategies.  ·      Big-picture voting issues that weigh everything out for me, not line-by-line analysis, in the rebuttals.  ·      I’d love to see some performance debates and critical affirmatives; just be clear rather than opaque and abstruse in the theory/story you are telling. I like critiques as well, but again it’s important that all the theory make clear sense instead of being a bunch of impenetrable jargon.  ·      I vote for clear arguments that I can understand, which is why the big-picture reasons why I should vote for you are so important.  ·      Some speed is okay, but I vote for convincing arguments, not blips on the flow.  ·      Have fun, and be creative. I like out-of-the-box debating, so I’m the judge for running that crazy case you’ve always wanted to run. Just don’t be boring!  ·      If you are a novice, relax and have fun. The most important thing to remember is that debate is an educational and social event, so just do your best and enjoy yourself. In the end, it’s all about the skills and friendships you develop.

Joshua Wade - Liberty

n/a

Julie Welker - HPU

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 />

Kiefer Storrer - KWU

I like to listen to good arguments.  Do not assert if you do not also give support (evidence in LD) for what you assert.  I debated 4 years in high school and four years in college. I understand debate theory, but do not enjoy debates that venture from the directives of the resolution.  Use theory only to lead you to arguments or to stem abuse. I don't enjoy speed for speed purposes.

Kim Bryant - HPU

n/a

Kirsten Musgrave - SPU

n/a

Lacy Larson - Bethel Univ

Letha Quinn - NNU

n/a

Lorina Schrauger - PLNU

Judging Background             While I am new to the debate judging experience, I am not new to the overall activity.  I was an IE coach and judge for Biola University for 4 years and am currently a coach for PLNU.  In another life, I would want to be a debater, but for this life, I have been working on understanding this activity by observing real rounds in past tournaments and critiquing practice rounds at PLNU practices.   Judging Philosophy             In light of my background, I view debate as a showcase in good storytelling as well as an exercise in sound logic and argumentation.  So, tell me a coherent story: how do the elements of your case (plan/CP, ads/DAs, Ks or whatever you decide to run) show that you’re winning the round?  Tie everything together; give me the big picture.  I also like to hear clear concise <a name="_GoBack"></a>claims, evidence of research, breadth and depth of knowledge, use of logic.  If you decide to run something complicated, tell me why this is going to win you the round.               Organization is important.  Tell me the exact location on the flow that you are addressing.  Don’t expect me to bridge any gaps in your argumentation.                 Be communicative.  From the rounds I have watched, I have learned that I’m not a fan of speeding.  Speak conversationally.   Use humor.               Argue with ethos—be professional.  Not just with your opponents, but also with your partner.  Being a shmendrik will not win you points.

Maclean Andrews - PLNU

MacLean Andrews—Point Loma   I debated in high school (PF and CX) at Gonzaga Prep in Spokane, WA and parli at Point Loma. I majored in International Studies with a concentration in Asia. I see debate as an academic game and that’s how I will judge the round. Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round. Email me (mandrews6308@gmail.com ) or send me a facebook message with any questions. <ol> <li>Speaker points <ol> <li>26-29 usually. I usually go 29, 28, 27, 27. I find speaker points to be very arbitrary. I don’t really care how well you “speak” but more how strategic the arguments in the round are made.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Critical Arguments <ol> <li>I think there are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. I am more than willing to listen to any type/kind of arguments. My biggest frustration with K debates is when I am not given a clear way to weigh the argument or a don’t have a clear ballot story. I need Impacts.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Topicality. <ol> <li>I tend to see T through a competing interpretations framework unless told so otherwise. I think competing interps is the best way for me to evaluate topicality. I typically give the Aff interp the benefit of the doubt but I voted on T a lot more last year than I thought I would. I need Impacts to your T.    </li> </ol> </li> <li>Counterplans <ol> <li>I will assume the CP is unconditional unless I’m told it’s not in the 1NC. I am personally predisposed to think that CPs should be unconditional. But, I would never vote down a team for running a conditional advocacy unless the aff gave me good reason to vote the neg down on conditionality.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Theory <ol> <li>I am willing to listen to all theory arguments as long as a team can give me a reason to vote on the position. Theory positions should have a framework/interp, arguments for your position, and voters/impacts. Simply stating fairness or education as voting issues usually isn’t enough to win. Impact out why fairness or education or (insert voter) is important. I need Impacts!</li> </ol> </li> <li>Weighing Arguments <ol> <li>I will default to Net Bens…but if you want to use an alternative weighing mechanism please explain and provide justification for it.</li> <li>I need impacts! I like when Impacts are weighed for me.  </li> </ol> </li> <li>Random Thoughts <ol> <li>Speed is great if clear. There have been very few debates in which I was not able to keep up. If I can’t understand you I will yell clear. I flow on my laptop too if that changes the way you will debate.</li> <li>The round is for the debaters. Do what you think is the best strategy to win. The best debates are when the debaters are able to implement the strategies they love. I am just as happy listening to a team read a project as I am listening to a team read 8 minutes of case turns.</li> <li>Debate should be fun.  </li> </ol> </li> </ol>

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

Matthew Swanson - Grand Canyon

After significant time being lazy I have decided to join the 21st century! My ballots are now posted online at the link bellow. You can find average speaker points/aff win percentage, my rfd and points for each round, and who I voted for in a particular round. This itty bitty url idea is stolen from <a href="https://www.facebook.com/joey.mavity">Joey</a>.  Lets face it, I am doing this because I have horrid handwriting. <a href="http://ittybittyurl.com/1N4r" target="_blank">http://ittybittyurl.com/1N4r</a>   The quick version I hope my friends would say about me. The only rules I care about: speaker times, speaker order, and the aff must be topical.  I am flexible on the last one. This is a partner event.  That means you can talk to your partner at any time but I only flow whoever the recognized speaker is for the duration of their speech time.  The logical conclusion of this is that POIs are not part of the speech time but the answer to the question is. This is a debate event.  That means I do not care how you dress or how fast you speak.  I will calculate the impacts based on probability, magnitude, and then time frame unless told differently.   This is an academic event.  That means I will vote for any argument with academic rigor. Do not bring your unwarranted disadvantages to the debate room, leave the sloppy critical literature at home, and do the research for this event.  That also means that you will be held to an academic code of ethics.  Do not fib the truth, I actually pay attention to uniqueness these days…   The long and boring version that you probably should read while doing strikes and not read before prep. Personal Overview: I am a lecturer for GCU.  I earned about 3 AAs while in my CC that I never applied for.  I did my BA in Communication with an emphasis in Social Change and Rhetoric at CSU Los Angeles.  My MA is in Communication studies from San Diego State University.     Debate Background: I did IEs and debate in high school and college.  I competed for about 3.5 years in high school in everything from congress (2 tournaments, not by choice) to policy.  I also did various IEs that I do not remember.  In college I competed off and on for 4 years in LD (which as far as I am concerned is 1-v-1 policy), parli, and platforms/limited prep events.  I coached SDSU’s policy debate team which was more than exciting for me.  I now coach at GCU and teach Public Speaking as well as Communication and the Media.   Judging: I see my position as a critic in most debates as a “super” policy maker.  I am the SCOTUS, President, and the entire Congress.  When I sign my ballot I am putting into action the plan, a competitive counter advocacy, or sticking with the sqo.   Delivery: I am a bit hard of hearing, a lot of rock music in my past, so I need you to speak up.  I can flow higher rates of delivery with little to no problem as long as you are clear.  I do not care if you stand or sit, thank me or your opponents, or wear a suit.  The debate should be about the clash of ideas, not other things.   Points of order/information: Please call points of order because I will not do it for you.  They are a tool of strategy as well as a check on the other team.  Each speech should take a question and actually try to answer it…   Theory: I only vote on articulated abuse in 99% of debates.  The 1% is when the aff just is not topical.  The aff must be topical.  I do need a clear interpretation for any theory argument.  The standards need to be leveraged as reasons to prefer the interpretation.  The voters should be impacted out; I do not know what you mean when blipping fairness and education.  RVIs are not acceptable arguments – end of story.    Counter Plans: I feel that all CPs are conditional unless the neg says otherwise.  This means you can run condo bad if you want when they do not specify.  I am still undecided on condo vs any other status for CP so any debate on that could help me make my mind up; I also can be swayed by pics good/bad.  I am sure you have a different idea of what I think dispo is so I would appreciate it if you could tell me what you think it means in your speech.  I love a good plan vs cp argument.  Perms should have a text and some explanation of what the permutation world would look like.  Do not just say intrin/sev bad, I will not vote for that, explain why they are bad, too please.    K: I love the K, that means I like to see it run well.     New Arguments: I do not like new sheets in the block unless they are germane to the debate.  Running the 1ac to bait the k in the mg is antithetical to my views of debate.  Running 3-5 procedurals in the MG is bad/lazy debate.  Debates are supposed to get smaller, not larger.  There are no backside rebuttals so I have problems with this strat.  I have gotten rid of most of my biases over time judging, but this is one I do not like.   Impacts: You should be giving me terminalized impacts.  The economy gets worse is not an impact.  A count of people dying is an impact.  These should be a comparison of timeframe, magnitude, and probability however you have decided that they matter.  This does not mean you take your argument and talk about it, it means you compare it to the other teams, too.    Clarity: You need to clearly make your arguments, do not shroud them in secrecy and then surprise me later.  I probably will not get the surprise.  You need to clearly make your arguments or I will not vote for you.  This means if you tell me to ride the wave on the K and do not explain that I probably will not vote for you.  If you say endorse the NCAA-NCFIA for the CP and do not explain it, I will not vote for it because I do not know what it is.  Just explain things clearly.  I am smart enough to figure it out, but do not think I will understand it because you do.

Melissa Lazaro - PLNU

Melissa competed a number of years ago for Point Loma as an undergraduate in both CEDA and early Parli, and in most if not all IEs.  She serves as the ADOF for PLNU and works mostly with IEs and administrative tasks, so please do not assume that she is especially fond of cutting edge creative approaches if they stray from good clean clash on topical issues.  As an IE coach she values presentational skills very highly, and insists on logical consistancy, organizational strength, and a high level of respect and courtesy.  She also worked for several years as a professional trainer/business consultant and appreciates the real world skills taught by the actiivty, so choose your strategic approaches with that in mind.  Clarity, structure, and comparing impacts cleanly are your friends in pursuing her ballots.  Not fond of hyperspeed rounds.

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.

Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Mykylie Myzak - SPU

n/a

Nicole Bright - Belmont

n/a

Phil Krueger - SMC

BACKGROUND: I have competed 7.5 years in forensics, four in high school and 3.5 in college. While in high  school I debated LD, Policy, Public Forum, and Parli. In college debate, I debated 3.5 years  doing Parli. I am currently an assistant coach for Saint Mary’s College where I coach parli and  IEs, and this is my first year coaching. I have judged approximately 40-50 rounds this year.  TRICHOTOMY: I recognize that there is a trichotomy to debate. Certain words, such as “believe” and “is” don’t  carry with them calls to action. It would be unfair for Opp if Gov were to run a Plan in a clear  non-policy round. However, I think fact and value debating harm debate overall by taking the  focus away from specific policies and how they directly affect people. As such, I prefer policy  rounds and if both sides don’t have a problem with it, I would prefer that every round is policy. PARADIGM: The only way for a debater to win a round is to outdebate the other side. I know this sounds  simple, but I will not do any work for you. If Side A says something that is not true and Side B  doesn’t contest it, then it belongs true for the purposes of the round. However, I am not tabula  rasa. I carry my philosophy on debate into the round, so by definition I cannot be tabula rasa. I would generally say that I have a policymaker’s view of who wins the round. Whoever can  prove that their plan benefits the world more than it harms it, wins. I listen and respect all  arguments, but the 1% solvency rule weakens link developments. I am far more likely to vote for  a lesser impact than nuclear war with a greater likelihood of that impact than nuclear war with a  bare minimum of risk.  I also don’t follow stock issues. I don’t require inherency. COMMUNICATION: Debate is a game, but well-structured arguments are key to winning that game. I am a flow  judge. I will not vote for a well-communicated argument if it is not warranted.  I vote on dropped  arguments that are clearly extended by the other side. Not addressing an argument is a strategic  choice made by a side.  Therefore extending that dropped argument goes a long way with me.  Most speed is okay, but I will say “clear” if I can’t understand you. ON-CASE DEBATE: Case debate helps, especially the Oppostion. I view presumption as a very light burden to break.  Once Gov. comes up and articulates a plan with some solvency and an advantage, presumption  switches over to Gov. Therefore Opp. teams should always debate on case. When debating on- case, Opp should put offense on case. While I dislike the 1% solvency rule, most defensive  arguments are mitigation and feed into it. Practically speaking, offense increases Opp’s chances  of winning the round.  However, that is not to say that straight defensive arguments cannot win a round. If Opp wants to  pursue this strategy, they need to make it clear that there is a zero percent chance of Gov’s  advantage/solvency/plan working out. Otherwise they basically link Gov’s case for them.  KRITIKS: It’s your round. I have no issue with Ks, with one exception. Under no circumstances will I ever  vote for a Critical Aff/Resoultional K. Gov has to affirm the resolution, how it does so is up to  them. But running a K on their own res is abusive to Opp. Language Ks run by the MG are fine,  provided there is a clear link to it. To expand on this a bit, while I generally think K’s (like value/fact resolutions) are a shifty way  to avoid specific policy debate, I recognize their usefulness in-round.  Moreover, I am not going  to punish a team that runs K as a strategy, as long as they affirm the resolution (Gov) or oppose  the resolution. I don’t think it’s fair that a team that prepares for Kritik should lose just because I  am in the back of the room.  I do think it is fair that a Gov team running a Resolutional K (Critical Aff) should lose, because  Gov doesn’t get to switch sides because they don’t like to talk about the resolution or want to  talk about something completely different. To emphasize, Gov can run a K out of the PMC, but it  would have to be a performance K explaining the need for the resolution. Gov can run a  language/speed/rhetoric K in the MG, since they cannot anticipate how rounds will go down.  Opp can run any K it desires. To win with me on a K, you need a clear link scenario and an actual alternative. The less likely it  looks like I am seeing a “canned” K, the more likely I am to be persuaded by the K. If the  alternative is “reject plan,” that is a weak alternative. I do think K’s can be permed, but I am  willing to be persuaded on this point. If Opp can tell me why it’s K can’t be permed, Opp can  win. COUNTERPLANS: I have no issue with Conditional CPs. However, I can be persuaded on theories stating why  Conditional CPs are bad/abusive. CPs do not have to be nontopical. I do have an issue with the concept that Opp can only win if it runs a CP. That is not true with  me. Sure, a CP is a great tool to co-opt Gov’s case and win a round, but Opp can win on straight  DA/case turns/solvency presses. They do not need a CP and often times Opp teams running CP’s  yield presumption to Gov by not debating case. That hurts Opp in the round, because practically  speaking it gives Gov. an important tool to win the round. With perm, I am open to theory debate on what can and cannot be permed. My feeling is that any  CP that does not directly contradict plan can be permed. That’s because perms, in my opinion,  measure opportunity cost: by doing plan, we lose the ability to do CP. Therefore a CP with a  different actor doing the same thing will likely be successfully permed by Gov. That being said, I  am open to debate on CP perms. Perms are also not advocacy in my opinion: Gov doesn’t case  shift just because they run perm. However, any perm that causes Gov. to alter plan text is likely going to fail Gov on the perm  debate. Severance perms are difficult for me to justify. Intrinsic perms can be argued one way or  the other. For me, the test of whether an intrinsic perm can be sustained is whether that perm  fundamentally alters plan text. If it does, then it likely cannot be permed successfully.  TOPICALITY/PROCEDURALS GENERALLY: While articulated abuse will never hurt a T, I don’t require it. Words/resolutions have meaning,  Gov has to hew to that meaning. I will vote on Extra/Effects T, even without articulated abuse.  This is generally true of most procedural arguments: I can vote without articulated abuse because  I believe that vague plans or procedural violations mitigate the value of debate for debaters  outside of round. Debate is a game, but it is also an educational activity that should make us  better informed policymakers. POINTS OF ORDER/REBUTTALS: In order for me to spotlight a new argument, a debater must point of order it. I may have on my  flow that it is blatantly new, but it isn’t my round. You are the debater, you tell me why it is a  new argument. I have been persuaded on Point of Order argumentation before, so don’t give up  just because you think the complaining debater has a strong point. As for rebuttals generally, like most critics I want my rebuttals to showcase your side’s strongest  arguments in-round. Magnitude plays a small role for me. Any debater can throw “nuke war” out  there and add a 1% likelihood of it happening. However, I prefer likelihood of an impact  scenario over the most detrimental impacts. If I weigh people are going to lose a certain amount  of income over the aversion of nuclear war, I will probably go with loss of income (assuming  that team can prove it is likely.) I don’t have any preference for long-term vs. short-term impacts,  but a team arguing in the long term risks having their impacts blocked  by the other side’s short  term impacts. (E.g.: Team A argues this is cheaper in the long run but Team B argues that it is  more expensive in the short-term, thus causing economic recession that impacts long-term  productivity. Team B probably has an advantage.) With rebuttals, be clear and concise.

Rachel Busick - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Richard Wickham - CBU

Ryan Greenawalt - Belmont

n/a

Sarah Swygard - Covenant

n/a

Shannon Scott - SPU

n/a

Sherris Minor - Grand Canyon

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..

Stephanie Gomez - CBU

Stephen Thomas - Azusa

The philosophy from which the round is judged upon comes from a a couple paradigms and a simple way in which I judge.  The paradigm from which I judge is the "niceness paradigm".  This means that if one of the competitors retorts to ad hominum attacks i.e. name calling, cursing and such will be dropped from the round and receive "0" speaker points.  The other paradigm is my "don't talk faster than my fingers can type/write" paradigm.  If the competitor does this then I cannot be held accountable for what is not on my flow sheet; this eludes to my simplistic way of judging the round.  I judge the debate from my flow, tell me about dropped arguments, new arguments, and links to policies or disadvantages.  Simply put, if it is not on my flow, I cannot weigh the round on it.  I try not to intervene but if the situation calls for it then I will have to.

Sydney Awakuni - PLNU

Sydney Awakuni  2013 Background/Experience: <ul> <li>4 years of college experience- 2 years at El Camino college & 2 years at Point Loma Nazarene University – parliamentary debate, NFA-LD, impromptu, extemporaneous speaking, platform</li> <li>2 years of HS coaching experience at Narbonne High School</li> <li>BA Communication Point Loma Nazarene University</li> </ul> Core Values After competing in speech and debate for four years at a variety of levels/tournaments I’ve decided these are values I tried to uphold in rounds and would hope you would too! <ul> <li>Respect your teammates (they are like your family), opponents (how would you like to be treated?), judge, and any audience members.</li> <li>Play & Compete. To me debate is a game of intellectual batter so be fun and strategic!</li> <li>Signpost. This is crazy important. If you don’t tell me where an argument goes I will just place it best I can and I unfortunately don’t have mind reading abilities.</li> <li>Tell me how you me as a judge to view the round and WEIGH the arguments for me. Tell me what you want prioritized.</li> <li>I will do my absolute best to follow you, understand what you are saying, and make the best decision possible- good luck!</li> </ul> General Information/Questions You’ll Probably Ask Me: How I View the Round <ul> <li>I tend to default to the role of a policy maker. This means framing the debate in terms of magnitude and timeframe are really important to me. I also love it when debaters answer the question of “why”. So if you are going to say the world explodes- statistics/reasons of how we get there are crucial (aka: strong links/internals are your friend)</li> </ul> Speed <ul> <li>I like speed. I think it is a fabulous tool to be able to utilize. If I can’t flow you/think you’re going too fast I’ll try to tap my pen or something to let you know.</li> <li>I don’t like it when speed is used for the sole purpose of excluding your opponent-allowing them to engage in the round is more fun for you anyway. I won’t drop you because of spreading out your opponent but I may give you lower speaker points</li> </ul> CP <ul> <li>I think this is a great tool and usually a smart move on the part of the negative- if you are running a K you better have an alternative! Tell me why/how the CP is competitive and mutually exclusive. I don’t care if it is a topical CP because I view plan/affirmative case as one possible representation of the resolution.</li> <li>Perms- I always ran multiple perms &this think you can too. Perms with solvency or advantages are super strong (like you are saying actually vs. theoretically both happen).</li> </ul> Procedurals/Theory Arguments <ul> <li>Again I like these/used them frequently. I don’t usually vote on an RVI unless something crazy abusive happened.</li> </ul> The K <ul> <li>I will try my hardest to view the round from a more philosophical position if that’s what you want me to do. I find discussions about ethics/culture interesting (personally from a theological standpoint)- but I am NOT an expert. If you want the debate to be in that world please take the time to explain how these arguments function and how I ought to weigh them. This is not to say I don’t like the critical debate- I just didn’t debate that way, but I do understand the fundamentals.</li> <li>If you want to run a K and that’s a tool you like to use- feel free though- just note the above concerning my knowledge base of the position.</li> <li>There have been unique K rounds happening recently and I’ll be forthcoming to say I don’t like rounds where individuals are called out (keep it in the round) or when clothing attire is removed- please don’t do that.</li> </ul>   So have a good time in the round and also play to be competitive! If you have any further Qs please ask me. I’m new to being on the opposite end of the table as a judge so this philosophy may be subject to change.

Tom Monson - Bethel Univ

Victor Rose - Azusa

Kritiks - I rarely pick up K's because the neg generally offers no real world solutions outside of round, if you want to run K that's fine. Just make sure you're consistent/thorough on the internal link level and that you offer some advantages post round other than Cap/Nationalism/Gender inequality bad. Counter Plan - I view counter plans as an excellent strategic move, however, I strictly follow the NFA-LD rules regarding counterplans: "If inconsistencies arise and the affirmative points them out, the judge should reject the arguments inconsistent with the counterproposal. Counterproposals must be non-topical and are subject to the same burdens of solvency as are required for affirmative plans." Topicality - only when necessary, if you use it as a time suck and kick-out in your next speech I will be very open to reverse voting issues run by the aff, this should check back for the unnecessary epidemic of the T strategy (if you can call it a strategy). Speed - Again, I defer to the NFA-LD rules on this issue: "Rapid-fire delivery, commonly called “spread delivery,” is considered antithetical to the purpose and intent of this event." Framework - At the end of the round, I always default to a risk propensity analysis of aff/neg alternative worlds, therefore i'll listen to any insane impacts you have but whoever delivers the most persuasive "big picture" will generally garner my vote.

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.

2014 NCCFI - National Christian College Forensics Invitational