Abel Addleman - U of M

Experience/General Stuff:

I debated 4 years of NPDA/NPTE parli in college for Wheaton (graduated May 2017) and 4 years of LD in high school. I coach parli and policy at the University of Minnesota and LD at Apple Valley High School. I care deeply about debate, about equity in it, access to it, and very much believe in the power it has to change lives. I believe that debate is simultaneously a game and the real world, so I refuse to check my status as a moral agent at the door. Iâm fine with speed and will clear you if you pass my threshold (which is unlikely). Please say all plans/CPâs/T-interps/alts/etc. slowly and twice and take at least one question in your speech (if flex time/CX isnât happening). Please be respectful of your opponents and partner.

 

Overall Note:

I believe that the technical aspects of debate are tools we use to allow us to understand and engage with the substance of arguments more deeply. I therefore do not think that tech is a substitute for substantive engagement. I value more highly arguments that engage with the opposing positions substantively than ones that merely do so technically (while to do both is truly masterful debate).

 

AD/DA/CP Debate:

I never got deep into complicated economic or political AD/DA debate as a competitor, so I will be largely limited to my understanding of what you put out in a given round. If youâre clear, there shouldnât be a problem, just donât expect me to know what various terms or abbreviations mean off the bat or grant you internal warrants without clear explanations.

 

Weighing:

Please do it. This will make my job a lot easier, and also make it a lot more likely that I see the round the way that you would like me to. I will evaluate the round as you tell me to but, that said, I default to probability first and will have a substantially lower threshold than most parli judges to vote on systemic/materialized/highly probable impacts (given any arguments being made that I should prefer them). This does not mean I will not vote on nuclear, disaster, etc. scenarios, just that I will not accept prima facie an unwarranted claim that those impacts outweigh all other things if your opponents are making arguments to the contrary.

 

Theory:

Win the debate on whatever layer you would like. My threshold to vote on theory is determined by the extent to which a clear impact on the shell is articulated and weighed. I also believe that standards should be contextualized to your opponentsâ position. I find great problems in reading generic reasons why policy is good against non-T affs because I very much believe that theory should be about bringing questions of how debate ought function into the conversation, rather than forcing certain ideas out. This doesnât mean donât read theory in those situations, but that, if youâre going to, I will hold you to a high standard.

 

Kritiks:

I debated lots of Kâs in my time in parli and I love them. The biggest thing I need is clear alt texts and alt solvency. Tell me the (presumably very good) reasons your K matters in this round/against this case/whatever and give me a clear picture of what your alt is going to look like, and I will be happy. I really hate chicken-and-egg style root cause debates and would much prefer to hear substantive debate about the issues in the K. Please donât assume I know your literature. I will vote on what is said in the round, not my prior knowledge of your particular author.

 

Performance:

Debate is both a game and the real world. Bringing real world issues to the forefront within debate rounds is simultaneously extremely important and extremely difficult. It definitely creates change in our community and, as such, is something I take very seriously. I will attempt to evaluate every round as fairly as I can, while recognizing I do not check my status as a moral agent at the door. The one thing I like to be clear in these debates, therefore, is the role of the judge. I donât mean that you have to include me in your movement, make me feel comfortable, or anything like that; I mean expecting me to evaluate what Iâm supposed to do at the end of a debate round, with many moral issues on the table and no framework to deal with them, has the potential to give me a major panic attack. I donât say this because I anticipate any such problem, but simply because it is a very real concern for my mental health.

 

Speaker Points:

26-30, unless you do something very rude or exclusionary.

---

Adam Testerman - TTU

Background

Hi there!

My background as a competitor involved a couple years reading primarily policy strategies and a couple years reading primarily old-white-man criticisms (Baudrillard, Marx, Lacan, etc). As a coach, my teams have dipped their toes into nearly every kind of argument. I love it all, when it is done well. I can hate it all, when it ain't.

I feel comfortable judging any genre of argument and have no real argument preference beyond the desire to see clash.

I coached for three years at Lewis & Clark College; this is my fourth year as Director of Forensics at TTU.

General Issues

Parliamentary debate is the most fun and the most educational when a variety of argumentative styles, people, knowledge bases, and strategies are given room to thrive. I feel lucky to have judged a vast array of different arguments in my judging career. One of my main goals as a judge is to allow teams to run the arguments they feel are most compelling in front of me. Ive picked up teams reading structural indictments of debate about as many times as Ive picked up teams reading policy affirmatives and defending incrementalism.

It is my goal to involve myself in the debate round as little as possible. I have no preference for any particular kind of argument and generally feel that almost every debate issue can be resolved in the round. I will vote for arguments with warrants. I will try my best to synthesize your arguments, but I also believe that to be a central skill of effective debaters.

Parli debates should be slower than policy debates. Your theoretical top speed is too fast for parli, in my opinion (we don't flash documents, and we don't have enough predictable CX time to clarify key issues). I don't think I've been unable to keep up with even the fastest parli debaters the past several years, however, when in doubt... slow down just a bit.

I will vote for arguments I think are stupid 10 out of 10 times if they are won in the round.

I rely on my flow to decide the round. I attempt to flow performances and I do my best to write down what youre saying as close to verbatim as my fingers allow me. If there is an expectation that I not decide the round based on the way I understand argument interaction on my flow, that should be stated explicitly and it would be a good idea to tell me how I am intended to evaluate the debate round.

Emphasize explanation early¦ dont let your argument make sense for the first time in the LOR or PMR etc.

All constructive speeches should take a question if asked, and its strategic to ask questions (unless there is flex, then I'm agnostic on this question).

Theory interpretations and advocacy statements should be read slowly and read twice.

Points of Order should be called, but I will also do my best to protect new arguments¦ dont be excessive with them though [Ill be vague about what that means, but be an adult]

RVIs have never been good arguments, read them at your own risk.

Theory/Procedurals

I cut my teeth on procedural arguments in college, and I am still a huge fan. To vote on a procedural, I need an interpretation explaining how the debate should be evaluated, a violation detailing specifically why the other team does not fit within that interpretation, standards that explain why the interpretation is good, and a voter that outlines why I should vote on the argument. PLEASE read your interpretation/definition slowly and probably repeat it. It is good to have an interpretation that makes some sense.

DAs/Advantages

DAs and Advs. require uniqueness arguments that explain why the situation the affirmative causes is not happening in the status quo. Defensive arguments are useful, but they often serve to make offensive arguments more impactful or serve as risk mitigation, as opposed to terminal takeouts.

I ran politics in a majority of my negative rounds and I coach my teams to read the position as well. So, I will totally vote on politics every time it is won. That being said, Im finding the position to be one my least favorite and least compelling these days. The obscene nature of congress make the position even more laughable than it was in the past [and its always been sketchy at best, without cards (and with?)]. Read the DA if youre a politics team, but there are almost always better arguments out there.

Critiques

Critique debates can be fun to watch, but only when the position is clear at the thesis level. If your shell argues that the K is a prior question or something like that, spend some meaningful time explaining why thats the case instead of shadow extending an argument from the shell. I am familiar with a lot of the literature, but you should argue the position as if I am not. Critiques are totally dope, but only because they have the potential to advance compelling arguments¦ not because they are obtuse.

Framework debates (on the top of critique... i.e.: epistemology comes first) are a waste of time a vast majority of the time. I do not understand why teams spend any substantive amount of time on framework. The question of whether the affirmative methodology/epistemology/whatever vague term you want to use, is good or bad should be determined in the links and impacts of the criticism. I see almost no world where framework matters independent of the rest of the shell. So¦ the only K framework questions that tend to make sense to me are arguments about why it is a prior question. It makes sense that if the critique wins that the affirmative impacts are threat constructions that Im not going to weigh the affirmative impacts against the position. Thats not a framework debate though, thats a question determined by winning the thesis of the position.

Critical affirmatives can be cool, but they also put me in a weird position as a judge sometimes. If your affirmative is positioned to critique DAs, then I still want to see specific applications of those arguments to the DAs. I need to see how the DA demonstrates your argument to be true in some specific way. By that I mean, if the negative outright wins a DA, I would need to see why that would mean the affirmative shouldnt lose early, often, and specifically. The same is true of any set/genre of negative positions.

Performance/Non-Topical Affirmatives/Alternative Approaches to Debate

I tend to not have super strong feelings in favor or in opposition to performance style arguments. Several of the teams I have coached have run non-traditional arguments and I have seen those be incredibly beneficial for the debaters and have a positive effect on education garnered from their rounds. I have also seen people really struggle with performance-style arguments on an interpersonal level, in both advocating their positions and responding to others doing so. I defer to the debaters to wade through the various issues related to alternative approaches to debate.

I will vote for framework as answer to these arguments if the other team wins the position. However, I also think most non-topical affirmatives are written with 5 minutes of impact turns to framework. Affirmatives must explicitly extend those kinds of arguments to answer framework (don't assume I understand how that's happening just by you extending the affirmative) and teams going for framework should not assume the "a priori" nature of theory means I reject the aff out-of-hand.

I tend to think arguments about the collapse of debate due to alternative approaches to debate, are frequently poorly warranted. Which doesn't mean those warrants don't exist... I just need them to be made explicitly. Debate can look like many things, and still be interesting/educational/productive, in my mind. However, I also believe compelling arguments about "topical versions of the affirmative" can be very compelling. If there is a way to read your criticism as a nuanced way to affirm the resolution, you've probably landed close to my ideal version of critically framed affirmatives. Affirmatives seeking to indict structural conditions of debate can also be very compelling, too. I hope to put my personal desires for a particular model/instantiation of debate to the side in any particular round I'm judging.

CPs

In general, the CP/DA debate is probably what I feel most comfortable judging accurately and I think CPs that solve the affirmative are very strategic. There are probably enough arguments on both sides to justify different interpretations of how permutation or CP theory in general should go down, that I dont have strong opinions about many CP related issues.

I tend to think objections to conditionality are rooted in some very valid arguments, however I find myself concluding conditionality is probably more good than bad in my mind. That only means the conditionality debate is totally fair game and I probably have voted conditionality bad as many times as I have voted it is good.

Cheater CPs are cool with me, so feel free to deploy delay, conditions, consult, whatever. I tend to think the theory arguments read in answer to those positions are more persuasive than the answers when argued perfectly, but that in no way makes me more predisposed to reject any kind of CP strategy.

---

Alex Baldwin - McK

Section 1: General Information

Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE.

 

My role as the judge is to evaluate the arguments, weigh the impacts, and make a decision. Debaters should know I have not judged much since my last year of competing in 2018 (I mostly judge one tournament a year). Therefore, you should keep that in mind. The most common thing I have seen judging since I finished competing is that debaters often ignore the impact level of the debate entirely. Impact weighing for me, someone who does not judge often, is essential to evaluate the round. Please dont read texts (plans, counterplans, interps, alts, etc.) at top speed. Read them slowly and twice. When debaters read them at top speed, it is easy to miss the text which makes it hard to evaluate the argument. For speed in general, I am ok with it, but you should focus on clarity over speed. Start out slow, then build up your speed. Dont start out on your top speed and your speaker points will thank you.

 

 

Section 2: Specific Inquiries  

Please describe your approach to the following.

 

1.       Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?

               

                My range is:

                30-28.9=excellent

                28.8-28.0=above average

                27.9-27=average

                26.9-24.0=poor

 

                My speaker points typically fall between 27-29.

               

2.       How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be contradictory? with other negative positions?

 

                I like critics, but I prefer disads. In evaluating a critic, I will almost never vote on the framework and I think MOs spend way too much time focusing on framework. I think a lot of times (including when I debated), Ks just use a lot of buzz-words and the team reading the argument cannot seem to explain it, so please dont do that.

 

                Affirmatives can run Ks, however, if this is your thing, I might not be the person you want judging you. As mentioned above, I havent debated for a few years and do not judge often. These rounds get very technical and often go over my head as a judge. Im not saying dont read a K aff if you want to, do what you want to do. I just think it is important to disclose to you that these arguments often go over my head because I have been out of the activity for so long. Keep this in mind when doing prefs/strikes.

 

                I do think critical arguments can contradict other positions, but I am ok with conditionality as long as it is not abusive. By that, I mean I am ok with a team running a K conditionally, but do not run a condo K, condo C, etc.

                               

 

3.       Performance based arguments?¦

 

I am largely not a fan of performance-based arguments. However, if you want to run one, do it. I will evaluate these rounds like any other round. My issue with these arguments is similar to my issue with K AFFs where these rounds sometimes go over my head because I have been out of the competition for so long.

 

 

4.       Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

 

In round abuse is not necessary for me to vote on T. If the aff reads something obviously untopical and you have a generic K that links to everything, abuse is not necessary for me to realize that the aff exploding ground is a bad thing. I do require competing interpretations. Please read your interps slowly or provide me with a text. If you speed through your interp and I dont get it, there really is not a way for me to evaluate anyones arguments. You generate offense from your interpretation, so you should read it slowly. Please dont read spec/frivolous theory arguments.

 

5.       Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?

 

                PICs are bad. If you read a PIC, you should have some really fire PICs good answers, because I definitely lean towards PICs being bad for debate (because they are). I think the opposition should identify the status a CP/K even if not asked by the aff. Textual competition is ok.

               

 

6.       Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)

 

I dont see an issue with this.

 

7.       In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?

               

                Procedural issues come first over everything for me if someone goes for it. Next, are kritiks. If a kritik is present, I evaluate whether the aff gets access to their affirmative and if so, I weigh the impacts of the K and the AFF, then evaluate solvency deficits.

               

 

8.       How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?

 

When only one team weighs their impacts, I definitely defer to their analysis instead of making my own. In the unfortunate event neither team weighs their impacts, my decision usually comes down to solvency. For diametrically opposed claims, it depends on the context of the round. The team that convinces me I should care more about their impact will win the round. In the event neither team convinces me, again it just comes down to solvency at that point. As far as comparing abstract vs. concrete impacts, I definitely lean more towards concrete impacts, but it really depends on the context of the round. I can be convinced either way. In evaluating the impacts though, I put more emphasis on magnitude and timeframe. This isnt to say I dont like abstract impacts-you should always say large impacts are improbable compared to dehumanization. Please weigh the impacts and make them clash. No matter if your impact is large or small scale, I should hear some argument about the other teams impact is losing on magnitude, timeframe, or probability. 

---

Alyson Escalante - CUI

Background: I competed in NPDA at El Camino College for two years and at the University of Oregon for two years. I was director of debate at Oregon for two years as well, and have consistently judged at least several national tournaments every year since then.

General: Do what you want, I will do my best to flow the round in detail and vote on the flow. I have my preferences but those are ultimately of little concern in the round. I list them here only so that you can know what unspoken biases frame my view of the round. I do my best to exclude these biases, but I think that no judge is a flow robot, so they are worth being up front about.

I truly love parliamentary debate and I promise to treat your round with the utmost seriousness. My hope is that competitors will likewise recognize the unique opportunities parliamentary debate opens up and enter the round with a mutual respect and openness towards all participating in it.

One important note: I really would appreciate it if competitors would not read arguments that discuss sexual assault in graphic detail. Reading SA impacts is fine but more narrative based approaches to the topic are not something I am comfortable judging. This is the only thing I really strongly ask you do not read.

Speaker Points: for me, speaker points are primarily a matter of rewarding technical skill and decision making rather than presentation style. I use speaker points primarily to reward strategic decision making. My point range is mostly between 26.5 and 29.5. Anything outside that range represents exceptionally good or exceptionally bad performance. Although I see speaker points as mostly a matter of rewarding technical excellence, I will probably give you higher speaks if you manage to make strategically sound decisions while not being an asshole to your opponents as well.

Theory: If neither team offers an alternative framework to weigh theory I will default to competing interpretations. This means that I view theory not as an issue strictly of what happened in this round but also as a norm setting framework that raises the question of most desirable practices in all future rounds. I place a high emphasis on competitive counter-interpretations, and teams should be sure their counter-interpretations are not subsumed by the other teams interpretation.

If teams want to propose as alternative framework for assessing theory, such as reasonability, they should provide a clear explanation for how I can evaluate the theory flow through their own framework. Don't just say "judge intervention is inevitable so intervene for us."

I enjoy theoretical debate and do not outright disregard most theory. I understand that reading theory for a time trade off is a part of sound debate strategy and it does not bother me. That said, I find theoretical arguments regarding when affirmative plans are read and when sheets of paper are handed to the other team to be asinine, arbitrary, and incredibly unenjoyable to judge. Ive voted on these arguments before, but always reluctantly.

My own views on theoretical issues are largely irrelevant since I try to bracket them out from the round, but for full transparency: I think conditionality is good, pics are good, actor counterplans are good, the affirmative should defend the topic, and the affirmative does not need to specify beyond normal means.

Non-topical Affirmatives: While I personally prefer and enjoy topical debate, most the rounds I judge feature non-topical affirmatives and I am comfortable assessing these affirmatives. Upon reviewing my voting record, Ive realized that I have a high tendency to vote on topicality in instances that the affirmative totally rejects the topic. This might be worth keeping in mind. I try to keep my personal biases out, but the actual numbers of my voting record indicate that I lean towards the negative when the affirmative rejects the topic. That said, affirmative teams that reject the topic are most likely to get my ballot if they have a strong and competitive counter-interpretation ready to go, and if they are able to frame fairness impacts out of the round.

Critical Debate: I studied continental philosophy in both undergrad and grad school. In terms of familiarity with literature, this is my strong point. That said, I still require critical oriented teams to explain thesis level claims of their criticism. My understanding of critical literature is strongest when the relevant literature relates to marxism, psychoanalysis, structuralism, theories of race. My understanding of post-structural theory is more limited. This is relevant because most Baudrillard and Deleuze critiques I have judged have assumed a higher level of familiarity with the literature than I actually had. I do not feel comfortable voting for a critique which I cannot explain back during an RFD, so if your criticism is particularly esoteric, I would appreciate thesis level explanation.

Disadvantage/Advantage Debate: This is honestly my favorite form of debate to judge. When it is well executed it can provide some of the most in depth clash of any type of debate. I personally enjoy disadvantages that many might consider somewhat generic such as politics, business confidence, or hegemony. As long as there is a solid link to the affirmative, the generic nature of these positions shouldn't be an issue. In terms of topical affirmative construction, I'm fine with pretty much anything. I've found myself voting on topical dedev, spark, and wipe-out many times, and I will evaluate these arguments as seriously as any other argument.

Counterplans/Alternatives/Perms: I believe that counterplans are opportunity costs to the affirmative. This means that they must either be functionally competitive or compete through net benefits via disadvantage links or some other form of independent offense. I must confess that I have never had a clear grip on what "textual competition" is so arguing net benefits differential or functional competition in front of me is your best bet.

In terms of alternatives, I have no particularly strong preferences here, but unless a criticism is coming from a specifically nihilistic or pessimistic perspective, I find that alternatives which propose some sort of positive program or outlook instead of merely rejecting the affirmative are most compelling.

I think that permutations are tests of competition. When the affirmative reads a permutation, the affirmative advocacy does not suddenly shift to the affirmative + the alternative/counterplan. Permutations are simply a way of testing whether or not the negative advocacy is an opportunity cost to the affirmative. As such, I find "perm shields the links" arguments to be fairly asinine, and I also find arguments that the permutation is the affirmative co-opting the negatives method to be equally asinine. Permutations do not mean the affirmative changes, they just test competition.

In general I do not feel like affirmatives by default need to read a perm text that includes the exact text of the plan or the alternative/counterplan. "Perm do both" or "perm: do the affirmative and all non-competitive parts of the alternative" are sufficient unless a clear theoretical argument is raised in the debate for why further textual specificity is needed.

On a more theoretical level, I need negative teams to tell me why intrinsic perms or severance perms are bad. You should not simply point out that a permutation is theoretically illegitimate, you should explain why by providing theoretical offense. You should also explicitly tell me if this offense means I reject the permutation or reject the affirmative.

Miscellaneous:

In general I feel like terminal defense is underutilized in debate. I find that inevitability claims on the uniqueness level of a debate can reframe the offense in a round and are usually underutilized.

I am willing to vote on presumption if a compelling case is made for such a vote.

I think most framework debate ultimately focuses too much on excluding the other team. In an ideal debate round, I think teams should simply be winning access to their own impacts and then trying to outweigh their opponents. Framework is just framing, you dont need to win every argument on the framework level of the debate to win the round, you just have to win impact access and then win on the impact level.

I find points of order somewhat annoying. I will be protecting from new arguments throughout rebuttals. If you really need to me to flag an argument feel free to call a point of order, but dont be excessive.

NPDA rules do not provide an explicit framework for the resolution of a point of personal privilege. As such, I would prefer they not be called except in dire circumstances where the round absolutely must come to a stop.

---

Andrea Brown - St. Mary's

Parli update for outrounds Open only:

In outrounds, I'm not going to call slow unless asked. If you ask, I will only slow you down once for each speaker unless you specifically ask that I call slow as needed.

Parli

LD Philosophy:

Open specific:

I don't do well with speed over the internet. Your tags and cites need to be read at a slow pace. You can go as fast as you want in your cards but everything else needs to be at least three steps below your normal pace.

I've been out of LD for a while now and am not familiar with the current norms. I will try to go with whatever norms you want although that's always debateable.. If you're going to argue I have to vote on the rules, I would prefer that you give a reason why I should care about rules but I'll vote on it unless the other side argues that differently.

If there's something I missed because of my internet or yours, I will try to let you know at the end of that speech. If there's a preferred norm to handle this, let me know before the round starts when both you are your competitor are present.

Only the bottom paragraph of my parli philosophy applies to LD.

Novices: Assuming you're not super-fast, you'll be fine.

Parli Philosophy

Important: If you want me to prioritize truth over tech, please say this in the first speech. I will listen to arguments against truth over tech, but I will analyze them through a truth framework.

Speed and decision making:

Online debate has killed my interest/energy for speed. In person and online, I'll call slow until you get down to a speed that I'm willing to handle. I'm also cool with speed Ks. I will tank your speaks threshold if you don't slow down for a team that calls slow. In the MO/LOR/PMR you need go at least two steps slower than your top speed and pick the arguments that matter. Stop extending everything. I start my round analysis with the team that has the conceptually clearer rebuttal, see if I think they've won the arguments they claim they have, and then go through the other team's rebuttal. If you don't funnel your arguments through the role of the ballot, I might do that for you, and I've voted teams down for losing under their own role of the ballot.

Random stuff:

I don't need proven abuse to vote on theory but in a close framework debate, I tend to lean towards justice over fairness. I'm usually a flow judge (offense over defense warrants over none) but if that's a bad way of evaluating your arguments, I'm happy to switch to something else just walk me through what you want me to do. I will keep flowing because if I don't, I will forget your arguments/performance/whatever. Love Ks with the exception of some authors (I used to list the authors I didn't like but you doing you is more important than my preferences so that's gone). I've never voted for presumption and if you go for presumption, you're probably already losing. If you tell me to gut check my arguments, I will and my gut will tell me I'm hungry. If you tell me to use my intuition, I will but I will not confine my intuition to one argument so be prepared for those consequences. I fundamentally don't believe contradictions are a thing for the K perm so if you're neg, you need DA(s) to the perm not reasons why it won't work. I'm working on protecting in the rebuttals but only for very big things, if you think it's small but key, call the point of order. Frankly, I would prefer if you didn't trust me and just called it. At the end of a debate day, I am usually exhausted so my capacity to put my decision into words goes way down. If that's you, I'm sorry and you can catch me later and ask me to explain better if you want.

IPDA

My version of adapting to this format is to not flow it. In theory, I might remember big stuff but not minute, flow specific stuff. But in reality, just assume I have a terrible memory. Other than that, I'm not familur enough with the norms of this style to have anything specific to say. You do you.

Will vote you down over (all formats):

I saw something in lila lavender's philosophy and really liked it so I'm adding a version of it. I reserve the right to vote you down for being overtly oppressive. This means if you say racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, Islamophobic, etc stuff, I reserve the right to vote you down. If you do any of those things directly to your competition, I definitely reserve the right to vote you down. However, there's a chance if a competitor does this in a way that outsiders might not realize is violent, non-verbally, or during crosstalk, I won't catch/process it happening during the round so if this is happening in-round, I prefer you pointing that out.

---

Baker Weilert - Whitman

I re-wrote this paradigm because I realized that my previous one was rather generic, and people likely assume I dont know anything because I debated in Arkansas. Take what you will from the comments below, and dont hesitate to ask for clarification.

Pronouns:

He/Him/His

Positions:

Procedurals/Theory: I am a big fan T/Specs/Theory type arguments, but rarely see teams collapsing to these positions (which I think is a necessary strategic decision to win these types of arguments in front of me). As for types of specs Im less/more sympathetic to: I dont find over-spec or under-spec particularly compelling arguments, although I am willing to listen/vote on them. I do really like topicality (as long as you arent running 5 of them and simply just cross-applying the standards and voters without new articulation of how those standards/voters function in conjunction with your different interpretations). I also think that conditionality is a great/true argument, but only in particular scenarios. I am far more sympathetic to conditionality arguments if there are multiple advocacies that cause the affirmative to double-turn themselves (meaning dont run condo just to run condo, run it because you think there is actually a strategic advantage being leveraged by the other team). I prefer articulated abuse, although I will vote on potential abuse, and I default competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

Kritik: I am fine with critical debate on either side of the resolution, although I prefer the K Aff to be rooted in the substance of the resolutions, that being said, I will listen to any justification as to why you should have access to non-topical versions of the affirmative. The framework should be informed by your methodology (meaning your framework should not just function as a way of excluding other positions, but actually inform how to evaluate your advocacy), your links contextualized to your indictments (some generics are fine, but it should include a breakdown of how the other teams position/mindset perpetuates the system), and an alternative that can actually resolve the harms of the K (meaning there needs to be very clear solvency that articulates how the alternative solves/functions in the real world). I dont think rejection alts get us anywhere in the debate space, unless it is rejection on word choice/language (in which case I think those grievances are better articulated in the form of a procedural) or you clearly explain what that rejection looks like (in which case you should probably just use that explanation as your alternative in the first place). Permutation of the K alternative is perfectly fine, but I think on critical debates I need substantially more work on how the perm functions (especially in a world where the links havent been resolved). I am rather familiar with most of the K literature bases, but still think it is important for debaters to do the work of explaining the method/functionality of the K, and not rely on my previous knowledge of the literature base.

Disadvantages: I like a good DA/CP strategy, with a couple of caveats. The first is that the disadvantage needs to have specific links to the affirmative (generics just dont do it for me), I am far more likely to vote on a unique disadvantage with smaller impacts, than a generic disadvantage with high magnitude impacts (although I will obviously weigh high magnitude impacts if you are winning probability). I have a rather high threshold for politics disadvantages, but if you can tell me which senator/representative will vote for which policy and why, I am far more likely to buy into the scenario (specifics are your friend on ptix).

Counter-Plans: I am fine with almost all types of counterplans (+1, pics, timeframe, etc.) but think they often need to be accompanied by theory arguments justifying their strategic legitimacy. I also think that mutual exclusivity competitiveness should always be preferred over simply having a net benefit/disadvantage that makes the position functionally competitive. I am fine with all types of permutations with justification (again often needs to be accompanied by theory). My threshold on perms are sometimes low, but I think that is because they are often under-covered, so knowing that you should be spending a great deal of time answering/going for the permutation if you want to win/not lose there.

General Notes:

1. Status of arguments: It is your responsibility to ask, and for the other team to answer (dont give them the run-around, and if you arent sure just say dispo).

2. ALL Text/ROB/Thesis should be read twice, and made available for the other team.

3. The order you give at the beginning of your speech is actually important. I flow exclusively on paper, so switching between sheets/having them in the correct order helps me follow along. I completely understand that you have to switch up the flow mid speech sometimes, but you need to clearly signpost where you are (especially if you deviate from the order given).

4. Speed: You can go as fast as you want in front of me, that being said, Im not sure if going fast for the sake of going fast is always the best strategic choice, as your word count probably isnt much higher even if you think you sound faster.

5. I will listen to literally any argument (heady, aliens, personal narrative of a farmer from Wisconsin), doesnt really matter to me, but please dont put me in a situation in which I have to evaluate/endorse advocacies of mass death of people (like genocide good). Also, as far as identity politics go (this maybe should have gone in the K section) I think that debate is a great platform to talk about your own person experiences, but I think its important to note that oppression is often intersectional and is articulated/experienced in different ways. I think forced disclosure of experience/identity in order to interact with your position can be potentially harmful to others, and trigger warnings only work if you give people time to exit the room.

6. DO NOT BE MEAN, I will tank speaks. Totally fine to being witty, and slightly confrontational, but avoid personal attacks, I would much rather listen to you actually debate. Overall I believe debate is a creative space, so feel free to run literally anything you want.

Experience:

4 years policy debate in Kansas, 4 years parliamentary debate at Louisiana Tech University, and Arkansas State University. 2 years Assistant Debate Coach at Arkansas State University. Currently Assistant Director of Debate at Whitman College.

---

Beth Graham - McK

I participated in debate for four years with McKendree University.  I believe debate is what you make of it. I enjoy most arguments and do not mind critical debate. I also will listen to performance-based arguments.  If you are going to read an argument try to have warrants. In terms of speed or talking style, debaters should use whatever speed, volume, or style that they are comfortable with.  I will clear if I cannot understand the debater.

 With topicality in-round abuse is helpful but not necessary. In addition, competing interpretations are preferred unless you can show that you meet the other team's interpretation. With counter plans PICS bad is an argument that you can make and win. I tend to believe that counter-plans are conditional unless specified otherwise. Perms should be made on a counter-plan and be ready to support why your perm is preferable.

Order of evaluation I use to make decisions tends to be to look at procedural issues, kritik, and then cost-benefit analysis.

Please explicitly weight your arguments. If I must weight impacts myself, I prefer probable impacts to large extinction level events. 

---

Brent Nicholson - McK

I am a Debate Coach at McKendree University. We compete primarily in the NPDA and NFA-LD formats of debate. We also host and assist with local high school teams, who focus on NSDA-LD and PF.

Email: banicholsonATmckendreeDOTedu

I have sections dedicated to each format of debate I typically judge and you should read those if you have time. If you dont have time, read the TLDR and ask your specific questions before the round. If you do a format of debate I dont have a section for, read as much as you can and ask as many questions as you want before the round.

TLDR

My goal as a judge is to adapt to the round that debaters have. I do not expect debaters to adapt to me. Instead, I want you to do what you want to do. I try to be a judge that debaters can use as a sounding board for new arguments or different arguments. I feel capable judging pretty much any kind of debate and Ill always do my best to render a fair decision that is representative of the arguments Ive seen in the round. If I am on a panel, feel free to adapt to other judges. I understand that you need to win the majority, not just me, and Im never going to punish you for that. Do what wins the panel and Ill come along for the ride.

I view debate as a game. But I believe games are an important part of our lives and they have real impacts on the people who play them and the contexts they are played in. Games also reflect our world and relationships to it. Debate is not a pro sport. It is not all about winning. Your round should be fun, educational, and equitable for everyone involved. My favorite thing to see in a debate round is people who are passionate about their positions. If you play hard and do your best, I'm going to appreciate you for that.

The quick hits of things I believe that you might want to know before the round:

1.Specificity wins. Most of the time, the debater with the more well-articulated position wins the debate. Get into the details and make comparisons.

2.I like debaters who seek out clash instead of trying to avoid it. Do the hard work and you will be rewarded.

3.I assume negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. I think conditionally is good. Anything more than two advocacies is probably too much. Two is almost always fine. One conditional advocacy is not at all objectionable to me. Format specific notes below.

4.I love topicality debates. I tend to dislike 1NC theory other than topicality and framework. 2AC theory doesnt appeal to me most of the time, but it is an important check against negative flex, so use it as needed.

5.I dont exclude impact weighing based on sequencing. Sequencing arguments are often a good reason to preference a type of impact, but not to exclude other impacts, so make sure to account for the impacts you attempt to frame out.

6.I will vote on presumption. Debate is an asymmetrical game, and the negative does not have to win offense to win the round. However, I want negative debaters to articulate their presumption triggers for me, not assume I will do the work for them.

7.I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts because that feels least interventionist.

8.Give your opponents arguments the benefit of the doubt. Theyre probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning.

9.Debates should be accessible. If your opponent (or a judge) asks you to slow down, slow down. Be able to explain your arguments. Be kind. Debate should be a fun learning experience for everyone.

10.In evidence formats, you should be prepared to share that evidence with everyone during the round via speechdrop, email chain, or flash drive.

11.All debate is performative. How you choose to perform matters and is part of the arguments you make. That often doesnt come up, but it can. Dont say hateful things or be rude. I will dock speaker points accordingly.

General

This philosophy is very expansive. That is because I want you to be able to adapt to me as much as you want to adapt. To be totally honest, you can probably just debate how you want and it will be fine I really do want you to do you in rounds. But I also want you to know who I am and how I think about debate so that you can convince me.

Everything is up for debate. For every position I hold about debate, it seems someone has found a corner case. I try to be clear and to stick to my philosophys guidelines as much as possible as a judge. Sometimes, a debater changes how I see debate. Those debaters get very good speaker points. (Speaking of which, my speaker points center around a 28.1 as the average, using tenth points whenever possible).

I flow on a laptop most of the time now. Flowing on paper hurts my hand in faster rounds. If Im flowing on paper for some reason, I might ask you to slow down so that I can flow the debate more accurately. If I dont ask you to slow down, youre fine dont worry about it. I dont number arguments as I flow, so dont expect me to know what your 2b point was without briefly referencing the argument. You should be doing this as part of your extensions anyway.

One specific note about my flowing that I have found impacts my decisions compared to other judges on panels is that I do not believe the pages of a debate are separate. I view rounds holistically and the flow as a representation of the whole. If arguments on separate pages interact with each other, I do not need explicit cross-applications to understand that. For instance, MAD checks on one page of the debate answers generic nuke war on every page of the debate. That work should ideally be done by debaters, but it has come up in RFDs in the past, so I feel required to mention it.

In theory debates, Ive noticed some judges want a counter-interpretation regardless of the rest of the answers. If the strategy in answering theory is impact turns, I do not see a need for a counter-interp most of the time. In a pure, condo bad v condo good debate, for instance, my presumption is condo, so the negative can just read impact turns and impact defense and win against a no condo interp. Basically, if the aff says you cant do that because it is bad and the neg says it is not bad and, in fact, is good I do not think the neg should have to say yes, I can do that (because they already did it). The counter-interp can still help in these debates, as you can use it to frame out some offense, by creating a lower threshold that you still meet (think some condo interps instead of all condo).

I look to texts of interps over spirit of interps. I have rarely seen spirit of the interp clarified in the 1NC and it is often used to pivot the interp away from aff answers or to cover for a bad text. If you contextualize your interp early and then stick to that, that is fine. But dont use spirit of the interp to dodge the 2AC answers.

I start the round with the assumption that theory is a prior question to other evaluations. I will weigh theory then substance unless someone wins an argument to the contrary. Critical affs do not preclude theory in my mind unless a debater wins a compelling reason that it should. I default to evaluating critical arguments in the same layer as the rest of the substantive debate. I am compelled by arguments that procedural issues are a question of judging process (that non-topical affs skew my evaluation of the substance debate or multi-condo skews the speech that answers it, for instance). I am unlikely to let affirmative teams weigh their aff against theory objections to that aff without some good justifications for that.

A topicality interpretation should allow some aff ground. If there is not a topical aff and the aff team points that out, I'm unlikely to vote neg on T. That means you should read a TVA if youre neg (do this anyway). I am open to sketchier T interps if they make sense. For instance, if you say that a phrase in the res means the aff must be effectually topical, I can see myself voting for this argument. Keep in mind, however, that these arguments run the risk of your opponent answering them well and you gaining nothing.

NPDA

Im going to start with the biggest change in my NPDA philosophy. Debates need to slow down. I still think speed is good. If all the debaters are fine with speed, I still like fast debate and want to see throwdowns at top speed. However, analytics with no speech docs are brutal to flow. Too many warrants get dropped. While we have laundry lists of arguments, they are often not dealt with in depth because theyre just hard to keep track of and account for. Our best NPDA debaters could debate at about 80% of their top speeds and maintain argumentative depth through improved efficiency and increased focus on the core issues of rounds, while still making the complex and nuanced arguments we want and getting more of them on each others flows and into each others speeches. Seek out clash!

NPDA is a strange beast. Without carded evidence, uniqueness debates and author says X/no they say Y can be messy. That just means you need to explain a way you want me to evaluate them and, ultimately, why I should believe your interpretation of that authors position or the argument youve made. In yes/no uniqueness questions, explain why you believe yes, not just that someone else does. That means explaining the study or the article reasoning that youre leaning on and applying it to the specifics of the debate. Sometimes it just means you need an even if argument to hedge your bets if you lose those issues. I try to let these things be resolved in round, but sometimes I have to make a judgment call and Ill do my best to refer only to my flow when that happens. But remember, the evidence alone doesnt win evidence debates the warrants and reasoning do the heavy lifting.

Arguments in parliamentary debate require more reasoning and support because there is no printed evidence available to rely on. That means you should not just yoink the taglines out of a file someone open-sourced. You should explain the arguments as they are explained in the texts those files are cut from. Use your own words to make the novel connections to the rounds were in and the topics we discuss. This is a beautiful thing when it happens, and those rounds show the promise that parli has as a productive academic endeavor. We dont just rely on someone else saying it we can make our own arguments and apply what others have said to new scenarios. So, lets do that!

Affirmative teams must affirm the resolution. How you do that is up to you. The resolution should be a springboard for many conversations, but criticizing the res is not a reason to vote affirmative. You can read policy affs, value affs, performance affs, critical affs, and any other aff you can think of as long as it affirms the res. Affs should include an interpretation of the resolution and a weighing mechanism to determine if youve met this burden. That is not often necessary in policy affs (because it happens contextually), but sometimes it helps to clarify. I am not asking the aff to roleplay as oppressors or to abdicate their power to pose questions. Instead, I want the aff team to reframe questions if necessary and to contextualize their offense to the resolution.

Negative teams must answer the affirmative. How you do that is up to you. You should make sure I know what your objections to the aff strategy are and why they are voting issues. That can be T, DAs, Ks, performances, whatever (except spec*). I vote on presumption more than most judges in NPDA. The aff must win offense and affs dont always do that. I think risk of solvency only applies if I know what Im risking. I must be able to understand and explain what an aff does on my ballot to run that risk on their behalf. With all that said, articulate presumption triggers for me. When you extend defense in the MO, explain thats a presumption trigger because.

I can buy arguments that presumption flips aff in counter-advocacy debates, but I dont see that contextualized well and is often just a risk of solvency type claim in the PMR. This argument is most compelling to me in PIC debates, since the aff often gets less (or none) of their 1AC offense to leverage. Absent a specific contextualization about why presumption flips aff in this round (bigger change, PIC, etc.), I tend to err neg on this question, though it rarely comes up.

*On spec: Spec shells must include a clear brightline for a we meet so aff must specify the branch (judicial, legislative, executive) is fine. Spec shells often only serve to protect weak link arguments (which should be improved, rather than shielded by spec) or to create time tradeoffs. They are sometimes useful and good arguments, but that scenario is rare. In the few cases where spec is necessary, ask a question in flex. If that doesnt work, read spec.

Condo: 1 K, 1 CP, and the squo is fine to me. Two Ks is a mess. Two CPs just muddles the case debate and is worse in NPDA because we lack backside rebuttals. Contradictory positions are fine with me (procedurally, at least). MGs should think ahead more and force bad collapses in these debates. Kicking the alt doesnt necessarily make offense on the link/impact of a K go away (though it often does). I am open to judge kicking if the neg describes and justifies an exact set of parameters under which I judge kick. I reserve the right to not judge kick based on my own perception of these arguments. So probably dont try to get me to judge kick, honestly.

I don't think reasonability (as it is frequently explained) is a good weighing mechanism for parli debates. It seems absurd that I should be concerned about the outcomes of future debates with this topic when there will be none or very few and far between.At topic area tournaments, I am more likely to vote on specific topicality. That does not mean that you can't be untopical, it just means you need good answers. Reasonability makes more sense to me at a tournament that repeats resolutions (like NPTE).

---

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

TLDR:

Do what you want and make the debate space fun and educational. Don't be petty. Don't lie. Don't abuse flex time.  

BG:

I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and I have been coaching parli for El Camino since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round. 

Impacts:

You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate. 

Case Debate:

I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well. 

Disadvantages:

Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability. 

Counterplans:

Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea. 

Conditionality:

I am not a fan of multiple conditional advocacies but you can read them if you want. In general, I prefer unconditional advocacies and have no problem voting on condo bad. However, if you win the condo debate I will still vote for you and wont punish you for it. 

Kritiks:

I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than they used the state.¢? I am not saying this cant be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I dont like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should. 

Identity Arguments:

With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual. 

Theory:

I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! Dont just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win. 

Speed

Speed is fine but please be clear. I dont see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments. 

Defending the Topic:

Whether or not you choose to defend the topic is up to you. I think you should provide substantial justifications for why you should be required to defend the topic. I will not drop a team for choosing not defend the topics, as I feel the debate space is yours to decide how to manage. However, I believe there are valid arguments to be made why defending the topic is important and how abandoning the topic can be bad. I find it best when negative teams engage with the affirmative in addition to justifying why they should defend the topic. I have both voted for and against teams on framework as well. You really just need to win the argument. 

Speaker Points:

If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. I tend to believe speaker points are arbitrary and tend to awards speaker points on the higher side. That being said, I reserve the right to punish teams for egregious behavior by deducting speaks.

Miscellaneous:

Be organized and sign post. Dont assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round. 

As flex time has been introduced, I am not particularly receptive to you asking for a copy of every interp, plan, ROB, etc. during speeches. This also means that you don't get to wait to start your flex until you get copies of whatever you want a copy of. Your flex starts immediately after the previous speech. I also don't think it is a particularly strong theoretical argument to claim that you should be handed these texts during the speech. This is parli not policy and you should be flowing these things. That is not to say I will not vote on theory that claims you should be granted these luxuries, but I believe making case arguments are a much better use of your time. 

I also don't really believe in RVIs especially on theory. 

---

Casandra Malcolm - Mercer

Substance:

Generally, I tend to vote up a few good arguments over a lot of mediocre ones, so try to focus on the points you think are good rather than spreading 50 arguments to try and trick the other team into dropping something.

In terms of K debates, I love them, I ran performance Ks for 4 years, but I have seen a lot of bad ones. I still require clear impacts and solvency mechanisms; I try not to just vote for things that sound true or sound impressive. Also, while I've read theory, I may not have read your theory specifically, so try to explain your theoretical basis well. If I don't get why you're doing something, it's gonna be hard to vote you up.

In a traditional policy debate round, I like to see very clear impacts, solvency mechanisms and weighing at the end of the round. I've always said "The less I have to think the better off you'll be". Make things clear, and tell me why you should win. I hate having to do your job for you after the round has ended.

Theory arguments, especially T, are obviously something I'll vote for if they're argued well, but I think are generally easy to win on if the other team is good, especially the generic ones. If your T is "they didn't give a policy plan text" with no other explanation I can't imagine voting it up if the other team is at all competent. If you're a pure theory team that tries to win on technicalities, I'm probably not the judge for you, although I've seen some very interesting T's in my time.

I try to be as "tabula rasa" as possible, but there are certain things I would be hard pressed to vote for. If you're trying to convince me "genocide good actually" or something like that, it's probably not going to work. I can't see myself voting up oppression good arguments because you had a witty framework. if you're trying to be edgy to catch people off guard, I'm probably not the judge for you.

Style:

I don't like spreading but I can generally understand it as long as your annunciation is good. Again, I'm more likely to vote up a team that can defend three good arguments than a team that tries not to have to defend 50 arguments, so spreading will likely hurt you anyway. I will certainly remove speaker points for those who cannot condense their points to a reasonable speed.

In partner interactions, I don't mind you talking, but if I hear the team not currently speaking over the team that is I will count that against you in speaker points. You can speak to your partner during their speech, but try not to speak over them--I only flow what the person speaking says. I prefer paper passing but I understand that can be hard to do in a stressful round. Don't get excessive with partner speak and I'm all good.

If you have any other questions my email is ccapy1297@gmail.com " and I'll totally answer them. If you'd rather ask before the round starts, that's cool too as long as it's not excessive.

---

Chris Miles - U of M

Mid-season change for NPDA/NPTE I am really annoyed by the amount of theory arguments that I have been judging. I will be massively increasing my threshold on these arguments and will generally default to reasonability for most arguments besides topicality. I will also probably cap your speaker points at like 27.

TOO LONG DIDNâT READ: You do you. If you bring me chai I will give block 30âs. If you have questions then ask me.

I am a former debater for FOHS, KCKCC, and Missouri Western State University. I have been involved in HS policy, NPDA/NPTE, and CEDA/NDT for 10 years. I debated many styles. People never read these, but here is a tldr.

The K if itâs your thing then do it. I donât care that much about FW in the LOC/1NC. Have overviews and link package. I hate R.O.B comes first claims. Explain things to me.

Theory Slow down for the interp. Proven abuse is better. Simple interps are good. Multiple violations bad. If reading multiple theory positions put them on different sheets. read standards and voters.

Topicality (see above) I prefer pseudo topical to not topical.

DA/ CP Read them. Good advantage cpâs are nice.

Perms are test of competition. I think external net-benefits to permutations are the worst, donât do them. read 1 and explain it. I treat them like text, so I prefer you slow down and read them twice.

Offense vs. Defense Read both. Will vote on terminal defense.

Affâs have one. donât say try or die 200 times. read internal link arguments. Be inherent. Be consistent.

Method/Performance I like knowing what the method is to a performance argument is and think that both are equally important and should be defended. I think that these arguments in general should have a method that is helpful for more than just the reader.

---

Cory Freivogel - McK

Hi! My name is Cory Freivogel. I did four years of policy debate in high school in the Chicago area. After that, I spent four years doing Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate at McKendree University. Im currently the assistant coach there.

I will preface this philosophy in the way that most people do - I think you should debate however you debate best in front of me. That being said, I obviously have certain biases and I think you should be familiar with them.

Some general notes?¦.

1. I think debate is first and foremost a game. I think you should do whatever it takes to win that game, and I respect people who play the game with a lot of heart and lot of intensity.

2. I like people who do work. This doesnt mean that I wont vote for lazy, trite strategies - I have no problem doing that. It just means I respect people who put in extra effort to develop or update sweet arguments.

3. I like people that talk pretty. I certainly dont think you should ever sacrifice strategy and execution for eloquence, but if you can give a smart speech thats funny and engaging it will bode well for you. Also, dont try to be funny if youre not.

4. Dont dismiss defensive arguments. Of course I think you should be making a wide variety of offensive arguments, but do not assume youll be fine by saying that 9 smart, defensive answers to your affirmative are just defense.

DISADVANTAGES

I like these arguments a lot. Running well-researched disadvantages with a diverse set of link arguments and huge probable impacts is the easiest way into my heart. Generic disadvantages like politics, business confidence, etc. are fine as well so long as theyre specifically tailored to the affirmative and properly executed.

Similarly, I think smart negatives (and affirmatives as well) will do a great deal of work comparing impacts. If you do not do this I will make my own determination about the probability and magnitude of a disadvantages impact. I am also probably more concerned about probability than some other judges may be. I am not often impressed by massive impacts that are highly improbable and under-explained. Phrases like even a 1% risk of our impact outweighs the entire risk of the aff? are typically code for our impact is absurd and our disadvantage barely links.?

COUNTER PLANS

These arguments are sweet as well. I typically err negative on arguments like PICs bad, conditionality bad, etc. I will vote on these arguments, but it will be an uphill battle. The argument that I should reject the argument rather than the team is usually a winner. I think condition, consultation and other silly process counter plans are of questionable legitimacy and I can definitely be more persuaded to drop teams on theory if theyre extending these arguments. That being said I like counter plans of all shapes and sizes and think that if you arent reading one or straight turning the affirmative, then youre probably in trouble.

KRITIKS

I am not as hostile to these arguments as most people probably think I am. I am, however, probably as unlikely to understand these arguments as most people think I am. I have not and probably will not ever read any traditional or post-modern philosophy unless someone requires me to do so. Im not trying to dog on anyone that does, but its just not my thang. This is mainly meant as a word of caution. If you run the kritik I will listen, flow and do my best to make a fair decision. But, I am not the best critic for you. If you somehow find me in the back of the room and you have nothing but your criticism, it will serve you well to slow down and eliminate all the jargon you imagine I may be familiar with.

That being said, if youre an affirmative answering these arguments do not assume I will let you get away with answering kritiks poorly. If you mischaracterize the criticism, concede framework arguments, or rely on defense then Ill probably notice and youll lose.

TOPICALITY

I like good topicality debates a lot. If you are affirmative, then you need to meet the interpretation or you need a counter interpretation. Absent one of those things, you will probably lose. If you are going for or answering topicality you should be comparing standards and voting issues in the same way that you compare impacts. If you do not compare standards, it will make it very difficult for me to make a good decision and it will be bad for everyone. I am also more persuaded by arguments about ground than limits. I could care less if your interpretation explodes the topic? given that the topic will only exist once and you dont have to do any research in the future.

ASPEC / OSPEC / FSPEC / BILL NUMBER SPEC / COMMITTEE ORIGINATION SPEC / BLAH BLAH SPEC?¦.

These arguments are really not my cup of tea. This is mostly because I dont like giant pieces of shit in my tea. I understand the strategic utility of introducing these arguments in the LOC, but I cannot understand why one would choose to extend them in the MO unless there was some incredible example of abuse. It is difficult for me to imagine giving any higher than a 27 to even the most persuasive extension of a generic specification argument.

THE CASE

People forget about the case all the time. That makes me sad because I love a good case debate. If youre the LOC and you dont have an incredible counter plan, then you should be putting a lot of offense on the case. Similarly, the MG should be extending and utilizing the case throughout his or her speech. It frustrates me to no end when affirmative teams assume they can entirely ignore the case until the PMR when it suddenly becomes the focus of the debate. Personally, I think you should have to extend the affirmative throughout the debate.

POINTS OF ORDER

I keep a pretty decent flow and think I can detect new arguments on my own. That being said, they are allowed by the rules and if you think there is a particularly egregious example of an abusive new argument feel free to call it. However, if I know an argument is new I will protect the opposite team regardless of whether or not you say it's new. If you call a bunch of unnecessary points of order on teams just to disrupt their speech or be funny or whatever I will be very unhappy. I hated when teams did that when I debated and I imagine I will hate it even more as a judge. Don't do it.

POINTS OF INFORMATION

I think as a general rule you should probably accept two of these per speech. I could pretty easily be persuaded to pull the trigger on a "they didn't take any questions" type of procedural. Also, no means no. If someone won't take your question don't yell that question or jump around waving your hands like an idiot or yelling "Please!! Just one!!" The only exceptions to this are in instances when you need to know the status of a counterplan or to have a text repeated / handed to you. I don't think you should have to raise your hand to ask for those things. Maybe there is no legitimate justification for that, but that just happens to be what I think.

 

THE POLITICS DISADVANTAGE - I've become increasingly frustrated with the way politics debates are playing out. Arguments like "republicans like the plan" or "the plan costs political capital" are NOT arguments. These claims must be connected with a logical argument about why the plan is or is not consistent with the platform of either party or why it will be a tough fight in general. This can include relevant quotes, references to how similar policies were perceived, a clever explanation of how the plan will be spun, etc. Politics debates are contrived as is - no need to make them worse. PMR's will get a great deal of flexibility when responding to link arguments that are not explained until the block.

Please dont say something is at the top of the docket if it isnt. I think thumpers are a devastatingly effective MG response to obscure politics disadvantages. Choose your scenario wisely.

In addition, even when teams are making smart arguments about why individuals, lobbies, parties, etc. support or oppose the plan they are rarely making arguments about why those groups are important. The plan costs political capital. So what? Mitch McConnell likes the plan. Who cares? The agricultural lobby would backlash. How so? Why are they relevant? Teams NEED to explain why the groups that would support or oppose the plan are capable of meaningfully influencing political decision-making.

Id be pretty happy with a team that called out a poorly researched or illogical politics disadvantage even if that required making a number of?¦GASP?¦defensive arguments! In fact, Id be much more receptive to the clever dismantling of a weakass disadvantage than the lazy deployment of a bunch of equally illogical link turns.

THE KRITIK - I find myself voting negative in kritik debates all the time. This is partially because teams are reading more strategic criticisms and getting better at explaining them to simpletons like myself (SIU RS and Oregon BG are particularly adept at this). But, I think it is mostly because of the way that affirmatives answer the K.

In parli, I have watched team after team respond to kritiks line by line, never thinking about the utility of the arguments they are making. You dont need to (and will never be able to) adequately respond to all the different arguments contained within any kritik. So stop trying! It gets you nowhere. I have seen crafty kritik debaters effortlessly do away with countless affirmative arguments. This is because the MG was just answering things rather than making offensive, round-winning arguments. Take a second and think about whether what youre saying could win you the debate or keep you from losing it. If it cant, then dont waste your time. You must learn to identify the important stuff, answer it effectively, and execute a strategy of your own. Unless you do that, Ill probably vote negative.

RANDOM STUFF I flow kritiks on one sheet of paper. I flow MG answers top to bottom on that same sheet of paper. It is how I have always done it. Doing it otherwise messes up my flow and confuses me. If I am forced to separate all the components of a kritik I will do it. Just be warned, this only serves to screw up my organization in a type of debate where I'm already behind the curve. There is not "our framework" and "their framework" there is only framework. Have that debate in the same place.

I think that PICS on topics that require you to pass a single piece of legislation or defend some other massive, multi-faceted policy action are unfair. Theory interpretations which allow PICs sometimes but exclude them in specific instances are deadly in front of me. Conditionality is good.

I think it is awesome that so many debaters know so many things about biology, chemistry, space and other sciencey things. Unfortunately, I got a B- in Wildlife Ecology at a community college. Think about that when writing your moon density disad / synthetic H3 counterplan strat. I'm not an idiot, this just isn't a field that peaks my interests. In science debates slow the hell down and clearly explain things to me. Think of how you would debate if you had Than Hedman or Will Van Treuren in the back and then do the exact opposite of that.

Some things I love Clash of civilization debates, deep impact debates, topic specific disads, case debates, strategic concessions, taking risks, funny jokes, great speakers, good politics disads, LOR's that influence my decision, clever tricks, good research (ESPECIALLY at tournaments with topic areas), capitalizing on small mistakes, asking good questions, taking notes after a debate, movie references, going hard to the right, reg neg, sweetass affirmatives, good defense and most importantly an unwavering drive to win every debate you are in.

Some things I hate Racism, sexism, laziness, sloppy debates, whining, nonsense dehumanization? impacts, reading a bunch of bad link turns, bad jokes, ignoring good defense, consult counterplans, not doing research, not affirming the topic, constantly staking the round on things, points of order, relying on counter-intuitive strategies for no reason, ice age coming now, assuming no warrant? is an answer, not comparing impacts, the google test? standard, trying to win a no link? argument to the K, reading the plan and counterplan text together instead of saying do both? (and saying that do both is insufficient), and most importantly lying.

OTHER THINGS?¦

You can go as fast you like so long as youre clear. I went pretty quick when I debated and its unlikely that I wont be able to flow your speech. I do, however, think you should slow down when reading topicality arguments, procedurals and important texts (plans, alternatives, permutations, etc.). I like things to be specific which means copying down an accurate text is pretty important to me. If I cant I will let you know. Dress however you want. I honestly do not care what youre wearing or what you look like. Dont be an asshole. This doesnt mean you cant clown on other teams or debate intensely in important rounds (Id actually prefer that you did). What it does mean is that you probably shouldnt run up the score on or totally embarrass obviously weaker teams for no reason. It also means you shouldnt make racist / homophobic / sexist / whateverist comments.

Also, rights malthus makes sense to me. Take from that what you will.

I suppose thats it. Debate hard, debate smart, and have fun. If you have any further questions feel free to let me know

---

David Worth - RIce

David Worth – Rice

D.O.F., Rice University

Parli Judging Philosophy

Note: If you read nothing else in this, read the last paragraph.

I’ll judge based on given criteria/framework. I can think in more than one way. This means that the mechanisms for deciding the round are up for debate as far as I’m concerned. My decision is based mostly on how the debaters argue I should decide the round but I will intervene if the round demands it. There are many cases where this might be necessary: If asked to use my ballot politically for example, or if both sides fail to give me a clear mechanism for voting, or if I know something to factually incorrect (if someone is lying). In these cases, I try to stay out of the decision as much as I can but I don’t believe in the idea that any living person is really a blank slate or a sort of argument calculator.

I prefer debates that are related to the topic.

I will not vote for an argument that I don’t understand. If I can’t figure it out from what you’ve said in the round, I can’t vote on it.

I will admit that I am tired of debates that are mostly logic puzzles. I am tired of moving symbols around on paper. Alts and plan texts that are empty phrases don’t do it for me anymore. The novelty of postmodern critique that verges on--or actually takes the leap into--nihilism has worn off. I don’t think there’s much value anymore in affirming what we all know: That things can be deconstructed and that they contain contradictory concepts. It is time for us to move beyond this recognition into something else. Debate can be a game with meaning.

Warrants: I will not vote for assertions that don’t at least have some warrant behind them. You can’t say “algae blooms,” and assume I will fill in the internals and the subsequent impacts for you. You don’t get to just say that some counter-intuitive thing will happen. You need a reason that that lovely regionally based sustainable market will just magically appear after the conveniently bloodless collapse of capitalism. I’m not saying I won’t vote for that. I’m just saying you have to make an argument for why it would happen. NOTE: I need a good warrant for an "Independent Voting Issue" that isn't an implication of a longer argument, procedural, or somehow otherwise developed. Just throwing something in as a “voter” will not get the ballot. I reserve the right to gut-check these. If there is not warrant or if the warrant makes no sense to me, I won't vote on it.

Defense can win, too. That doesn’t mean that a weaker offensive argument with risk can’t outweigh defense, it simply means that just saying, “oh that’s just defense,” won’t make the argument go away for me. Debate is not football. There’s no presumption in the NFL, so that analogy is wrong.

You need to deal with all the line-by-line stuff but should not fail to frame things (do the big picture work) for me as well. It’s pretty rare that I vote on one response but it’s equally rare that I will vote on the most general level of the ideas. In a bind, I will vote for what’s easier to believe and/or more intuitive.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. There are days when I need you to slow down a tad. I have battled carpal/cubital tunnel off and on for a few years and sometimes my hand just does not work quite as well. I’ll tell you if you need to clear up and/or slow down, but not more than a couple of times. After that, it’s on you.

Please slow down for the alt texts, plans, advocacies, etc., and give me a copy too. If I don’t have it, I can’t vote for it.

Strong Viewpoints: I haven’t yet found "the" issue that I can’t try to see all sides of.

Points of Order: Call them—but judiciously. I’ll probably know whether the argument is new and not calling them does not change their status as new. Also, if you’re clearly winning bigtime don’t call a ridiculous number of them. Just let the other team get out of the round with some dignity. If you don’t, your speaker points will suffer. It’ll be obvious when I think you are calling too many.

If the round is obviously lopsided and you are obliterating the other team then be nice. I will lower your speaker points if you aren’t respectful or if you simply pile it on for the heck of it. If it’s egregious enough, you might even lose the debate.

You don’t need to repeat yourself just to fill time. If you’re finished, then sit down and get us all to lunch, the end of the day, or the next round early.

Theory: I’m not going to weigh in on the great theoretical controversies of the day. Those are up to you to demonstrate in the round. T can be more than one thing depending on the round. I’m not going to tell you what to do. Debate is always in flux. Actually, I’ve learned or at least been encouraged to think differently about theory issues from debaters in rounds far more often than from anyone else. If I had pontificated about The Truth As I Knew It before those rounds, the debaters would have simply argued what I said I liked and I wouldn’t have learned, so it’s in my interest as well as yours for me not to hand you a sushi menu with the items I’d like to see checked off. PICS, Framework, Competing Interp, in-round abuse, etc. are all interpretable in the debate. I will say that I probably most naturally think in terms of competing interpretations, but, again, I can think in more than one way.

My “Debate Background:” I did CEDA/NDT in college. I coached policy for years, and also coached parli from the days of metaphor all the way into the NPTE/NPDA modern era. I have also coached NFA-LD.

Finally, I ask that you consider that everyone in the room has sacrificed something to be there. A lot of resources, time, and effort went in to bringing us all there. Be sure to show some respect for that. I am serious about this and it has come to occupy a significant portion of my thinking about debate these days. In fact, I think it’s time for the in-round bullying to stop. I see too many rounds where one team’s strategy is simply to intimidate the other team. I find it strange that an activity that talks so much about the violence of language often does so in such a needlessly aggressive and violent manner. In some rounds every interaction is barbed. Flex/CX is often just needlessly aggressive and sometimes even useless (when, for example, someone simply refuses to answer questions or just keeps purposely avoiding the question when it’s obvious that they understand the question, opting instead for aggression sometimes verging on ad hominem). I see too many other rounds where everyone is just awful to each other, including the judges afterward. You can be intense and competitive without this. We are now a smaller circuit. It’s strange that we would choose to spend so much time together yet be so horrible to each other.

---

Eric Hamm - Lynn

I am a reformed policy debater.  I love theory but hate speed.  I believe that debate is a communication activity, and that speeding makes the activity inaccessible and less valuable.  That said, I am usually OK with critical positions run on the Aff or the Neg (though Aff K need to have substantial "role of the ballot" discussions).  Topicality, along with other procedurals, is always a fun position; I especially prefer good debate on the standards/reasons to prefer level.  Counterplans do not have to be non-topical (with theory to support), but mutual exclusivity is important to avoid a permutation, which usually does not have to be understood as advocacy (but this can be challenged).

The two areas, besides my distaste for speed, that might be understood as more conservative would be regarding the neutrality of political assumptions and my skepticism of performative advocacy cases.  I am open to political arguments from anywhere on the political spectrum.  I will not take as an assumption "Trump bad," nor the contrary "Trump good."  Defend these positions.  For performance, perhaps my skepticism comes from the fact that I haven't yet heard it run well.  Perhaps you can convert me.  Identity positions have a higher threshold to clear.

With value-based debate, I expect clear discussion of the value and criterion.  I enjoy getting into the philosophical weeds.  I am a philosophy professor who specializes in 19th and 20th century continental philosophy.  I also have an economics background, so feel free to get wonky.

---

Fiker Tesfaye - TTU

Please, I beg, read the things I write here.

I'm Fiker (pronounced like snicker). She/her/hers. I debated a bit in high school which is mostly unimportant, and then did four years (2015-2019) at Texas Tech University. I (and my partner) won the NRR and I won all 3 national top speaker awards in 2019. Now I judge and coach for TTU. So it goes.

I generally think debate is a game, but a useful and important one. It may not be "fiat" but it does influence the real world by how we exist inside of it. Let's not forget we're human beings. Read what you want, I certainly did. Speed isn't usually an issue but if we're blazing, let me know so I can use paper and not my laptop.

Things to keep in mind: I like to do as little work as possible when it comes to making decisions on the flow. Impact calculus is essential. however many warrants you have, double it. Don't be terrible. Don't be bigots. Condo is good, but don't test the limits. I don't really get presumption. Thought experiments aren't real. Jokes are fun. 9/10 the MG theory is not worth it.

Affs: Read them. K affs are fine (I'm a big fan) just make sure the things you say make sense and do something. Read case against them. Be clear.

DA/CP: Also read these. They need to be complete and fleshed out. Warrants are your best friend. CPs should come with written texts, imo. I would say I have a slightly higher than average threshold for CP theory.

Theory: I like this and my threshold is pretty equal if run well, but I needneedneed good structure. Interpretations are key, please slow down and repeat them. Now, I don't need several sheets of theory, MG theory, overly high-level theory, and certainly not MO and later theory. Keep it at home. Have voters. Defend them.

Ks: I love them, but I don't vote on nothing. Framework needs to be strong or it needs to not bog down the real parts of the argument. Links need to link..... please......Alt needs to make sense, repeat them twice for me, and if they're long, I'd like to be told in flex or given a copy. Even if I know your literature, I am not debating. Please do that work for me in round. Identity arguments are fine, do as you please just don't be offensive or overly satirical about real violence.

Have a debate. Live your life. Yee, and dare I say it, haw.

Its Black History Month. Adjust preferences accordingly.

---

Jackson De Vight - CUI

Background: I have been debating for 10 years. I started in high school with LD, policy, and parli, and did parli in SoCal for 4 years. I’m now a graduate coach at TTU.

 

General:

- PLEASE READ: I am hard of hearing and have wrist issues so please emphasize clarity and word economy over speed. I'll get to argument preferences later, but TBH just understand that I prefer depth and organization way more than speed. If you're one of the faster teams, go about 2/3s your full speed for maximum comprehension. I will clear and speed-check you, but if I drop my pen, that's the final signal that you've lost me. I vote on my flow so don’t lose my flowing.

 

- Read all plan texts, counterplan texts, advocacy texts, alternative text, and interp/role of the ballot arguments slowly, twice, and clearly.

 

- I don’t time speeches myself.

 

- I may want a copy of all texts, interps, and ROBs beyond specifically what I flow, so be prepared.

 

- Topical debates are by far my preferred mode.

 

- I generally dislike Condo, mostly because it's generally deployed pretty poorly. You can use it, but I'm pretty sympathetic to Condo Bad when warranted well.

 

- Ideologically I’m fairly open to most arguments but do realize that my social location and political perspective are probably irrevocably intertwined in the way I evaluate rounds. Like, I’m pretty moderate, so warranted arguments about the wonders of the free market or the necessity of social purging aren’t likely to do well in front of me if your opponent knows what they’re doing.

 

- For the K:

 

TL; DR: unless it’s a pretty well-structured criticism that links well and specifically, I’m probably just not the judge you want in the back of the room. Ultimately, I'm compelled to vote for well-warranted, smart arguments regardless of the form they take. Because of my experience/background, I'm less compelled out-of-hand by approaches that do not seek to engage the core of the topic (and that goes for aff and neg), but see previous sentence for how you should to debate in front of me. I want to hear your best arguments, and I'll vote on what's won.

 

Assume I don’t read your lit base. Most of my issues following those arguments have to do with the use of phrases I’m not familiar with. If you have me in the back of the room, consider simplifying the terminology and I should be fine. However, I am not the best critic for your arguments. I think about public policy frequently. This is less true for critical arguments. Also, if you go one off and 5 minutes of case and the one off is a disad, you’ll probably have my heart forever.

 

I very much believe that debate is a game that you are trying to win. Utilizing debate rounds as personal platform ventures into a realm I am deeply uncomfortable assessing. You are free to engage in debate in a manner you see fit, but realize that I likely do not possess the capacity to properly assess the role of personal history as part of a critical debate. You will do much better here if you have a solidly built framework and well articulate ROB.

 

* I cordially dislike almost every affirmative criticism that does not uphold the burden of the affirmative in relation to the resolution.

 

** For criticisms that utilize personal experience, please avoid using arguments about mental health issues or sexual violence.

 

*** Performance-oriented criticisms will need to do serious work to justify a performance as something I should vote on.

 

**** When I ran critical arguments, they were mostly economic, ablism, or ecological in nature.

 

Arguments: Overall, you’re going to get a lot more mileage from me by going for fewer, more well-articulated, and more warrant-heavy argumentation. As indicated above, speed is not your friend when I’m in the back of the room so just go for depth over breadth.

 

Counterplans: I prefer that you provide a copy for the other team. Make sure you have a written text. I like advantage counterplans, PICs, and actor counterplans. Consult less so, but I’m open to it. For the affirmative: I’m open to PICs bad but don’t default that way. Well utilized CP strats are beautiful.

 

Permutations: Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies. Multiple perms aren’t unfair, but they’re a little silly unless you explicate why you want more than one. I will not reject a permutation outright unless you give me a reason of why it shouldn’t be evaluated. HAVE A PERM TEXT

 

Theory: All theory positions should have an interpretation, a violation, standards, and voting issues. Please read your interpretations more than once. I am pretty willing to vote on well warranted theory arguments.

 

Topicality: My threshold for T is maybe lower than some. If you win your interpretation, violation, and your standards outweigh I will vote for you.

 

Speaker Points: Be smart and concise and your speaker points will range between 26-30. Utilization of racist, sexist, etc. rhetoric will sink your points pretty quick, as will parroting to your partner. Like, win the round, but don’t parrot if you can help it.

 

Voting/Rebuttals/POO: Have clear voting issues either through distinct voters, two world analysis, or some other format. YOU MUST DO IMPACT CALCULUS IF YOU WANT IT CONSIDERED. Call POOs if you hear them. I try to protect, but you should call them all the same.

Feel free to ask questions. I can give you my professional email if you’d like it. Debate is great.

---

Jessica Jung - Parli at Berkeley

Background:

My name is Jessica Jung. I won NPDA in 2018-2019 with my partner, Lila Lavender as a hybrid team (the first all transwomen national champion team yay!!) I also did NPDA Parli for four years in college for UC Berkeley where I competed on and off. I was mostly a kritikal debater personally but I dabbled in case and theory every so often. I generally believe that debate is a game and should be treated like one. This means that I am content agnostic (for the most part and with a few exceptions such as instances of violence in the round) and that I see debate from a more technical standpoint. Technical debate was what I learned at Cal and is what I am most familiar with and thus, that tends to affect my judging. That being said, one of my goals in debate when I competed was to turn debate into a spectacle (whether that was good or not has yet to be seen) but as such, I am very open to new arguments, new types of debate and pushing the envelope for what NPDA parli is or could be. That being said, anything that is new takes some getting used to so don't be surprised if I find these cool new novel arguments difficult to evaluate.

A few personal requests:

1. Please read trigger warnings or content warnings before discussing any topics related to sexual violence. Please do so before the round and not at the top of the PMC so that if I or anyone else in the room needs to take a second, or abstain from the debate, there is a moment to exercise some amount of personal privilege.

2. Do not misgender your opponents, intentional or otherwise. I would generally recommend defaulting to "they" if you do not know someone's pronouns and to use "my opponents" in the round as I find using people's first names in the round to be kind of uncomfortable.

3. I would prefer you do not give me a "shout out" or refer to my personal history during your speech or during debates. Not sure exactly how to phrase it but I find it uncomfortable for debaters to refer to me via first name or reference my debate history in the round. Before or after is fine, we can make small talk etc but please just don't be weird about it during the round.

4. Please debate however makes you the most comfortable, I have zero preferences whether you sit or stand, what you wear etc as long as you're respectful of your opponents and your partner.

TL;DR fine with theory, Ks, case, explain your arguments with warrants and explicit implications, will default to tech evaluation on the flow, dont be bad to your opponents

Evaluative Framework:

- I'm comfortable with case, theory, K's etc. I'm fairly content agnostic in this regard.

- I'm fairly comfortable with speed but if I call clear or slow, please heed these requests, otherwise I will just miss things on the flow because I can't write fast enough.

- I evaluate the debate based on the flow, which generally means I will vote in whatever way minimizes my intervention in the round. I think that some amount of judge intervention is inevitable but I will still aim to make decisions with the least amount of intervention possible.

- I stole this from Trevor Greenan but we got a similar debate education so this should be totally justifiable: I vote in this order:
1. conceded arguments
2. arguments with warrants and substantive analysis
3. arguments with in-round weighing/framing
4. arguments with implicit clash/framing
5. arguments I am more familiar with

- In round articulation of arguments is very important. Even if conceded arguments have certain potential implications for the round, unless those implications are made explicit or within the original reading of the argument, I am unwilling to grant you those implications as that feels interventionist. This generally means you should be more explicit than not. This applies to: concessions, extensions, impacts, weighing etc.

- I generally don't like voting on blippy arguments or underdeveloped arguments especially if these arguments are just claims with no warrants or impacts. I have a high threshold for these types of arguments and am also willing to grant late responses if the original argument or its explanation was unclear or massively underdeveloped.

- I do not grant shadow extensions, or at the very least, treat them as new arguments. This means that arguments not extended by the MG cannot be leveraged in the PMR, arguments not extended by the MO cannot be leveraged in the LOR etc. While grouped/blanket extensions are fine, for example if an entire advantage/DA is dropped or extending a section of the flow like all the impacts, but for the most part if you want anything specific from these extensions you should do them in the MG/MO. This also includes new cross applications from extended arguments onto other sheets/layers of the debate as these cross-apps should have been done by the MG/MO.

- I protect against new arguments but you should call Point of Orders just in case as I am not perfect and can/may miss things.

- I have a high threshold for voting on presumption and presumption is a portion of debate I may not be the most comfortable on. I'm still willing to evaluate the layer, just don't assume that I'm following your presumption collapse 100%.

- I don't mind conditionality. That being said, my preference is towards less wide, more tall/deep debates but whatever floats your boat.

Argument Specifics:

Theory:

- have a stable and clear interp text
- read theory arguments with explicit voters
- if not explicitly articulated, I will default to drop the argument
- I default to competing interpretations
- read brightlines for reasonability
- generally friv T is fine by me but I'll be honest and say I don't find friv theory debates to be all that interesting
- I might have a lower threshold for voting on RVI's than other judges on the circuit but I am still generally unwilling to pull the trigger on them unless they're substantively developed, even if its conceded (see the point about implications/explanations above)
- if standards are not articulated in substantively different ways or are not given different implications (like terminalizing out to fairness or education) then I am unwilling to auto-vote on a conceded standard if the other similar standards have answers to them or if the other team has some amount of mitigation.

Ks:

- sequencing arguments such as prior questions or root cause claims need to be warranted and substantively explained as well as interacted with the other portions of the debate
- clear links please, not links of omission, try and make them specific to the 1ac
- I evaluate links via strength of link. comparative work on the links done by the debaters would make me really happy! be sure to weigh relinks and links against each other
- rejecting the resolution in front of me is fine as long as you defend and justify your choice
- I believe that I can follow along with most K arguments you read in front of me but don't assume I'm intimately familiar with the literature
- do not assume that because I did mostly kritikal debate in college that I am exclusively a K hack, if anything I am likely to expect a lot from K debates and may have higher evaluative thresholds for K's because that's what I am most familiar with. that being said, I love kritiks so feel free to run them in front of me.
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the alt are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- I'll evaluate/vote on severance permutations if there is substantive explanation and if there's no argument why severance is bad/unfair.

Case/CPs

- not sure if there's really such a thing as terminal defense but am still willing to buy these arguments
- prefer less generic case arguments than not (who doesn't really) but am still fine with your generic advantages and DAs.
- more specific and warranted the better
- CPs need to stable texts
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the CP are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- PICs/cheater CP's are fine with me but so is PICs bad and CP theory

---

Joe Provencher - UTTyler

The allegory of the cornbread:

Debate is like a delicately constructed thanksgiving dinner. Often, if you take time to make sure you donât serve anyone anything theyâre allergic to, we can all grit it and bear it even if we really didnât want to have marshmallows on our sweet potatoes. Mashed potatoes and gravy are just as good as cranberry relish if you make it right. Remember, If youâve been invited to a thanksgiving dinner you should show up unconditionally unless you have a damn good excuse or your grandma got hit by a reindeer because weâre here to eat around a point of commonality unless your great uncle happens to be super racist. Then donât go to thanksgiving. Iâll eat anything as long as youâre willing to tell me whatâs in it and how to cook it. Remember, you donât prepare stuffing by making stuffing, thatâs not a recipe thatâs a tautology. I eat a lot, Iâm good at eating, and Iâd love to help you learn how to eat and cook too. 


PS: And why thanksgiving? Because youâre other options are Christmas featuring a man way too old to be doing that job asking if youâve been naughty or nice at the hotel lobby, the Easter bunny which is just a man way older than youâd think he is in a suite offering kids his definitely-not-sketchy candy (who maybe arenât really even old enough to be eating all that candy), or Labor Day where everyone realizes they canât wear their hoods and be fashionable at the same time.

---

Jonathan Veal - PLNU

Hello friends,

I have been coaching college parli since 2016 and competed in the activity previously.

Case debate/Policy: I really enjoy case debate. I am particularly persuaded by positions that interact with the uniqueness of the topic. DAs that are bottom heavy or generic can work but are vulnerable to MG non-unique and link arguments.

Theory: I default to competing interpretations. I tend to hold MG theory to a relatively high threshold due to lack of backside rebuttals, but see it as a check against particularly abusive neg strategies. I will go either way on condo depending on the argumentation in the round, but I tend to vote aff on delay/consult theory and when the neg reads multiple advocacies.

Critical Debate: Love it. Aff Ks need to either interact with the topic or present strong reasons for not doing so. I really like to see topic oriented-debate if possible. Accessibility is key, so I will not fill in the blanks on K authors even if I am familiar with them. Explain your Thesis/Solvency in a way that can be understood by the other team. Links of omission/generic links tend to be iffy for me. Show clear links.

Speed: I will listen to speed procedurals if the other team does not respond to clears and the team reading the position is clearly losing access to participating in the round. Speed is both strategic and lacks a bright line, but that is not an excuse to push people out of debate. 

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

Some side notes

- Be cool to your opponents. Seriously, I consider this important enough to influence my decision in extreme instances.

- Provide a plan/CP/interp/perm text if asked. Perms with clear texts are preferred.

- Read trigger warnings if you are in doubt.

---

Joseph Evans - El Camino

  About me:I have been involved in forensics for over 13 years including 7 years of coaching. I have debated in High School, College and I am now currently a full-time professor and Director of Debate at El Camino College. I view debate as a game of argument and impact prioritization. Thus, I believe that any method of debate is viable when used as a strategic ploy to win. I will try to list my views on the major themes within debate. Please feel free to ask me for clarification before the round!.   

 

Framework/Role of the Ballot:  I will evaluate and weigh the round through any framework that the Aff or Neg presents to me. I have no predisposition towards one specific FW because all frameworks can either be strategic or not depending on how its debated. In terms of evaluating competing FWs, I will only make my decision on how each are warranted and impacted out in round and will never insert my own beliefs. In terms of the ROB, I will weigh the ROB through the FW presented and if its not contested, this will frame how I evaluate the rest of the round.  If no one tells me how to frame the round, I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the lens of utilitarianism (net benefits). When impacting out why you win a policy debate, please frame your impacts through lenses like timeframe, magnitude, probability, reversibility. 

TLDR: Framework is important! You win the framework if you provide me clear warranted arguments for your position, and impact out why your framework is best.        

Theory: I will evaluate theoretical positions the same as others. The interpretation will frame how I evaluate the position. You must have a clear description of how the debate round should have been constructed. Additionally, I will evaluate the interp/counter-interp debate based on the standards/impacts presented.  I dont have any preference in regards reasonability vs. competing interps you must justify why I should frame theory through either. If a teams decides to kick out of the position, I usually don't hold it against them (unless there is conceded offense). 

Counter Plans/Alts/Perms: I view counterplans or alternatives as a test of competition against the affirmatives advocacy. I believe that counterplans/alts can compete based on impact prioritization, functional competition, or (sigh) textual competitiveness. I have no predisposition towards one type of competition. Teams must justify why I should vote on the competitiveness or lack of in the CP or Alt debate. In terms of the perm debate, perms also tests of the competitiveness of the counter advocacy. In order to win the perm debate you need to justify and impact out why it outweighs the CP or alt. I am also open to theoretical reasons why the CP/ALT or Perm should be rejected in the round. 

Speed: Go as fast as you want but please be clear! I have judged NPTE/NPDA finals and/or semi-finals the last 3 of 4 years so I will be able to keep up. However, if you are unclear, I will give you non-verbals or yell clear¢?. My priority is getting everything you say on my flow so sacrificing clarity for speed is not advisable. Additionally, I have voted on speed arguments a few times when teams use speed as a bullying or ableist technique. So be conscious of how you use speed within the round. If you can beat a team without going fast, its a win-win for both teams. You get the W and the other team has an educational/ teaching moment.  

Kritical Arguments: I believe that any augment that is present is a viable way to win. Kritical arguments fall into that category. I am well versed in most critical arguments, but I am not by any means an expert on critical theory. Therefore, if you are running something new or obscure, dont assume I understand the literature.  Regardless of the K, I will listen how your frame, impact and weight the FW and Alt/Alt solvency. Additionally, 

---

Joseph Laughon - CUI

Debated for five years, 2 for Moorpark College and 3 for CUI. I did ok. I am now the assistant director of debate at Concordia University.

I am a fairly straight up critic. A few points though;

- The K  Despite my reputation while competing as being one of the most boring white men alive, I do not discourage it and towards the end, Will and I ran it fairly often. I am familiar with most generic kritiks (cap, whiteness, militarism, Virilio, borders, coercion, the gift, etc...) and have no problem voting on it. However my threshhold for defense on the k is likely lower than most judges, though not extremely so. You can't win on defense as much as I might sympathize with your struggle to do so. For me the vast majority of frameworks are poorly written and debates exclusively about poorly written frameworks are fairly boring. Debates on the alt solvency/alt offense/perm solvency/perm NBs are far more interesting and will help you win more often. That being said I've become more of a fan of well done framework debate.  Please be relevant. I don't mind a generic cap k for some godawful debate about the minutiae of financial regulation or something. But try to make it slightly connected to the topic beyond, "You reify the state by using the USFG as an actor. Next off, 8 minutes of state bad." Also understand I do not spend even 1/25th the time you have spent reading the literature for your K (unless its cap or coercion). Be gentle with it. Name dropping a bunch of authors/authoresses isn't going to be persuasive because I will not have read them as deeply as you have.  On a side note I see debate largely as a game we do largely for fun with the side benefits of being smarter/well rounded. I do not see it primarily as a catalyst for revolutionary social change or really any kind of "community. I'll vote on whatever wins you the game but please don't assume I am "down" because unless it's the restoration of monarchy, then odds are no.  -Theory  Hated as a competitor, like it a lot as a judge. Down with T but your counter interp probably needs to actually respond to the interp. Counter interps like "We must only be held to the resolution" isn't counter to anything much less their interp.    

-DAs.  Obviously I'm a fan. I'm a huge fan of good uniqueness debates. Bad uniqueness debates (oh here's 5 reasons why the econ is up, naw dawg here's 6 reasons why its down. 6> 5 duh.) make me sad. Personally how I decide on this will go a long way in how I decide the direction of the DA and its likelihood since it is a debate on what world the plan takes part in to begin with.  Major points: Internal link/impact defense. Does not happen enough. Please do that. The amount of times good team just spot the other side the notion that a nuclear bomb will cause extinction is so high it's absurd.

- Counter plans/perm debate.
 Competition is good. Personally I prefer NB competition as I think its the most educational. Mutual exclusivity is usually just a form of NB competition though I am open to arguments as to why it is not. Do better than the same 3 generic perm blocks. How many times must we hear "Butler says..." in the perm debate?  Impact Calc:  If no one tells me how to judge straight up impact debates then I revert to magnitude and probability. So if you just tell me your impact is bigger and they tell me that theirs is more probable, I will probably revert to the bigger magnitude impact (especially if its extinction vs. some one feels bad about themselves). Give me reasons why prob > mag or vice versa. I do enjoy good defense debate on the probability level. Time frame isn't brought up enough.  I'm also a big fan of the "Big mag impacts bad v. Big mag impacts good" debate. But if it doesn't happen, unfortunately I'm a hack for the mag x prob (extinction x .000001 still pretty big risk) impact calc.  Not totally against "key to value to life" args if they are decent internal links into what gives human life value. But baseless claims of, "And now there's no value to life!" claims are pretty easily beaten in front of me.

-House keeping

>Speed: Don't care one way or another. I will clear you if I can't understand. I can hang, though slightly less than when I was competing since my ego isn't in the round anymore. If your advocacy is long as hell please repeat it.

>POOs: Call them. I can't guarantee me catching them cheating every time. So unless you want me letting it slide and someone throws a fit, call it. But if you're some senior team on the national circuit pummeling some freshman babies from a CC and you really feel the need to POO this poor child's PMR, you should feel bad.

>I'm not a point fairy.

---

Josh Vannoy - GCU

Joshua Vannoy - Grand Canyon University

 

Experience: 4 years of NPDA Debate at Concordia University Irvine. 4 years of coaching at GCU, one as ADOD and three as DOD. I competed at the NPTE and NPDA all four years of college. Kevin Calderwood, Bear Saulet, and Amanda Ozaki-Laughon have all been large influences in my debate career.

 

General:

Debate is a game. There are arguments I personally will lean towards, but ultimately you should make the argument you want to make. 

- One question should be answered during each constructive. (Flex can make this semi-optional)

- Partner to partner communication is cool, but if you (the speaker) don't say the words I won't flow it. 

- Be friendly

 

Theory:

Theory ran properly can win my ballot. I would avoid V/A/E/F specs/specs in general, unless the abuse is really clear. All interps should be read slowly twice, or I won't be able to flow it. I do not need articulated abuse. Competing interps is my go unless you have something else. I most likely will not vote for you must disclose arguments.

 

Case:

If your PMC lacks warrants/impacts the ballot should be pretty easy for the Neg. If the entire PMC is dropped, it should be a pretty easy ballot for the Aff. I will not do work for any impacts, if you just say "poverty" without terminalizing the impact, I will not terminalize it for you.

 

Performance:

So I personally enjoyed performative debate, it was fresh and interesting. If you decide to have a performance argument/framework you need a justification and a true performance. If you say performance is key in the FW and then do not "perform" anywhere else then there may be an issue. I will need performance specific Solvency/Impacts if you take this route. In your performance never do harm to yourself or another competitor.

 

The K:

All K's should have a FW, Thesis, Links, Impacts and an Alt with Solvency arguments. If one of these pieces is missing it is going to be difficult for me to evaluate the criticism. Sometimes people skip the thesis, that is ok so long as you describe the thesis somewhere else in the K (Earlier the better). The closer your K is to the topic the easier it is for me to vote for it. Reject alts are ok, but I find ivory tower arguments to be very compelling in these debates. I ran Mark/Symbolism the most but am open to any other type of K. I probably have not read your author so please be very clear on what the Thesis of your argument is; name-dropping means nothing to me unless you explain the idea.

 

Non-topical Affirmatives:

After four years of seeing many non-topical debates as a judge, I have become more open to hearing them without much justification needed to reject the topic. With that being said I am still compelled and convinced by FW if ran effectively on the negative.

 

CP Theory:

Is condo bad? Probably? Having debated under Kevin Calderwood for three years this one of the arguments that stuck with me. If a condo bad shell is run properly and executed well I will probably vote for it. Although I am open to a conditional advocacy (that means one) if you can justify it in responding to condo bad arguments (Multiple conflicting advocacies make it really easy for the aff to win the condo debate).

 

Never run delay.

 

50/States/Consult/Courts need a DA/Net Ben/Justification for doing so.

 

Pics are awesome if done well (Does not mean PICS bad is also not a good argument), and please read all CP texts (Just like All Alt/Plan texts) slowly twice. If you do not provide a written copy for me and I do not hear it well enough to write it down then what I wrote will be what I work with.

 

Permutations:

I am not a fan of the multiple perm trend, 1-2 perms should be enough, I am open to Neg multi perm theory arguments when teams run 3-8 perms. If your perm does not solve links to the DA's/Offense it would probably be better to just respond to those arguments instead of making a perm, considering a perm is just a test of competition.

 

Speaker Points:

I have found that I have a pretty routine pattern of speaker points; I generally give out 26 -29.5 depending on how well the debaters perform. With the 26-27 range being debates that usually are more learning experiences for the debaters, while the 28-29 range is usually for the debaters who do not have as much technical work and have very competitive performances. Jokes and making debate fun is always a safe way to get higher speaks in general. I also have found that the more hyper-masculine an individuals performance is, especially directed towards the other team, the lower my speaker points go for that individual.

---

Julia Shotwell - PLNU

Debate however makes you comfortable, but don't sacrifice clarity because I still need to follow along, and also don't forget to tell me how to evaluate the round. I really value the rebuttals to analyze the important arguments and voting points in the debate. Don't be rude to me or your opponents, because that makes debate uncomfortable for everyone.

I'm fine with critical arguments and theory, but I need you to still explain yourself so I don't do work for you. The way you interact with your opponents' arguments and apply offense throughout the debate is probably something I'll pay attention to. Read 'important' arguments twice/clearly: plan texts, interps, etc. I'll call speed if I need to I guess. I have experience debating parli for four years and now I'm coaching at PLNU. 

---

Kelly Hutchison - UOP

Read what ever you want, I am willing to listen to any argument, critical or topical affs. I like framework arguments, but make sure that they have impacts and flush them out. I wont do extra work for you, that means you need to make extensions. Please make sure that you have evidence to back up your claims, and then give analysis. Debates without evidence are boring and not as educational.

---

Kelly Burns - TTU

---

Kinny Torre - WWU

TL;DR Do your shit but not at the expense of excluding your opponents*   Hello!   Background Info: been doing this for too long I debated for 3 years doing policy in Washington State (lol) and 4 years of parli at Western. Iâm starting my 3rd year of coaching at Western but Iâve coached policy, LD, and PF.   

*Iâll start of by saying that I stayed in this activity because I found this activity to be both fun and educational. Itâs therefore important to recognize find that diversity can be dangerous if it allows for people to advance an agenda that hurts marginalized individuals. Like obvi you shouldnât be a nazi but itâs more than just that; speed and frivolous theory should not be a weapon used against novices because of its exclusionary nature. You donât need to go to many tournaments to understand that this format is dying so perhaps we should take measures to prevent its death. 

Beyond that, run whatever argument you want at whatever speed or method you wish. The only exception is that there must be a winner/loser at the end of the debate AND the debate must follow speech times and order. Iâll do my best to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible. This means that Iâll entertain framework arguments against nontopical affs. Delays CPs with tix DAs are cool. Same with floating PICs and Consult nature CPs.  Please run all of the weird and untraditional arguments as well as the Heg DA in front of meâI just want a good debate!!! The important part is that you tell me what the key issues are and how to I prioritize them.   Some random particularism: 

â?¢ Itâs probably not a good idea to run frivolous theory shells in front of me. Especially MG theory since I donât understand how to judge a theory shell that always gets golden responses. Since the MO needs to deploy offense against the interp or at the very least a net-benefit to their own, then the PMR would always win with the impact-turn. Like I get why MG theory is strategically viable and even a necessity sometimes; however, the more silly or ubiquitous the shell(s) become, the higher a chance that Iâll default Neg. 

â?¢ Donât start at your full speed. I know that youâre fast and that you want to awe your judge and overwhelm your opponents with your sicknasty blocks but you should give me like 10 seconds to adjust your voice.

â?¢ Repeat interp texts twice or pass a text to your opponents. 

â?¢ Give a perm text.  âPerm Do Bothâ? on rejection alts as well as âall noncompetitive parts of the alternativeâ? ARE NOT PERM TEXTS.

â?¢ Donât Point of Order more than 3 times; I promise I'm flowing and is usually unnecessary. 

---

Kyle Bligen - Whitman

2018 NPDA National Champion

I can judge pretty much anything. Just be clear and have fun.

For additional speaker points, consult the below recipe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***Before you strike me, ask your DoF how many times I beat the teams they coached. Now, rethink your strike and pref me higher.***

IngredientsNutrition

• 1?2 cupbutter
• 2 tablespoonscream cheese
• 1 pintheavy cream
• 1 teaspoongarlic powder
• salt
• black pepper
• 2?3 cup gratedparmesan cheese(preferably fresh)
• 1 lbfettuccine, prepared as directed

Directions

1. In a medium saucepan, melt butter.
2. When butter is melted, add cream cheese.
3. When the cream cheese is softened, add heavy cream.
4. Season with garlic powder, salt, and pepper.
5. Simmer for 15-20 minutes over low heat, stirring constantly.
6. Remove from heat and stir in parmesan.
7. Serve over hot fettucine noodles.

---

Kyle Cheesewright - CofI

This is my most recent judging philosopy. If you want to see a collection of them, with information that is more or less relevant, Net Benefits has an interesting archive.

“All that you touch
You Change.
All that you Change
Changes you.
The only lasting truth
Is Change.
God Is Change.”
–Octavia Butler, “Parable of the Sower.”

Debate is a game. Debate is a strange, beautiful game that we play. Debate is a strange beautiful game that we play with each other.

I love debate. It’s the only game that exists where the rules are up for contestation by each side. There are some rules that aren’t up for discussion, as far as I can tell, these are them:

1/ Each debate will have a team that wins, and a team that looses. Say whatever you want, I am structurally constrained at the end of debate to award one team a win, and the other team will receive a loss. That’s what I got.

2/ Time limits. I think that a discussion should have equal time allotment for each side, and those times should probably alternate. I have yet to see a fair way for this question to be resolved in a debate, other than through arbitrary enforcement. The only exception is that if both teams decide on something else, you have about 45 minutes from the start of the round, to when I have to render a decision.

Pretty much everything else is open to contestation. At this point, I don’t really have any serious, uncontestable beliefs about debate. This means that the discussion is open to you. I do tend to find that I find debates to be more engaging when they are about substantive clash over a narrow set of established issues. This means, I tend to prefer debates that are specific and deep. Good examples, and comparative discussion of those examples is the easiest way to win my ballot. Generally speaking, I look for comparative impact work. I find that I tend to align more quickly with highly probable and proximate impacts, though magnitude is just so easy.

I tend to prefer LOC strategies that are deep, well explained explorations of a coherent world. The strategy of firing off a bunch of underdeveloped arguments, and trying to develop the strategy that is mishandled by the MG is often successful in front of me, but I almost always think that the round would have been better with a more coherent LOC strategy—for both sides of the debate.

At the end of the debate, when it is time for me to resolve the discussion, I start by identifying what I believe the weighing mechanism should be, based on the arguments made in the debate. Once I have determined the weighing mechanism, I start to wade through the arguments that prove the world will be better or worse, based on the decision mechanism. I always attempt to default to explicit arguments that debaters make about these issues.

Examples are the evidence of Parliamentary debate. Control the examples, and you will control the debate.

On specific issues: I don’t particularly care what you discuss, or how you discuss it. I prefer that you discuss it in a way that gives me access to the discussion. I try not to backfill lots of arguments based on buzzwords. For example, if you say “Topicality is a matter of competing interpretations,” I think I know what that means. But I am not going to default to evaluating every argument on Topicality through an offense/defense paradigm unless you explain to me that I should, and probably try to explicate what kinds of answers would be offensive, and what kinds of answers would be defensive. Similarly, if you say “Topicality should be evaluated through the lens of reasonability,” I think I know what that means. But if you want me to stop evaluating Topicality if you are winning that there is a legitimate counter-interpretation that is supported by a standard, then you should probably say that.

I try to flow debates as specifically as possible. I feel like I have a pretty good written record of most debates.

Rebuttals are times to focus a debate, and go comprehensively for a limited set of arguments. You should have a clear argument for why you are winning the debate as a whole, based on a series of specific extensions from the Member speech. The more time you dedicate to an issue in a debate, the more time I will dedicate to that issue when I am resolving the debate. Unless it just doesn’t matter. Watch out for arguments that don’t matter, they’re tricksy and almost everyone spends too much time on them.

Before I make my decision, I try to force myself to explain what the strongest argument for each side would be if they were winning the debate. I then ask myself how the other team is dealing with those arguments. I try to make sure that each team gets equal time in my final evaluation of a debate.

This is a radical departure from my traditional judging philosophy. I’ll see how it works out for me. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. For the record, I have strong opinions on just about everything that occurs in a debate round—but those strong opinions are for down time and odd rants during practice rounds. I work to keep them out of the debate, and at this point, I think I can say that I do a pretty good job on that account.

I just thought of a third rule. Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I thought speeches are. If you tell me what speaker points I should give you, I will listen, and promptly discard what you say. Probably.

For the sake of transparency: My personal gig is critical-cultural theory. It’s where my heart is. This does not mean that you should use critical theory that you don’t understand or feel comfortable with it. Make the choices in debate that are the best, most strategic, or most ethical for you. If your interested in my personal opinons about your choices, I’m more than happy to share. But I’ll do that after the debate is over, the ballot submitted, and we’re just two humans chatting. The debate will be decided based on the arguments made in the debate.

“[Y]ou can’t escape language: language is everything and everywhere; it’s what lets us have anything to do with one another; it’s what separates us from animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so on.”
-David Foster Wallace, “Authority and American Usage.”

---

Lance Allen - McK

I competed for Mckendree for 4 years and have been coaching since 2013. I try to open about most any arguments that are placed in front of me. I am pretty good with speed, but clarity is important, because Im not as good as I used to be. I will say clear or speed if Im not getting enough. I am open to most any critical arguments; I just need it to be explained and impacted effectively. I am open to performance based args as well, again impacts are important and should be obvious to me and to opponents.

When it comes to topicality, I do not require in round abuse, but it helps. Competing interps is the best way get ahead as an Aff. You should be able to explain why your interp was best.

CP: I generally think pic are bad, but Im ready to hear that debate in round. And, in some specific cases a PIC can be warranted. Any type of competition is acceptable to me in CP.

I usually start evaluating a round on the procedural items and then make my way to case. I think that DA come last because even if I win 100% solvency of the AFF there is a chance I link to the DA or K. If I link, then I evaluate the off-case impacts. To be clear, I should never have to make the choice about where I need to go to evaluate. Debaters should be framing their offense for the judge.

I think that in most cases the easiest thing to default to is terminal impacts. I tend to weigh them first. Systemic impacts are next. Again, I feel uncomfortable making the choice as to what come first, I really want the debate to tell me what needs to be weighed and why. 

Make the rounds as clear as possible for me. An arg you know best and can explain best to me is you best route to my ballot. 

---

Lauran Schaefer - Whitman

Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear.

Do what you do best.

Couple of side notes:

I likely have a higher threshold on theory debates than some judges, but that also doesnt mean you should shy away from it. I will certainly vote on abuse. If you just really like going for theory, I will also vote on a position that doesnt necessarily have proven abuse, but proves some sort of standard that would set a precedent that you argue is bad. Just remember, it will be harder to get my ballot on theory for theorys sake.

Extinction probably wont happen, so you need to have really good link stories if thats your style. Probability > Magnitude.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given.

According to Rob Layne, Im a point fairy. Basically, the way it shakes down is I give the top speaker in the round a 30/29 and then rank everyone. Dont be an insufferable and rude human, I will dock your points.

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be contradictory¢? with other negative positions?

Im sure Ive been called a K-hack¢? at some point, but this is false. While I ran a lot of critical arguments, they werent particularly good. With that being said, Id prefer a straight up debate, but am by no means to opposed to good critical arguments. My advice for critical arguments.

1) Name dropping/jargon are not substitutes for an argument. Example- That creates a simulacrum.¢? Thats a tagline. Tell me how / why.

2) Rejection doesnt solve. Ive been rejecting patriarchy for years, but that doesnt mean sexist people in debate stopped saying I vote with my emotions, that I just dont get their arguments, or Im not very smart. It also hasnt stopped them from interrupting me, or leaving during my RFDs but staying for mens. Point being--Tell us how to reject. Do we burn the system down by creating chaos? What alternative system can we use? Are there organizations that seek to dismantle the same system youre critiquing? How does this function within realism? Do you give people a language with which to discuss a system? Is there a counterplan text that could solve your K?

4) Explain your solvency, and tell us what the world looks like in the post alternative world.

5) Your framework should do more than attempt to exclude your opponents from the round. It should also tell me how to evaluate your position.

Affirmatives can run critical arguments, but I think they need a clear framework with an interpretation and standards. Couch your argument in the topic someway, even if that means you explain why the topic is rooted in an ism, and justify why that is aff ground and not neg. No, the topic is not just a springboard for you to talk about whatever you want. The cool thing about debate is you get to develop an argument/justification for doing/saying what you want, so do that. Additionally, dont exclude your opponents from going for a policy with your framework. If youre really frustrated with the ism that is occurring in the topic, your goal should not be to prevent the neg from participating. As far as projects¢? (I hesitate to call them that because of the negative connotations), Im down, but again, please tell me why the topic shouldnt be discussed. If your argument is that debate is ableist, sexist, racist, etc, if possible, explain why the topic is also rooted in that ism and then use that to discuss the debate space. That way your opponents may have some more ground.

Performance based arguments¢?¦

Im fine with them, but I need to know how to evaluate them.

Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

Again, higher threshold. I prefer proven abuse. Competing interpretations is probably your best bet.

Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?

PICs are a good strategy. The opp should identify the status IF they are asked to, otherwise its fair game. Perms should be functional in my ideal debate world. If youre going to go textual comp youll probably want to run more theory than you would with functional telling me why I should prefer it. I love CP theory so read it.

Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)

I think as a courtesy, you should always give a copy of any plan text or counterplan text, especially if asked. I dont care if teams want to share anything other than that.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?

Procedurals. Framework, if necessary. Then the substance. I default to the impact debate.

How do you weigh arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?

I look to probability, first. Then magnitude. Finally, timeframe. If you want me to vote on huge impacts that are incredibly unrealistic, you should warrant exactly how these impacts will occur. Not some x country is pissed, the US gets involved, boom, big explosion because some random action causes a war in which rational actors would absolutely have to use nuclear weapons and it would cause a dust cloud that covers the sun. Although I did this, its because I had no idea if what I was saying was actually true.

Other Things

Have fun, make me laugh, be nice. Care about what you do, your words matter. Feel free to pander to me with Tom Hanks references.

---

Lucas Barker - McK

Lucas Barker

Hired

Background: In high school I participated in Public Forum all four years. In college, from 2010-2014 I debated in both Lincoln-Douglas and Parliamentary debate for McKendree University. Additionally, I intermittingly judge at debate tournaments. Finally, I realize the importance of a judge's paradigm and background information and if this philosophy is not comprehensive enough to answer your question(s) please do not hesitate to ask during breaks and/or before debate rounds. Ill do my best to answer any and all questions you may have. I want you to be able to maximize your prep time.

Specifically...

l  Approach of the critic and to decision-making- My default setting? for a debate round is a policy making one. I believe the Affirmative should defend a topical plan and that the Negative should defend the status quo or present a competitive counter-policy option. If you believe the round should be debated? in another way you will have to give me compelling reasons as to why that is the case. I find impacts with large magnitudes compelling, but I am also willing to vote for probability. Either way you should explain to me how your arguments interact with timeframe, probability, and magnitude. I am not particularly fond of fact debates? since I dealt with more than enough of those in high school. I strongly encourage you to run a plan even when its a fact? resolution.

 

l  Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making- I enjoy watching debates that are passionate and include confidence when one is speaking. Ideally, you should not only be winning the round but also appear and sound as if you are winning the round. Don't be hesitant about being creative with your arguments since that will most likely leave more of an impression. Additionally, you do not have to like your opponents in a debate round, but you should at the very least be polite. Bullying and/or being a generally rude will be reflected in your speaker points and may even affect my perception of your arguments. I really enjoy when someone is funny while still being strategic in a debate round, but I do not encourage it if you know that you are not funny.

 

l  Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making- I enjoy rounds where the negative has not only provided disads, kritik, and/or a counterplan but also provides specific arguments that engage the Affirmatives advantages. I think that case arguments are generally light or absent in most debate rounds so when they do occur I tend to enjoy those rounds more. Since I typically gave the MO I enjoy seeing rounds where the MO decides to make bold moves in the block such as willing to go for only arguments on-case (when it is the ideal choice). Finally, I am probably more persuaded by smart defensive arguments than the average judge and that is a result of having Cory Freivogel as a coach. Note: That does not mean I dont evaluate offensive arguments! 

 

l  Preferences on procedural arguments, counter-plans, and kritiks-

 

Topicality: I will vote on topicality and if you find yourself facing an un-topical affirmative and you know how to go for topicality then you should. If there isn't in-round abuse and you read topicality out of the LO with no additional arguments I don't know why I should vote for you.

Spec Arguments: I do not like spec arguments since most of the time teams only read them as a time trade-off. An adequate MG's response to spec argument for me is to just say lol? and move to the next sheet of paper. That being said... if an Affirmative refuses to grant you links to your disadvantage/argument because they are not specifying something you should call them on it and it will be something that I consider when deciding the round.

Counterplans: A counterplan must be competitive and have a net benefit for me to vote for it. But, the Aff must also give me a reason why the CP is not competitive. If there is no net benefit I do not know why I wouldn't just vote for the Aff.

Kritiks: I am fine with Kritiks but I enjoy topic specific K's. You will have to explain the Kritik to me and provide logical reasons such as examples as to why the K matters, how it links to the Aff, and why it outweighs. You should also be able to answer a permutation to your K. If you want to run an untopical Kritcal Aff  I will listen but it may be an uphill battle for you. NOTE: If you are running multiple conditional strategies I have voted on performance contradictions when it comes to a K. Not saying it will happen all the time or most of the time BUT it has happened before. This is your activity so argue the way you want to argue

Conditionality: I am fine with conditionality (I ran conditional arguments regularly.) but I do believe that there is a tradeoff. At a certain point if you are reading an obscene amount of strategies your arguments will not be as well developed and therefore not as persuasive as your opponents. NOTE: I will not say that I will never vote for condo bad but I have yet to vote for condo bad so please keep that in mind when it comes to your strategy.

With all that being said I encourage you to use your strengths when it comes to debate, to partake in this activity in a passionate way, and debate the way you enjoy the most. I will do my best to be as open to your strategy as possible. At the end of the day I hope everyone is having fun! questioregarding it feel free to ask at the tournament.  GOOD LUCK!!! 

---

Mackenzie Marquess - UTTyler

Background:

HS competitor at Van High School (TX) from 2010-2014

Attended UT Tyler, degree in communication and political science

College competitor 2015-2018

Director of Forensics at Lake Travis HS (2018-2019)

.

Judging philosophy

I don't really care what style the debate round takes as long as there are warranted arguments. I want you to weigh arguments for me at the end of the round. I base speaker points mainly on the arguments made in the round. Be kind to each other in rounds. I don't want to watch you fight or be hateful. Respect one another.

I can keep up with most speed and I am fine with it, but only if it is necessary (ie. if you are speeding so that you can read 10 underdeveloped arguments instead of just 2 good ones, I will be unhappy). The easiest way to get bad speaker points from me is to be rude in CX, make ad hominem attacks, or be offensive.

I don't like voting on unnecessary theory, show me proven abuse.

If I am not on an email chain PLEASE repeat all important texts (alt, ROB, interpretations, etc.). I want to have them on my flow word for word.

Please don't read a K aff or a K neg strat if you do not understand it/ are unwilling or unable to explain it to your opponent during CX if they ask.

---

Madi Moser - App State

Background:

I debated in NPDA for one year before graduating and I am in my first year of judging and coaching.

Philosophy:

I am very familiar with theory arguments. I tend to default that PICs and conditional advocacies are abusive but I will vote for a PIC/conditional advocacy if you win on the theory arguments. 

I enjoyed running kritiks and I enjoy hearing them. I will vote up a K that relates to the topic and allows room for engagement from the other team. Iâm also probably a pretty good judge for running your weird/funny Kâs, but make sure I can understand what youâre talking about and the position for which you are advocating.  

When it comes to Kâs, I prefer the alt to demonstrate that it will generate some sort of in round or real world solvency, otherwise I see it as a âdo nothingâ? advocacy. If âdo nothingâ? is demonstrated to be better than the aff advocacy, then Iâll vote it up, but if thatâs the strategy you want, Iâd prefer to see you run a few DAâs. 

For straight policy or value cases, I donât have specific preferences for weighing arguments (like impacts over solvency over framework), I will you vote on what you clearly demonstrate to me is the most important voter in round. However, I don't support weaponizing identities against the other team. I will vote down teams that commit egregious and unnecessary violence against the other team, in the debate space. The other teamâs presence is not a free pass to attack them to win on a piece of paper. 

I like talking fast and listening to fast talkers, but Iâm not the best with ultra-speed, so keep it at a fast-talking pace. I appreciate coherency and articulation. I don't want to have to interrupt your speech to ask you to slow down. If you see me looking confused or stop flowing, probably check your speed.

Please please please signpost. If I donât know where you are in your argument, it slows down my flow, and I canât get your words down. I automatically protect against new arguments in the PMR, but I think itâs good praxis to call a point of order. Extend your arguments and impacts throughout your speeches. In your LOR/PMR, tell me where Iâm going to be voting, I love a clear list of voters. Argue your points but donât be a dick to the other team.

---

Margaret Rockey - WWU

Background: Parli coach at WWU for one year. Competed in parli at Whitman for three years and one year independently (sco Sweets!). I have no idea if I am or if people perceive me as a K- or policy-oriented judge. I guess I read a lot of disads, topical K affs, disads, and always read, but never went for politics, but I strongly preferred being a double member because I gave no shits about what our strategy was and would defend whatever. So I have no strong preferences regarding argumentative content. 

Iâve tried writing a philosophy four or five times this year, and every attempt has ended with one sentence rejecting the proposition of writing in a philosophy in the first place. The short version, and what you probably want to know, is that you can read whatever you want, and should give me a reason why you win and a reason why the other team loses. In the event that the reason you win is also the reason they lose, you should explain how it is so. What follows is not a syncretic philosophy but a disorganized and unenclosed series of thoughts on debate, some arbitrary biases and thresholds, and judging tendencies Iâve noticed in myself. It may or may not be helpful.

Judging Generally

I find I feel much less certain about my decisions as a judge than I did about my predictions as a competitor and observer. Actually doing the work of making and justifying a decision almost always necessitates getting my hands dirty in some form or other. Most of my decisions require intervention to vote for any one team, either because certain core questions have not been resolved, or some resolved questions have not been contextualized to one another, or some combination of the two. Recognizing the frequent inevitability of dirty hands in decision-making, I try to stick to both a general principle and practice when judging. In principle, I try to have a justification for every decision I make. In practice, I find I try to limit my intervention to extrapolating from arguments made to resolve unanswered issues; if a certain team is winning a certain part of the flow; what does that mean for this part where no one is clearly ahead but where someone must be to decide the round? This is also means that an easy way to get ahead is doing that work for me--provide the summary and application of an argument in addition to making it. 

Framework

In general I think framework either tells me how to prioritize impacts or understand solvency, and in particular how to situate solvency in relation to debate as a practice. Most framework arguments I see in-round seem to be made out of a precautious fear of leaving the something crucial open on the line-by-line, but with little understanding of the argumentâs application to interpreting the rest of the round. At least, thatâs what I felt like when I extended framework arguments for awhile. I donât understand the argument that fiat is illusory. The advocacy actually being implemented has never been a reason to vote aff, as far as I can tell. The purpose of fiat is to force a âshouldâ? and not âwillâ? debate. Framework arguments that dictate and defend a certain standard for the negativeâs burden to argue that the advocacy âshould notâ? happen are ideal. Iâm open to arguments proposing a different understanding of solvency than what a policymaking framework supplies.

My only other observation about framework debates is that every interpretation seems to get slotted into some âcritical non fiat âologyâ? slot or âpolicy fiat roleplayingâ? slot. This is a false binary but its frequent assumption means many non-competitive framework (and advocacies!) are set against each other as if theyâre competitive. Policymaking and roleplaying are not the same thing; epistemology and ontology being distinct doesnât mean theyâre inherently competitive, for a couple examples.

 This is also the major flaw of most non-topical K v. K debates I seeâthe advocacies are not competitive. They feel like I.E. speeches forced into the debate format when the content and structure of that content just donât clashâI mean, itâs like the aff showing up and saying dogs are cool and the neg firing back that cats are cool. Itâs just not quite debate as weâre used to, and demands reconceptualizing competition. This is also why I donât think âno perms in a method debateâ? makes any sense but I agree with the object of that argument. The topic creates sidesâyouâre either for or against it. In rounds where each team is just going to propose distinct ways of apprehending the world, whatever that looks like, I see no reason to award noncompetitiveness to either team. (Oh, this should not be used as a justification for negative counterperms. How counterperms being leveraged against perms represents anything less than the death of debate is a mystery to me) Iâm not saying donât have nontopical KvK rounds, please do, just please also read offense against each otherâs arguments (cats are cool and dogs are bad). In those rounds, your reason to win is not the same reason the other team loses, which is the case for advocacies which are opportunity costs to each other. For the record, I think critical literature is arguably the most important education debate offers. I just think debate is structured for competition oriented around policy advocacies and the ways that kritikal arguments tend to engage each other challenge that structure in ways we have yet to explore in parli (at least, writ large).

Theory

Donât have anything in particular to say about this other than that I have a high threshold for evaluating anything other than plan text in a vacuum in determining interp violations. Everything else seems a solvency question to me, but make the arguments you want to and can defend.

Independent Voters

Iâve noticed that I have a pretty high threshold on independent voters. I voted for an independent voter once when the block went for it. Arguments about discursive issues serve an important purpose. But for arguments read flippantly or as a gotcha or, more often, that lack any substantive impact, I always feel a little guilty voting there and jettisoning the rest of the debate, like feeling bad for picking one spoon over another when youâre a kid. I think a lot of judges want the simple way to vote but I donât, as far as I can tell. They donât necessarily have to be complicated, but I like thorough ways to vote, which do often involve a lot of nuance or at least word dancing (I believe debate is fundamentally competitive bullshitting, which I do not mean derisively in the slightest).

---

Maria DeMarco - McK

Read bolded portions if you?re in a hurry!

Maria Judith DeMarco

B.A., Communication Studies

Texas Tech University '19

Background:

I debated on the NPTE/NPDA circuit for 4 years. During 2 of those years I also competed in IEs. My former coaches, including Adam Testerman, Joe Provencher, Kaitlyn Johnson, David Hansen, Jackson DeVight, and other members of the current TTU coaching staff inform the majority of my views about debate. If you have any additional questions about my background, where I?m at now, or anything else regarding my judging philosophy, please feel free to ask at tournaments or add & message me on Facebook.

General:

I love good debates! <3 That is all. I do not enjoy being in the back of rounds when debaters are clearly unprepared, disinterested, or otherwise demonstrate a lack of engagement; there are too many individuals who make enormous sacrifices for students to not reciprocate by investing all they can. This is not to say that you should not prioritize having fun or that things must be serious, but it is always better to watch a round in which everyone is committed to doing the best they can. This also extends to my personal role as a critic. I care about the rounds I watch and will not be a judge who carelessly makes a decision.

What you can read in front of me:

Read any argument you want but be mindful of theory.? I do not prefer one type of debate over another, and do not have any favorite arguments. Though I read the K, performances, and other identity arguments for the better part of 3 years, I read straight up policy arguments for most of my senior year and fell in love with that strategy.

Feel free to read literally anything & please do not make assumptions about what debates I like to see  simply use the best strategy given the topic and your own personal preferences.

If you are considering breaking a new position or wondering if you can read creative arguments in front of me, go for it.? I have read a wide variety of arguments from afrofuturism to feminist rap, and I love hearing unique positions. If you don?t talk about the topic, great (although specific topical links are preferred). If you talk about the topic, also great. I do not necessarily require specific links to the resolution if you are reading a ?project? or other argument about the debate space rather than the topic.

However, perhaps my strongest opinion at the moment is that? I am *very* over frivolous theory debates.? This refers to theory that (and I?m being generous) is overly ?nuanced? to be meaningful. I will reluctantly vote on these arguments if you decisively win them, but will be less receptive and have a higher threshold if you go for 3 sheets of theory in the block without collapsing, or read a canned/irrelevant ?specify your ethics? argument when it is a very, very thinly-veiled time suck. Unless there are legitimate violations or these arguments are clearly applicable, there are almost always more strategic and pedagogically productive interpretations that have the same utility. To quote the wonderful David Worth, ?I am tired of debates that are mostly logic puzzles.? I have taken the LSAT and can assure you I do not need further practice with it.

Theory that is going to be an uphill battle with me as your critic:

- multiple sheets of theory which are not collapsed in the MO

- ethics/philosophy SPEC

- any CP theory that is not conditionality

- PMR theory

That being said, I do not have predispositions to viewing a theory debate any other way than how you tell me to evaluate it. I do think that most arguments function through competing interpretations; for example, reasonability is often just another way to interpret the rest of the debate that follows.? I would also appreciate having a copy of any interpretations that are particularly complicated? to avoid confusion and intervention.

A note on Politics DAs:

I don?t always feel the most comfortable in evaluating politics disads. Though I frequently read ptx, it took me longer than normal to fully understand how the politics scenario would break down. If you choose to read politics, it would be best to slow down slightly on the links. Also, tenuous links are a no-go. If you are creating several internal links that are only tenuous, I will have a hard time finding a way to vote for you because it?s unclear whether you even garner an impact.

How to win my ballot with the K:

Please ensure that you know what your K does, and that you are able to articulate that clearly. It?s fine to be more ambiguous in the beginning, but by the end of the round,? I want to have a clear understanding of what your solvency mechanism is and what it will do? to solve the main points of clash in the debate. If you are going for proximal impacts and your solvency mechanism is predicated on your K doing something in this particular room and round, you need to win why those impacts are more important than other impact calculus like timeframe/magnitude/probability/severity.

More importantly,? you need to ensure your solvency mechanism addresses the impacts you are going for. For example, do not go for proximal in-round impacts if you?re reading a K that claims to solve capitalism. This does not apply if you clearly explain that in-round solvency is a prerequisite or has inroads to solving other impacts in the future. However, doing that type of analysis requires warrants (not assertions) that it might lead to something later. For example, a Cap K with dialectical materialism or similar solvency for gaining class consciousness within a certain round also needs to explain how a few people gaining consciousness could realistically translate into solving capitalism writ large.

A note on answering Ks:

Always read a perm! There is rarely a reason not to and I will be sad if you are decisively winning the rest of the debate but lose because you did not perm.

RFDs/Speaker Points

I intend to write RFDs that minimize personal biases, though? I have zero problems docking speaker points for insensitive comments regarding sexual violence, racism, misogyny, etc.? I have participated in too many rounds where teams read Nietzche, Buddhism, or similar Ks and thought it appropriate to inform me that sexual violence and abuse was inevitable and ought to be embraced. Not only are these arguments often traumatic to hear, but are also gross mischaracterizations of actual philosophy, so if you do not fully understand said philosophy then avoid debating it altogether. Weaponizing nonsense like this for the sake of a ballot is just not the move, and if you find yourself resorting to verbal violence to get a W, it demonstrates not only a general lack of care but also a lack of skill. However, do not take this as an open invitation to pretend that violence is happening in an attempt to win by saying to prefer "tech over truth" if nothing offensive has truly happened.? Tech and truth are not mutually exclusive.

I try to stick to the most commonly used speaker point breakdown. A below average debate will be around 26, average will be around 27-28, and above average will be around 29. 30s are reserved for speeches that I thought were near-perfect. If you have questions about an RFD or how you might improve speaker points in another debate in front of me, please ask for more feedback.

Speed:

Do not be afraid to use speed if you are clear. Over the past two years I?ve been partners, and had practice rounds, with some of the fastest debaters in the nation, so if you can read a 4-off LOC then go for it. However,? if you are fast yourself and subsequently tell the other team to slow, I will absolutely dock your speaker points.

Member speeches:

Make sure you clearly signpost. Beyond that, I will be on board for wherever you take the debate.

Leader speeches:

I was a double leader for almost my whole career.? I love LOCs that have lots of case turns, and would prefer a few turns that are related to your off-case position(s), but are combined with more turns that garner external offense. I am willing to listen to an LOC that is straight case but have rarely seen it done well.

I also do not enjoy flowing rebuttals on separate sheets of paper.If you feel the need for me to flow them separately, it should be because the debate was particularly messy or if it is the only way you have learned to give the speech.

The PMR and LOR were my favorite speeches; I love impact calculus and it is an absolute necessity to compare and weigh your impacts against your opponent?s impacts throughout the speech. I do not prefer certain impacts over others, but I do need clear reasons why your impact is more important; i.e. magnitude does not matter in a world where the impact is improbable. I also need a clear thesis and overview at the beginning of your speech that is at least one sentence explaining why you win. It is okay (and sometimes necessary) to give a speech that answers back line-by-line arguments in the block, but I would prefer if you group arguments or simply tell me what the most important issues are in the debate because it is generally more efficient. You can also provide a brief explanation about why you are not answering a certain argument with a line that says something like ?the most important argument on this sheet of paper is X ? the others do not have terminalized impacts.?

Warrant comparison in rebuttals is a great way to boost your speaker points. It is crucial that I know why your warrant is a better indicator of an impact than the opponent?s, especially if you are going for the same impact. For example, a round where both teams are going for an Econ impact but disagree on whether consumer confidence or investor confidence is key to the economy needs to articulate why their metric is preferable. Please also make sure you do not mix up your warrants by changing what argument they correspond to from speech to speech.

For people new to debate:

As someone with minimal debate experience prior to joining college parli, I am unsympathetic to the notion that the NPDA format is wholly inaccessible to people who do not have a debate background/did not come from policy. That being said, I am 100% understanding of the substantial learning curve when it comes to Parli, especially for teams with limited resources/coaching/travel opportunities/etc.? Please let me know if you are in need of additional resources and I will do my best to help you!

---

Mark Bentley - App State

Mark Bentley, Appalachian State University

**I have made some modifications to my judging philosophy to better reflect my view of debate**

Section 1: General Information

I approach debate primarily as an educational activity with interwoven game elements. Our in-round discourse has critical, real world rhetorical implications and the debate space functions best when critiquing ideas and power structures, whether through policy implementation or critical framework. While I am very receptive to advocacies of violence against the state or other power structures, I am very opposed to violence targeting individuals in the debate space. This doesnt refer to a couterplan or procedural run against you that you dont like, but that our praxis, even in competition, should be kindness towards each other, directing violence towards oppression, power structures and discourses of power and domination. Please give trigger warnings when appropriate.    

I really like specific, well run critical debates. They are my favorite, but I'm also totally good with non-critical arguments. So, if critical arguments are not your thing, don't feel like you have to run them in front of me or I won't vote for you. I vote for plenty of non-critical arguments. Likewise, just because you run a critical argument doesn't mean I'm automatically going to vote for you.

I evaluate arguments in whatever framework I am presented with, as long as it's warranted (don't just tell me something is important, tell me why it's important). I usually do not vote on defense alone, and prefer offensive arguments on positions rather than just defensive. When weighing arguments, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and timeframe, but I will weigh them differently if you explain why I should.

I have a rather high threshold for spec arguments and need to see clearly articulated in-round abuse, or I will not vote on them. This usually manifests itself as obvious underspecified, groundshift-ready plan situations. Spec arguments generally function best for me as link insurance for other positions. Asking questions are a must when running spec arguments. I tend to think conditionality, and PICs are bad, but a procedural needs to be run and won to get my vote. However, even if an argument is kicked, the rhetoric of the position has already been introduced into the round and I still consider valid link access to that rhetoric.

I tend to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but like POOs called when whoevers giving the rebuttal thinks theyre getting away with sneaking new arguments in.  I tend to grant the PMR access to new articulations to existing arguments from the MO, and the opposition from arguments suddenly blown up in the PMR.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries  

Please describe your approach to the following.

1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?

      25-30. 27-30 is my typical range, 25 and below is typically for abusive individuals.

2.  How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be contradictory with other negative positions?

I definitely prefer critical arguments that are grounded in the specificity of the resolution, over generic, over-run kritiks (if your criticism is as important as you say, you can certainly link to and specifically engage with any res/arguments the other team runs). I will vote on permutations and theoretical objections. I also give weight to performative contradiction arguments as deficits to solvency (or however else you would like to use them). I tend to get bored with highly generic kritiks. I do not prefer non-topical Affirmative kritiks, because they unnecessarily exclude the Negative and  if the issue is as important as you claim, it definitely has specific topical application that can allow for equitable engagement by the Negative. Failure to apply your criticism to the topic puts the kiritik at a rhetorical disadvantage and opens the Affirmative up for methodological criticism by the Neg. I also prefer methodological challenges to non-topical Aff Ks rather than topicality procedurals, as the method debate tends to engage more with the substance of the kritik and doesnt link into replications of structural oppression as readily.

Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know what you mean by them and how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think its important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction a criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, dont drop or omit solvency of the criticism. Also, dont give blanket blips of alt solves all because, no, it doesnt. I understand that argument as a game piece, but if your advocacy is worth voting for you need to have more substantial analysis than that. Use solvency as a way to justify the need for the criticism through analysis of what it actually does.

3.   Projects and performance based arguments¦

Performance based arguments are hard to run well, but definitely possible. The act of debating, criticizing, and advocating itself is a performance, and so you will need to do extra work to justify how and why yours is uniquely important. The way "performative arguments" are often run makes it too easy for the other team to non-unique the "performance" with links to existing power structures/discourses/performances. I tend to evaluate performance arguments within the proximal space of debate, and apply solvency accordingly, but also acknowledge the real world rhetorical impacts of the arguments. As with non-topical Affrimative kritiks, performance based arguments should have specific topic application and allow for equitable engagement for both sides.

For "projects" I have and will vote for "projects" that engage with the topic and the other teams arguments. Project arguments absolutely must not replicate the oppressive structures they seek to critique against the individuals in the room. Violence should be directed at systems and people of power and oppression, not towards individuals in the round. I strongly advocate for avoiding debates that would pressure individuals in the round to disclose personal details not otherwise known or they are unwilling to discuss in a debate round. Indict rhetoric and ideas, but not individuals in the round. Practice kindness towards others, and violence towards oppression.

4.   Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

I tend to weigh topicality through competing interpretations (make them clear what they are). Its much easier for me to vote on articulated in-round abuse, than potential abuse.

5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?

I tend to view most counterplans as theoretically legitimate and like to leave it up to the debaters to determine what is or is not legitimate in the given round. I dont like delay counterplans, and will not be likely to vote on a PIC when the resolution calls for a specific plan action on the part of the affirmative. I dont prefer conditional advocacies. I am open to voting for a PIC/Condo bad procedural. Neg should give CP status. CPs and perms can be either textual or functionally competitive, as long as there is a net-benefit or demonstration of non-competition.

6.   Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)

Yeah, I dont really care what you share...but that also doesnt mean you dont have to flow and just use the other teams flows. Also, I don't think teams are necessarily under any sort of obligation to share their flows with the other team, but this can also be contextually dependent.

7.   In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?

First off, you should definitely tell me which order I should evaluate and why. If you havent, this usually tells me you havent done your job. I usually evaluate Ks and procedurals first, then advantage/disadvantage impact calculus, probability before magnitude and timeframe.

8.   How do you weigh arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?

Again, if it gets to this point, you havent done your job and I wont be real happy, and you probably wont be happy with my decision. I dont automatically weigh death more than dehumanization, but can go either way based on the context and arguments. Dehumanization is a terminal impact. Well warranted impacts are always preferred over poorly warranted ones. I greatly prefer systemic impacts over low probability, high magnitude impacts, but will evaluate impacts on whichever framework wins out in the round.

---

Marquis Bell-Ard - WJC

I think the game is best when students are comfortable and presenting arguments at a high level. I will try my best to adjudicate the debate in front of me. Here are some things to keep in mind:

I'm decently versed in anti-blackness literature. So if that is your thing, awesome. I'm excited to hear your particular work. Just know because of my background I have a high threshold for that argument set. If it's not, that's ok but just know I expect arguments to have a certain level of depth to them and won't just vote on arguments that I don't understand. I'm all about the link and impact game. Not a fan of the overly confrontational approach. Slow down on analytics. I'm very expressive judging debates so pay attention to the non-verbals. FW is cool with me - has to be impacted well. DA/CPs are cool if explained well. Will vote on condo - not a fan of conditional planks. Hope this helps.

---

Matt Parnell - TTU

  MATT PARNELL JUDGE PARADIGM 

Section 1: General information

I debated four years of high school policy and then another five in parli at Washburn. I believe that offense will win you most debate rounds as long as its packaged well enough. As a debater, I read a lot of different positions but there is a soft spot in my heart for politics + counterplan debate. I can hang with most positions however if youre reading something new, you might wanna go a bit slower so I can jive with what youre reading. I will say that theory is my jam. I wont vote for silly theory (I mean I might if you win it) but I do love really good and deep theory debates. Overall, Ill vote on the framework that you present. Ill default to an offense vs. defense paradigm but if you want me to evaluate the round differently, you gotta let me know.

Identity/Performance/Critical Arguments: I view these arguments very similarly as I do Ks. Provide a clear advocacy, or at least some form of tangible action and tell me why that action is key to resolve your links. Provide a clear way for me to weight the debate through impacts. At the core, I believe your argument should have some sort of linkage to the topic. Im not asking you to be topical, but I am asking for at least a little time in the PM/LO dedicated to a discussion of the topic.

Flowing: I need like a second of pen time between positions. If you have any particular questions about my flow, just ask. Essentially I will vote based on what I have on my flow. Im a big fan of debaters who organize well.

Texts and Interps: Slow down when you read plan/cp/alt texts. I think texts are pretty important to the round and I want to ensure that I understand what the text of your arg is.

Procedurals/Theory/T: I love theory. That doesnt mean I like really silly theory but a really intense and deep theory debate is fantastic. I need interps to be said slowly. I think that if you collapse to theory you need to be doing the work on the voter level. So many times, debaters blip out fairness and education and call it good however if you go for theory, give me actual, termialized impacts to those claims. I will vote on potential abuse but you need to tell me why I am doing so. It makes me happy to see debaters having an in depth theory debate. Generally, I think condo is bad however I am not rigid in that interpretation. I will vote on condo strats and condo good if youve won the flow.

DAs: Read them. The more specific the link story the better. I was a politics debater so I enjoy a good politics debate. I do have a high threshold when it comes to the uniqueness question of a politics disad so give actual details i.e. who is voting for what, vote counts, etc.

CPs: Also read them. I really like creative counterplans. If you read a counterplan, make sure you have a net benefit attached.

 

 

Ks: These are also fine. Please explain what the alternative does however. Im willing to pull the trigger on any K however I need an explanation of how the alternative resolves the links page. Also try not to slam a bunch of postmodern terms together and call it good. The alt advocates a particular action so please, tell me what that action is. Im at least baseline familiar with most lit bases however if youre breaking something completely new, give a small thesis at the top of the shell.

Perms: Perms are fine and you should be making them. You dont have to read the entire perm text for me. Just say Perm do X and here are the net benefits. Perms are a test of competition but if you want me to treat it as an advocacy, you better make that argument.

Speaker points: Ill start at 28 and go up or down. If you give a good speech with solid arguments, youll be rewarded. If I cant understand you, you will be punished. Ill really only give less than a 26 for things such as hate speech, hyper aggression, etc.

This is your space so you do what you want. I will judge what you want me to judge. I only ask that you be considerate of the other people in the room.

 

---

Nadia Steck - Lewis & Clark

Nadia here, I am currently the Coach for Lewis and Clarkâs debate team I graduated from Concordia University Irvine where I debated for 2 years, before that I debated for Moorpark College for 3 years. Iâm gonna give you a TL:DR for the sake of prep time/pre-round strategizing, I want my personal opinions to come into play as little as possible in the debate round. I want the debate to be about what the debaters tell me it should be about, be it the topic or something totally unrelated. I am fairly familiar with theory, policy, and critical debate. I donât have a strong preference for any one of the three, all I want you to do is not be lazy and expect me to backfill warrants from my personal knowledge of arguments for you. If you donât say it, it doesnât end up on my flow, and thus it doesnât get evaluated. There arenât really any arguments I wonât listen to, and I will give the best feedback I have the ability to give after each round.

For out of round thinking or pre tournament pref sheets here are a few of the major things I think are important about my judging philosophy and history as a debater

â?¢I hate lazy debate; I spent a lot of time doing research and learning specific contextualized warrants for most of the arguments I read. It will benefit you and your speaks to be as specific as possible when it comes to your warrants.

â?¢I did read the K a lot during my time as a debater but that doesnât mean I donât also deeply enjoy a good topical debate

â?¢I did read arguments tethered to my identity occasionally; if you want to read these sorts of arguments I am sympathetic to them, but I believe you should be ready to answer the framework debate well.

â?¢As far as framework and theory arguments go, I am open to listening to any theory argument in round with the exception of Spec args, I honestly feel like a POI is enough of a check back for a spec arg. I have yet to meet a spec arg that was justified much beyond a time suck. If youâre In front of me, I give these arguments little credence so you should respond accordingly.

â?¢As far as the actual voting issue of theory, I by default assume they are all Apriori, as theory is a meta discussion about debate and therefore comes as a prior question to whatever K/CP/DA is being read. When it comes to evaluating the impacts of theory, please please please do not be lazy and just say that fairness and/or education is the voter without justification. These are nebulous terms that could mean a thousand things, if you want to make me really happy as a judge please read more specific voters with a solid justification for them. This way I have a more concrete idea of what you mean instead of me having to insert my own ideas about fairness or education into the debate space.

â?¢As far as policy debates go, I default net bens, and will tend to prefer probable impacts over big impacts. That being said, I am a sucker for a good nuke war or resource wars scenario. My favorite policy debates were always econ debates because of the technical nuance.

â?¢Go as fast as you want, just make sure if your opponent calls clear or slow you listen because if they read theory or a K because you didnât slow down or speak more clearly I will most likely vote you down.

---

Nora (Justin) Fausz - McK

I also go by Nora. If you want, you can ask which I prefer by going by that day. But I won't be upset if you don't or use either name (I use any pronouns, feel free to ask)

Important Stuff (PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE):

--Do not use ableist slurs. It is offensive and traumatic for me. This is a vote down on the spot issue. This includes the term p*ranoia/p*ranoid and d*lusional. I have a zero tolerance policy on this. I do not care if you do not view them as a slur, they are a slur to me. Do not test me.

--I will drop a team on the spot if they advocate suicide/the opposing team killing themselves . I will quit flowing the round and will sign the ballot right then and there

--Misgendering someone on purpose, (including being corrected on pronouns, but refusing to the correct ones) will result in me voting you down on the spot. I have no tolerance for transphobia in debate.

--Do not lie in round

Overall/Background:

I have competed in Debate for 3 years. 1 year of Parliamentary Debate and 2 years of Lincoln Debate. I have also done Policy Debate at a tournament. Since then, I have been judging and helping out with McKendree Debate for 2 years judging both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary Debate for them. I also have judged Policy Debate for the Saint Louis Urban Debate League for 4 years.

On Kritiks/Critical Affs:

I can vibe with the Kritik. But Please explain your kritik (Underview or overview). Dont say buzzwords and taglines and expect me to understand it. Im not really up to date with the literature. I also have comprehension issues when it comes to this. Please Know your Kritik. Also, I am open to kritiks on the language used in the round (Ableism for example). You can be non topical in front of me. But you must be able to defend it.

On T/theory:

For Potential Abuse: Id like some example of abuse or a reasonable disad/cp that could not have been read (you don't have to read the disad that no links, a simple here's a disad I could have ran works fine). Because they are so potent, I like the team to be winning at every level and the majority of standards. I would also like some form of impact coming off of T, something you can argue why this is bad and such.

Cross-X:

I do hold cross-x as binding. However, I do not flow it. But you can extend argumentation and answers said in cross-x on the flow and I will consider them as arguments/stuff the other team said.

Misc.:

Speaks for me start at 27, meaning a 27 for me is a normal speech, not exceptional but not bad. I am somewhat fine with speed to an extent (this is more for parliamentary). Dont use it to purposely discriminate/exclude a person from the activity. If you are going to fast for me. I will say SPEED to signal to slow down (if you are becoming incoherent I will say CLEAR). If you dont slow down, I will try to flow But I probably wont get it all so you probably wont like my RFD (Please be considerate, I have ADHD and autism so if you are going too fast it can cause me to end up losing my focus, I'll let you know if this is happening). I am in favor of disclosing RFDs and can explain my reasoning, you are welcome to ask questions. I view Politics as a legitimate disad. Do Impact Calculus please. It makes my job easier and increases the likelihood I vote your way.

---

Paul Villa - UOP

The metaphor of the highway patrol: On top of being an educator and decision making robot, I think part of my job as a judge is refereeing but I try to perform that function like a member of the highway patrol. If you are driving 70 in a 65 and no one calls to complain about your driving making them unsafe I am probably going to let you drive along. If you are going 95 in a 65 and I deem that as a clear and present danger to the drivers you share the road with, I will likely feel obligated to get involved. Most of the time that will probably just result in a warning or fix-it ticket unless something particularly egregious occurs. Drive approximately the speed of traffic and recognize that you share this road with a variety of people with different backgrounds, abilities, and experiences that might inform how they approach their travels.

Actual Debate Philosophy Stuff: In an ideal world I believe the Aff should be topical and the Neg should be unconditional. Iâm partial to defense and think it can absolutely be terminal. I vote on kritiks as long as I understand them and especially their solvency mechanism and mutual exclusivity. I am not comfortable judging on the basis of your identity or anyone elseâs. I am more likely to have your arguments if you go 85% of your top speed. The PMR should be small, the LoR should be pre-emptive. I will do my best to protect from new arguments in the rebuttals. Most RVIâs are dumb. If the format has rules I take them seriously but assuming neither side cares about those rules I am willing to just let the competitors play. I think you introducing a performance into the round and straying away from âtraditionalâ? debate invites me to make my decision on the basis of whether that performance was particularly compelling or cool.

---

Rashid Campbell - WJC

My Judging philopsophy is simple. I debated for the University of Oklahoma and became the First African-American Top Speaker of the National Debate Tournament in 2014. I understand every style of debate. I debated about Whiteness and could be classified as a performance debater. I vote for teams who explain clearly how thier plan/kritik works. More so the teams I usually vote for win because of their explanation of their impacts and the ways that those impacts are effectected by the other team. I prefer debaters to explain their arguments in full. I will not flow the rest of an argument that is not explained or in other words I will not do the debating for the debater. I like real world debates that talk about realistic impacts and not just Extinction and Nuclear War. I will Vote for T or any other argument if it is explained in a way that I believe is persuasive. All in all any debater can win in front of me they just need to clearly explain thier argument.  

---

Rodney McBride - McK

I debated for McKendree from 2013-2016, qualifying for NPTE in my last two years of competition.

If I have to, I will roll my eyes, sigh, shrug, and vote for your critical Aff, but please dont lie to me about it. Make coherent arguments. Dont make me make arguments for you, I make weird arguments. I dont care about the inherency of the transparency of your jargony bargaining. Say smart things, not purposefully confusing things. I am not bothered by your speed, but be polite. Win your argument.

---

Sarah Dweik - TTU

  My background: I debated for 4 years on the NPTE/NPDA circuit (2.5 years at the University of Missouri and 1.5 years at Washburn). I have helped coach policy, public forum, and parli debate, finished my undergraduate degree at Washburn, and am now pursuing my Master's degree at Texas Tech. Im currently judging for Texas Tech. Starting off at a student-run program has helped me learn debate from a variety of different people and from learning from watching rounds online. I have also largely been shaped by people like Doubledee, Ryan Kelly, and Calvin Coker.

Highlights: I think that debate is a space where we can all engage with each other to different degrees. Personally for me, debate became a place where I could feel more comfortable to express myself and engage with others in-depth over a variety of topics that exist or arent discussed outside of this space. I am fine with whatever arguments you decide to read in front of me, but I cannot claim to fully understand every argument that is read in front of me. I do have an expansive knowledge regarding a lot of different K's, but that doesn't mean that I know everything that you will talk about in the round. I am here to learn just as much as you are. The round is yours and you should do what you are comfortable with, have fun, be respectful, and compete.

I prefer debates that engage the topic and, in an ideal situation, utilize fiat to do so, but I will definitely listen to arguments that interpret the topic differently or if you decide to reject it. I would prefer that you read advocacies unconditionally, but I will not vote you down without the other team winning the condo bad theory. Im most familiar with the following arguments: Politics, T, Hegemony, Feminism, Black Feminism, Queerness, Orientalism, and most other identity or state based criticisms. I will try and protect from new arguments in rebuttals, but please still call them out if you think they are new so I am not intervening as much. I will vote for who wins the round, regardless of my personal views, as long as you can clearly explain your offense and how to weigh the impacts of your strategy. And finally, impact calculus is the most important thing to me as a judge. I want the rebuttal speeches to help me craft my ballot through the lenses of timeframe, probability, and magnitude (not necessarily in that order). I enjoy rebuttals that reflect as much of the RFD as possible, so framing in the LOR and PMR is critical.

Identity/Performance/Critical Arguments: I totally think that debate is a performance, but make the round for you. I judge these arguments similarly to other criticisms. Therefore, I need a clear advocacy; it does not need to be an alternative, but make your advocacy clear (whether it be a poem, metaphor, alt, etc.). I still think you need to have very strong solvency for your argument and I need some type of way to weigh the debate through impacts or a mechanism that you make clear to me. Im willing to listen to framework debates and many times would use framework as an answer to critical affirmatives. I do think that if you are rejecting the resolution then you need some sort of justification for doing so or some kind of explanation or link to the resolution because I think this fosters creativity and gives context within the round of why the debating the resolution, in this case, is bad.

Flowing: I flow on my laptop because I can type a lot more quickly and clearly than I can write. This means that I would prefer if you just gave me enough time to switch tabs on my laptop when you switch sheets, and please flag when you're moving on so I can make sure your arguments go where you want them to be. If I think you are too quiet, unclear, or fast I will let you know immediately. I keep a good and fast flow as long as youre clear.

Texts and Interpretations: You can either provide me with a written copy of the text or slow down when you read the plan/cp/alt and repeat it. I think this is very important during theory debates and framework debates. I would like you to either repeat it twice and slowly to make sure that I have a copy of it or make sure that you give me a copy. If I don't get your text or interp, I will make sure I have the correct wording in my flow when the round ends.

Procedurals/Theory/T: I enjoy a good T debate and I default to competing interpretations, but this does not mean that I wont listen to other frameworks for evaluating T. I think that all procedurals can have a role depending on the round. I am not a fan of RVIs. I understand the utility of these arguments, but they likely arent going to win my ballot. I do not need real in round abuse, but an abuse story needs to exist even if it is potential abuse. I need procedurals to have clearly articulated interpretations, violations, standards, and voters not just blips in the LOC of, vote for us for fairness and education. I view topicality similarly to a disad in that I view standards as being the internal links to the voters (impacts). When it comes to theory concerning advocacies, I find multiple worlds bad theory to be quite compelling because I find that inherent contradictions in strategies for the sake of winning take away from the in round education. I am not a huge fan of multiple new theory sheets in the MG. I can see the utility of MG theory arguments, but reading them to simply shotgun the other team hyper-expands the debate into a jumbled mess. If you are going to read multiple theories, please collapse :D

Disads: I enjoy topic specific disads. However, I also loved reading politics, so I understand the utility of reading politics on a variety of different topics. However, I have higher standards for voting on politics than most others because I ran the argument so often. I need specifics such as vote counts, those whipping the votes, sponsors of the bill, procedural information regarding passage, etc. All disads are great in my book and I will always love hearing them in round.

CPs: I love counter-plans and I regret not reading them as much while I was a competitor. I am not prone to vote against any type of counter-plan. I prefer functional competition over textual competition because it is easier to weigh and more tangible to me, but if you want to go for textual competition, just show me how to weigh and vote on it.

Ks: I enjoy criticisms and I believe that they can offer a very unique and creative form of education to the debate space. If your criticism is complicated, then I would like a thesis page or an explanation of what the alternative does. I really enjoy a good perm debate on the K and am not opposed listening to theory regarding the alternative/perms (floating PICs, severance, etc.). When reading a K, please give me a clear explanation of what the alternative does and what the post-alt world looks like. Just a bunch of fancy words pushed together doesn't mean that I understand what your K is doing. With the alt, there should also be a stable and clear solvency/alternative ground that allows the other team to have some space to argue against it.

Perms: I really enjoy perm debates. As a PMR, trust me, I really love the perm debate. I think that the text of the perm is critical and must be clear in the debate. Slow down, read them twice, and/or give me a copy of the text. You dont have to read the entire plan text in K debates and instead it is sufficient to say, do the plan and x. My definition of a legitimate perm would be that they are all of the plan and all or parts of the CP/Alt. I think that perms are in between a test of competition and an advocacy (because youre really achieving both, ya know).

Speaker Points: I usually start at 28 and will go up or down depending on how everything goes. I do think speaker points are totally random, with no real scale for all of us to follow, but I will try my best to reward you on how well you do. I highly value the argumentation that is made to earn speaker points, although if I cant understand your arguments, then we might have a problem. I do love quotes from RuPaul's Drag Race, after all "Facts are facts, America!"

Basically, I want you to come into a round and not think that I would keep you from reading what you want to read. I understand that I won't get every argument read in front of me, but I want to make sure that I am not preventing you from expressing yourself the ways that you want to in this space. This space for me is something extremely important, so I want to make sure that I can at least help it continue to be important for you.

 

---

Serena Fitzgerald - Oregon

---

Shannon LaBove - RIce

Shannon LaBove MA, JD

ADOF Rice University

Judging Philosophy

 

Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.)

I started debating at age ten when I could not see over the podiums in Junior High LD and loved it...still do.  I competed LD in High School, Parli in college (I was in NPDA-90’s style with hands on the head questions) and have coached a combination of  Parli, IPDA and NFA-LD for 12 or so years for a combination of NPDA, PRP and PKD. Needless to say I understand that there are many styles of debate and consider myself a Tab/Flow judge who likes to evaluate the round presented. I am very keep it simple and give me a place to vote. 

Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)

I do have what many call an “old school” debate preference which includes the following:

Don’t Like:

• I don’t do flow work for debaters. If you want it flow it through.

• I don’t like bad law. If you don’t know it don’t get complicated with it.

• I don't like performance. This is not to say I don't see it as a valid mechanism this is to say it is not my preference in a round to watch. 

Do Like

• Clash-don’t just dismiss and assume I know the position. I like link and clash work.

• Easy decisions-tell me where and how you want me to vote.

• Run what you would like-I try not to be interventionist 

• Aff to define round-Will buy a trichotomy/framework issue if it is blatant and abusive.

Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making

I don’t mind speed but am a stickler for organization and clarity.

Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making

I like Clean case/off-case structure and for things to be run correctly.  For me the Aff has Burden of Proof and the Opp to refute. Clash on case is great and preferred but will vote off/critical.

Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks

No real preference here but you have to link up to round. Generic without clear link does not fly well with me.

Preferences on calling Points of Order.

If you see it call it.

Anything else feel free to ask. I look forward to watching great debate!

---

Steven Farias - UOP

(March 2022) Quick Read (NPDA/NPTE):

Most debates I watch these days in parliamentary debate discuss structural and/or systemic violence both on the AFF and NEG. The second most common thing I see is theory of some sort. The best debates I see discuss these issues across the debate (i.e.- how does access to the debate implicate the way folks in the round acknowledge and interrogate structural and/or systemic violence). Debates that often end in frustration tend to silo arguments and retreat from counter-arguments in favor of concessions.

I think the AFF should defend a topical advocacy. This does not mean I believe the AFF MUST role play or defend the state structure of the status quo. I believe being creative in how we imagine what state structures can become can allow us to engage in what Native Hawaiian scholar Manulani Aluli Meyer refers to as the radical remembering of the future. Societies and nations have excisted without structures of oppression in the past which means that the current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable. I borrow here because I think there are excellent justifications (although many in debate may end up half-measures) for why the AFF can be topical AND critically interrogate current political and economic systems.

I think NEG advocacies in parli should be unconditional as the concept of testing the AFF and what it means to do so is altered by the structure of parli debate. Theory and advocacies are distinct. Theory is distinct from T. If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then they presumption flips to the AFF as the burden of proof has shifted. Kritik, performance, T, theory, framework, Disads/CP to non-topical AFFs, and Disads/CP to topical AFFs are all open to the NEG. However, I think that the opportunity to indict the AFF in the LOC is often overlooked and many NEG teams allow the AFF infinite offense by conceding case warrants and relying on implied clash.

I think that parli debate is a unique format and that format allows meaningful engagement. While these are things I think the AFF and NEG should do, the only thing you MUST DO is defend a world view at the end of the debate and if you want to win, you ought be comparative in your impact analysis. If you have any questions, I have a lot more below and also am happy to answer any questions at sfarias@pacific.edu.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. In terms of theory I generally have a medium threshold for voting T/Spec except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. However, clever theory is great and generic CONDO Bad is meh. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually have a high propensity to solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.

Section 1: General Information-

While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE PROBABILTY MEANS MORE THAN MERELY CONCEDING AN ARGUMENT/LINK CHAIN.

I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips dont ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say I didnt get that. So please do your best to use words like because followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.

Section 2: Specific Arguments

The K- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality/framework with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that Ks without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves.

In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provided a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how I should perform that role will be ahead on Framework.

For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Please also provide a space for your competitors to engage/advocate with you. If they ask you to stop your position because arguments/rhetoric have turned the space explicitly violent then all folks should take it as a moment to reorient their engagement. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not.

I believe you should be able to read your argument, but not at the expense of others engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.

Topicality/Theory- I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competing definitions and a question of what debate we should be having and why that debate is better or worse than the debate offered by the AFF. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an AFF who is winning that the plan meets a definition that is good in some way (my understanding of reasonability), if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T.

In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized arguments to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win.

Counter Advocacies- Best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team. It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. ALTs, PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with so long as you defend the solvency of your advocacy. Theory can even be a counter advocacy if you choose to articulate it as such. You should do your best to not link to your own advocacy as in my mind, it makes the impacts of your argument inevitable.

With regard to permutations, if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the ALT/CP alone is insufficient and should be rejected as an offensive voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. I do not believe that every link is a disad to the permutation, you must prove it as such in the context of the permutation. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the ALT is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links in both instances as well.

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as I would when I was a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.

LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

Section 1 General Information

Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 12 years coaching experience (2 Grad years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 7 years A/DOF years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific)

General Info: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. I think the AFF should find a way to be topical, but if you are not I then I am sure you will be ready to defend why you choose not to be. I think the NEG is entitled to read whatever they like but should answer the AC and should collapse in the NR. Failing to do one or both of these things means I am much less likely to vote for your strategy because of the primacy of the AFF and/or an inability to develop depth of argument in the NR.

As an academic familiar with critical theory across a host of topics (race, gender, "the state", etc.) feel free to read whatever you like on the AFF or NEG but I expect you to explain its application, not merely rely on the word salad that some of this evidence can use. I understand what is in the salad but you should be describing it with nuance and not expecting me to do that for you. The same is true for standards on theory, permutation arguments, solvency differentials to the CP, or the link story of an advantage or disad. I am willing to vote on any theory position that pertains to the topic (T) or how debates should happen (all other theory). This includes Inherency, or any stock issue, or rules based contestation.

In terms of impacts, I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war, or other black swan events, and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.

Last--I do not think you need evidence for everything in the debate. Feel free to make intuitive arguments about the world and the way things operate. I do think its good if you have evidence for 80-90% of your arguments. I will also say that evidence on issues where it is usually lacking (like voters on theory or RVIs) will be weighted heavily if the only response back is "that's silly"

Section 2 Specific Inquiries

1. How do you adjudicate speed? What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?

I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debaters lack of clarity you will say clear (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debaters excessive speed, I expect you to say speed. In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to report me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.

2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you dont find yourself voting for very often?

I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.

3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achievable at the end of the debate.

4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue

Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons to ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all theory arguments are voting issues.

5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?

Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.

6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months

Yes

7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?

I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.

8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?

No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.

9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?

You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way I am told to weigh them. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.

10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?

My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.

Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!

---

Trevor Greenan - Parli at Berkeley

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 3 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years, and now exclusively coach/run the program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but Ive had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. Im generally open to just about any argument, as long as theres good clash.

 

General Issues

• I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that Ill try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and Ill pick up the worse argument if its won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that theres a certain degree of intervention thats inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments, arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.

• In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if theyre won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they werent sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.

• The LORs a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I dont need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I prefer to not flow it on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer that format Id rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.

• I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if its read well.

• Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.

• I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but its always better to call the POO just to be safe.

• Im open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way.

• I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

 

Framework

• I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. That being said, absent substantial argumentation either way, Ill usually defer to each side being able to leverage their advocacy/offence against the other.

• I have a pretty high threshold for voting on presumption. I find it difficult to buy that either side has actually won terminal defense, absent a good amount of work in the round. That being said, I default to presumption flowing negative.

• Prior question arguments in framework are fine/good, just make sure that theres sufficient explanation of these arguments and application to the rest of the round. Im not very likely to vote on a dropped prior question/independent voter argument if there isnt interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round.

 

Theory/Procedurals

• I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. Im perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.

• I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I dont think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation, although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.

• I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I dont know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline Ill usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.

• I have a very high threshold on RVIs. If extremely well-developed and extremely mishandled by the other team I could imagine myself voting on one, but I would hope to never have to.

 

Advantage/DA

• Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure youre reading uniqueness in the right direction.

• I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume theres at least some risk of offense, so dont rely on just reading defensive arguments.

• Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and Im generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, the more you can contextualize your argument to the round the greater weight that I will give it. Specific and substantial case debates are great.

• I default to fiat being durable.

 

CP

• Please give me specific texts.

• Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.

• I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.

• I generally wont buy textual competition absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

 

K

• I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, and I have a decent understanding of postmodern theory (particularly Foucauldian/Deleuzian/Derridean). That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I will do my best to not just vote for an argument I understand absent explanation in-round, and theres definitely a good amount of literature I wont know of.

• Im perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework. On that note, Im also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation.

• Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. Im also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.

• I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.

• I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.

• Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and theyve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. Ill usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible.

---

Vasile Stanescu - Mercer

Many judges say they are "tableaurasa" (i.e. open to any way you want to debate); I am not sure if they are. I try to be. As long as it does not literally break the rules of the NPDA (or...the law?)--I'm open to it. You're in charge. I don't tell my debater how to debate --I'm certainly not goingto tell you. Truly. Run whatever you want---however you want.

If you care: Here is what I tell my team when they have suggestions about what to run (note: you don't have to follow any of these): 1. Start with simple true statements of what you actually believe in 2. Don't argue for something you don't actually believe in. 3. Yes, debate is a game. However, how you play games matters. How you do everything...matters.4. Debateis a special space. It is about the only space where you get to speak for eight minutes and people can't interrupt you and they have to listen to you. Don't waste it. 5. If you could use that time to tell people anything you would actually want them to know--do it. 6. Winning is never the most important thing. I've known lots and lots of people who have won in debate and lost at life. That isn't winning; that's losing. 7. Debate is only a means to an end. 7. The only "trophy" I ever care about is you: Your success--not in debate, but in life-- and the difference you make in the world and to others. 8. In essence, if it hadn't become almost too cliche to write, be the change you want to see in the world.

Even if you 100% ignore everything here: I won't penalize you in the round for it.

I'm never in charge of a debate round. You are.

---

Zach Schneider - McK

Hi! Im Zach. I debated for 5 years of NPDA/NPTE parli (4 at Cedarville University and 1 at SIU) and this is my 5th year coaching/judging.

I used to have a longer philosophy with thoughts on more specific arguments, but I deleted most of it. The vast majority of my opinions on arguments reflect who I was as a debater, not who I am as a judge. Ive really stopped caring about most ideological preferences; I think Im a competent judge in just about any debate and I want to see you excel at whatever it is you do best. If youre reading my philosophy to find out whether you should read argument X, you should probably assume that Im ambivalent towards it, and in general Id rather you think "what do we want to read" or "what is strategic in this debate" not "what is Zachs favorite argument." I also keep a Google doc of stats about my decisions if you want to find out how I historically have evaluated arguments in your preferred genre.

With that said, heres the foundation of how I structurally understand and evaluate debates:

• I respect and appreciate teams that are willing to stake out their argument and defend it, pretty much regardless of what that argument is. I love courageous, gutsy, nuanced arguments. In contrast, I am usually annoyed by arguments that I perceive to be running away from the substance of the debate. I'll vote for a technical knockout but I would much rather watch you be about something and your speaker points will probably reflect that.
• I greatly enjoy theory debates that are T or framework (on the negative) and condo or objections to a specific genre of counterplan (on the affirmative). I am fine with nuanced spec arguments rooted in the topic and read after the other team fails to respond in CX. And obviously, if the other team derives some fancy new way to blatantly cheat, you should read the theory that you need to read. But I am strongly biased against most other theory positions -- such as generic spec or random requirements about if/when you must be passed written texts and the like. These debates are very boring to watch and I've never understood why these objections are a sufficient reason to reject the team. Again, I will vote for a technical knockout, but in an evenly matched debate the team advancing these sorts of theory positions should lose my ballot the vast majority of the time. Also, text comp has never made any sense to me.
• I fundamentally believe that the aff team should defend a plan or advocacy that solves an impact and the neg team should say that the aff is bad or an opportunity cost to something better. I am very unlikely to vote negative if the neg does not have links to the aff, even if the neg also has a good advocacy or is more correct? in the abstract. This also means that I think the aff always gets a perm, even in a methods debate? (I also think every debate is about methods).
• Permutations are a test of competition; this means I am highly skeptical of many disadvantages commonly read against permutations. It's not possible for a permutation to be cooption, for example, because that would imply that the aff is shifting their advocacy to somehow also perform or advocate for the neg's alt. Permutations ask the question "is there some intrinsic characteristic of the aff that makes it an opportunity cost to the advocacy endorsed by the neg?" -- nothing more and nothing less.
• I think that the rotating topic is one of the best things about parli, so I am somewhat inclined to think that aff teams should defend the topic (or at least adapt their K aff to the topic). I lean negative about 60/40 in evenly matched framework debates. Successful teams on either side of these debates usually win because they do explicit framing/impact work to explain why their interp outweighs and/or internal link turns the other team's impacts.
• On that note, I generally think that every high-level debate is won on warrant depth/comparison and impact calculus whether its a policy debate, K debate, framework or T, etc. I dont think Ive ever seen a rebuttal with too much impact calculus. In any good debate, both sides will be winning a lot of arguments; the next-level teams are the ones that can then compare those arguments and tell me why their winning set is more important.
• When I split with other judges on panels in high-level rounds, its usually because I am very technical as a judge. I keep a tight flow and I am most likely to vote for the team that is correctly identifying and leveraging the arguments theyve won on the flow. This is the best way Ive found to remove my biases and make myself predictable as a judge: if your flow has the same arguments as mine (and the same extensions/comparisons) then you should rarely be surprised by my decision.
• I cannot evaluate arguments that I dont flow; I have ADHD and Ive long forgotten them by the end of the debate. Im happy to listen to your speech in whatever form it takes, but if you dont want it flowed and you also care about competitive success, its in both of our best interests that you strike me.
• I will not evaluate arguments about teams doing something objectionable outside of the current round (in another round, etc.). I don't have a way to fairly verify claims about things that didn't happen in front of me; at best, this relies on me being acquainted with people who witnessed the event in question, which is inherently arbitrary and biased in favor of larger/more established programs.

LD notes

• I am comfortable with any level of speed (unless you're using it to run up the score on a novice, which will tank your speaks) and the risk of me voting on a speed bad procedural is negligible.
• I strongly believe that you should disclose your aff cites (at minimum) on the wiki and I am amenable to the disclosure procedural if you choose not to do so.

---

lila lavender - St. Mary's

---