Adeja Powell - Mercer

If you're reading this, that's already a good start. I competed in parli for ~5 years at McKendree University, and did 4 years of high school LD before that. My partner and I won the 2020 NPDA. I've coached both NPDA and IPDA at McKendree University, San Diego State University, and currently coach at Mercer University and Denison University. All of these things mostly tell you nothing about my thoughts on debate, but they should tell you that I have quite a lot of them. I'll do my best to keep it brief here.

My thoughts on debate have changed a lot since my time as a competitor and my paradigm is the best way to find that out - your coaches/fellow teammates/others who knew me as a debater are likely not going to give you an accurate run down of who I am as a judge, so it's good that you're reading this.

I really do try to be as tabula rasa as possible when I judge. I don't have a preference for any type of argument and feel that I am a good judge for almost any strategy. I'm actually a sucker for a big stick aff vs a wide LOC. T, K, DA/CP LOCs with a clean MO collapse are my favorite debates to watch. I like K debate - but I like case debate even more to be honest. I'm highly critical of most K teams because I'm not generally moved by Ks that frankenstein literature together and aren't grounded in actual scholarly work. To me, this is what makes the K effective because it acts as a bridge between debate and the larger academic scholarship that it exists within. I also don't think that the K is some special form of argument that on face goes against "technical" forms of debate. I think the K is the most technical form of debate and I evaluate it as such, so it is likely harder to win a K debate in front of me. I just have a really high standard when it comes to these arguments.

Some specifics you might want to know:

NPDA

1. I think Condo is good, so Condo Bad debates would have to be very technically deep and well-executed for me to vote most of the time. I also think reading a one-off unconditional strat in the LOC is pretty baller, too.
2. You can't win on the aff without going for the aff. I feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but it does implicate how I evaluate RVIs on theory or independent voters in the PMR. Most of the time, arguments that are reasons to vote aff that don't consist of actually going for the aff are probably things that shouldn't be happening in-round anyway, and you can trust me as a judge to punish teams accordingly without having to hail mary your entire round on them. This also means I vote neg on presumption - and I'll do this even if the negative doesn't tell me to. It's the one job the aff has and it is usually pretty clear on the flow when the aff hasn't done that. It also brings me joy to vote neg on presumption, so don't be afraid to throw the ol presumption block into your neg speeches. And no, presumption never flows aff and no one ever has or likely ever will be able to explain this argument to me in a way that makes any sense.
3. Topicality is a question of the words in the plan text, not the solvency of the aff. Idk man, I think we all have forgotten how T works. If you're gonna collapse to topicality in the MO please make sure the aff actually violates your interpretation on a textual level. I don't know what "the spirit of the interp" means and I don't think you all do, either.
4. I like theory debates. I like good theory debates more. Nothing wrong with reading it in the LOC and kicking out of it in the MO - but if the debate is gonna come down to theory just know this is a highly technical collapse to pull off as far as I'm concerned.
5. I take my role as a judge and arbiter in this activity very seriously, and the privilege that comes with that position means not putting the onus on the debaters to call out problematic behavior before I vote for it. I just think that's my responsibility and I don't really care about discourse claiming that my only job as a judge is to vote for the arguments in round. If you do or say something messed up, I feel pretty alright about using the ballot to show my distaste for that, even if you otherwise won the technical flow of the debate. If you wanna be able to get away with problematic behavior, please strike me accordingly I guess.
6. I like jokes and debates that are fun. You can still have fun while going for things like Anti-Blackness - I did. If you have a silly or whacky argument you've always wanted to read I'm the judge to do it in front of. I don't like feeling like the weight of the world rests on my decision cause everyone came in all intense. I'm literally just a little guy .-.
7. I don't give away free speaker points and if you ask for them don't go to tab about that 25 I gave you instead. I think it's disrespectful to all the national champion speakers in this activity to suggest that you deserve a 30 for no reason other than you wrote it into your shell as an argument. Speaker awards should be coveted and difficult to achieve in my opinion.
8. As far as speaker points, my average is somewhere around a 28.2 - I consider a 27.7 a "bare-minimum you did the thing" speech and a 27 is my floor. If I give you below a 27 you did something pretty bad/mean/not okay and the points I give you is indicative of my disapproval. I almost never give anything higher than a 29.7 unless it is well deserved. I don't think I have ever given a 30 - and if I have I know exactly who I gave it to (and they are a national champion speaker).
9. MG theory is fine, but the more sheets of paper you add into the debate the more grumpy I will be. I also think the only legitimate MG theory is condo bad, CP theory, and speed (sometimes. I have an incredibly high threshold for this argument and "they went faster than I wanted them to" does not meet that threshold).
10. My flow is not as tight as it used to be. This might be me being hard on myself or maybe its transitioning from paper to a laptop but please pause before sheets of paper so I don't lose you. This is a mark of a good speaker to me anyway - if you can't afford to pause for 5 seconds between positions then you need to read less/shorter arguments or you need to get faster. Either way, don't punish the rest of us.
11. I'll give a lot of feedback because I think that's my value as a judge. I don't care if the tournament is behind, no one benefits from a 10-second RFD. If it's that serious and I really don't have time to share my thoughts please come see me after because I will remember your debate and I will be happy to give feedback.
12. I like really deep and complex warrants and warrant comparison. An argument consists of both a claim and a warrant - so we should probably address those throughout the debate. A heg debate where the whole thing is "heg is good, I promise" v "heg is bad, we all know this" do not spark joy.
13. Telling me to extend a conceded argument is not enough and I will not do that work for you. To properly extend an argument it should be re-articulated in the larger context of the debate at the point of the extension. For instance, extending a climate change impact probably also means explaining why that matters in the context of the neg strat, even if there wasn't an explicit response to the impact from the neg. If you extend an argument that I still think is implicated by some other argument on another sheet of paper then that will factor into my decision.
14. I don't lean one way or another automatically when it comes to K Affs v Framework. I like K affs that do the work to explain why you get to reject the topic/defend your advocacy/etc. "The topic is vaguely bad/unethical/etc." is not enough - topics are normative statements and nothing more and it's possible to have a good defense of a bad topic. I like framework debates that engage with the K Aff in a meaningful way and are technically deep. I don't like debaters that run away from what makes them uncomfortable. I won a lot of debates going for K Affs. I won a lot of debates going for framework, too. So don't count on my ideological support to make a decision in your favor.

Not sure I have anything else. I'd add a recipe or poem or something here but I actually think my paradigm should be useful so I'll spare you. I really really like debate - when I said "burn it down" all those times I really did mean it heuristically (despite what others who have not actually read a single piece of afropessimist literature in their life might tell you). So, get out of this activity what you want - it's not my job to tell you what arguments to read. Just make it fun for me by doing whatever it is you do well.

IPDA

I didn't compete in IPDA, but I think it's a super cool format. That said, if you know I'm gonna be in the back of your room you might be advantaged by choosing one of the policy topics. That's just the debate that I will be best at evaluating. That said, I did compete in LD and I do coach IPDA so I feel comfortable evaluating other types of topics - but I will still see things similarly to parli on a technical level.

1. If you're gonna take the time to offer definitions then make them useful and strategic. Words can and do mean a lot of different things in a lot of different contexts so this portion of the debate can end up being really meaningful.
2. Case construction is really important and I think this is where most debates are lacking for me in this format. I need a highly warranted argument that builds on itself and culminates in an impact that I can vote on. A bunch of unrelated claims with shaky warrants make it harder to make a decision.
3. I don't mind speed at all in this format and will evaluate speed debates exactly as I do in NPDA. "They went faster than I wanted them to" is not enough. Maybe you went slower than they wanted you to. The debate has to be far more in depth than this to sway me in one direction or the other.
4. I mostly evaluate IPDA similarly to NPDA so it might be beneficial to read my paradigm for that as well. Ks are cool. Case debate is slightly more cool most of the time, unless you're really good at the K. I don't like excessive MG theory and if you don't collapse as the negative I will be very upset. Any other specifics you might want to ask me about before the round.

---

Alan Fishman - St. Mary's

---

Alex Li - Parli at Berkeley

TL;DR: Don't be a dick, do whatever you want. I’ll evaluate the flow and I can hang.

Be respectful and don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Off time orders are preferred, don’t thank me before you speak or shake my hand. I will evaluate the flow with very few caveats. Pronouns: he/him/his.

I did policy in high school, NPDA at the University of Oregon, and my partner, Gabe, and I won the NPTE in 2022.

Preferences that matter for my decision

1. Debate is a game

2. Hard debate is good debate

3. Lying won't get you very far, interpreting the truth will

4. You will be auto dropped if you defend a bona fide Nazi

5. Terminal no solvency is a voting issue, but takeouts are rarely terminal

6. Nonfalsifiable arguments are probably in bad faith

7. I default to magnitude first sans weighing

8. Spirit of the interp is not real, write a better interp

9. I default to competing interps but do not default to theory is a priori

10. Topicality violations are not derived from solvency

11. Collapsing is always better than not collapsing

12. For the love of god extend the aff

13. For the love of god answer the aff

Preferences that matter but less for my decision

1. Theory is a cop out - if you're winning theory and substance go for substance

2. Condo is good, PICs are justifiable if there are multiple topical affs, CP theory is far from a losing strat

3. Perms are defense, collapsing to defense is suboptimal

4. Going for RVIs is usually cowardice, cowardice is suboptimal

5. Links of omission are weak

6. Psychoanalysis is grounded in at best tautologies and at worst transphobia, you can win it but please be cautious

7. Decolonization is not a metaphor

8. Kritiks are a byproduct of good, nuanced, and educated debate; the existence of ks is good for the activity

9. I have yet to hear a compelling flow-based 'spreading bad' argument

10. Anthropogenic climate change is real as are extinction risks

11. Science is a very useful ideology

12. Lit based alts are better than alts you made up

HS Parli specific:

Spread if you can, don't if you can't. I will protect, but call POOs when you think necessary.

Parli is not a "common knowledge" format simply because of limited prep. I will not vote on something "germane" to the topic over something "not germane" to the topic absent an argument on the flow. I evaluate what is germane to the debate; if an impact stems from the action of an advocacy or the resolution, it is probably germane.

CARD specific:

CARD is a format built around accessibility and subject matter education. I will base my RFD on who wins the flow and all preferences above apply, but it is my job to ensure that cordiality, access, and educational value are maintained. In practice, this means I will be extra cognizant of proven abuse/reasonability, power tagging, overt rudeness in cross-x, and smart use of the evidence packet. It’s still debate – don’t pull punches, but at least make sure everyone in the room is having a good time.

Any questions about either my paradigm or my decision email me at skydivingsimians@gmail.com

---

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.

---

Andy Orr - CoSI

As a communication instructor, I believe the purpose of this activity is to prepare students to critically think and engage others in a meaningful way. Ergo, students should deliver arguments clearly with emphasis on effective communication. I am convinced that a few well-developed arguments can prove to be more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.

For constructive speeches, try to address arguments individually. However, grouping is absolutely fine too. With the final rebuttal speech, avoid line-by-line and instead provide a summary of voting area that address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches.

On Policy & Fact Debate:

For organization, sign post your tag lines, and give your citation clearly. Let us know when you have finished quoting material before your own analysis.

Avoid oral prompting or interrupting your partner as much as possible. I consider it to be rude and disrespectful toward your partner. Additionally, part of this activity is learning to work as a team and depending on another person for your success. This is an essential skill in life and you would never use verbal prompting in a business meeting, sales pitch, or political speech. Therefore, it really has no place in an activity designed to create in students those skills.

On Value Debate:

Value debate is by definition, a meta analysis of a topic. The first level of that debate is the overarching value. Students should present and defend a value that has been carefully chosen to have a non-absurd and debatable counter value e.g. capitalism vs. socialism and not freedom vs slavery (forces the opponent to be morally repugnant).

Wonderful debates can occur on by debating value level, but they rarely will win the debate because people (smarter than us) have discussed philosophers, implications, etc. and we still have no concrete answers.

Criteria are the next level of the meta debate. Again we could have a wonderful discussion on the merits of act utilitarianism vs. the categorical imperative, but it would not settle the issue, nor would it persuade the judge on either side of the resolution (although you can win a round by default if your opponent is not able to effectively articulate their value or criterion). Criterions are most useful if treated separately as a test of your contentions rather than a policy-type mechanism for achieving a value.

Your contentions are the real heart of the debate and should be the main focus. Claim, warrant, and conclusion are essential to every argument and can be contested on each or every one of those tenants. The key in value debate is to provide context after giving your argument as to how it affects the criterion and proves your case & value.

On Debate Theory

I have no preference in terms of philosophical, theoretical, or empirical arguments as long as they contain the three parts to make them an argument. Be sure that each part is present: claim, grounds, and warrant. Use this strategy: a. I say.....(claim) b. because......(grounds & warrant) c. and this means.....(impact)

I would find it difficult to vote for a kritik in general, and it would be extremely unlikely in a value round. First, there is already so much to cover in a limited amount of time; I dont think one can do the kritik justice (in other words, I am not often convinced of their educational/rhetorical value because we simply do not have enough time to reach that goal). That being said, if there is an in-round instance prompting a performative kritik, I think there can be a direct link made to education and the ballot being used as a tool.

Second, these arguments by their nature avoid the proposed topic. Thus, they skew preparation time when run by the affirmative and are seemingly a method of last resort when put forward by the negative. Moreover, in a value debate, a kritik provides no ground (or morally reprehensible ground) on which to make a counter case. Thus, the only way to rebuttal is to argue against the philosophical grounding (which leads to a muddled debate at best) or the alternatives which makes it a de-facto policy debate (and is contrary to the purpose of value debate).

The only stock issue that is a default voter is inherency. If the status quo is already addressing the problem, then there is no reason to prefer the plan. Harms and significance are at best mitigations. If you win those arguments, there still is no reason not to do the plan. Solvency and advantages must be turned to become voters. You'll need to prove the plan causes the opposite effect. However if you mitigate either of these, you'll need to pair it with a disadvantage or counter plan to give me a reason not to try the plan.

Each off case position must have a good structure and be complete in its construction (I wont fill in the blanks for you). Additionally any off case argument needs a clear under-view when it is presented (not just in the rebuttals) indicating how it fits into the round, and how I should consider it in my vote.

I prefer debate theory responses to be the first counter/refutation against an argument. In essence, they are a reverse voting issue, and do not easily fit into a line-by-line. Take a few moments and tell me the theory story, then (just in case I don't buy it) get into actually refuting the opponent's arguments.

---

Ashley Nuckels Cuevas - SDSU

---

Ashton Poindexter - Utah

I competed in NPDA and NFA-LD throughout my college forensics experience and currently coach at the University of Utah.

---

Averie Vockel - Utah

I am of the position that it is your debate, and you should do with it what you want. I do not automatically reject arguments based on the type of argument. There are a couple of things that are important to me as a critic that you should know...

DON'T use speed to exclude your opponent. If you need to go fast, do so. BUT no one (including me) should have to ask you to slow you multiple times. Also of note, slow and clear mean different things so make sure you are clearly expressing your needs.

DON'T be rude.

DON'T assume that I will fill in holes for you. It is your job to give me complete arguments with reasons why they win the round.

DO start flex when the speech ends. Flex doesn't start after you have asked for texts of CPs, plans, etc.

DO provide terminalized impacts and weigh them.

DO be clear on how you would like me to evaluate the round. This means you should compare your arguments to your opponents and tell me why I should vote for you.

DO give me proven abuse on T. I like T, but not if it is incomplete. I like T, I think it's useful. BUT you need to make sure the pieces are present and explained.

DO tell me how you want me to evaluate T against other arguments.

DO engage with the topic in some way. If you are rejecting, I need you to be clear on why that is fair to your opponent. There are many ways to affirm, and I am interested in all ways. If it is LD, I expect the aff to affirm.

---

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).

---

Cam Wade - Mercer

(he/him or they/them pronouns work) My name is Cam Wade, and I am a current master's student at Uchicago. I have three years of experience, managing to win just a few awards here and there. I have a lot of comfortability with any form of argumentation. Regular policy debates, K debates, theory, I'll listen to whatever. That being said, Ks were always my specialty especially anti-blackness arguments. Do with that information what you will. Debate is a site where debaters get to have the kind of debate they would desire to have. I see my role as to merely adjucate who does the better debating. How I come to that conclusion is up to you, stank. By the end of the debate, I need clear reasons why I am voting for you, and clear reasons why I shouldn't vote for the other team. As long as I have those, we're all set. Also, remember, debate can be messy and fun without being violent. If I feel that you are creating a hostile environment for me as a judge or your fellow debaters, I will take appropriate action. Side note, I have ADHD. I can deal with speed, but if I or your opponents ask you to "slow" or "clear," get on that. I can't flow arguments I didn't hear.

---

Damon Darling - Utah

TLDR: Been doing this for quite a while. 12 years total in forensics (if you include HS). 7 years doing Interp/Platforms/Limited Prep. 3 years doing collegiate Debate, specifically all of the areas listed prior as well as Parli Debate and IPDA Debate. Additionally, this is my third year of Collegiate Forensics coaching. I spent two years coaching for San Diego State University and now im at the University of Utah

Debate: My views on debate are very straightforward. Debate is both academic and a game. It is first a basis of argumentation and speech, and secondly an avenue for competition. What this means is I fully understand the ways debate has evolved to become this great source of competition However, I find it necessary to respect its academic roots, so please try your best to make well-educated arguments and analysis in round, rather than running a bunch of asinine arguments because you think you can win on them. With that being said, I don't have a preference for any type of argument and feel that I am a good judge for almost any strategy. I like K debate and case debate equally. I'm highly critical of most K teams because I'm not generally moved by Ks that Frankenstein literature together and aren't grounded in actual scholarly work. I think where the K fails often is through a misreading of the base literature. Additionally, please note that why I may be knowledgeable about a good deal of critical theory. Please make sure that you are fully articulating the argument and not relying on the assumption that I have read D&G or Baudrillard.

^^^ with that, if youre framing your K based on judge background: My area of education/expertise is in Critical Gender Studies, Sex, and Sex Work. So be weary when youre running these in front of me and please make sure you know what youre talking about

Theory/T: Nothing wrong with reading it in the LOC and kicking out of it in the MO - but if the debate is gonna come down to theory just know this is a highly technical collapse to pull off as far as I'm concerned. In the words of my colleague adeja, Topicality is a question of the words in the plan text, not the solvency of the aff. Idk man, I think we all have forgotten how T works. If you're gonna collapse to topicality in the MO please make sure the aff actually violates your interpretation on a textual level. I don't know what "the spirit of the interp" means and I don't think you all do, either.

Flex: Stop stealing flex. Im not waiting 3 minutes while you wait for a copy of the text. Yall should have that ready on either side, please. Lets get this show on the road. I will not let my ballot be the thing that sets our schedule back.

Speed: Youre not gonna speed me out of the round most of the time you just gotta make sure youre clear. With that, my flow is not as tight as it used to be. The faster you go the more likely I am to miss it on the flow though I did hear it.

^^^ if your opponent asks you to clear or slow I fully expect you to do so. Speeding someone out doesnt make you a good debater.

Collapse: You should probably collapse. You cant go for everything

---

Darren Elliott - KCKCC

Darren Elliott "Chief" --Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City KS Community College

Director and Head Coach at KCKCC for the past two decades. In that time we have had multiple late elim teams at CEDA Nats, multiple teams qualified to the NDT, 2015 NPDA Parli National Champions, 2016 NFA LD National Champion, mulitple CC National Championships in all formats of Debate and some IE's as well. I appreciate the breadth the activity provides and I enjoy coaching, judging hard working students who value the activity.

*PARLI ADDITION--The Aff should have any plan texts, ROTB, ROTJ, Alts, Etc. written on paper prior to the end of the PMC. The Neg should have any counterplan texts, ROTB, ROTJ, Alts, Etc. written on paper prior to the end of the LOC. Debates are routinely spending 3-5 minutes prior to FLEX time after the first two speeches to manage these issues.

Probably the least interventionist judge you will encounter. Will listen to and fairly consider any argument presented. (Avoid obvious racist and sexist arguments and ad Homs). For an argument to be a round winner you need to win the impact the argument has in relation to the impacts your opponent might be winning and how all of those affect/are affected by the ballot or decision (think framework for the debate). No predispositions against any strategy be it a Disad/CP/Case or K or T/Framework on the Neg or a straight up policy or K Aff. Win what it is you do and win why that matters. I actually appreciate a good Disad/CP/Case Offense debate as much as anything (even though the arguments a number of recent KCKCC debaters might lead one to think otherwise). The beauty of debate is its innovation.

I appreciate in-depth arguments and hard work and reward that with speaker points. A debate that begins in the first couple of speeches at a depth that most debates aspire to be by the last two speeches is a work of art and shows dedication and foresight that should be rewarded. Cross-X as well, in this regard, that shows as good or better of an understanding of your opponents arguments as they do will also be rewarded. Cross-X is a lost art.

Most of all--Have Fun and Good Luck!!

---

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.

---

Ellie Palayo - Utah

I go by 'Ellie' (she/her) now, for those of y'all that knew me by a different name.

Experience

Currently doing hired work and doing grad school at the University of Utah; formerly, coached NPDA at UoUtah; policy at CSU Fullerton; & IEs at Honor Academy. Nowadays I mostly judge rounds, do some assistant coaching for my friends, and watch policy streams because no one really leaves debate (lol).

I've been coaching/judging a breadth of speech/debate events since 2017, but my experience leans heavily towards NPDA parli, LD (cali/toc/nfa), policy, & IEs. Started competing in 2012:

- NFA-LD: 1 year (IVC)

- NPDA Parli: 1.5 years (IVC)

- Policy (NDT-CEDA): 1 year (CSUF)

- Individual Events (AFA-NFA): 4 years (CSULB/IVC/CSUF)

I was a 2A/1N & did exclusively kritikal/performative -- we did a lot of fem IR, academy, decolonial brown fem, futurisms, sci-fi, & cyborgs. But debate is what you make it; all I ask for is clear links, FW, and advocacies. How you choose to run it is totally up to y'all!

Truth > Tech

Kritiks

Love Ks. I am still 'traditional' in wanting some kind of FW, links, advocacy/alt, and impacts. But that doesn't mean that it has to be strictly organized in that way (i.e., performance k's). But at the end of the day, I do want to know what your K does: what the intervention is, what the bad words are, etc. I found it helpful once to consider theK alt like a CP: the moment the alt appears, your neg presumption disappears (pls don't make me listen to condo plssss). I also love in-round links -- I think they're excellent offense in the development of theory throughout the round. Links are uniqueness to the K. Performance is always welcome here. Rap, play guitar, break your timers, I ain't stopping you.

Other things:

- I believe that FW, not T, is used to answer K. Running T against the K is just insulting, and I'm not big on the nonengagement w/ advocacies that approach debate non-normatively. Tomato tomato.

- Providing trigger/content warnings to your K is good (when they're needed).

- Answering a T run against the K with more theory is so, so wonderful. Almost as wonderful as "mini" DAs to oppressive theory. I've noticed the rise of some pretty trash theory as of late, and I wish there was more metacommentary that claps back against that.

- If I hear Fruit theory I swear...pls just don't okay? :') same with tricks, sorry, don't like em.

- Don't like condo. I'll listen to it if I have to, sorry abt my faces.

- In terms of performance, definitely just be on the same page as everyone else. I won't stop a round, but I do reserve rights to respect, say, a point of personal privilege if the round is getting a kind of way.

Case Debate (Plans/CPs/Adv/DAs)

This is prob where all your "who is this judge" paradigm questions will be answered:

- Plans/CPs/Perms: Love em. Do more perms. I also love multiple perms, if you can provide at least some explanation beyond "perm do both...anyway." Solvency burdens shift throughout the debate, and that's good. Theory against plan-plus, plan-minus, etc. are all great.

- PICs/PIKs: I will not do the footwork to determine whether or not the PIC/PIK is unfair. Y'all do this please. Get them "PICs Bad" blocks out.

- Impact Calc: While I vibe with the traditional voters of magnitude, likelihood, timeframe, solvency, I also like voters w/ specific phrasing that conjures up what your world looks like, esp if you're proposing alternative ways of and futures for doing debate. Terminal impacts are big for me both in the traditional magnitude sense of "X impact outweighs X," but also in that I want to hear why a conceded argument/refutation matters in the grand scheme of the round. Ctrl-F impacts alone have no power here. Good round vision is good.

- Refutations: This especially applies to HS/MS debaters, my decisions are very heavily determined by your level of engagement with your opponent's case. Yes, extend & defend your own case, but please cross-apply your subpoints/evidence as answers to your opponent. If you use refutation language that's recognizable (e.g., non-unique, turns, impacts outweighs, solvency take-out, etc.), I will be so happy. Active language and verbs are good. Offense over defense, sure, but terminal defense is underappreciated. This applies to procedural fairness/education & counter-standards too.

- TVAs are just Plans without solvency (sorrynotsorry), but again, I will not do the footwork to say this for you.

- [Parli/CA LD Specific] Contentions: These should be terminally impacted; additionally, I like to see clash on the framework level with regards to your value/value criterion. Hearing how you meet your opponent's criterion better than they do & going so far as to make the meeting of values a voting issue is the easiest way to my heart & my ballot.

Procedurals (FW/T)

Good FW/Topicality debates are great, but I wanna hear clearly articulated in-round abuse (i.e. violations). I've been jaded with the habit of dismissing kritikal arguments under the presumption of topicality, but I still think there's hope for procedurals! I still expect Aff to do more than just make a generic "we meet argument" in response to the interpretation, and at least some engagement with the arguments you label non-topical.

- I respect X-T and FX-T. I find that there is great offensive in doing counter-interpretations, counter-standards, & the aforementioned DAs against T

- RVAs make me so sad :( please no RVIs, they're never as good as you think

- Founders intent is so mid

- [Parli Specific] I love theory sheets, but I love creative uses for T/FW beyond just stacking them & kicking 3/4 of your T shells in the LOR.

- Trichot exists! And I love it. Also monochot <3

Speed

My stance on this has changed over the years & will continue to change as I continue hearing emerging perspectives on the matter. Spreading is only effective if it is equitable; otherwise, spreading can quickly become an exclusionary & ableist practice. The question of whether or not I can comprehend your spread is not the question you should be asking yourself. Instead, you should ask your opponent "are you okay with spreading?"

This position is a general one. Practices of spreading are specific to the format of debate that I am judging:

[Policy/TOC LD] Sure go fast brrrr. Just remember that the debate will immediately shift upon the introduction of a Speed K or ableism arguments that center spreading as a bad practice.

[CA LD/PF] Spreading is generally disallowed on the grounds of maintaining this format equitable for all participants. I intend to abide by these guidelines - don't spread.

[Parli] Spreading in Parli can quickly get messy because a) there are no cards & b) your opponent cannot follow along with your evidence. So, I'd rather not hear an attempt to spread for a half written-out DA with blank IL subpoints where your inner extemper can truly shine. Signpost clearly, be considerate of your opponent's calls to 'clear,' & I'll follow as fast as you speak. There's absolutely a difference between fast speaking & spreading: find it, navigate it.

---

Fiker Tesfaye - Mercer

Please, I beg, read the things I write here. I didn't write it for no reason.

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. I judged and graduate-assistant coached for TTU in my masters and was acing Director for a year. I then spent a year as the Director of Debate at Grapevine High School. I now am the Associate Director of Debate at Mercer University. 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. However, I do not intend on imposing my own ideals onto debaters, so please have whatever round you want so long as we respect one another as humans. Speed isn't usually an issue but if we're blazing, let me know so I can use paper and not my laptop. 90% of debaters lose rounds in front of me because they have not read the specifics of my paradigm and how I tend to come down on questions of evaluation, so dont let that be you, too. I dont understand presumption most likely. Not something you want to stake your round.

Things to keep in mind: My favorite arguments are well warranted critical arguments that I can actually learn and grow from; also, Japan re-arm. I like to do as little work as possible when it comes to making decisions on the flow so please be incredibly explicit when making claims as I will not fill in arguments not being made in the round. Impact calculus is essential. However many warrants you have, double it. Condo is good, but don't test the decently sturdy limits. I don't really get presumption and may not be in your best interest to stake the round on it. Thought experiments aren't real. Jokes are fun. 9/10 the MG theory is not worth it. I will only evaluate what you tell me to. If I have not been given a way to evaluate arguments, everything becomes flow centric. This will not work out for you if things become a long chain of arguments as I will just default to whatever the most convincing and well-fleshed out argument is otherwise with no other weighing mechanism. Saying words is NOT the same thing as making an argument. I need to know either 1) what that means for the sake of the round/impact of the round, 2) how this helps me to evaluate/interpret other arguments or, 3) needs to be explicit enough to do all that in the nature of saying the argument. Cool you said it, but what am I supposed to do with it now?

Affs: Read them and be very well warranted within them. Pull from the aff throughout the debate as I feel this is one of the least utilized forms of offense in the round. K affs are fine (I'm a big fan) just make sure the things you say make sense and do something. I think because I have read a lot of Ks in my time that people think I will vote them up regardless, which is not true. I like offense and warrants and I like not doing work so whoever allows the most of that will be in the better spot regardless. Read case against the aff. Be clear and read texts twice.

DA/CP: Also read these. They need to be complete and fleshed out with good warrants and net benefits where they need to be. Warrant explicitness 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 but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate it if it is read and defended well (just remember MG theory isn't always worth it if you can just win the substantive).

Theory: I like this and my threshold is pretty equal to substance 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. Competing interpretations is based on the way that the interpretations are being upheld through the resolution of the standards but standards alone do not win without a competitive interpretation. Theory is one shot kill to say both please dont go hard for the substantive as a backup just go for theory or dont and dont go for theory if theres no proven abuse or if youre not explaining the abuse in clear detail. In other words, what is the violation AND why is that violation bad?

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 (generics won't save you)......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 the work for me in round. Identity arguments are fine, do as you please just don't be offensive or overly satirical about real violence. You must still win the actual debate and make the actual arguments for me to vote. This runs both ways, so anyone reading the K should do so if you want but if this is your winning strategy then make sure I know why and am not filling anything in for you where you believe I should be able to. Use of the state is a link of omission at best. Not offense alone. You need external reason and if your use of the state specifically is just repetition of all the things the state either has done or could do is not enough of a link to prove in the context of the round. How is the METHOD uniquely causing this issue?

Any other questions about my paradigm or my opinions/feelings about debate can be directed to me on social media (probably facebook most easily) or you can email me at fikertesfaye15@gmail.com

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

---

Gabe Graville - SDSU

He/Him

Please read a trigger warning if you are reading potentially triggering material. This also goes for IE’s. I am more than happy to answer any questions about my paradigm before round.

I graduated from the University of Oregon in 2022. I spent all 4 years there competing in NPDA/NPTE style debate with my partner Alex. We did pretty well for ourselves and won the NPTE in 2022. Prior to that I did Oregon HS debate and a handful of IE’s.

I am very comfortable with faster, more technical forms of debate, however I was never the fastest flower and will certainly call slow and clear if I cannot understand a debater. I am similarly comfortable to more lay forms of debate. Please do what you would like to do in debate as long as it is not openly racist, misogynistic, transphobic, ableist, or violent towards members of the debate space.

I really like disads and kritiks with materially grounded actions as their alternative. Favorite argument is probably the internal link/impact turn. My threshold for theory greatly increases when the interpretation requires the opposing team to perform a specific action in order to meet. For example, actor specification theory requires a team take a particular action (ie specify their actor) in order to meet the interp while PICs bad theory only requires a team to not do something in order to meet the interp.  You can obviously still win spec type arguments in front of me, I will just need a greater link story to justify voting on your impacts. I protect rebuttals but you should still call out new arguments.

While it is the judge’s job to evaluate the arguments given in round it is apparent to me in my experience that judge bias and intervention is inevitable due to indirect, implicit, or missing clash. While I will defer to arguments in the round whenever possible here’s where I will default absent argumentation otherwise.

Magnitude > Probability > Timeframe

Death is probably the biggest impact unless you specifically argue why something else outweighs it

Theory and Kritiks procedurally come before case because they discuss impacts within the debate space. 

Fiat is just imagining that something happens so that the debate can be centered around the consequences of the action of the resolution rather than whether the action would happen in the first place.

Competing Interps > Reasonability

---

Haidyn Christoffel - CUI

Hi there! I am the Assistant Director of Debate at Concordia University Irvine. My partner and I were 3rd at NPDA my senior year.

NPDA:

Kriticisms: I read a lot of Kriticisms as a competitor, but just because I might understand some of your lit base, does not mean I will do the work for you when it comes to evaluating the flow. Also, I might not understand your specific K, so please explain it and what it does in the alt and solvency clearly. I am not voting on arguments I do not understand. I also really like specific links on neg K's, as I think they can function as independent offense on the aff if done correctly. In regards to non-topical affirmatives, I would like to see some justification for rejecting the topic to show that your aff actually does something or sets a norm in the debate space.

Theory: I am not so sure how I feel about frivolous theory, as I feel that it literally defeats the entire point of theory in the first place, which is to preserve fairness and education in debate. Examples of frivolous theory I would most likely not vote on are (but not limited to): must pass texts in the speech (just do it after your speech or in flex) and disclosure (I don't know how that even works in parli). Otherwise, I enjoy a good theory debate! MG theory is cool, again, don't make it frivolous.I default to competing interps over reasonability if no voters tell me otherwise. Please be specific and give me a bright line if you would like me to evaluate a theory sheet using reasonability.

Case: Case debate is always fun. If this is what you are the most comfortable defending, go for it!

Speed: I am personally okay with speed. Please be clear. Please read important tags like all advocacies, ROB's, and interps twice or slow down so I make sure I have them flowed correctly. I will audibly slow or clear you if I cannot keep up. I would encourage you to do the same if you cannot keep up with your opponents and vise versa.

Impact calculus: Without impact calc, I feel that the round is infinitely harder for me to weigh. Please do this in the rebuttals, even if you collapse to theory. I will most likely default to valuing the highest magnitude impact if not told to weigh the round otherwise.

Lastly, please do not make morally reprehensible arguments.

LD:

I have no preferences other than I really would like to not have to evaluate disclosure theory (on the aff or neg). Otherwise, most of my parli paradigm can be applied here.

IPDA only:

My ballot will mainly be decided on the way arguments interact with each other rather than how well of a speaker the competitors are.I will not flow cross-ex, so if you want me to flow an argument, please make it in your speech.I think the definitions debate is the highest layer in the round, and I will evaluate that before I look to the other arguments. I enjoy strong impact calculus. So if the round permits, please tell me why your impacts matter the most and why I should care. I think sometimes burdens in IPDA become unclear. I think the aff should defend the topic, even if it is in some fun and creative way that I was not expecting.I think the neg's burden is to disprove the aff or offer reasons as to why the aff causes something bad to happen, don't just negate the topic alone.

Lastly, I think debate is a game and we can all gain something from every round. I want to encourage you all to be kind to one another and have fun with the event. Feel free to ask me any other questions in person! Good luck and have fun! :)

---

Ian Layng - SDSU

TLDR: don’t be oppressive, go as fast as you want, read whatever you want, tech>truth, no position is too frivolous for me.

 

Hi my name is Ian (they/them pronouns) and I debated for SDSU for 2 years with my greatest accomplishment being making it to semi-finals at NPDA in 2023. Many of the strategies I ran were frivolous and intended to time-skew the other team and as such, I have a very high tolerance for frivolous strategies and I will never auto-drop you for reading frivolous arguments as long as they stay within your speech time and within the NPDA by-laws.

 

Debate is a game where teams leverage different arguments to win impacts and framing for their impacts. The team who wins the round will be the team who wins the most important impacts or (god help me) combination of impacts. I evaluate each round by figuring out who’s winning what impact, who’s winning what framing, and who’s winning what impact calc. Unless given a different way of evaluating the round I will default to magnitude>probability>irreversibility>timeframe. 

 

Auto-drops: The safety of the people in the debate is always the highest layer of the debate. If you are making the debate unsafe either by being oppressive or needlessly cruel to your opponent, I will stop the round and drop you expeditiously. Making fun of your opponents’ arguments is cool and funny, making fun of your opponents is not.

Otherwise, I will vote for any argument. Note: an argument is a claim and a warrant. I WILL NOT EVALUATE CLAIMS THAT DO NOT HAVE WARRANTS. An argument isn’t an argument until it has both a claim and a warrant. This means I will consider PMR/LOR warrant backfilling new arguments and as such I won’t evaluate them. It’s also really hard for me to evaluate claims about you or the other team’s conduct outside of round. I think “didn’t happen” is a robust response to call-out Ks and “we did disclose, I’ll show the judge the texts after the RFD” kicks the life out of disclosure theory.

 

I will not evaluate shadow-extensions. If you want to be able to go for an argument in the PMR/LOR, you need to have extended it in the MG/MO. I’ll grant leniency on extending both the claims and the warrants, as long as you extend at least the claim then I will evaluate the argument.

 

Tech>Truth: I have no idea what “truth” means in this context but most of the time it seems to be an appeal for me to evaluate the round based on what I believe to be true and if that’s the case then there’s no reason for the debate to happen at all because I can just vote on what I believe as soon as the resolution drops. I also don’t know how we arrive at the truth if not through tech.

 

Go as fast as you want, just be clear. If I need you to slow, I’ll tell you. If I need you to clear, I’ll tell you. If I need you to be louder, I’ll tell you. If I need a signpost, I’ll tell you.

 

Points of order: I’ll try my best to protect but you should call points of order regardless in case I miss something.

 

Policy Affs: I think policy affs are cool, most of what I read on the affirmative was policy affs. I specifically enjoyed running Dedev and Heg. Just make sure your impacts are unique or whatever. Your offense on policy affs comes from the plan's ability to turn a bad status quo into a not bad status quo. Absent any part of that, you have minimal offense at best.

 

Disads: disads are also cool. I didn’t read very many of them, I typically thought Ks, theory, and case offense were a much better use of my time but regardless I’m familiar with how they work and I think a good disad can be devastating. The offense of your disad comes from a not bad status quo being made into a bad status quo via the link to the plan. Absent any part of that, you have minimal offense at best.

 

Counterplans: I like counterplans. I especially liked reading counterplans that flagrantly steal aff ground, I think they’re really funny. The offense of a counterplan comes from the fact that it solves impacts and is mutually exclusive with the affirmative. Absent any part of that, counterplans aren’t offense. I expect to be told explicitly on counterplans what you solve and I hope to be told why your counterplan is mutually exclusive with the aff.

 

Theory: I really like theory and can handle any quantity or quality of theory you want to throw at me. All of your offense on theory comes from a standard that connects your violated interpretation to your apriori voters. Absent any part of that, I don’t think you can win this sheet. I default to competing interpretations unless one team wins both a definition of reasonability and a reason to prefer reasonability. Spirit of the interp isn’t real, if you read a bad interp then kick out of it, what’s the mystery?

 

Speed theory: On a personal level I have very little sympathy for this argument, I think it’s a classic “get good” situation. That being said, I don’t vote on sympathy and if you win your speed theory shell then I’ll be happy to vote for you. You're probably not going to though because your opponent can (and should) spread through counter standards. For the sake of keeping the debate friendly, I think people probably should slow if requested and I think it’s pretty heartless to wallop novice teams with speed. I don’t feel comfortable weighing people’s personal identities against each other and as such, I’m not going to.

 

Frivolous theory: Frivolous theory is overhated. Saying “it’s frivolous” isn’t a reason to not vote for it. If it’s as frivolous as you say it is, you should have no problem coming up with some killer counter-standards.

 

MG theory: MG theory is extremely strategic because it gives the PMR apriori outs that the negative only gets one speech to make constructive arguments against. Because of that fact, I’m also open to arguments that I shouldn’t evaluate MG theory. Other than that, see the frivolous theory section for my extended thoughts on MG theory.

 

Ks General: Ks were by far my favorite arguments in debate. I read a K every round the judge was willing to vote for one and I was on the negative. I almost exclusively read Ks of ontology with my most frequent Ks being monstrosity and cosmic pessimism. On a personal level, I have a strong familiarity with the lit bases of ableism, philosophy of gender, feminism, Lacan, and analytic philosophy. I’ve heard a lot of Ks and it’s rare that I come across one I’m not at least a little familiar with, regardless you should assume I know nothing about your K. The offense of Ks comes from the ability of your alternative to solve a typically ideological issue that your opponents contribute to. Absent any piece of that, your offense is minimal. I think frameworks are very strategic but not strictly necessary to win the K. That being said I do think it’s possible to win your K without winning your alt if you win certain framing claims.

 

K affs: K affs are almost certainly cheating but can also be very strategic. I almost never ran them because I think framework-T is a true argument but a good K aff team will have responses that indicts the way certain groups in debate are able to access fairness and education in round. If all of your answers to framework are vague and not well thought out, you should probably just be topical. A bad response to framework might be “ableism isn’t fair” while a good response might be “ableism causes disabled debaters to be arbitrarily dropped by judges who view them as ‘less put together’ which means there is terminally no fairness in this space and only the counter-interpretation can solve”. 

 

IVIs: I evaluate most IVIs like I evaluate any other argument. Please have explicit links, and impacts. I think the framing of these is implicit though it would be cool if more teams made it explicit. In many cases I’m willing to evaluate a sincere apology as terminal defense to rhetoric IVIs if it seems like the problematic word or phrase was said without harmful intent.

---

Ilse Spiropoulos - Whitman

I'll try my best to keep this short.

First of all, please be considerate of speed. I think rounds that are at tip-top speeds often make debate inaccessible. Additionally, if I miss something or it doesn't end up on my flow that could hurt your case.

I'll vote for pretty much anything if it's run well. I don't mind voting on weird technical arguments or Ks if they are argued well and extended into final speeches. I like Ks and have run my fair share of them but I also understand philosophy and expect the impacts and solvency of Ks to be explained. I think Ks with Alts that don't do anything are frustrating but I also regularly ran the Alt "Smash the symbols of the empire in the name of nothing but the hearts longing for grace" as a competitor so do with that what you will. I do think presumption flips aff in the case of a non conditional Neg advocacy so keep that in mind.

On the other hand, I also have a lot of respect for strait up policy cases and enjoy watching them. Framework matters in most debates, if I'm not given a clear framework I default to magnitude and time frame. If you want me to weigh for example small scale impacts before low probability massive impacts (or the other way) tell me why that's important.

T is fair game, I am bias against really frivolous or silly T but if you crush them with it I wont keep a win from you on the basis of a silly or frivolous interp, I just wont like it.

Ill vote on an IVI pretty easily if something egregious happens in round but otherwise there needs to be really clear voters explained for me to vote on it.

TLDR: if you give me a good solid reason to vote for something, I will. I value framework heavier than some judges and think it tells me how to weigh the round. I can vote on truth or tech, just give me a reason. If things get muddy I always default to the flow and where I think pieces clash.

I'm biased against any advocacy or theory that advocates for mass violence or death.
If you use a slur violently in round I will vote you down and tank your speaks.
(using a slur as an act of intentional reclamation within reason with justification is obviously a different situation and fine)

If you have any questions before the round please ask them. Best of luck!
If you have questions feel free to email me at Spiropij@whitman.edu

---

Isabella Bartmess - Parli at Berkeley

A little about me

She/Her

Ive been involved in debate for the last 5ish years (four in high school, one in college). I did LD in high school and debated for a year on the parliamentary debate team at Berkeley in NPDA/NPTE open parli, mostly running ks and k affs (this girl loves queer theory).

TL;DR:

tech > truth (but please dont make me vote on this)

I will vote on anything as long as its not oppressive/violent - so k affs, theory, topicality, ks, literally anything. Please make the round interesting and debate how you wanna debate! That said, if you love a good topical debate Im totally down for that too. Win your arguments on the flow, weigh them concretely, and Ill be happy to vote you up. Dont worry about an argument being frivolous as long as its not just a hail mary (weigh it properly and Ill vote on it). Please, please, please dont just say perm do both etc. Give me a reason why the perm is better and them against the other teams arguments. Dont feel like you have to perform. I want you to have the debate that you want to have and that is valuable for you.

Also, please do not misgender your opponents.

**Ive been out of debate for about a year, so I can still follow most spreading but if you are just unintelligible I will ask you to slow/clear. SIGNPOST. Please listen to me or I will be sad.

Case:

- I love a good turn.

- Please make advantages/disadvantages well-warranted and clear. I default to preferring two clear and specific disads to four.

- I default to durable fiat.

CPs:

- I love advantage CPs (as long as they are well structured and the advantage is weighed against the aff)!

- I default to perms as tests of competition unless you tell me why.

- I dont love contextual competition :/

Ks:

- I am relatively well versed in K lit, but that DOES NOT mean that Ill automatically understand all your warrants so you dont have to explain them. I like this lit and I want the debate to happen on its substance, not because your opponents dont understand your warrants because they are blippy and confusing. This will make me sad. I am most familiar with Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, and a lot of queer theory so do with that what you will.

- If you choose to run theory against a team rejecting the resolution, know that I do generally tend to lean towards the impacts of the K rather than the impact of the theory. That said, I would love to see a good theory debate as long as you explain what you mean by fairness and education very clearly. I would prefer not to vote off of a fairness argument that is dropped but never weighed/explained.

- When I was debating, we mostly ran Ks and K affs so dont be afraid to run these arguments in front of me.

- I will default to evaluating the alt as a CP if you dont give me a reason not to.

- Please, please, please dont just say perm do the alt and the CP etc. Give me a reason why the perm is better and them against the other teams arguments.

- I love K affs. That said, I will definitely not automatically vote up a team for running this. I would LOVE to see a thorough, precise framework T debate just make sure you give me a reason why education and fairness are more important than the impacts of the K

- Please dont just run a reject altit makes the debate less interesting.

- I have a high standard for a framework T violation. You cannot just say a k aff is unfair because we couldnt prepare for it. You must have a well-warranted, formatted T shell that picks apart how a K aff makes the debate unfair. I will lean towards the impacts of the k aff outweighing the standards. That said, it is very possible to win FWT against a k aff (and I would love to see you do it)! I just need a very clear, substantive FWT argument.

Theory:

- I ran a lot of theory when I was debating, so my threshold for frivolous theory is very low. This means that I default towards potential abuse v. proven abuse. Im going to vote on the best norms for debate, and I think that potential abuse captures this better than proven abuse. I love a good theory debate, but I prefer that the responses and extensions are substantial and precise.

- Ill pretty much vote on anything if it is well warranted.

- Theory should be responded to with a counter interp/counter standards and a we meet when possible.

- Weigh your standards. I will be skeptical if you just say they didnt respond to x standard and leave it at that.

- I am skeptical of new theory in the PMR.

- I default to dropping the debater over dropping the argument. If you want me to just drop the argument, tell me why and weigh it.

- I default to theory being a priori to the rest of the debate. If you dont want me to evaluate it this way, I will be skeptical unless your argument is well warranted and weighed.

- Dont assume that fairness and education are automatically voters. You must tell me why they are voters in the specific context of the shell and the violation in the round. I tend to lean towards the idea that education and fairness as voters only benefit some debaters, so I will be skeptical if you dont explain it to me).

Speaks:

- I am very skeptical of speaks as a concept. I believe (and have experienced) that speaks usually reflect race, gender, and sexuality biases more than they reflect in round performance.

- I will use speaker points to reward strategic decisions and penalize disrespectful behavior. The winning team should expect 29.0-29.5 and the losing team should expect 28-28.5.

Other:

- Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. Read:https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

- Ask any questions before round. My old debate partner and beautiful human being June Dense has heavily influenced my debate philosophy. Look to her paradigm for more information on what Im about.

<3

---

Jason Barton - RIce

---

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 Reyes - UOP

What's up!

I competed in NPDA and LD for University of the Pacific from 2019 - 2023. Before that I competed for 6 years in middle school and high school, in PF, LD, and Policy. Now I am a graduate assistant coach for University of the Pacific.

TLDR/Parli

I like topical advocacies. I like when counter-advocacies are unconditional. I like clever and strategic theory. I can handle speed but I wasn't the fastest debater so keep that in mind.

Specific Arguments/Parli

AFF Cases

While I prefer when AFFs defend a topical advocacy, I am still willing to vote on AFFs that do not. Those AFFs will just have to spend more time explaining their argument and their justification for not defending the topic. With that in mind, I do have a lower threshold to vote on theory/framework against AFFs that don't defend the topic.

K/CP/Condo

For the K, you can read whatever you want but I probably don't have a great understanding of the lit its based off of. A thesis would be great. I also tend to think that most alternatives don't actually solve the in-round/out-of-round harms they claim that they do so clear explanations of how the alt solves is best.

For the CP, I love them. If they are abusive or could be seen as abusive (like delay), be careful because I will be receptive to theory arguments claiming that they are.

For condo, while I prefer unconditional advocacies and probably have a lower threshold than most to vote on condo bad, I won't auto drop the team for being conditional. I will still evaluate the condo bad sheet and if the neg wins this sheet than they're good to be as conditional as they please. With that being said, the threshold is much lower when the neg reads multiple conditional advocacies.

Theory/Topicality

I have a pretty low threshold for voting on any LOC theory/topicality, even frivolous ones, if it is clear and strategic. I don't need proven abuse to pull the trigger but it definitely makes it a lot easier to vote for you. I have a higher threshold to vote on MG theory except for Condo Bad, which I am much more likely to vote on.

Speed

If you were faster than me or think that you were faster than me, then you probably were so a little bit slower than your top speed will ensure I get 99% of your arguments.

LD

Read what you want. Disclose.

Email

If you have any questions feel free to email me at j_reyes21@u.pacific.edu.

---

June Dense - Parli at Berkeley

she/her

Experience: I've been involved in debate for 10 years. Four years of National Circuit and Local Circuit High School LD at Chatfield Senior; four years of College NPDA/NPTE Open Parli for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley; three years of coaching experience for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley and Campolindo High School.

TL;DR: The short version is that I strive to evaluate the round as technically and objectively as possible. Read whatever arguments you want (provided they are not rhetorically violent), win them on the flow, and don't be oppressive/violent. Ks and k affs are great, theory is great, CPs are great, disads are great, case affs are great.Never worry about me auto-rejecting an argument because it's 'blippy' or 'frivolous', just make sure it's sufficiently weighed.

______________________________________________________________

Long version: The following details apply to both parli and LD, and if there's a paradigmatic difference between the two events, I will make note of it.

Philosophy: The principle that guides my judge philosophy is that judge intervention, while inevitable to some degree, is generally bad and should be minimized whenever possible. Paradigms that welcome judge intervention open the door for judges to make decisions (sometimes subconsciously; sometimes explicitly) on arbitrary criteria like presentation and rhetorical appeal. Evaluation of these criteria frequently comes down to race and gender, as well as being unfair and uneducational to the debaters in the round, so it should be avoided as much as possible. I do believe there can be instances of judges intervening in rounds for good, but on whole, as a general model for how debate ought to operate, I think judge intervention does more harm than good.

Three immediate implications of this:

[1] I default to strength of link to determine the truth value of arguments, warrants, empirics, etc. That means I don't care how "blippy" an argument seems, only whether it is contested; if an argument is conceded, then it has 100% strength of link and therefore is true. I will not intervene on the truth value of arguments, warrants, and empirics, for the reasons explained above (intervening on whether arguments are "true" sets a bad precedent about what the role of the judge is in debate rounds), and because I don't trust myself to know enough about the world to be able to verify the minutia of your arguments.

[2] I generally use paradigms that prioritize 'tech' over 'truth.' To this day, I am still confused about what 'truth' means as the opposite of 'tech.' How does the judge evaluate a round "truthfully"? Does that just mean the judge intervenes on the truth value of arguments (see point 1)? How does the competitive nature of debate factor in to 'truth' paradigms? If there are some arguments that are not open to debate ('true' arguments), wouldn't the more 'true' side have a massive advantage over the other? As a result, I think tech debate paradigms are more fair and educational, so I default to them.

[3] I use speaker points to reward good strategic calls and execution, rather than performance or rhetorical appeal. I don't like evaluating elements of debaters' in-round performances, such as persuasion, affect, rhetoric, speaking style, etc (again for the reasons above). However, if you are rhetorically violent in round, your speaks will be far lower.

All of the other details of my paradigm stem from these three points.

General:

- I have no preferences about the following: rejecting the resolution, conditionality/multicondo, 'cheater' CPs, PICs, Ks, 'frivolous' theory, etc. I am more than happy to evaluate these strats, but I think your opponents get to at least try to read theory in response.

- Personally, in order of most to least enjoyed, I prefer Ks, then theory, then case/advantages/disadvantages debates. However, my preferences will never factor into my decision, and I am more than comfortable evaluating any of these types of arguments.

Delivery/Speaks:

- I'm very comfortable with speed, but I know it can be a barrier to teams as well. I will default to evaluating speed but if your opponent asks your to slow or clear, please listen to them. I also don't think tech debate is intrinsically tied to speed; it's possible to have a technical debate that is not fast if speed is a barrier to teams. This means a) tech is not a reason why speed is good, and b) speed is not a reason why tech is bad or inaccessible.

- Don't worry about "performing well" in front of me. As previously mentioned, I will not give speaks based on performance.

- I will say clear as much as I need and I won't penalize speaks for clarity.

- I will not lower your speaks for calling points of order/information, so call away!

Policy/Case stuff:

- I default to believing in durable fiat.

- I default to evaluating your advantages through net benefits and util/some other form of consequentialism unless you specify otherwise.

- Specificity is good! I would much rather vote on your super specific investment bubble disad than your generic government spending disad.

Counterplans:

- I like CPs, especially well-constructed/creative advantage CPs.

- From the general section: I have no disposition for or against condo of 'cheater' CPs. Feel free to read them, but assume your opponents get to try reading theory about them.

- I default to evaluating perms as tests of competitions, but I will evaluate them as advocacies if you give me a reason why.

- I prefer arguments about functional competition and competition through net benefits to arguments about textual competition.

- I default to no judge kick, but I will evaluate it if you make the arguments.

Theory:

- I love theory :)

- I default to potential abuse over proven abuse, but feel free to do weighing between the two in round.

- I have a relatively low threshold for what counts as abuse on theory. Since I default to potential abuse, I vote for the better norm for debate between the interp and the counter interp. This means I am very comfortable voting on 'frivolous' theory and potential abuse.

- I default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I think it's hard to evaluate reasonability without a brightline for what is considered to be 'reasonable.' I also don't know how to decide what is reasonable without being interventionist (see the judge intervention section).

- I default to dropping the team on theory, but I have no disposition between dropping the team or the argument.

- I default to theory being a priori to the rest of the debate.

- I default to fairness and education not being voters. This means you have to explicitly read fairness and education as voters in order for me to vote on theory; I will not "assume" they are there.

- I have an extremely high threshold for 2AR/PMR theory.

- I have an extremely high threshold for reasons why case impacts (advantages or disadvantages) should come before theory.

- I default to no RVIs. That means you have to make the argument that theory is a reverse voting issue, I won't just assume that it is. However, I love RVIs and think they're underutilized right now in parli.

Kritiks:

- I love Ks and K affs. I see myself as primarily a K debater, judge, and coach.

- I have a good understanding of most foundational critical theory, so don't be afraid of reading your arguments in front of me. Read your pomo nonsense; read your more structuralist positions.

- As a debater, I tended to reject the resolution more than I defend it, but I am perfectly happy evaluating rounds either way. From above: I think you're probably able to reject the resolution, but your opponents probably get to try reading theory against it. For what it's worth, all else held equal, I think I probably err towards the kritik on the question of weighing k impacts vs fairness and education (55-45), but I think the reason why is because teams frequently fail to explain why concepts like 'fairness' and 'education' matter in the context of the framework/impacts of the K, thus losing if the aff frames out the interp. If you can read framework and with this debate, you will probably win my ballot.

- I default to epistemic modesty over confidence. This means without any in-depth explanation, I'll evaluate your frameout as a reason why your impacts are more probable than your opponents, and why your opponents have a lower probability of solving their impacts. If you want me to evaluate your frameout as terminal defense, or a reason the k is sequentially a prior question to the aff, you need to do the technical extensions of why that is necessarily the case.

- I evaluate the alt like a CP in reference to competition and the perm; if I should evaluate the alt as more of a performance instead, please let me know and explain what this means in the context of the round.

- I don't love reject alts. I'd prefer your alt to be specific, concrete, and actionable.

- I default to theory being a priori to the K, but I'm extremely sympathetic to arguments that the K should come first for a litany of reasons.

Other:

-Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

- I default to presumption flowing neg unless the neg reads (and goes for) an advocacy other than the status quo, but I want this to be debated out in the round.

- I tend to have a high threshold for what counts as "contradictory" arguments; or at least, I think conditionality probably resolves a large degree of contradictions. So, I'm sympathetic to the argument that contradictions don't matter if you kick out of one half of the contradiction. However, if you're uncondo, you do need to be careful not to double turn yourself (for example, by reading an uncondo cap K and an econ DA).

- I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it's always better to call points of order just to be safe. There's always a chance I misevaluate whether an argument is new or not, so play it safe and point it out to me. I won't lower speaks or anything for calling points of order, so there's no perceptual risk.

- I will vote on IVIs, but to be transparent I'm not the biggest fan if they're read frivolously. Specificity is necessary here. If you do go for an IVI, you need to do the technical work of explaining why this piece of offense functions independently of the rest of the flow. Absent some justification, I will evaluate IVIs as a piece of offense on the layer it was read. If you want me to evaluate it as an a priori voting issue, I need framing that justifies this. This isn't to say that I won't evaluate IVIs, but it means that you need to do the work of explaining why it's a priori.

- (Parli) The LOR doesn't have to extend every word of the MO. I think the LOR can largely do whatever it wants to, as long as it's not new. The LOR can never really lose the round, but it definitely can win it.

- (LD) Please include me in the speech doc or email chain if there is one.

- If you have other questions I haven't answered, please ask me before the round!

---

Kendall Mead - St. Mary's

I debated for four years in College doing Parli and LD. I also spent three years coaching on the High School level doing Policy, LD, and Public Forum. I am a pretty big flow judge so essentially, the team who makes me do the least amount of work at the end of the round to make a decision will, most likely, win. I appreciate it when you extend your own dropped arguments across the flow because I won't do it for you. The biggest weighing mechanism in the round for me is impacts and impact calculus, my favorite kind of impacts tend to be high magnitude however, in order to capture those for me you need to have a beautiful link chain. I'm okay with all arguments which include the K, standard Advantages and Disadvantages, Topicality, Theory etc. I am fine with speed but don't let your arguments get lost in the speed ; simply speak loud and articulate to ensure I get all of your arguments. If there is a problem I will call clear or volume but keep in mind that if I have to continually do this your speaker points will suffer. Other than that this is your round so do what you want with it and have fun. Feel free to ask any questions.

---

Kiefer Storrer - Whitman

Pronouns:He/Him/His

I care a lot about disasters, fires, floods, and killer bees.

Experience: Competed in 4 years 3A Kansas High School Policy and 4 years Midwest-regional and PKD/NCCFI College Parli. I have a background of coaching LD, Parli, IPDA, the occasional very rare Worlds tournament; but IEs are the real undercurrent of my coaching career. I've coached a Parliamentary National Championship at Phi Rho Pi and PKD, but only rarely have been involved with NPDA-circuit competition. Current ADOD/F at Whitman.

Because metaphors are the cool thing to do these days, I view debate like Professional Wrestling; theatrical spectacle with ambiguous rulesets that are sometimes "broken" to up the entertainment and education factor. National-level rounds are hopefully grandiose back-and-forth engagements where either side, made up of larger-than-life personalities, is winning speech to speech. Please don't have me evaluate a Dusty Finish, I'd like a clear winner, so clash like champions and give your best Impact Calc promo.

TL:DR: Cool with anything, don't advocate for genocide or advocates of genocide. Might be a step behind on my flowing ability ("he's still got it *clapclap clapclapclap*"...hopefully). Again, with the wrestling metaphor; please be kind through the round, but especially before and after. We are a reviving community, and our future is in our hands.

---

Kristina Rietveld - Utah

Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)

What I like:

- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.

- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.

- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.

- Framework - I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).

- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.

- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.

-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.

What I don't like:

- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic. I am not a fan of spec arguments.

- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, make sure your K somehow links to SOMETHING in the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 2, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 3, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.

- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.

- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.

- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.

- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.

---

Kyle Pryor-Landman - SDSU

Hi, I am Kyle Pryor-Landman, my pronouns are he/him, my email is kpryorlandman@sdsu.edu, and I am the Director of Debate at SDSU and Secretary of the NPDA. I competed in NPDA debate for 3 years, won some tournaments, and got some trophies, and now I coach college and high school parli.

TL;DR - Do what you want. I can keep up. Debate is about you, not me. Just make sure I can follow along.

FAQs:

1. What can I run in front of you?: Anything you want. Seriously. IDC.
   1. I am pretty comfortable with most of the lit in the meta! If you want to do something outside of that, just explain it!
2. Can I spread?: Sure, just don't be abusive. (I am not a fan of listening to or evaluating speed T so please just be nice to each other :D )
   
3. Can I reject the topic?: Probably! Do you know your own K? (If you cannot give an enthusiastic YES! To this question, think twice)
4. What do you want to see?: In order from most to least enjoyable for me to judge:
   1. Topical Aff vs. Disads/CP/T
   2. Topical Aff vs. K
   3. K aff vs. FW-T
   4. K aff vs. K (everyone understands their K)
   5. K aff vs K (no one understands their K) (I am the wrong judge to break your new K aff in front of)
5. Will you vote on frivolous theory?: Did you argue it well enough?: If yes, sure. If not, probably no.
6. Do you have a preference for sitting/standing/side of the room?: You do you, Pookie.
7. Do you protect?: I try to, but call your POOs. My flow is messy, admittedly.
8. Will you give me 30 speaks?: If you ask, you get a 20. :)
9. Do you accept bribes?: Officially, no.
10. What about LD?: The same rules apply from parli, but give me a little bit more pen time because I am still figuring out how I feel.
11. How do you feel about IPDA?: Poorly. The closer it is to NPDA, the less I have to intervene, and the happier I am. Do with that what you will.
12. How do you feel about TPDA? Not sure.
    
13. Is there anything else I should know about you as a judge? I like to have a fun, silly, goofy time in debate rounds. I also have carpal tunnel (thanks grad school!), so my written RFDs are going to be shorter than they used to be. Email me after the tournament if you want more written feedback, but you should also write down your oral feedback anyway.
14. Clash makes me scared! What should I do? Respond to your opponent, or you probably won't win.
15. If I ask you what your paradigm is before the round, what will you say?: It's on ForensicsTournament if you want to check it out.

Cowardice is a voting issue. Say it with your chest. - Adeja Powell

Speaks: 26-30 unless you say a slur or something extra shitty. 30 being the best speech I have heard all year, 26 being you did not include significant portions of the debate, extremely unorganized, and/or no terminalization. < 26: You'll know because I'll tell you.

---

Mason Remaley - Jewell

Tab, do whatever you do best. I do not have any categorical prohibitions on any types of arguments. While debating I mostly read the K (Cap, Psychoanalysis, Queerness, Schmitt, Heidegger, Biopolitics, etc.) with T and heg as secondary strategies.

Impact comparison is incredibly important for my ballot. Debate is a game of world comparison, for instance if the debate comes down to an aff vs a disad, I will ask myself if the world of the aff or the world of the status quo is net beneficial. This is what it means to weigh impacts. My default impact framing mechanism is Util. If you present an alternative impact framing mechanism tell me how it impacts my evaluation.

Interps must be textually competitive, there is no spirit of the T. For instance, if your interp is "the aff must spec their agent of action." I will vote on a we meet if the aff specs it at some point in the round. So, a better interp would be "the aff must spec their agent of action in the pmc."

T and theory require explicit interps,

If you are going for a non-extinction death impact under a util framing (which is my default if you dont present me with an alternative) please quantify your impacts.

I have very ambivalent feelings about MG theory. The absences of backside rebuttals makes it structurally abusive but on the other hand without it there is not way to check back for neg abuse. My attitude can be summarized thusly: "lets not!"

Speed is not an issue

I see to minimize judge intervention. Many debate that I judge often miss the forest for the trees, the entire debate becomes a show line by line tit for tat responses without either team pulling across a warrant that is predictive of the opponents arguments nor taking a step back and establishing the stakes of these line by line attacks as it relates to the substance of the debate. Please do predictive comparisons.

Theory defaults to common issues: Condo good, don't need to spec, speed good, cx is binding, presumption goes neg.

Fiat is required for any negative argument that does not defend the status quo.

I did policy debate in High School and was the 2018 4A CX state champion. I did parli at UT Tyler and was a two time NPTE finalist and a one time NPDA finalist. I currently coach parli at William Jewell College.
masonaremaley@gmail.com

---

Nathan Estrick - CUI

Hey friends, not gonna make you read a treatise to understand my judging criteria. I debated six years in high school and then all four years doing primarily Parli (but also IPDA and LD). Overall, I do my best to be as tabula rasa as I can -- absent needing to intervene with a team being really racist/homophobic or verbally abusive to their opponents, I try to tie my ballot to only the arguments made in the round. On speed, I’m going to be able to keep up with you, but make sure you slow if your opponents ask you to.

 

That being said, here’s a little bit on how I evaluate some of the major arguments; 

 

Policy: Though I have plenty of experience running different kinds of arguments, I do have a soft spot for a good old policy round. In evaluating policy, Impacts really are king; though generating good uniqueness and winning your link chains are important, I tend to be somewhat sympathetic to try or die arguments, and so I find good Impact framing is usually what wins over my ballot. 

 

Counterplans: As far as counterplans go, I like them, but make sure they are at least competitive on net benefits. I tend to default to counterplans not having fiat, so the neg would need to argue to me that they do. I’m also somewhat sympathetic to PICS bad theory, so keep that in mind when writing your counterplans. 

 

Theory: I tend to have a pretty high bar for voting on theory: if you expect me to vote on it, I expect you to collapse to it. I’m not going to vote on a theory shell that the MO extends for two minutes and then spends the rest of the block doing other things. I also will generally be unsympathetic to weird or goofy theories; they can win my ballot, but unless the connection to fairness and education are made pretty strongly, they’re gonna have trouble picking up. 

 

The K: I like the K, and like to see different varieties run. Ultimately, I believe debate is a game and I think the K is a really strategic and interesting part of playing that game. That being said, if your K has really weak links to either the topic/the aff, I’m not going to be very interested in it, since you’re just pulling it out of a can as opposed to doing the work to contextualize it. I love K’s with good historical theory analysis and good solvency, so the more abstract the K becomes, the harder it becomes to win my ballot with it. 

---

Sean Nowlan - CUI

I've done Parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, and IPDA debate for three years competitively. I've read all manner of kritiks, theory, and case debate, so anything you read in front of me goes as far as kinds of debate are concerned. While I read a lot of kritiks around Settler Colonialism during my Sophomore year, that doesn't mean I want to hear them over and over if the arguments aren't going to be good. I'll highlight the most important no-nos.

THIS IS UPDATED FOR NPDA NATIONALS 2024. BOLDED PORTIONS ARE NEW/CHANGED AS OF 03/13/2024

In General-

• Pessimistic Kritiks:
  
  
• See kritik section, but with specifically pessimistic kritiks. I'm more prone towards voting for actions that build systems or have alternative systems of power rather than just tear them down. I am more prone to vote for optimistic kritiks than pessimistic ones; usually because I've rarely seen a pess kritik where tearing down systems doesn't make things worse for the groups it's trying to protect
  
  
• Speed:
  
  
• I debated fast and against fast debaters. Once you start exceeding 400+ words a minute I won't write down every single minor argument made.
  
  
• If the other team shouts "slow," "clear," or "loud" please do so. Maximize accessibility for everyone. I am receptive to theory if the other team doesn't take reasonable steps to ensure accessibility.

• Theory

• Theory is more than a bunch of taglines, the taglines need explanations to matter. Don't just state a voter or a priori, state why it matters.

• • I default to theory as a priori and weigh on the basis of competing interps unless otherwise told.

• Case Debate

• Love it. It's my favorite kind of debate by far, it's the whole reason I started debate was to argue about politics around the world

• • Quoting Alex Li: Theory is often a copout. If you are winning case and theory, I prefer case, but do whatever is strategic.

• • From monetary policy to Congressional bureaucratic minutiae to the environment, I love all kinds of advantages and disadvantages. I'm not a person predisposed to hating the United States or capitalism

• • If youre going to say a person or policy is bad, you can't just call it right-wing, Republican, or conservative you have to actually explain why it's wrong or the material action a group takes to harm others. Terminalize your impacts.

• • When it comes to case debates, I need warrants, and more often than not I'm constantly asking for people to specify/quantify in any way their impacts

• Kritiks

• Nothing makes me more excited on the kritik than to see links and impacts very contextual to the round/resolution.
• If your alt has no impact, is not competitive, is generic, or is conditional; it makes me much less likely to vote for you on the basis of a kritik.

• • Many kritikal alternatives I hear very easily can be argued to have no solvency or have solvency which actively makes the world worse; dont be afraid to argue against kritikal solvency.

• • There are very good reasons to reasons to reject some topics, but usually I default to affirmatives upholding the resolution. You have to have good links to the topic, claiming that you need to run your affirmative kritik just because there is a structural problem with debate itself usually doesn't balance out against topicality theory in front of me.

• Conditionality and PICs-
• I voted for conditional advocacies and for PICS, and voted against them. There are theoretical reasons for and against both.
• If you collapse to a conditional kritik, your solvency and the necessity of your advocacy are undermined by the fact you are willing to kick it.

---

Sean Thai - UOP

I'm open to most stuff.

FOR BOTH ONLINE AND OFFLINE DEBATE:clarity is important. I will now more aggressively clear. If I do it 3 times, I will not vocalise the fourth and probably stop flowing. I understand and have suffered some of the issues that prevents speed, which provides a tangible competitive benefit, but I believe access prioritising the access of your opponents is more important.

Theory/Framework/Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations, unless reasonability is won hard. Spec is good. What are RVI's? "We meet" your counter-interps.

Policy:

I am most familiar with this type of debate. I almost exclusively went for extinction. I will always use judging criterion and impact framing explicated in the debate, but as a last resort, I will evaluate impacts independently - this isn't to say that I will always vote for high mag/low prob, but that I am more open to these than other judges.

Don't delay. Don't Object. Don't cheato veto. Don't cheat. I have a low threshold.

K's:

I appreciate and think Kritikal arguments have done more good than harm for both the real world and debate; but I do believe that it can and has led to identities and peoples being weaponised, whether they wanted to or not. Beyond that, I believe that K's need to clearly explicate how the alt works, the world post alt, and good links. I'm willing to buy a K that doesn't do any of these, but if these get indicted by procedurals or arguments will be damning. I hate simple reject alt's.

I will try my best to understand your arguments, but please do not assume I know your literature base. I am probably more comfortable with pomo lit than any other lit, but you should still explain the basis of your arguments.

In the same vein, I think interps that are some version of "We can do it in this round" hold zero persuasiveness for my ballot. Not only do they not work as a good precedent for future rounds, but also they just also don't provide meaningful (to me) access to the standards debate.General

Debate:

Condo is good. Multi-condo not so much. Don't try to understand my non-verbals, because I don't understand them. Sometimes I'm very expressive, sometimes I'm not.

Tech = truth

Flex time questions are binding.

---

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!

---

Tierra Smithson - UOP

Hi there! My names Tierra. I competed in LD for 4 years in high school, then did LD and Parli for 4 years at the University of the Pacific. This is my second year coaching for UoP as a graduate assistant coach. Below are some of the things that might help you understand the way I think about debate and how I evaluate certain positions.

Affs:

I think the affirmative should ideally be topical. I think critical affirmatives can be achieved without outright rejecting the topic. For AFFs that decide to forgo this and decide to reject the topic, I need clear explanations for why you are doing so, why it is necessary, etc.

Topicality/Theory:

I understand topicality as how individual words in the resolution ought to be interpreted for the best debate.

The negative should have a clear definition/interpretation, and the affirmative should make sure to make we meet arguments and offer competing definitions/interpretations. For theory, I have a higher threshold for frivolous theory, especially when its used as an exclusionary tool or a time suck, but I am receptive to theory that seems warranted given the nature of the topic i.e. PICs Bad, No PIC on a whole law, condo bad, etc.

This means that I tend to default to competing interpretations over reasonability, even if I think the aff might be good in some way for the debate (ie reasonability). This means that having arguments like why competing interps is bad or why reasonability is good are strategic.

CP/Ks:

CPs or Ks should be unconditional, and I can be persuaded by condo bad arguments. That being said, I still expect these to be warranted out and WEIGHED, which means I dont just auto drop teams that are condo. I also think that when the negative has read either a CP/K, they have the burden of proving why their alternative choice is preferable, and thus for me, presumption would flip Aff.

I like policy debate, and think counterplan-disad debates can be really interesting, but often underutilized. I ran Ks when I competed, but Im probably not deep in the critical literature youre reading. This means you can run your K but if I dont understand how to evaluate it compared to the Aff or reasons why the alternative is preferable, Im likely to be persuaded by the perm (if one is made) and the aff leveraging their advantages. I think perms need to be explained, and Im not a fan of vague perm: do both arguments without any additional explanation of how its possible or what that means.

Speed/Clarity:

I dont think speed should be used to exclude anyone from the round and that you should slow or clear if someone says slow or clear. Im a fast talker, and might be able to keep up, but you at your top speed is probably too fast for me. If you want me to get your arguments, you should slow down a touch and try to punch your tags.

Also for funsies, here is a list of my previous debate partners who probably were better than I was. Do with that information what you will: Arshita Sandhiparthi, Jonathan Reyes, Ravi Prasad, Marlu Reyes.

If you have any questions, dont hesitate to reach out! My email ist_smithson@u.pacific.edu

---

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.

---