FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Testerman - TTU

Background Hi there!  I participated in parliamentary debate during college, with two years at Southern Illinois University and two years at Texas Tech University.  I feel comfortable judging any “genre” of argument and have no real argument preference beyond the desire to see clash.  I coached for three years at Lewis & Clark College; this is my third year as Director of Forensics at Texas Tech.   General Issues Parliamentary debate is the most fun and the most educational when a variety of argumentative styles, people, knowledge bases, and strategies are given room to thrive.  I feel lucky to have judged a vast array of different arguments in my judging career.  One of my main goals as a judge is to allow teams to run the arguments they feel are most compelling in front of me.  I’ve picked up teams reading structural indictments of debate about as many times as I’ve picked up teams reading policy affirmatives and defending incrementalism.  It is my goal to involve myself in the debate round as little as possible.  I have no preference for any particular kind of argument and generally feel that almost every debate issue can be resolved in the round.  I will vote for arguments with warrants. I will try my best to synthesize your arguments, but I also believe that to be a central skill of effective debaters.  I will vote for arguments I think are stupid 10 out of 10 times if they are won in the round.  I rely on my flow to decide the round.  I attempt to flow performances and I do my best to write down what you’re saying as close to verbatim as my fingers allow me.  If there is an expectation that I not decide the round based on the way I understand argument interaction on my flow, that should be stated explicitly and it would be a good idea to tell me how I am intended to evaluate the debate round.  Emphasize explanation early… don’t let your argument make sense for the first time in the LOR or PMR etc.  All constructive speeches should take a question if asked, and it’s strategic to ask questions.  Theory interpretations and advocacy statements should be read slowly and read twice.  Points of Order should be called, but I will also do my best to protect new arguments… don’t be excessive with them though [I’ll be vague about what that means, but be an adult]  RVI’s have never been good arguments, read them at your own risk.   Theory/Procedurals I cut my teeth on procedural arguments in college, and I am still a huge fan.  To vote on a procedural, I need an interpretation explaining how the debate should be evaluated, a violation detailing specifically why the other team does not fit within that interpretation, standards that explain why the interpretation is good, and a voter that outlines why I should vote on the argument.  PLEASE read your interpretation/definition slowly and probably repeat it.  It is good to have an interpretation that makes some sense.  DAs/Advantages DAs and Advs. require uniqueness arguments that explain why the situation the affirmative causes is not happening in the status quo.  Defensive arguments are useful, but they often serve to make offensive arguments more impactful or serve as risk mitigation, as opposed to terminal takeouts.  Critiques Critique debates can be fun to watch, but only when the position is clear at the thesis level. If your shell argues that the K is a prior question or something like that, spend some meaningful time explaining why that’s the case instead of “shadow” extending an argument from the shell.  I am familiar with a lot of the literature, but you should argue the position as if I am not.  Critiques are totally dope, but only because they have the potential to advance compelling arguments… not because they are obtuse.  Framework debates are a waste of time a vast majority of the time.  I do not understand why teams spend any substantive amount of time on framework.  The question of whether the affirmative methodology/epistemology/whatever vague term you want to use, is good or bad should be determined in the links and impacts of the criticism.  I see almost no world where framework matters independent of the rest of the shell.  So… the only K framework questions that tend to make sense to me are arguments about why it is a prior question.  It makes sense that if the critique wins that the affirmative impacts are threat constructions that I’m not going to weigh the affirmative impacts against the position.  That’s not a framework debate though, that’s a question determined by winning the thesis of the position.  Critical affirmatives can be cool, but they also put me in a weird position as a judge sometimes.  If your affirmative is positioned to critique DAs, then I still want to see specific applications of those arguments to the DAs.  I need to see how the DA demonstrates your argument to be true in some specific way.  By that I mean, if the negative outright wins a DA, I would need to see why that would mean the affirmative shouldn’t lose early, often, and specifically.  The same is true of any set/genre of negative positions.  Performance I tend to not have super strong feelings in favor or in opposition to “performance” style arguments.  Several of the teams I have coached have run non-traditional arguments and I have seen those be incredibly beneficial for the debaters and have a positive effect on education garnered from their rounds.  I have also seen people really struggle with performance-style arguments on an interpersonal level, in both advocating their positions and responding to others doing so.  I defer to the debaters to wade through the various issues related to performance-style debate.  For me, performances [and this is definitely for lack of a better term that groups non-policy/non-topic oriented approaches] have the potential to make very compelling arguments.  However, I will vote for framework as answer to these arguments if the other team “wins” the position. I'll also say, smart K aff teams should be reading a 1ac that levvies a lot of offense against the internal logic of most framework positions.  Framework teams should consider to what extent the affirmative acts as a DA to their interpretation and wade through such issues carefully.  CPs In general, the CP/DA debate is probably what I feel most comfortable judging accurately and I think CPs that solve the affirmative are very strategic. There are probably enough arguments on both sides to justify different interpretations of how permutation or CP theory in general should go down, that I don’t have strong opinions about many CP related issues.   I tend to think objections to conditionality are rooted in some very valid arguments, however I find myself concluding conditionality is probably more good than bad in my mind.  That only means the conditionality debate is totally fair game and I probably have voted conditionality bad as many times as I have voted it is good.  Cheater CPs are cool with me, so feel free to deploy delay, conditions, consult, whatever.  I tend to think the theory arguments read in answer to those positions are more persuasive than the answers when argued perfectly, but that in no way makes me more predisposed to reject any kind of CP strategy.

Alain Datcher - Biola

Background: I am new to Parli debate. I have my masters degree from Peperdine which does a different form of debate, I think debate should include ethos and pathos as well as logos so please do not try to spread. I am helping out the school that I received my BA and now teach as an adjunct. Try to go straight up if you want to win my ballet. 1) Organization: Your arguments need to have tag lines if you want me to write them down accurately. A tag line is a sentence fragment that summarizes the claim. I will write down what the argument seems to be in the absence of clear tag lines. 2) Voting Issues: Presuming the criteria is net benefits, break down the voting issues along likelihood, magnitude, irreversibility, and timeframe.  3) Criteria: I will be open to whatever criteria you want to use. If you want to challenge the criteria, I suggest you include reasons to prefer. 4) Procedurals: I will listen to topicality. I am comfortable voting on it. I prefer to vote on in-round abuse, but I will only vote on competing interpretations if and only if you can justify why you should win just because you have a better understanding of the deffinitions. 5) Counterplans don’t have to be non-topical in my opinion.   6) I will vote on whoever can best explain theory arguments and why they are important. Impact those out to education, competitive equity, and fairness.  7) Kritiks: Kritiks have made NPDA worse. I would like critiques more if K debaters would give solid empirical examples, especially for alt solvency, versus the blip-fest that comes with believing everyone has read the source literature. Better to just go straight up if you want me to enjoy the round. 8) I will punish rudeness on the speaker points. Call your own points of orders.

Alley Agee - Utah

General overview: I consider myself a very open judge. I do not care what you run, as long as you do it well and justify it. I vote for the team that gives me the easiest out without or with minimal intervention. The only position I will not vote for out of principle is the argument that I personally have to affirm with my ballot that debate is meaningless. Arguments that ask me to personally affirm some philosophical position with my ballot also do not sit well with me. I think these types of positions do violence to the critic (or have no solvency, probably this one). So, keep my name or the phrase “the judge” out of your advocacy and solvency and you should be fine. Additionally, I usually prefer topical affs, though what counts as topical for me is pretty broad—make some link arguments or impacts specific to the resolution and you’re probably topical. This is because I think part of the unique education that you get from parli debate comes from changing topics. Even if you want to talk about your critical aff, considering the topic specific implications, link stories, or just general ways your critical position relates to the topic gives you a new way to think about that critical aff and probably does more for your education. This being said, I certainly have no problem voting up non-topical affs, and I’ve done it plenty of times. But I’m going to be swayed by theory with a good education voter a little more easily than other critics. Finally, the part that everyone says in every philosophy—be courteous, acknowledge your privilege or position of power and don’t exert it, respect your competitors and the arguments they make, and be respectful of me. If you don’t do these things I can assure you your speakers points will reflect it. If you want to know more specifics, you can keep reading. Experience: I competed in NPDA all four years of undergrad with appearances at two NPTE tournaments. This is my third year coaching college parli, and my second year at the University of Utah. Critical arguments and K’s: Run them. I love a good K debate. However, I do find them harder to judge if they get messy. This usually happens when the links are not clear, the team does not understand their lit, or the alt and alt solvency aren’t clearly explained. This becomes particularly problematic when both teams run critical positions. I will like you and your K more if you have topic specific links or implications. See my comment above about non-topical K affs. This season, I’m becoming increasingly more frustrated with sloppy alternatives that do not solve or make sufficient arguments about solvency, so you should take time on your alt and alt solvency in prep time. Framework/methodology always come first for me in K debates, whether its K on K or otherwise. Spend time telling me why your framework and methodology is best in comparison to the other team’s framework/methodologies. Additionally, don’t forget to deal with the links page.  **This doesn’t mean that you have to run critical positions in front of me. I actually really dig a good straight up debate, increasingly more so because I rarely get to see them. I don’t think teams use the DA/CP strat as often as they should.**  Theory/T: Also fine. I do not believe that in-round abuse has to have occurred to vote on T, mostly because I’m not really sure what in round abuse vs. potential abuse actually means (though you can certainly make arguments about that). I believe that T is a position just like any other position. If you win that sheet of paper and you tell me why that sheet of paper means you win the whole round, then I will vote for you. This goes for all theory positions. In general I think if you’re going to win T or any other theory position in front of me then you need to collapse down to just that position. If your theory position is really a priori, then you don’t need anything else to win the debate. Usually, I think you should only run theory to get you something in the round, i.e. to protect your links. (But just because they no link your DA doesn’t mean you automatically win T).  Speaker points: I give speaker points ranging from 26-28 points. My average this semester has been around a 27.5. I determine speaker points based on the arguments you make and strategy. A killer MO collapse will get you a 29/30. An LOR that doesn’t stick with her MOs collapse will lose points. If you are mean or rude I have no problem giving you 0 points. Seriously, I’ve done more times than I can count.  General Practice: Be smart and make good arguments. Tell me why you should win the debate. I like it when my RFD is literally a quotation from one of the rebuttals. I’ve bolded this because too often debaters forget to contextualize the round in the rebuttals for me. I think the constructive speeches are you just laying the groundwork for you to make your actual argument in the rebuttal. Clear voters are key. Finally, debates should start smaller than where they began.

Alyson Escalante - Oregon

I competed in NPDA/NPTE parli debate for four years, two at El Camino College and two at the University of Oregon. As such, I've debate both on communication centric local circuits as well as national level competative circuit debate. The round is yours, and you are free to do what you wish with it. I will do my best to accomodate the type of round the teams involved decide to have. I do have some preferances but I will attempt to minimize the impact they have. This paradigm is meant to provide transparency for how I understand and aproach debate so that you can understand the biases and preferences which inform my evaluation of a round. Theory: I generally have a middle of the line threshold on most theory positions and I don't have particularly strong opinions on most of the debates about ideal pedagogy, except in relation to topicality. In general my threashold is lowest for questions of topicality and I tend to prefer that the affirmative team defend the resolution. I am willing to judge rounds where that is not the case, but the affirmative should have ample justifications for their decision and I tend to be sympathetic to topicality/framework. In terms of theoretical questions regarding counterplan status, I default towards understanding conditionality to be positive, but I am more than happy to vote on a condo bad shell which is not properly adressed. Critiques: I'm fairly comfortable with most literature bases for the main popular critiques on the national circuit. While I enjoy critique debate, I generally find that it massively simplifies incredibly complex literature. As such, I will reward debaters clearly well versed in, and understanding the nuance of their literature, with speaker points. In general I have a better understanding of more traditional political critiques of capitalism, the state, or other objective political institutions. I am also fairly comfortable with my understanding of criticisms grounded in broader continental philosophy. I am less well read in the fields of critical race theory and critical legal studies so if you want to read positions grounded in this literature please be sure to explain terminology and concepts so I can understand their function in the round. "Identity politics": I don't really like the term identity politics but it seems to be the term the circuit has settled on so here we are. Anyway, I generally find these rounds dificult to judge when not provided with a clear framework for how I am supposed to engage the round. If you want to read these kinds of arguments you should answer a few questions for me. What is my role in this round? Am I here as an objective observer flowing the round or should my social location and identity effect my interaction with the arguments being made? Should I stick to a logocentric understanding of the flow as an objective measure of the round, or should I evaluate without emphasizing the flow? If you address these sorts of questions you will have a significantly easier time winning my ballot. If you do not give me a paradigm to evaluate the round I will default to the flow, which I often find is insufficient for evaluating the affective and personal aspects of these rounds. Just tell me what you prefer. Disads: I probably prefer plan versus disad debate the most. I'm not particularly opposed to any particular disadvantages and I generally find that the more generic disads such as politics, hegemony, business confidence, or other generics are a really interesting debate when a team goes above and beyond in researching these positions and understanding the nuances of the story they are telling. If you have any questions not addressed here please feel free to ask me before round.

Amanda Ozaki-Laughon - Concordia

Hello,  I am the Director of Debate at Concordia University Irvine. I competed both nationally and locally at PSCFA and NPTE/NPDA tournaments during my 4 years of competition, and this is my 3rd year coaching and judging.  I tend to prefer policy debate, and am sympathetic to trichotomy arguments that say policymaking includes the educational facets of value and fact debate. Value and fact debates are often lacking in the very basic structure of claim+data+warrant, and rarely use terminalized impacts. These shortcomings are much easier to logically rectify if policymaking is used. "should" is not necessary to test whether or not the resolution is true.  Theory comes first in debate, since it is a debate about the rules. I default to competing interpretations and am unlikely to vote for your counter interpretation if it has no counter standards for that reason. MOs should choose whether to go for topicality or the substance debate and collapse to one OR the other, not both. Likewise, PMRs should choose whether to collapse to MG theory arguments OR the substance debate, not both.  Kritiks should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. The framework should be utilized as offense to frame out the method of the AFF, and prioritize the impacts of the K. The Alt should explain why they solve for the AFF, and avoid the disadvantages of the link story. I prefer critiques that do not make essentialized claims without warrants about how the AFF's method in particular needs to be rejected. I prefer critical affirmatives be topical in their advocacy statement or policy option.  Disadvantages should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. Uniqueness claims should be descriptive of the status quo, with a predictive claim about what direction the status quo is heading. Politics disadvantages should have well-warranted link stories that explain why the plan uniquely causes losers/win, winners to lose, etc.  Counterplans should solve for at least one of the advantages of the AFF. Plan-inclusive counterplans are core negative ground, though perhaps less so on resolutions with 1 topical affirmative (resolutions that require the AFF to pass a bill, for example). I usually default to counterplans competing based on net benefits, and thus permutation arguments need to explain why the perm shields the link to the disadvantage(s).

Andrea Adams - SMC

The short version: It’s your time; you do what you want. I competed in both parli and policy. I have judged a substantial number of rounds this year but have not kept count. I believe debate is what you make it and I will follow whatever guidelines you tell me to in-round. But unless told otherwise, I default to using the flow as my basis of judging. Basically, this means in-round discourse with slight preference going to the better warrants and impacts and offense over defense. (But you can still win with only defensive arguments)  As long as I can understand you, I will flow you.  I’m fine with speed although I am also open to speed Ks. (See the first line.) On case arguments are as important as you tell me they are unless argued otherwise by the other side. (See the first line) Kritiks and critical affs are fun and interesting, please run them. That said, I won’t prefer them over other arguments and my first line still trumps everything. I flow alt and alt solvency on two separate pages (it keeps the perm and solvency debates separate) so please pause between the two so I have time to switch to a new page. Projects and performances- also fun and interesting but I want a clear role of the judge/role of the ballot and/or weighing mechanism. Not saying you will necessarily lose if you don’t provide me one but it helps me from feeling lost. That said, for projects and performances, my default might shift from strictly the flow towards a more ‘being present’ approach unless told otherwise by either team. Topicality, theory, counterplans, disadvantages, framework, etc, are all fine arguments. Go for offense over defense but I’ll vote on anything. See first line. Perms-They can be a test of mutual compatibility or the perm can become aff advocacy. Debate it out in-round. Please call points of order for new arguments in the rebuttals. If you don’t call it, I will consider it (obviously this doesn’t count for new arguments in the PMR that respond to new things brought up in the MOC speech). I will also give you give you better speaker points if you pleasantly surprise me with an argument. You can win with your international relations DA but it’s unlikely to impress me. I need detailed roadmaps before each speech begins (except the PMC).

Antoine Hardy - FIU

Juding Philosophy Background: Coached and Judged debate at Wake Forest;10 years teaching argumentation and debate, current FIU Debate coach 1. I am most familar with policy debate, therefore I would consider myself a stocks issues judge in policy rounds. However, I am open to creative well made arguments-tabula rasa 2. Speed--I am fine with speed with clarity, but super vacuum breaths for spreading are not neccessary.  I need to be able to flow the argument 3. Kritiks are fine...as long as it actually links to the subject and you explain the critical theory in a way any judge could understand.  4. Topicality I will vote on. But do not use it as a time waster 5. Counterplans are fine 6. If you go for a performative style, I have a right to also judge you based on performance not just debate skills.  7. Speaker points: speaking clearly so I can flow and using appropriate decorum in the round.  8. Persuade me. Sell me on your reasoning and argument, dont assume its blatantly clear

Austin Brittenham - Puget Sound

Overview        ~I am a first year out college debater~ I debated policy debate for 3 years in high school and 4 years in college. I went to the NDT in '15 and '16  debating arguments about embodiment (parli seems to call this performance), transness, and queerness. That being said my high school debate experience was primarily flex debating. I have a strong respect for the cp/ptx da combo. I mean to say no argument is a non-starter in front of me (I have voted on T, FW, terminal case defense, cp's, da's, k's, and theory). Please read your best arguments and I will invest myself in adjudicating what you have presented. To win my ballot just frame your offense and compare it to the other teams, generally. I think that's the core of debate no matter how you think about debate ideologically. Really, debate however you want and be prepared to debate your opponents. If you have a speed k, read it. You want to read one hege advantage with a lot of ethos, go for it. If you have 5 off and case, do you. You want to play a guitar and talk about Deleuze--cool.  My impulses as an educator ~Msc Theory~ ** I think that critical affs should either normatively defend something that isn't the squo or have a reason why their speech act/performance generates offense that is unique to each round. I think try-or-die is really vote aff on presumption which seems silly. Either the aff wins their impacts or they don't, try-or-die seems like a concession that the aff has lost the impact defense but should be voter for anyway for some reason. I think (logically limitted) conditionality is fine and am not generally inclined to vote on conditionality unless there is an in round impact or a team is significantly out debating another team on condo. It might be harder to convince me that one conditional cp/alt (especially if it isn’t kicked) is abusive. However, you can certainly go for this argument using a “model of debate” interp (i.e. their model of debate—condo good—produces bad debates because…).  I think that "methods" debates don't necessarily mean that the affirmative doesn't get a permutation. Methods seem permutable to me. I think there are other theoretical arguments which warrant the affirmative not getting a permutation in particular kinds of debates.  **These are just how I enter into a debate. Please obviously debate and win the arg and I will vote against my feelings. If this isn't helpful please ask me questions before the round.

Ben Mann - Utah

I am currently the Director of Debate at the University of Utah. This is my eighth year involved in college parli debate: I competed from 2010-14 on the national circuit at Lewis & Clark College, coached and judged parli extensively for two years at the University of the Pacific, and am now in my second year as a coach at Utah.   I take my role as a critic very seriously. My goal is to limit judge intervention and allow you to debate the way you would like to debate. I am comfortable with a variety of argument types, including Ks, theory, CPs, critical affs, and so forth. I evaluate debates based on comparative access to comparative impacts. In other words, I will vote for the team that demonstrates to me that they best access the most important impacts in the debate.   In front of me, success can best be achieved through resolving areas of tension in rebuttals (such as explaining why your uniqueness or link warrants should be preferred) along with using impact calculus (such as timeframe/magnitude/probability) to highlight the most important arguments. I appreciate collapse (external and internal) in the block and the PMR, as it typically makes for cleaner and more substantive debates. I also appreciate clear, specific warrants and smart offense. I will assign an “average” speaker point total of 27.5, and move up or down from there. I am not okay with sexism, racism, and other forms of oppression that occur within the debate round, nor am I okay with rudeness or personal attacks.   Last season, I judged a fair number of critical debates. I am not sure if this is a product of parli’s increasingly critical turn, assumptions about my argument preferences, or both, but I enjoy either policy or critical debate. I have a somewhat decent background in critical theory (my primary research is in critical/rhetorical approaches to disability and gender) but do not take this as an invitation for me to fill in arguments for you. I will also do my best to evaluate any framework/theory arguments against critical debate fairly.   One final note: the one and only time in which I did not feel like I could vote for an argument comfortably due to my own background came from a round last season in which a team suggested that death would “solve” disability issues. You can d-dev, but know that my own background means I am likely uncomfortable voting on arguments that specifically argue for death to disabled populations. It’s too close to home.   Any other questions? Feel free to ask me at benwmann@gmail.com

Bob Becker - Northwest

As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round.  I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so.  To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues.  Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important.  All of that said, I am not an information processor.  I am a human being and so are you.  If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance. When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose.  I think there needs to be resolutional analysis to justify affirmative choices.  Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions.  Left to my own devices, I will evaluate procedurals (topicality), then look to disadvantages and then case. I’ll evaluate kritiks wherever you tell me to place them in the order of things. I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast.  I will tell you if I can't understand you.  Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying.  Above all, be professional. This activity is fun.  That’s why I’m here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well. I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. I’m fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. “We don’t like the resolution” doesn’t cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some “contradictory arguments good” answers. Performance based arguments need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you don’t tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I don’t require competing interpretations. I think PICs are abusive, but that doesn’t make them bad. If they are so awful, you ought to be able to beat them. There are theoretical arguments to be made as to why they are bad, as well as why they are good. Make some arguments. I think the opp should, at least as a courtesy, identify the status of the CP and explain what that means. Mostly I think textual competition of perms is all right but, if pressed, probably an aff will want to show that it is functionally competitive as well. As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says “one million deaths” and the other says “dehume,” but doesn’t explain why dehume is worse than deaths, I’ll vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then I’ll vote for dehume. I think I’m telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brandon West - PLNU

Brandon West – Point Loma Nazarene University   I debated with Point Loma all four years of college in Parli and LD debate. I focused mainly on parli and was a national circuit debater. TL;DR – I’m ok with whatever speed and strategy you have at your disposal and simply love a good debate. The only positions I’m slightly dispositioned against are identity politics K’s because I feel uncomfortable evaluating them typically. Overall, debate is a game, so play it. I’m most comfortable in a straight up econ debate, but please run whatever you do best. Speed – Go as fast as you like. Please don’t be abusive if the other team is constantly calling clear. If there is blatant abuse, I am sympathetic to speed procedurals if impacted well. Debate should be accessible to both teams. Don’t use it as a tool of exclusion. Procedurals – Love them. Don’t apologize for running a procedural, I think there is just as much education to be had in these debates as any other. Impact your procedural, I’m a fan of counter frameworks against kritikal positions. Kritikal positions – Totally fine. I will say that I have a high threshold for solvency with kritiks. Please explain exactly why you solve the aff and/or your impacts. I’m not terribly well-read on a litany of literature. Don’t assume I’ve read your author. Please don’t assume I’m liberal/conservative and agree with X position. I really try to distance myself from my opinion and vote on the flow, so I absolutely LOVE impact turns to kritiks. I’ll tell you how I evaluate K’s. First, does the K solve the aff? If not, does the K advocacy solve the impacts of the K? If so, does the K’s impacts outweigh the case impacts? Last, is the offense against the alternative stronger than the offense against the case? Please, please, please, please leverage your case against the K instead of just abandoning your case out of fear. As I said above I don’t typically enjoy identity politics debate, and I’ll explain in more detail now why. First, I feel that most of these positions, unless expertly done, end up attacking the opponents for their identity and recreating all of the violence they try to solve. Additionally, I have found extreme and tragic irony in the fact that most rounds I have watched where people have been sobbing, felt personally attacked, quit debate, and/or been legitimately a victim of rhetorical violence have been identity politics rounds meant to solve violence against X groups. I find non-identity based kritiks and policy rounds to cause this level of violence a much lower percentage of the time. This is not to say there is not subtle violence against certain groups in policy making, and I welcome you to point these out and propose ways to solve these issues. But often the leverage of identity creates severe ontological violence in-round. I hate seeing these rounds get ugly and I don’t enjoy judging them. Second, as a passing-white straight male I am rarely the group discussed in the position. This means that I typically find it difficult and uncomfortable for me to pass a ballot based on a debater’s identity while probably linking to all of their impacts both in terms of my identity and in terms of the act of voting for them in and of itself. This is not to say I will never vote for these positions, but I have a low threshold for arguments about why these positions are bad and a low threshold for calling the round if it gets rhetorically violent. Advantages/Disadvantages – I love a straight up debate. Econ was my thing, so if you’re an econ debater I am the judge for you. I do typically lean towards probability over magnitude and find most nuke war scenarios silly, but run whatever scenario you’re comfortable with and I’ll evaluate it. You need to explain your link scenario and articulate the steps that lead all the way to your terminal impacts. Counterplans – Love them. Not sure what else to say about this, I leave theory debates about CP’s up to the debaters. Politics – Totally down. However, I don’t like really vague tix scenarios or scenarios where one single person magically has the magical ability to unilaterally control the entire bill’s passing or not. You don’t win tix because you know the name of one senator the other team didn’t know, or the other team dropped the hair color of a Congressperson in your links scenario.

Brent Nicholson - McKendree

This philosophy should give you a look into the way I think, but I believe that it will be totally sufficient given my outlook on debate. In the past, I’ve tried to be comprehensive, but I think that that lead to folks misinterpreting my thoughts on debate. Do not take my brevity to mean that I don’t have thoughts about debate, but rather that I think my own opinions ought not matter to you as a debater – this is, after all, your activity. My goal as a judge is to adapt to the round that the debaters have. This may seem to be empty to y’all, and that’s fine, but my goal as a coach and judge is to facilitate debate rounds that debaters want to have. I feel capable of judging any debate and would encourage you to do you when I am your judge. With that said, you’ll probably want a few things that I start off with to keep in mind. - I assume all negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. - 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. - Give your opponents’ arguments the benefit of the doubt. They’re probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning. - Role of the ballot arguments do not make sense to me: if you have to win that the aff/neg does something good to meet the role of the ballot, it seems like you’ve already won the regular-old impact debate. Keep trying! But be aware that I was probably already voting for you if you won an impact.

Brett Delaney - NPDA 2017 Hired

n/a

Brian Lain - UNT

Brian Lain University of North Texas_ Judging 20+ years.   I have judged at 5 NPDA tournaments this year, been judging national circuit NPDA for the last 3 years.  I have been judging CEDA/NDT for the last 20 years and have judged.  I am familiar with current theory on race/performance, kritik/framework theory. Couterplan/disposition theory.  I could not say that I have a predisposition on any of these issues I try as much as possible to let debaters work things out. That being said.  I default to looking for offense and defense. Those are the ways I decide my ballot.  I work very hard in debates. I concentrate. I teach courses about argumentation and rhetoric at both grad and undergrad level. This greatly influences my thinking in debates. I do not feel that debates are necessarily won by ushering forth the truth. Debates are won by doing the best communicating in an argumentatively competitive setting. I am not a slow thinker, However, I do encounter several debates where speakers are so unclear that I cannot follow critical points in the debate. This happens at the peril of those speaking. I am a critic of argument and as such try to listen and compare arguments as the debate is going on. I am not a fan of voting on theory, however, I'll do it if you are behind or if its very in-round. Predispositions: counterplans have to be a reason to reject the Aff. Plan- Inclusive Counterplans are ok, Dispositional counterplans are  OK. I think the Aff has a small burden that they must overcome in terms of presumption, then the Neg must usher forth arguments in order to disprove the affirmative. I try to be as objective as possible, with the above predisposition included. In general, I prefer arguments which contain good reasons and strategies which make logical sense. I am less likely to be tricked by the use of big words and I often like to hear justifications.

Brian Horton - NPDA 2017 Hired

n/a

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

BG: I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and have been judging and coaching ever since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round. Impacts: You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate. Case Debate: I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the LO…in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well. Diadvantages: Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability. Counterplans: Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea. Conditionality: I have recently changed my perspecive on conditionality. I am fine with multiple conditional advocacies but I HATE multiple blippy arguments that become something completely different in the block. The same can be true for any argument and not just an advocacy. That said, I will also vote on condo bad.  Kritiks: I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than “they used the state.” I am not saying this can’t be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I don’t like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should. Identity Arguments: With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual. Theory: I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! Don’t just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win. Speed: Speed is fine but please be clear. I don’t see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments. Speaker Points: If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. Being new to judging and understanding that speaker points can impact you in a tournament in ways other than speaker awards, I would say that I am currently on the more generous side of awarding speaker points. That is not to say I just hand out 30s or will not tank your points for being a jerk. I have a very low tolerance for offensive rhetoric or rudeness in rounds. Miscellaneous: Be organized and sign post. Don’t assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round.

Cheryl Maiorca - OU

n/a

Connie Leonard - USAFA

n/a

Danny Iberri-Shea - NPDA 2017 Hired

n/a

Darren Elliott - KCKCC

Darren Elliott “Chief”------Director of Debate and Forensics—Kansas City Kansas Community College  Head Coach—16 years.  I competed in college at Emporia State. I was a Graduate Student coach at Wichita State in the late 90's when WSU returned to the NDT for the first time in a couple decades, and in my two years there we qualified 3 teams to the NDT. At KCKCC I've coached multiple elim participants at CEDA, NDT qualifiers, coached numerous CEDA CC and PRP National Title winners, NPTE qualifiers, NFA LD National Tournament Qualifiers, in 2015 we won the NPDA National Championship. A first for any CC, and also in 2015 became the first CC in the history of the NDT to qualify two teams in one year, and the first to qualify a team 4 years in a row.  In 2016 we became the only CC to win the NFA LD National Championship. I enjoy and support all formats of debate and think each one provides unique opportunities to students. I am convinced there are really only 2 things debaters want to know and 1 thing you SHOULD know.  What you want to know:  1) Will I vote for you on your argument? Does not matter to me how fast or slow it is or what genre (performance, policy, project, theory, procedural) your arguments take. I have voted for and against everything imaginable. Probably the least interventionist judge you know. You need to frame the debate so I know “what happens” when I vote for/against you. Impact your arguments and undercut the impacts of the other team. Pretty simple. I have zero preference as to the type of arguments you run and enjoy a mix of arguments. Do what you do best. I think given that many of my teams recently have engaged in "personal politics debates" or "performance debates" that people assume that is what I want to hear. I will vote on T, framework, disads, cp's, k's, etc.  I am certainly not a "pigeon hole" judge and quite frankly love coaching and hearing all kinds of debate arguments. It is why I choose to coach so many different formats.  Good debate is good debate and that can take many forms.  Bottom line is I will always give you and your arguments a fair shake and I hope we can both learn from each other. 2) What kind of points do you give? Probably tend to be on the high(er) side but I view the 1/10th scale like this—30 is a 100%. 29.9 is a 99%. Etc. I will award points based on a combination of percentages for the speeches you give, any question you answer and any question you ask-Do you control cx, is it strategic, is it worthwhile? Speeches—Do you do everything you need to do, put offense where it needs to be, have defense where it needs to be, engage the other teams arguments, close doors, make impact calculations when important, not drop important args, fulfill the duties of the speech you are giving? Think of it like a speech grade and if you are perfect I have no problem giving a 30. If you need a lot of revisions and suggestions for improvement and are below average for your Division, than a D or something in the 26’s might be appropriate.  It is a cold day in L.A.  when I ever give anything in the 26’s unless you are rude/offensive. What you need to know:  One thing that will affect speaker points other than what addressed above is this—excessive rudeness and/or offensive language/cursing will not be rewarded and likely affect your points. Here’s the deal—I cuss at times. I should do it less. I never did it in debate rounds. I think we need to appear more educated than that and we need to do a better job looking like a worthwhile activity to Administrators. I wonder how many debates I tape would cast that positive light on the schools in those debates and how they would be perceived by their Admins if posted publicly. I, and many others, also bring their kids to tournaments. I don’t really want my 14 year old daughter hearing it. Her vocabulary is much more advanced than that and yours should be too. Maybe this makes me cranky. So be it. But I am right. (One caveat—if your argument/performance is such that using that language is called for because of artistic/educational purposes I will not hold that against you. It probably/maybe needs to have a grounding in the lit though and not just a cx response of “F your hegemony”!).   I think civility and professionalism has seen a significant drop in the last few years.  Be professional and respectful to each other in the debate, before the debate, and after the debate.  This includes coaches who I see yelling at/cursing at undergrads from other schools.  How would your Administrators react?  I am certain you are not allowed to do that in your classes. Don't let competition blur the line between adult and undergrad.   I love debate. You should too. Good luck, have fun, and I am always a fan of humor!

David Worth - Rice

David Worth, Ph.D.   D.O.F., Rice University   Judging Philosophy   My decision is based mostly on how the debaters argue I should decide the round; I try to avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible but will when 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 you are 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.    Decision-making Approach: I’ll judge based on given criteria. 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.    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 or procedural. 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.    Offense/Defense: Defense can win, too. That doesn’t mean that a weaker offensive argument with risk can’t outweigh defense, it just 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.   Assessing Arguments: An argument’s weight depends on how strong it is.  I think line-by-line vs. "big picture" is an artificial divide anyway.  This can vary by round.  I would say 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.   Presentation: All good as long as you are clear. I’ll tell you if you are not, but not more than a couple of times. After that, I will try, but I make no guarantees.   Strong Viewpoints: As I’ve said before, I probably won t vote to kill everyone to save the planet/galaxy/universe. Otherwise I haven t found "the" issue yet that I can t try to see all sides of.   I vote on procedurals a bit less than other arguments but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t run them. I am getting kind of tired of purely strategic procedurals. However, even though they aren’t favorites they are sometimes necessary.   Points of Order: Call them, or don’t call them; 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 in your opponents’ rebuttal. Just let them get out of the round with some dignity (if you don’t, speaker points will suffer). It’ll be obvious when I think you are calling too many.   Other Items to Note:   If the round is obviously lopsided and you are obliterating the other team (e.g. if they are novices), then be nice. I will obliterate your speaker points if you aren’t nice or if you simply pile it on for the heck of it.   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.   I’m not going to weigh in on the great theoretical controversies of the game. Those are up to you to demonstrate in the round. T can be more than one thing depending on the round. Counterplans can function in more than one way. Critical debates can have many forms. I’m not going to tell you what to do. I am familiar with pretty much all of it, and have been around for a long time. I don’t pretend to think any of the issues are settled.  Actually, I’ve learned or at least been forced to think 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. These are all interpretable in the debate. I will say that I probably most naturally think in terms of competing interpretations on T, but, as I mention above, I can think in more than one way.   I will also say that I dislike the post/pre-fiat issue. I am kind of over it.  Find a way to compare the impacts/implications and the plan/alt, etc. for me. It really annoys me to have compare things after the round that I was told throughout the round were “not comparable.” If you don’t find a way, don’t get mad at me for comparing them however I choose to compare them.   My “Debate Background:” I did CEDA/NDT in college. I coached policy for years, and also coached parli from the days of metaphor and holding-the-wig-on-as-you-stand all the way into the NPTE/NPDA modern era. I have also coached NFA-LD.   Finally, 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 basic respect for that.

David Bear Saulet - Concordia

David Bear Saulet   The following information is probably relevant in some capacity if you find me in the back of the room.   Experience: 3 years of California Community College NPDA at El Camino College, transferred and did 2 years of NPDA Debate at Concordia University Irvine.  During this time, I was nationally competitive at both levels.  Many of my views on debate and debate pedagogy have been shaped by my upbringing in the Community College circuit as well as the coaching I received from K. Calderwood at Concordia.   General: Debate is first and foremost a competitive game.  There are ancillary benefits including the education garnered through prolonged engagement in this activity, etc.-but debate at its core is a game.   - Defense (especially terminal) is underutilized in most debates. - Demanding texts is absurd-go do policy if you want textual copies of arguments. - It is common courtesy to give at least one substantive question to the other team. - Partner communication is fine but could tank your speaks. - Please don't try and pander to me by reading arguments I read when I competed. - I really don't like having to vote on Topicality-like, really.   Theory: Theory-based arguments are probably my least favorite subset of arguments in debate. That is to say, all things being equal, I would prefer to hear case debate or a criticism before theory.  I don't need articulated abuse, but I do need substantive explanations of how you've either already been abused or reasons why potential abuse is sufficient enough.  Impact your standards. Read your interpretation slowly and clearly at least twice-have a written copy if necessary.  If debating against critically framed arguments, it would behoove you to include a decision about how your procedurally framed arguments interact with their critically framed arguments.  I default to Competing Interpretations on theory issues unless instructed otherwise.  I also tend to think “Reject the Argument, not the Team” is persuasive aside from the Topicality and Condo debates. Spec is fairly silly, please don't read it in front of me. Your Spec argument is presumably to protect your normal means-based link arguments, so just read those arguments on case.    Case: Being good at case debate is usually a good indicator of your fundamental debate skills.  I appreciate seeing well warranted PMC's with organized and efficiently tagged internal link and impact modules.  For the Neg, I appreciate an LOC that saves time to go to the case and answer the Aff line-by-line.  Impact defense is severely under-utilized in most case debates.  Being efficient with your time will allow you to read strategic offensive and defensive case arguments which gives you more options and leverage for the rest of the debate.   Performance: I find Performance to be a distinct but related category to the K. My partner once ate paper as our advocacy out of the 1AC-at nationals we performed a newscast of the topic.  I am supportive of innovative ways of approaching the topic. That said, a few things to consider:   - You should have a role of the ballot/judge argument (probably in your framework interp). - Explain how the opposing team ought to interact with your performance. - Explain the importance of your specific performance within the context of the topic. - Frame your impacts in a manner that is consistent with your performance.   The K: My favorite subset of arguments in debate.  Criticisms should ideally have a framework (role of the judge/ballot), a Thesis (what your critical perspective is), Links, Impacts, and an Alt with accompanying Solvency arguments.  If you don't have a Thesis page, please make it clear what the thesis of your position is elsewhere.  The best criticisms are directly rooted in the topic literature and are designed to internally link turn common opposition arguments/impacts.  This means your K should probably turn the Aff (if Neg) or internally link turn topic Disads (if Aff).  Reject Alternatives can be done well, but I appreciate Alternatives that are more nuanced.   When reading the K, please highlight the interaction between your Framework and your Alternative/Solvency. These two should be jiving together in order to do what the K is all about-impact frame your opponents out of the round. I don't care very much about your authors but more your ability to take the author's theory and convey it to us persuasively within a given debate round.  Name-dropping authors and books will get you nowhere quick in front of me. The literature bases I am most familiar with are:   - Post-Structuralism - Critical Race Theory - Whiteness Studies - Gender Studies - Existentialism - Post Modernism - Rhetoric and Media Studies   Don't allow this knowledge to be a constraining factor-I love learning about new critical perspectives so don't refrain from reading something outside this lit in front of me.   CP Theory:   - After debating Conditionally for a year and Unconditionally for a year, I found being Unconditional much more rewarding competitively and educationally. Who knows, maybe it was just having Big Cat as a coach.  Either way, I'm fine with one Condo CP/Alt but am open to hearing and voting on Condo bad as well. - Delay is probably theoretically illegitimate (and just a bad arg). - Textual Competition is meant to protect against CP's that are blatantly cheater anyways. - Not the biggest fan of Consult unless there's a particularly strong literature base for it. - Read your CP text twice slowly and ideally have a written copy. - PICS are good.   Permutations:   - Always and only a test of competition - Should explain how the Permutation resolves the links/offense of the DA/K. - You don't ever need 8 permutations. Read one or two theoretically sound perms with net benefits. - Sev/Intrinsic perms are probably not voting issues given they are merely tests of competitiveness.   Speaker Points: I start at a 27 and work up from there generally. The difference between a 29 and a 30 are the following:   - Effective overviews that concisely summarize and contextualize sheets in the debate - Star Wars references/quips - Effective use of humor (Stay classy though, San Diego) - Pausing for Effect - Comparative warrant analysis: Stuff like, “prefer our uniqueness because it's more predictive-all their depictions of the status quo are snapshot at best” followed by supporting warrants. - Effective use of Metaphors - I don't like teams/debaters stealing prep. But let's be blunt, everyone does it, so do it well I suppose. - Take at least one question in each constructive   Multiple Worlds: Most debaters struggle to competently and productively have a debate round based in one world-let alone multiple. I would prefer you not read multiple worlds in front of me.    Feel free to ask for clarifications before the round.

Doug Addleman - NPDA 2017 Hired

n/a

Duncan Stewart - Lewis & Clark

Background I participated in parliamentary debate at The University of Utah for 4 years. I currently coach for Lewis & Clark College. Overview My preference is that you do what type of argumentation you like to do, and/or what is most strategic given the topic. I will not use my ballot as an attempt to discipline the activity in the direction I think it should go. If you win the argument on the flow I will vote for it-every time. That being said, I judge debate via a line-by-line flow. If you have an alternate way you’d like me to evaluate the round, solid! I will consider the debate in any manne<a name="_GoBack"></a>r you’d like me to. Just be clear about what that method is. I will use only your explanations of arguments to make my decision. Meaning even if an argument is ‘dropped’ it’s difficult for me to vote for it absent warrants. Theory I don’t hold any standardized positions on theory arguments. Debaters should get access to their arguments without an offensive theoretical objection explaining why that should not be the case. Have that debate. Please repeat your interpretations twice. Advantages and Disadvantages Links come before risk calculation. Impact calculus will win you these debates. Unless specifically told otherwise, I will compare arguments via timeframe magnitude and probability. Defense makes both of our jobs easier, but only when accompanied by offense. Counter plans Evaluating the round becomes easier if the LOC reads theoretical justifications for their counter plan. This prevents new theory answers I have to consider in the PMR. Kritiks To be especially compelling these should be operationalized as if I have no familiarity with your literature. You should be specific about what you are criticizing. For example, if you are a questioning of methodology you should say so in the LOC. Your criticism is easier to evaluate when the critique of the aff happens on the thesis/links level, not in the framework. On the topic of critical affs, go for it! Other general statements Speed is good, but not at the cost of excluding someone. Call points of order, though I will do my best to protect against new arguments. I think taking questions produces better debate. You should take one in each in constructive.

Dylan Brugman - ACU

TL;DR version: I don’t think that my job is to define for you the way that debate should be done. You should debate what you’re good at, not what I did/liked as a debater. **The only caveat: Please read interpretations/plan texts/and alt texts twice. That is the best way for me to get them down. Texts would be even better, but do what you want there. Longer version: General: I think that debates are won on offense, and I think that debates are won on strategy. I think that debate is capable in some ways of being a tool of liberation and expression, but I think that it is primarily a game to be played by two teams. The educational aspect of debate is nice, but if debate were about education, I would expect both teams to read textbooks to me about calculus or something during their speech. Win however you can and in whatever way you can. Speed: Hardly ever an issue. Clarity and argument depth often is. The way I flow is: I flow the claim and then flow the warrants underneath them. If I miss the claim, I flow the warrants and infer the claim from those warrants. If I miss both, your arguments are not warranted enough for me to write them down, and I will tell you to slow down. If you are unclear, then I will yell clear. Your options are to either become more clear, or slow down until you are clear. Or keep mumbling I guess. Theory/T/Procedurals: Run them. I default to competing interpretations, and that is the best way for me to evaluate theory, because it comes down to whoever debated it best and requires (arguably) the least intervention on my part; however, if I am given arguments as to why potential/proven abuse is good reason to pull the trigger, or why I shouldn't evaluate T, and the other team fails to provide an adequate answer, I’ll bite. Topicality is a voting issue, it is not a reverse voting issue. It's your fault if you let T become a time-suck. SPECs are generally for bad debaters. The Criticism: Can be run on the aff or the neg. Affs can be topical or not topical (as long as you win that you get to run a non topical aff), and affs can use fiat or not use fiat. A note about the criticism: If it is general/you assume that both teams understand it, I don’t need a thesis. If you are running something that I’m not familiar with/is super complicated, I would run a SHORT thesis. Most of the criticism’s that I ran were environmental, fem, and queer. I understand race pretty well, but if you start into post-structural, European philosophers like Baudrillard, Agamben, Derrida or the like, I need some indication of the thesis of the argument. For some reason, reading a bunch of leftist white academics wasn’t a thing we did at ACU in my undergraduate. That being said, I like hearing new things, if they are explained to me. I debated the criticism a lot as a debater, but in my old age, I prefer a Disad/CP debate. I also like DA/CP/K debate a lot if the negative can win condo. Criticisms/Turns of language in the PMC/LO/MG are generally ok. They are arguments that force the other team to spend time answering, which is always a good thing. Sometimes they make the other team look silly too, that can’t hurt your chances, right? On narratives/performance: Do it if you want, but when you introduce your own stories and experiences into a competitive environment, you make them competitive, and weaponizing identity doesn't help anybody in my experience. Do not physically hurt yourself or others in front of me (I cannot believe that I have to put this in a judging philosophy now). We should protect our activity and the people in it, and physical violence, I'm afraid, is not a good way to do this. Permutations are good to run on the aff. So are impact turns, and so is framework. And if you want to run a framework that policymaking is the only way to evaluate the round, I’ll evaluate that. Framing them out of the round is a good way to win. In general, I default to seeing permutations as tests of competitiveness, but will gladly hear all of the arguments about why they’re more than that. In general, when answering the criticism, do anything to win. Conditionality/multiple worlds: I don’t mind voting for a conditional argument, I also don’t mind voting on condo. I don’t care if you run three counter plans and a K, I don’t care if they conflict, and I don’t care if you collapse out of all of them into case turns. You should be the best condo debaters you can be though, because if you lose on condo or multiple worlds, I’ll vote against you. My favorite opp strat to watch as a judge is DA/CP/K debate. But each team should have one strategy that they're going for in the rebuttals. Opposition, you should go for one sheet of paper in the block (unless its a Disad/CP combo). Don't you dare stick to both disads. That is so bad. It's like the worst part of debate. Trust me enough to vote in the direction that you tell me. Disads: Are good. I like them to be big, and really like to have “burnt, dead bodies” in a disad. Dehume impacts are fine, and so are value to life arguments. With all disads, specificity is key (especially with politics). Lazy debaters are rarely rewarded, and many disads are lazy. Counterplans: Run as many as you want and run whatever you want. If you’re on the aff, run theory and run disads to the Counterplans. Also, permutations. Those are always a good thing. Case Debate: Offense is better than defense, but I think that impact defense (or impact turns) can be a pretty powerful tool. A note on impacts: I like impact calc, and I think it makes things easier for me. I default to extinction outweighs Dehume, but I am also very open to hearing impact frameworks that prioritize certain impacts over others. Everybody should let Ben Campbell teach them how to do impact calc, because that's the exact way that I feel about it. Speaker Points/Etiquette/etc: I don't call the house to order, I don't even know how to do that. I don't particularly like thank yous, but go for it I guess. I don't care if you talk to your partner or prompt them. I don't care if you stand or sit. You should wear some kind of clothing, but beyond that, you do what you want. I pretty much roll out of bed every morning. I don't care if you stand or sit, if you say "point of information" or not, or if you do the little teapot shin-dig when you ask a question (you know the hand on the head and the other one outstretched? Yeah, that's pretty silly). I always liked it when I felt that debaters were friendly to me, and I always disliked debaters that were not friendly to me. I think that for a lot of teams, being welcoming to them is important, inside and outside the round. Last year, I felt that my own RFD's were kind of mean spirited, and I'm trying to be more helpful in giving debaters an RFD that seems well justified. Because of that, I'll always flow on paper, but I'll probably open up my laptop afterwards and type up my RFD to read back to you. This is the best way for me to lay out the round and make the best decision possible. In addition, I promise to be respectful of you in my decision, and will always say something that is honest, but also encouraging. That being said, during the debate, I'm not very expressive, and may even look a little perturbed. I'm not, I promise, that's just the way that my face looks. I like jokes and references from Dungeons and Dragons, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Warhammer 40k, Firefly, Isaac Asimov books, The Sopranos, The Wire, The West Wing, Slavoj Zizek, my main man Barry-O, Kim Il-Sung/Jong-il/jong-un, and other weird things. Speaker points: My speaker points were a little lower than average last year, so I tried to change that this year, and create a more reliable/valid scale for speaker points. It is as follows: if I give you a 27, I think that you are a good debater, if I give you a 28, I think that you should be breaking, if I give you a 29, I think that you should be getting a speaker award, If I give you a 30, I think that you should be in finals. You want good speaker points? Then your rebuttal should be my RFD.

Elise Matton - Tulane

I view my paradigm as a set of preferences to aid debaters in understanding how I view a round, but I do not believe debaters should completely alter their styles of debate to fit my paradigm. Debate is about advocating for your views, so ultimately just do what you do best and what you feel most comfortable with. I’m not going to vote you down simply because you have a different opinion than me. EXPERIENCE I’ve been active in the debate community since 2005, when I started as a high school policy debater at Albuquerque Academy. I competed in the New Mexico circuit primarily in policy from 2005-2010, but also traveled to 3 national tournaments in the 2009-2010 year for policy debate. In 2011, I became a founding member of the Tulane University Debate Team. We competed for 2 years in the college IPDA format before making the switch to NPDA in 2013. Since graduating in 2014, I attend their practices regularly to judge practice rounds and have judged at Rice and LSU Shreveport NPDA tournaments in the 2015-2016 year. I’ve also judged the high school Louisiana circuit of policy, LD, and PF regularly from 2011 to the present. I also coach the middle school MSPDP format for the Crescent City Debate League, which is extremely similar to college parli, but with 3 debaters on each team. In sum, I was as a high school policy debater, competed parli in college, and now judge several formats regularly.   APPROACH TO DECISION-MAKING I firmly believe that debaters should be able to determine and advocate for the style of debating that best fits them, so I will go with whatever framework or weighing mechanism is given to me.  If none are specified, I weigh the arguments according to their offensive/defensive role in the round for either team. With regard to trichot, I don’t necessarily believe that just because a resolution is written a certain way necessitates a team to interpret or present a case in a particular manner. Simply saying “this isn’t a policy round” is not enough- you need to actually make a framework or theory argument to explain to me why their framing is flawed, offer an alternative, and weigh your counter-interpretation for me. I usually adhere to trichot with regard to policy/value/fact resolutions. However, I’ve seen debaters use this either incorrectly or abusively, so two things to note <ol> <li> In my opinion, while “should” resolutions typically call for a policy style case with a cost/benefit analysis weighing mechanism, I do not believe that Government teams should be required to present a full policy case using a policy action/actor/funding mechanism, etc. Especially because they have the right to define, I won’t give much weight to opp teams that argue about it not being a full policy case. There’s a reason policy is a separate event from parli, and it is totally possible to debate “should” resolutions simply using a cost/benefit approach, i.e. “we should/should not do this because of x, y, z.” I typically think that in parli, due to the changing topics each round and 30 minutes of prep, this presents much fairer rounds with better ground given to opposition teams. </li> <li> For “Fact” resolutions, weighing mechanisms that use preponderance of evidence/logic are preferred since we need to evaluate whether or not the resolutions appears to be more true than not. However, I’ve seen gov teams be extremely abusive in defining their terms in a way that makes the fact-based resolution a truism, leaving the Opposition no ground or possible arguments against this. Don’t do this. </li> </ol>   In sum, I default to tabula rasa (I’ll view the round in whatever way you argue that I should), and usually adhere to trichotomy interpretations of resolutions. “Should” resolutions do not have to be policy cases.   PRESENTATION AND COMMUNICATION: Debate is an activity focused on public speaking skills, so I do value debaters who are also good speakers. However, this usually has no bearing on my actually decision of who wins/loses a round. I have given low-point wins before when an excellent, eloquent team makes strategic errors or drops key points in a round. Cases with exceptions: In high school debate, sometimes I have rounds (typically novice) with NO weighing or clash of arguments. I usually will default Government in these cases since I believe it is Opposition’s burden to refute the Government's case, but will take into account speaking/presentation if I view teams as virtually “tied.”   ON-CASE ARGUMENTATION: Government teams should affirm the resolution using contention level analysis, and have the burden of proof. Opposition teams have the burden of refuting this case, but they can make their own offensive arguments using a separate case presented negating the resolution. If an opp team does not interact at all with the gov case, there’s no clash, it’s not a debate, and I have no means of weighing who is winning or losing points. Make sure you’re refuting the gov’s points, but I’ll definitely weigh your own offensive arguments on your case against theirs.   PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS: I was a policy debater, so I’ll understand whatever Topicality/Kritik/Counterplan, etc. you throw at me. I don’t think they always have a place in the round. Sometimes it’s fine, but make sure whatever means of presenting it you’re doing would be fair in a parli format. For Opposition teams, don’t run T or theory arguments unless a Government team is actually being abusive or unfair (unlike in policy when it can be run as part of a time-strat). If you really don’t have to run topicality, then don’t – it takes time away from the possible education in the round. In sum I’m fine with procedural arguments, but only make them if they will add value to the round. POINTS OF ORDER: Since points of order exist in parli, I believe teams themselves are responsible for calling their opponents for new arguments and won’t discount it from the round unless you do so. When making points of order, I will pause the time, allow the opponent to present their point, say “taken under consideration”, and then resume time. I will resolve it myself by checking against my flow after the round. In sum, you’re responsible for making them yourselves.   OTHER THINGS TO NOTE/PREFERENCES: Debate should be a safe space, and be focused on education in the round. I will intervene in cases where debaters are being exclusionary or violating that safety. I like humor, and appreciate civil interactions between teams. Passionate/heated debates are fine so long as people aren’t being disrespectful to their opponents. I flow on a computer, and am fine (and encourage) debaters to approach me post-round if they have any questions. I can flow and will understand a rapid delivery (speed), but view it as a debate skill that should only be used when everyone in the room (competitors and judge) are ok with using that skill. I typically don’t really think it has a place in NPDA however, since college policy also exists as a separate format. In sum, I flow and am fine with speed, but don’t really like it in NPDA.

Emma Hong - Grand Canyon

Gabriel Murillo - UNT

I have experience judging a wide range of arguments. I have found the following qualities more important than any of the particular content of arguments:  - completeness of argument  - meaningul engagment with opponents arguments and questions and responses in cross-examination  - clarity  - creativity  - knowledge about the issues being debated  - organization  Those qualities provide the major criteria for my speaker points. I also find myself rewarding/considering:  - degree of difficulty  - general affect I consider myself an active participant in the debates. I listen and flow intently and think thoroughly about whats happening in the debate. I take post rounds pretty seriously and view my role as a temporary coach, so please don't be hesitant with questions (whether you agree or disagree with the decision) I only ask that I am given time to fully explain my decision before interjecting.

Haley Courtney - PLNU

I competed for Point Loma Nazarene University for 3 years and have been judging and coaching at Point Loma for 3 years.  First and foremost, this is your debate round and I will listen to anything if you can show me why it is relevant to the round. I love learning, so even if it is a position I am not familiar with, I will always do my very best to engage your arguments.   I like procedurals and have no problem voting on them if they are run well. I’m down with rules of the game. If you’re breaking them, tell me why it’s okay to do so. If the other team is breaking the rules in a way that makes it impossible for you to engage in the round, please tell me about it.   I do like Kritiks. I will listen to them and engage them, but I will not fill in the blanks for you while you run them.  I really appreciate knowing that teams genuinely care about the positions they are running, and this especially comes out in criticisms. It bothers me when critical discussions are devalued or dismissed in rounds because teams refuse to try to engage. That being said, I understand that debate is a game, but I also would really love that if you’re running something, it matters to you. That’s just a personal preference.  Just like in a straight up round, if I don’t understand how your criticism works or why it links, or most importantly, how you are actually gaining any solvency (in round or otherwise, just depends what you’re going for), I won’t vote on it. If there is no obvious link, you’ll probably have to work a little harder to convince me of your ability to have that particular discussion in that particular round, but don’t let that stop you from going for it.   That being said, I really value creativity and strategy. Have fun with debate. No matter what you run, critical or straight up, impact weigh. If you’re going to run an out of the ordinary position, just explain why it matters and how to vote on it. Show me why you’re winning in a tangible way. Impact calculus is super important. Tell me exactly where and why I should be voting for you.     Speed: I’m cool with speed. I have no problem keeping up with speed, but you need to be clear. If I can’t physically hear/understand you, I’ll let you know, but if I or the other team has to clear you and you make no change, it’s irritating. At that point, I can’t get all your arguments because I literally don’t know what you’re saying. Don’t use speed to exclude your opponents.   That being said, pay attention to my nonverbals; I’m expressive, I can’t help it. Mostly, I really want to know and understand what you’re talking about! If I don’t understand your argument initially, I will probably look at you while processing it and trying to understand it. Use that to your advantage, just clarify briefly.   Finally, please read me your plan text, counterplan text, or alt text at least twice so that I can get it down. It is extremely hard for me to weigh arguments being made for or against a particular text if I don’t know what you are doing. If you want to write me a copy, that would be cool, too.

Jack Nordell - USAFA

n/a

James Mollison - Purdue

Largely out of laziness, I have decided to copy and paste an old version of Calum Matheson's judging paradigm. I agree with it, though it may be worth noting that Calum no longer seems to and has changed his paradigm considerably. It follows: Do as thou will shall be the whole of the law. All styles of debate can be done well or done poorly. Very little offends me. If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause and you should lose. If it’s so wrong and you’re so right, then it should be easy for you to win. Is that really too high a bar? If so, then I have a 26.5 here for you. Do you like it? I made it myself. Just for you. Debates are almost always decided in part by preconceived ideas which we presume to be shared. The same holds true for debate-theoretical issues. Due to time pressure, size, or whatever, many debates leave some element that a judge must decide for themselves, like “What is the standard for a new argument?” or “What does it mean for something to be conceded?” As a result, I have rewritten this to focus on those factors. All of these are defaults. Contrary arguments by a team in a debate always override them.  I would like to intervene as little as possible, but am unwilling to pretend that anyone's objective. 1. An argument contains at least a claim and a reason.  It constitutes intervention for a judge to ignore a dropped argument on the basis of its soundness, rather than its validity. If you don't know what that means, you should look it up--it might be helpful more generally. 2. One makes an argument, and then reads evidence to support it. The evidence is not the argument. Many judges read too much evidence, which invites them to intervene. In thebest case, reading fifty cards and taking forever to make a decision means you’re reading too much into cards, forgetting the debate, and thus taking the debate away from the competitors. You should use your evidence carefully and sparingly with me. I’d rather you read a few high-quality cards than a big pile of crap. The quality of arguments matters, not the quantity of evidence. 3. “Any risk” is inane. Below some level of probability, signal should be overwhelmed by noise, or perhaps the opposite effect might occur. Pretending that one can calculate risk precisely is stupid.  Are you really sure that the risk of a disad is fifteen percent? Are you sure it’s not, say, twenty? Or maybe ten? Or, God forbid, twenty-five? If you are able to calculate risk with such precision, please quit debate and join the DIA. Your country needs you, citizen. If not, recognize that risks can be roughly calculated in a relative way, but that the application of mathematical models to debate is a (sometimes) useful heuristic, not an independently viable tool for evaluation. 4. Uniqueness cannot determine the direction of a link. This is not an opinion, just a statement of fact. Some outcome is more or less likely to happen in the future, but because it’s a prediction, the probability is almost never 100%. The link is a net assessment of how the plan changes this—it’s a yes/no, up/down thing. So if one team wins the direction of the link, they should win the argument (although winning the sign of the change doesn’t mean that its magnitude is necessarily enough to result in a particular outcome).  Here’s an example: the Aff has three advantages. The Neg has a counterplan that definitely solves two of them, and definitely does not solve the third. The Neg only has inherency arguments on that advantage, which is the only net benefit to the counterplan. Does the Neg win? No. They have no offense so the counterplan can’t possibly be better than the Aff alone. This situation is identical to the case when a counterplan solves all of the case, the Neg wins uniqueness to the net benefit, but the Aff wins (non-unique) link turns. 5. An argument that is conceded is “true” for the purpose of the debate and joins the set of other usually unspoken presuppositions, like “things can cause things,” “death is bad,” “the Obama mentioned in the cards is the president of the United States,” and so forth. This means that if something is conceded by the negative bloc (for example) and then becomes relevant again as a reaction to the 2nr, the Aff’s extension of it is not new. 6. My criteria for “new” applications of an argument: if I could see it coming when the team made the argument originally then their use of it later on is not new. I know this isn’t a perfect standard, but I can’t think of a better one. If a claim or reason is not made until the rebuttals then that component of the argument is new, but not necessarily the whole argument. It’s not enough to say “this is new.” You must say that that’s bad for some reason. 7. Offense/defense isn’t always appropriate for theory arguments. The team that makes the argument has the burden to show that it’s okay to do that, but they don’t need to prove that something is particularly good—just okay. Theory arguments should be rooted in something fundamental. There are hypothetical benefits of debate, then practices that further them, then specific arguments that are examples of those practices. These principles rarely result in a counterinterpretation that isn’t an arbitrary, self-serving turd shat gracelessly into a shallow theory debate. 8. The idea that the Aff determines the meaning of words in the plan is wrong. If so, then nothing would stop them from saying “by Iraq we meant Iran,” “decrease means make more,” or whatever. Topicality arguments would be impossible. Competition and disad links even worse. Cleverly written Affs could have some ambiguity in their advantages so that words in the plan could be suddenly and arbitrarily redefined in ways that still allow the plan to have advantages. The meaning of the plan wouldn’t be predictable. Here’s the plan you hand the Negative before the debate: “The USFG should set fire to children. Survivors will be eaten by cobras.” The Neg spends half an hour prepping (some “cobras aren’t big enough to eat kids” cards, maybe a PIC out of children who agree to join the Marine Corps, a "Russia likes cobras/hates children" card, etc) and then the debate starts and the 1AC is about why the war in Iraq is immoral and we should ban depleted uranium shells. Seems to me that a better interpretation is that both sides should debate over the meaning of the words in the plan text—which the Aff should be ahead on since they chose the words. 9. Unless the Negative makes an argument to the contrary, going for a counterplan in the 2NR means that the only relevant comparison is the counterplan versus the plan. If the plan is better than the counterplan, the Aff does not need to be compared to the status quo. It is “logical” for the judge to compare the plan to the status quo if the counterplan is a bad idea, but it’s similarly logical for the judge to vote for only part of the plan, or the plan plus some undiscussed-but-implied alternative, delay the plan for a couple of months, or to unilaterally decide that a disad isn’t intrinsic. Saying “status quo is always an option” doesn’t resolve this—an option for who? The 2NR or the judge? If you want the status quo to be considered along with the counterplan, you should say so clearly. 10. Debates should be about opportunity cost. Disadvantages should be intrinsic to the plan. Many people seem not to understand what this means. If the impact to a disad is that the same actor doing the plan would then do something bad, this disad is not intrinsic—i.e., nothing about the plan means that the disadvantage necessarily results. Example: the plan has the US Congress withdraw US troops from Iraq. The Neg says “Congress would then choose not to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment and that would hurt US-Russian relations.” This disadvantage is not intrinsic, because the same actor—Congress—could do the plan and still repeal Jackson-Vanik. A legitimate Aff response is “Congress could do the plan and still repeal Jackson-Vanik.” Here’s where some people seem to get stuck: the Aff argument “we could do the plan and Congress could give Alaska back to Russia” is not a legitimate argument. Intrinsicness arguments are like permutations of the status quo—they test to see if the Aff could do the plan and still maintain the decision that the negative says the plan trades off with (Jackson-Vanik). They can’t introduce new options to solve the same impact because that tests the necessary magnitude of the cost, not whether or not two courses of action are actually exclusive of one another. The “plan plus return Alaska” argument tests competition with a hypothetical world where we’re giving back Alaska, which is not the world that the Negative defends. There are many, many ways around this intrinsicness requirement for the Negative, and I have very rarely voted Aff on this argument. 11. In critical debates, the role of the judge is very important (“critique” is not spelled with a “k” in English, and we didn’t fight the Boche on and off for thirty years just to revert to their barbarian customs). If the alternative uses an agent other than that proposed by the Aff, it is necessary to make this clear and justify the change. I don’t think the default position for the judge is as a government policy maker—without further instruction, I will suppose that the judge should just select the best option regardless of the agent, but this presents a number of serious problems that are worthy of attention by both teams, as whoever wins the “role of the judge” generally wins the debate. 12. All debates are impact debates. If team one wins that (impact x risk) of their arguments is larger than (impact x risk) of team two's arguments, team one wins. Although the standards for evaluating impacts is different in different debates (e.g., "liberty outweighs life," "moral action outweighs consequences"), this is true in theory debates, policy debates, and critical debates because the "impact" is just the reason to care about whatever you said. Impact calculus is thus very, very important, probably more important than any other aspect of a debate. Oddly enough, I think this is also the least-developed part of most debates. Bear in mind how conceded arguments influence impact uniqueness--in many debates, someone kicks a disad with a nuclear war impact by conceding that it's not unique and doesn't link. This means that the judge is making a decision about two opposing contingent worlds, both of which contain a nuclear war, usually in the next few years. Shouldn't timeframe matter more then since we'll all be fighting Super Mutants and learning to make our own bullets in a couple of years? In a related note, it's strange to me how little people exploit the impacts that they do win since the scale of impacts people discuss would clearly effect one another not just at the internal link level (e.g. "econ collapse hurts heg") but at the level of terminal impacts vs. internal links (a nuclear war might cause pandemics, or collapse the economy, or whatever--at the very least, we'd probably quit enforcing the plan once the time came to discuss the finer points of radioactive cannibalism). 13. Nearly always, what Aff teams call "not unique" arguments are actually brinks. Because most disads are cartoonishly stupid, they are also unique, because the magnitude of change that they're talking about is extreme. Example: "the plan spends money; hurts the economy; econ collapse = nuke war." If the Aff says "economy low now," that's probably good for the Neg, because their impact ev is talking about a situation where the economy has completely collapsed, so the Aff claim arguably adds plausibility to their argument. Link uniqueness is different of course. 14. Debate is ultimately about communicating your ideas to a judge to persuade them to vote for you. If I cannot understand you, I will not be persuaded to vote for you. It is the burden of debaters to communicate clearly. I will not say “clear.” I will just ignore you without remorse, since the most basic goal of a debater is to be understood by the judge. This doesn't apply if it's not your fault, e.g., you're too far away and I can't hear you. 15. A few notes on language: Speaker points are entirely subjective. They reflect how much I like a set of speeches as a performance; feel free to fight with me about them but be aware that I have never cared. If you have an accent, speak a dialect, or whatever, I would not penalize you. That said, if you think that the first syllables of "tyrant" and "tyranny" are pronounced the same way, I wish you ill. Similarly, the aff does not "cause the Holocaust," unless this is an unusually bizarre counterfactual debate. "Knight Ridder" is a news agency; "Night Rider" was an 80's television series. "G.A.O." is an acronym, not a name. "Genocide" is a noun. The adjectival form is "genocidal." "Genocide" is not a verb. "Critique," as previously mentioned, is spelled with a "C," and as a rule, unnecessary use of German never made an argument sound less insidious. "Spec" is an annoying abbreviation; "tix" is one whose users should be condemned to a short life of hard labor in a Siberian uranium mine. Again, all of these are defaults, and I ignore them when teams I judge make contrary arguments.

Jared Bressler - CSU

New much shorter judging philosophy I judge the round by the arguments made in round through the flow, I am not capable of judging another way (I'm not claiming to be perfect, but I always use the flow). Being autistic means that the flow is the only way that I can see the round. If you think that makes me a bad person you should strike me.  I hold PMR responses to MO responses to MG theory to a high standard. While I judge rounds in the flow there are some things that will kill your speaker points if you read them in front of me (I have given people one speaker point before) Saying I should not use the flow (this is an attack on me as an autistic person) Most critical ableism literature (Again these arguments make me feel attacked as an autistic person) Any framework that says that X identity or form of oppression should come over all others Being racist, sexist, ableist,homophobic, trabsphobic ect. Being a jerk to your opponents One other request, I get audioly over stimulated, so if your speech act involves yelling please keep in mind that causes me physical pain.

Jason Jordan - Utah

*I have fairly significant hearing loss. This is almost never a problem when judging debates. This also doesn't mean you should yell at me during your speech, that won't help. If I can't understand the words you're saying, I will give a clear verbal prompt to let you know what you need to change for me to understand you (ex: 'clear,' 'louder,' 'slow down,' or 'hey aff stop talking so loud so that I can hear the MO please'). If I don't prompt you to the contrary, I can understand the words you're saying just fine.   *make arguments, tell me how to evaluate these arguments, and compare these arguments to the other teams arguments and methods of evaluating arguments. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to place me within. I have very few, if any, normative beliefs about what debate should look like and/or ‘be.’    *Unless I am told to do otherwise, on all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments.

Jason Hong - Grand Canyon

Jason Edgar - MoWestern

Background: Professor of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making at Missouri Western State University. For 20 years I have competed, coached, and judged Cross Examination Debate, Public Forum, NFA Lincoln Douglas, Traditional Parliamentary Debate and NPTE circuit Parliamentary Debate. This year I have judged about 30 rounds of intercollegiate debate. Approach of the Critic to Decision Making:  When I competed in high school and college, Comparative Advantage was the most prevalent criterion. Thus, I understand and enjoy those types of rounds the most (ex. Ads, Disads, CPs). Having said that, I am open to critical arguments on both the Aff and Neg side as long as there is a clear framework and impacts. I don't really buy role of the ballot arguments unless you say the role is to circle a winner and award speaker points. Topicality is a voting issue and I'll listen if there is clear abuse in round.    Relevant Importance of Presentation/Communication Skills: I'd prefer that you make cogent arguments as opposed to a speaking race, but other than that I am fine with speed and you won't lose me. If you aren't comfortable with speed but you attempt it anyways, or you cannot stop buffering, it typically irritates me. Debate isn't a race, it's a search for truth.  Relevant Importance of On-Case Argumentation to the Critic in Decision Making: In order to make an effective argument and for me to make a critical decision at the tournament, a case will need to have (at least) inherency, significance(harms), and solvency. Prima Facie is a voting issue. So if the negative can prove that the current system can solve the problem, or proves that the harms are insignificant, or the plan cannot solve, then I can definitely see myself voting neg. If Aff can defend those stock issues without causing massive impacts, then they win.  Preferences on Procedural Arguments, Counterplans, and Kritiks: As mentioned above Topicality is a voting issue but should only be ran if there is clear abuse in round. When people asks for my "threshold" I usually just tell them that it depends on the round. I love counterplans because it allows the negative to not have to support current system (Trump). As for Kritiks, they are the only arguments that I didn't myself run or run into when I was a competitor, so don't expect a thoughtful disclosure if you go all in on the K. That being said, "non-uniqueness doesn't stop the pain" and I'll definitely listen as long as you provide clarity.   Preferences on Points of Order: I don't think there is much of a community issue with an overabundance of Point of Orders, so feel free to use them if there is a clearly a new argument or abuse in round.  Closing Thoughts: I'd like you to do whatever you want in the round. Sure, I have my preferences, but I want the debaters to feel most comfortable. I do love my career, so running arguments that view debate in a negative light, I probably won't vote for. In round, it would be in your best interest to not be rude. JE

Jeannie Hunt - Northwest

I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of  intervention on my part.  That means a couple of things.  You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round.  I don’t care what that framework is, but I want one. If there is debate about that criteria, make sure that the theory is clear and there are specific reasons why one framework is preferable to the other.  That framework is what I will follow, so please don’t set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits at the end.  More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.  I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, something tangible for me to vote on.  Absent that, I have to intervene.  There are no specific arguments that I prefer over another.  I will vote on pretty much anything and I am game for pretty much anything.  I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions or present narratives that you don't want attached to the curency of a ballot, which is what presenting the narrative in the round really comes down to.  If you run a k you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about.  However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out…  This is true of any theory based argument you choose to run.  I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important.  If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don’t have to spend time flowing it. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well. Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective.  I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K.  Make sure the framework is very specific so I don’t have to abandon objectivity all together. Finally, make your own arguments.  If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago.  Prompting someone with a statement like, “go to the DA” is fine.  Making an argument that is then repeated is not. Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn’t mean you should have no style.  You should be clear, structured and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is team).  You can at least take off your hat. Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.  Speed is not a problem if it is clear.  Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round - that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what could have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is really just you saying think you should have won on that argument. Because I don’t want to intervene, I don’t appreciate points of order.  You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way.  Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn’t vote on new arguments.  I won’t.  If you feel particularly abused in the round, and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill advised.  I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.

Joe Provencher - TTU

The Quick hits for Prep time:   Unless told otherwise, I default to net-bens/policy making.   If you want me to evaluate topicality via competing interpretations, slow down a bit through your interpretations so I have the text exactly as you intend it. You should also probably take a question on your definition/interp if it's particularly long/nuanced/complex/crazy.   I used to tell teams I believed all advocacies in round should be unconditional. However, a lot of the conditionallity debates I saw were really terrible, and probably had PMRs going for the theory without really understanding it, and then expecting me to vote every time for the aff as a result of my philosophy. So I'll try my best to explain it more below, but for your quick evaluation of me now, know that I don't really think conditionality is necessary (maybe not even good), but will do my absolute best to be open to the theory arguments made in round.   I think that counter-plans must compete via net-benefits or mutual exclusivity. Other CP theory arguments are going to be an uphill battle for my ballot.   I don't think I'm biased one way or another on the kritik. I think good K debate is good, and bad K debate is bad (and good theory debate is good, bad theory debate is bad, etc, etc). Just get small in the rebuttals, one way or the other, and pick your winning argument. Like any argument, if you suspect I may not be 100% familiar with the literature you are using, then make the tag line very clear so you can read your warrants as fast as you want.   Take some points of information. Be cordial. Call as many points of order as you want, but it should be limited to the individual calling the point of order, and a response from the opposing individual making the argument. There should never be a debate, or any back and forth, about whether an argument is new. Make your point, respond to it.      Some further reading for your strikes:   On conditionality: I would never explicitly tell a team not to run a certain argument in front of me. However, out of all the reading I've done, and rounds I've seen, I can't imagine a world in which the MG puts out a good Condo bad shell, the PMR goes for it sufficiently, and I do not vote for it. Maybe the reading I've done is insufficient, but I'm not convinced yet, and the limited condo debates I've seen have been bad ones that only reinforce that opinion. However, I'm trying to stay open to furthering my education in the activity and would encourage anyone to come find me and talk (maybe outside of round) so we can keep the discussion going.   On topicality: I believe that T is a discussion to find the best definition of a word in the resolution. The standards debate is a debate about why a particular definition is very good. A lot of times, especially with teams yelling about ground to DAs they're supposed to have, I think that focus gets lost. If a plan doesn't link to your DA, it might not be because they have mis-defined a word. It might just be that the DA is not good. Consequently, the claim that NEG can read DAs is not a reason your definition is good. That just means they can run DAs. Most debaters are good enough to come up with some kind of offense on the spot.   In general: Good debate gets small at the end of the rounds. Rebuttal speeches should be deep and specific, and focussed around why I must prioritize a single given story. Do that, you win.

Joe Allen - Oregon

Generic information: I do not wish to impose my views on the activity through my ballot. What I mean by this is that I think you certainly ought to debate in front of me in a fashion consistent with what you're best at--and allow me to adapt to you. I fundamentally believe that nearly all aspects of debate are negotiable, and certainly a multitude of different kinds of strategies can be fun to watch and fun to do. I believe those who insist on debate conforming to their view of the activity are narcissistic and don't get the point. I also think that the notion of the inevitability of intervention does not remove the responsibility to evaluate issues in a fair and honest fashion--in fact it strengthens this obligation. I will do my best to make decisions which are not informed by my predispositions but rather a serious evaluation of the issues as they were debated. My burden of striving for non-intervention will not prevent me from passing judgment. This ought not be confused. I will make a decision based on judgments I make (clearly) but I will not be dishonest about the objective flow of the debate in order to cater to my own debate ideals. I am a debate nihilist (you might say), I begin with the assumption that what you can do in debate is only limited by your imaginative capacity to justify your argumentative choices. There is no strategy that I didn't try as a debater--who would I be to tell you that you can't do the same? Specific information: Despite my strong belief that our predispositions should have no effect on the outcome of our judging, I must admit that I obviously do have predispositions about this activity. I've spent enough time doing it, and even more time thinking about it, that I am not a clean slate. I'll put my slate away for the sake of fair deliberation, but here's a glimpse of what my slate looks like. Topicality: Unless argued persuasively otherwise, I default to assuming that topicality is both a voting issue and an issue of competing interpretations. I went for topicality a fair amount in debate. I truly believe that affirmatives who make a good faith effort to support the topic (even if for a very abstract or nuanced reason) are the most strategic. Even some of the most strategic critical affirmatives I've ever seen affirmed the topic. I suppose a good general rule is that if you're not trying to be topical, you should have a good reason why. I have never heard a definition of reasonability in my entire life that made more sense to me than competing interpretations (doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility). I believe that the specificity of the standards and how effectively they are compared (T debates are impact debates like everything else) is often the decider. Counterplans: I tend to assume that counterplans are a very useful strategy available to the negative. I am not predisposed against conditional counterplans, and frankly I'm also not predisposed against multiple conditional counterplans. Surprisingly perhaps, I also am not strongly against counterplans which don't compete textually (particularly if they are authentically within the scope of the topic). The reason I think textual competition is usually a good limit is precisely because most counterplans which textual competition limits out are those which detract from topic education. If yours doesn't and you can justify your counterplan you're fine. If you say there's a textually competitive version of the counterplan I will know if you're lying (just so you know). It's really all about what you can justify. The quality of your solvency evidence is generally a great indicator of how smart your counterplan is. The kritik: We shouldn't be afraid to have kritik debates because they serve as a way of making sure that our assumptions can be justified. That being said, our assumptions can be justified, and I appreciate people who do in fact engage critical teams and make an effort to defend the perspectives which inform their arguments. A few uphill battles critical debaters might find with me are that I often think critical framework arguments do not particularly limit the affirmative very much. For example, the reason it doesn't make sense to me to say that representational debating is object fiat or utopian fiat is that disads and cases are also representational. There is no part of debate that isn't already a performance, and there is no part of debate that isn't already representational. It's about the desirability of those representations. Another roadblock critical debaters might find with me is that I have no problem signing off on topicality or evaluating the framework debate against the kritik. I did this plenty against kritik teams, and I'm not opposed to framework if you cannot justify the way your kritik is framed. If they're responsible for their representations why aren't you? I don't like the fact that kritik debaters uniquely have to have a sheet of paper justifying the existence of their argument right out of the gates, but if you cannot win that your argument should exist I think you should find a different argument. I also am a sucker for sophisticated and clever permutation arguments. Perhaps this is why I think the best kritiks are topic specific and turn the case. Theory: I think theory serves a vital role in regulating debate trends, like a filter. Sometimes a strategy is a winning one precisely because it's not crafted in a fashion that is fair. Sometimes a strategy is antithetical to education to a degree that merits its total exclusion. Again, these questions are answered best through a framework of competing interpretations where sophisticated impact calculus happens at the level of the standards debate. If you can justify it, you can do it. Theory debates are one of the best tests of whether or not you can justify your given strategy. For this reason, I take it seriously and think it should be evaluated first. I will not evaluate it first only in the circumstance where you lose the priority debate (which sometimes happens). My default assumption is that fairness and education are both good, and keep the activity alive. This does not, however, remove the obligation to demonstrate why something is theoretically objectionable to a degree that merits the ballot. I also tend to fall further on the potential abuse side of the spectrum than the real abuse side. Just because you don't perform abuse (in the sense of how much of their strategy has in-round utility) does not automatically mean the way your strategy is positioned is suddenly educational or fair. Disads: A well argued disad can be a beautiful thing. If you can't outweigh the case, read a counterplan that pairs well with your disad. If you want, read two. You could also surprise me and debate the case effectively (I will appreciate this). I do not dislike politics disads, but those which do not have any real link specificity annoy me a bit. Sometimes the politics disad is the right choice, sometimes it's not. Depends on the topic. The greater the specificity and applicability the happier I'll be. I love a well crafted topic disad. If your disad authentically turns the case, then I'll probably be inclined to thinking it's a good disad. Be prepared to debate all levels of disad uniqueness (not just top level) including link uniqueness, internal link uniqueness, and impact uniqueness. Things that really annoy me: 1) Process disads. If your disad relies on the process of the plan passing, rather than the outcome of the plan, I will not like your disad. If you say things like "the plan will be horse-traded for x" or "the plan will move x off the docket" I will be utterly dissatisfied with your lazy and bankrupt disad. To be clear, it is the job of the aff to identify how absurd your disad is. I will not hesitate to vote for shitty process disads if the aff fails to correctly answer them, but it'll make me feel bad about myself and the state of debate. 2) Theory debates which begin in the PMR. Sometimes really egregious things happen in the block. In this case, I may very well vote for theory which begins in the PMR. Example: the negative splits the block. However, I am more often than not wildly uncomfortable with theory debates in which the negative has no opportunity to contest your argument. The best example I can think of here is that the MOC should take a question. My intuition is that you get the last word, and so you should have the upper hand in dealing with these situations without putting me in an awkward position. This is one of my least favorite debate arguments. 3) Spec arguments or T arguments which have no resolutional basis. If your spec argument has no basis in the topic, or requires the aff to be extra-topical in order to meet your interpretation, I will think it's a bad argument. E-spec is a good example of such an argument. This is especially egregious in instances in which T arguments have no basis in the topic since T is supposed to be explicitly premised on the language of the topic. 4) Floating pics. Alternatives should not include anything resembling the plan. They should especially not literally include the plan text. If they do, and you do not win the debate on perm: do the alternative with appropriate theory arguments about how nonsense it is for the alt to include the plan I will be pretty pissed. The negative should have to make alt solvency arguments in order to demonstrate why the alt solves the aff, and the aff should be entitled to argue that the aff is a disad to the alt. If the alternative does not enable this debate to occur, it's more than likely theoretically bankrupt. I would hope that the aff would identify this. 5) Incorrect permutation strategies. For every silly nonsense counterplan which shouldn't exist, there is a solid permutation text which makes such counterplan look pretty silly. I really appreciate it when the aff correctly identifies the appropriate permutation, and conversely, I really don't like it when the aff fails to problematize bad counterplans with the appropriate permutation. 6) Failure to offer impact comparison. Clearly I have no desire to intervene. It is up to you to ensure that the debate is resolvable in a way that doesn't require me to compare things myself. I will always decide debates based on what occurs in your own words. I will not put the pieces together for you. I will not assume your position to be a priority if you fail to demonstrate this for me. Impact calculus is the centerpiece of how you can accomplish this. 7) Failure to identify things which are theoretically bankrupt. What bothers me the most about asinine strategies is when I'm put in a position to have to endorse them with my ballot, and I absolutely will if you fail to allow me to do otherwise. It is your responsibility to filter out irresponsible debate trends with sound objections to them. Take your responsibility seriously so that I don't have to make decisions which I know endorse things which are not good for the activity. Summary observations: I suppose my views on the ideal strategy are almost always informed by the topic. The best K's turn the case and are topic specific, and the same can be said for the best disads. The best counterplans have very quality solvency evidence and a sensible net benefit.The best critical affs affirm the topic and discuss issues pertinent to the topic literature. There's always a good strategic option for a given topic, and it's up to you to find it. I will not be a hindrance to that process. Whatever you think is situationally best given the strengths of yourself and your opponent should be what you go with. I'll adapt to you. You'll probably debate better when you do what you're best at. Almost all debate is fun, it should be a question of what's the most situationally strategic option. One last thing: I am a very expressive judge. 9 times out of 10 you will know what I think of your argument. I will shake my head at you if you say something really absurd, and I will nod for arguments that I agree with. I can't really control this very well (I've tried). On very very rare occasions I will verbally declare an argument to be stupid during the debate. Do not take me too seriously. I vote for stupid arguments when I would be intervening otherwise, and not all smart arguments are round winners. If it's very difficult for you to deal with non-verbal reactions to your arguments or this is very distracting for you, don't pref me. I literally could not possibly be less interested where I end up on your pref sheet.

John Cinnamon - USAFA

n/a

Jonathan Veal - PLNU

Basics   -- Take at least one question during constructive speeches. -- I prefer unconditional arguments and I will listen to conditionality bad arguments. -- Have a copy of the text for advocacies and perms and repeat them at least once. -- I recommend your advocacy engage the topic in some fashion. If you do not, you need justification for why the issue you are discussing comes prior to the resolution and prove there is not a topical version of the aff.   -- Avoid delay, time travel and any other artificially competitive counterplans. -- Points of information check back against most spec arguments. -- I enjoy seeing K arguments and policy based arguments alike. Just treat me as if I am not steeped in the lit of whatever argument you’re making. (I am probably not)     I am a second year Graduate Student at SDSU studying communication and rhetoric. I was a competitor for four years in parliamentary debate on the national circuit at Concordia University. I spent a year coaching debate at the high school before rejoining the college circuit.   I should be fine with the speed your comfortable speaking at, but I value clarity first. I will be sympathetic to teams sitting across from an incredibly unclear or disorganized debater even if I am familiar with the argument. On theory I default to competing interpretations. Debate is a game but games are not fun or useful without clear limits. Competing interpretations allows me to determine those limits. With criticisms, please be clear on what the alternative does. Additionally be clear on the links of the K so I can evaluate a debate with clash. K’s without links will likely lose to the perm. For affirmative K’s use your advocacy to affirm the topic in some way or explain how your K is prior question to the resolution. Debate is inherently performative and I will not discriminate on the nature of that performance. If you have something unique to bring to the table I am willing to listen. If anything I am partial to critical arguments.     Disadvantages are great. I want to see disads with strong uniqueness claims and reasonable impacts. Don’t say, “…the economy collapses and nuc war kills us all.” Explain your scenarios thoroughly. Also I have a high threshold on tix scenarios. Make sure there is a specific election or bill that is actually on the docket and explain it thoroughly. Counterplans are cool as long as they are competitive and the timeframe is now. I enjoy the perm debate. Also, perms are a test of competition and a bad perm is a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Have fun and ask any questions you may have.

Jonathan Bruce - Pacific

I competed in Parli and LD for four years at University of the Pacific. I am pretty much fine with anything being run in front of me. However, as the cliche goes--do not assume I know the literature base behind the K you wish to run.   NEG:   Disads: My favorite type of debate to watch is a Disad vs. Case debate. So I like them, is what I’m getting at there. I am not against any type of Disads being run in front of me. Albeit, if you chose to run a Politics DA, what helps to make Politics more compelling is if you include a specific reason X Plan Text of the AFF would cause a reaction to the specific BILL/Proposal your D/A is about. In other words, please don’t say “Repub backlash because yeah!” raising thumbs like Fonzie.   CPs: Sure, they’re a useful thing, so run it if you want. Conditional CPs are perfectly fine, I believe they do make more sense for Policy debate. Unconditional CPs make more sense for Parli Debate. So, I won’t disregard Condo-Bad theory, on face. I will be viewing both as you characterize them.   Theory: Proven abuse is more compelling, to me, than potential. I might actually be light weight vexed to have to sit and listen to potentially being abused in some hypothetical round in the future, for 17 minutes. That aside, I am not a fan of someone running multiple (3+) theory positions to me in one LOC. If you run any form of Vagueness, just make sure the link to what is vague and the link to what offense you lose, subsequently--is clear.   K: Like I said above--make sure the thesis of the K is clear. So, perhaps, chose to slow down in the portion of the K that has a thesis. Parli is not Policy, I can’t check your arguments afterward, so clarity is the most important item here. Now, K debate becomes a game of controlling some type of grand Uniqueness frame. It’s a great home, subsequently, for tech, advanced debaters. I will give leeway, thus, to new debaters and their responses to the normative tricks of all such “non-normative” K’s.     BOTH:   Performance: Nah.   Critical Affirmatives: Just establish the link between your literature and the resolution’s topic. I’m not saying you have to be topical. You don’t. I’m asking you to briefly describe why your K is relevant to this topic.   Impact Calc: Timeframe > Magnitude > Probability is the default way I will frame impacts in the rounds. If you don’t like that, then do impac calc in the LOR/PMR and tell me the 1) The frame 2) Why that frame is important (given the context of that round’s arguments.)   Speed: Blaze it. That being said, don’t be rude to new debaters, allow them to engage.

Jonathan McGuire - UNR

Joseph Evans - El Camino

~~About me: I have been involved in forensics for 10 years. I debated HS LD for 2 years, and then 4 years of college parli debate at UCLA. I coached at CSULB while in graduate school, and I am now currently the assistant coach at El Camino College. I view debate as a game of intellect, and therefore I believe that any method of debate is viable when used as a strategic ploy to win. I will try to list my views on the major themes within debate. The way I evaluate the round: I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the eyes of a policy maker. Unless I am told otherwise, I tend to fall back on Net Benefits. This means that I will evaluate the arguments based on how clear the impacts are weighed for me (probability, timeframe, and magnitude). I will however evaluate the round based on how you construct your framework. If (for example) you tell me to ignore the framework of Net Benefits for an ethics based framework... I will do so. On the flip side, I will also listen to arguments against framework from the Neg. You win the framework if you provide me clear warranted arguments for your position, and weigh out why your framework is best. Speed: I am usually a fast debater and thus I believe that speed is a viable way of presenting as much evidence as possible within the time alloted. I can flow just about anything and I'm confident that you can not out flow me from the round. That being said, I value the use of speed combined with clarity. If you are just mumbling your way through your speech, I won't be able to flow you. While I won't drop you for the act of being unclear... I will not be able to get everything on the flow (which I am confident is probably just as bad). Counter Plans: I will listen to any CP that is presented as long as it is warranted. In terms of CP theory arguments... I understand most theory and have been known to vote on it. All I ask is for the theory argument to be justified and warranted out (this also goes for perm theory on the aff). Topicality: I have a medium threshold for T. I will evaluate the position the same as others. I will look at the T the way the debaters in the round tell me. I don’t have any preference in regards reasonability vs. competing interps. You run T the way your see fit based on the round.  Additionally, I have an extremely high threshold for "RVIs". If the neg decides to kick out of the position, I usually don't hold it against them. I will vote on T if the Aff makes a strategic mistake (it is an easy place for me to vote). Kritical Arguments: I believe that any augment that is present is a viable way to win. Kritical arguments fall into that category. I am well versed in many of the theories that most critical arguments are based in. Therefore if you run them i will listen to and vote on them as long as they are well justified. I will not vote on blips as kritical arguments. Framework: I will listen to any alt framework that is presented ( narrative, performance, kritical Etc.) If you decide to run a different framework that falls outside the norm of debate... you MUST justify the framework. Evidence: Have it (warranted arguments for parli)! Rudeness: don't be rude!

Josh Vannoy - Grand Canyon

Joshua Vannoy – Grand Canyon University Experience: 4 years of NPDA Debate at Concordia University Irvine. I competed at the NPTE and NPDA all four years of college. Kevin Calderwood has heavily influenced my views regarding debate. General: Debate is a game.  There are arguments I personally will lean towards, but ultimately you should make the argument you want to make.  I am the current director of debate at GCU and this is my second year as a judge. <ul> <li>One question should be answered during each constructive.</li> <li> If you read my favorite Ks (Marx/Symbolism) I will have a higher threshold regarding them, since I ran them so much.</li> <li>Partner communication is fine, but do not puppet your partner.</li> <li>Be friendly!</li> </ul> Theory: Theory ran properly can win my ballot. I would avoid V/A/E/F specs/specs in general, unless the abuse is really clear. All standards should be read slowly twice, or I won’t be able to flow it.  I do not need articulated abuse.  Competing interps is my go unless you have something else.  I most likely will not vote for “you must disclose” arguments. Case: If your PMC lacks warrants/impacts the ballot should be pretty easy for the Neg.  If the entire PMC is dropped, it should be a pretty easy ballot for the Aff. I will not do work for any impacts, if you just say “poverty” without terminalizing the impact, I will not terminalize it for you. Performance: So I personally enjoyed performative debate, it was fresh and interesting. If you decide to have a performance argument/framework you need a justification and a true performance. If you say performance is key in the FW and then do not “perform” anywhere else I will wonder why it was argued in the first place.   I will need performance specific Solvency/Impacts if you take this route. The K: When I first started debating at CUI I was afraid of the K, towards the end of my career I loved it. All K’s should have a FW, Thesis, Links, Impacts and an Alt with Solvency arguments. If one of these pieces are missing it is going to be difficult for me to evaluate the criticism. Sometimes people skip the thesis, that is ok so long as you describe the thesis somewhere else in the K (Earlier the better).  The closer your K is to the topic the easier it is for me to vote for it. Reject alts are ok, but I find ivory tower arguments to be very compelling in these debates.   Like I said above I ran Mark/Symbolism the most but am open to any other type of K.  I probably have not read your author so please be very clear on what the Thesis of your argument is, name dropping means nothing to me. Non topical Affirmatives: So if you decide to run a Non topical affirmative I would keep a couple of things in mind when arguing them in front of me. I am not a fan of militarized agency and find it difficult to weigh the debate when it becomes Arguments vs People. I do believe the topic has some importance in the debate, since it arguably is one of the only stable locust that both teams have access to, if you are going to run a non-topical affirmative a discussion of why the topic is problematic/harmful to debate would be needed. If the neg argues that there was a topical version of your affirmative (and its true) it would be pretty easy for me to vote on T. CP Theory: Is condo bad? Probably… Having debated under Kevin Calderwood for three years this is the argument that stuck with me the most. If a condo bad shell is run properly and executed well I will probably vote for it. Although I am open to a conditional advocacy (that means one) if you can justify it in responding to condo bad arguments (Multiple conflicting advocacies make it really easy for the aff to win the condo debate) Never run delay. 50/States/Consult/Courts need a DA/Net Ben/Justification for doing so. Pics are awesome if done well, and please read all CP texts (Just like All Alt/Plan texts) slowly twice.  If you do not provide a written copy for me and I do not hear it well enough to write it down, things will not look good when I make a decision. Permutations: I am not a fan of the multiple perm trend, 1 – 2 perms should be enough, I am open to Neg multi perm theory arguments when teams run 4 – 8 perms.  If your perm does not solve links to the DA’s/Offense it would probably be better to just respond to those arguments instead of making a perm, considering a perm is just a test of competition. Speaker Points: I honestly do not know how I will be with speaker points. When judging high school, I always leaned on the higher side of speaker points, I most likely will keep things in the 27 – 29 range.  Odds are I will not pass out 30s often unless you speak like Richard Ewell or topically find a way to take out Kim Jong-un.

Josiah Hogan - NPDA 2017 Hired

n/a

Julian Plaza - NPDA 2017 Hired

n/a

Justin Perkins - Palomar

My name is Justin Perkins, I am the assistant coach at Palomar College, where I am primarily responsible for the Individual events but am also heavily involved in the Debate events including Parliamentary Debate and NFA-LD. I have competed in Competitive Forensics for 4 years in High School for Oceanside High and 4 years in College for Palomar College and California State-University Los Angeles, primarily in Interpretation events. I majored in Performance Studies and am inclined academically and intuitively with the message and the performer-audience relationship in all its critical perspectives. I think persuasion is magic, and I challenge you to prove it otherwise. I have been coaching since 2006, and have been judging debate since 2007. I judge about 50 rounds a year, if not more, I don't really keep count. I also judge that many and more in Individual Events. I'd like to get as close as I can to cohesive way to view and judge all forensic performance, for after all, every event seeks to persuade its audience, and each does so in a subtly similar yet beautifully different ways.   Everything is debatable. I view debate as a fun and complex game of serious, academic inquiry. I view myself as a referee of said game, and am inclined to allow the players to decide the outcome on the field of play. However, I am persuaded by debaters exercising and explaining what they know that I know that they know, you know? That means explain everything to the point of redundancy. My brain is mush by the end of a long tournament. I like criteria based arguments, meaning that all warrants should frame the data supporting your claim in the context of the criteria agreed upon in round.   With that said, I'll get one thing out of the way, because I forget to say it most of the time; If you have any position that is fun, experimental, controversial, out-of-the-box, or non-traditional, I may be your best chance to win it. This means I'm willing to listen to anything; there is nothing you can say that will automatically lose my ballot or automatically win my ballot. I will fight to remain objective and not weigh in on my decision until the final second has expired and will try as I may to write, record, and weigh everything levied in the round.   This leads into the first question that debaters usually have; speed and structure. I don't find speed to be a particularly appealing way to persuade an audience, and debaters usually out pace their structure to the point of incomprehensible stammering, but hey, it’s your round as much as it is mine. I will, upon verbal agreement in the round, verbally call out “clear” for you to speak more clearly, “Speed” to speak more slowly, and “Signpost” if I don't where you are. Feel free to adhere to these cues at the expense of speaker points and possible arguments that might influence my decision. Don't “cross apply” or “pull through” arguments, especially just incoherent numbering/lettering systems, please restate and analyze and then weigh why you're winning under the agreed upon criteria.   I enjoy the procedural debate as long as it is a witty, intellectual exercise of logic. I weigh offense on the procedural in the time trade off and don’t really recognize “reverse voters” for numerous reasons. Therefore, I don't really appreciate arguments that waste my time and energy just to be kicked, and am inclined to listen to why that is bad. I weigh good, practical arguments more than dropped, fallacious arguments unless really encouraged to do so. The best way to not lose a procedural is to not violate procedure in the first place. I love positions that interrogate structures of power, and criticize aspects of society at large. I embrace the Kritik, but also traditional forms such as DA/CP and other inventive double binds. I don't discourage the practice of fact and value debate, in fact, I consider the degree of difficulty in running those cases to be higher, but don't really find the Trichotomy to be a persuasive position to argue unless the other side loses it. All resolutions are fact AND value AND policy, not necessarily one or the other. I will entertain as many points of order as you call. You may state your point, and I will entertain a response from the other side, before finally giving you a brutally honest decision to the best of my ability and will encourage my fellow judges on panels to rule on important, big round arguments in rebuttals at their discretion. It is a team activity, but I will only weigh arguments made by the speaker, feel free to repeat partner prompts or pass notes. Give me your best and have fun, I'll be giving you mine and having more.

Kathryn Starkey - Mizzou

n/a

Keith Corley - Jewell

My name is Keith Corley and I currently am the Assistant Debate Coach at William Jewell College. My experience in the activity is 2 years at Moorpark College and 3 years at Concordia University Irvine. My goal with this philosophy is to try and be as honest as possible with those who read it as it is my experience that quite a few individuals tend to mislead in order to be part of the in group. KvsPolicy: During my debate career I spent a majority of it debating policy and case debate. That being said my final year in the activity I debated the K more than 70% of the time. As far as policy debate goes, I expect warrants for arguments. I know that all judges says this but I want to make it extremely clear that you need specific warrants to back up your claims. If you do not have it, often times I will accept the other team to just articulate a lack of warrants in order to refute the argument. Other than that I feel like I view policy in the same way that almost every other person does. Theory: When I was debating I was really into theory debate, it was something that I really enjoyed winning on. While I am more than willing to listen to you read these, I think it should be pointed out that I really dislike listening to theory that is not strategic or meaningful, aka something that is meant just to waste the other team's time. More often than not I think that the questions that theory is asking is important and as such in this aspect of the debate I do not like gamesmanship.  Conditionality I was coached by Kevin Calderwood and while I buy into his thoughts in regards to conditionality I want to make it clear that I do not think that one conditional advocacy is necessarily bad. That being said I will definitely listen to a condo bad shell for a variety of reasons. Specifically, I suggest you not run an argument such as whiteness or fem conditionally as I believe that is ethically bankrupt. However, I will not vote anyone down for this if the other team does not win a condo bad theory position. The K: Like I said, I ran these quite a bit during my last year, however, I do not want you to think that I am up on every single bit of critical literature. I prefer a very explained out thesis for K's that arent cap or something basic. Additionally, you need to explain to me in a very clear way what the alt text does. I truly dislike utopian alternatives with no explanation as to how they function. As far as K's on the aff go I am fine with them, but I would prefer you to make it resolutional. I do not need you to make it topical or use fiat (though that can and should be argued by the neg if they so choose) but I would prefer if the resolution was incorporated somewhere. Miscellaneous If you only read one part of my philosophy please read this part: Debate was my home and identity for a long time. However, I realize that they type of debate and the space in which I engage in it are not home for many people that do not have my privilege. I want everyone to be able to run the type of arguments that make them feel most at home. That being said, I think that on some occasion in an effort to run arguments that they feel most comfortable with debaters will do so at the expense of the team that they are facing. What I mean by this is that I believe there is a way to run arguments that do not make your opponent feel like shitty people. I understand that some arguments can get real. I think those arguments are fantastic. However, I do not think that it is beneficial for anyone involved to traumatize someone in order to win a ballot. I believe that this space is a place for us to grow an think and learn a bunch of new and different types of education that aren't offered anywhere else whether that be upper level international relations or very critical queer theory. My belief is that our community is at our best when people can experience these hard truths without being brought to tears because the round made them feel like shit. My last note is that most of the fastest speakers in the community often times were not clear enough for me to flow at full speed. If you believe you are in this group please drop to 80% of your speed or wait for me to clear you, whatever you prefer.   TL;DR THESE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ME <ol> <li>Do not make the other team want to leave the activity</li> <li>No matter what you are running, please make sure that you have a solvency that explains how your plan, alt, advocacy, etc. function</li> <li>I NEED WARRANTS</li> <li>Please for the love of god somebody do impact calculus</li> <li>Totally down with theory, just not as a time suck</li> <li>If you make a good Hamilton reference, 30 speaks</li> </ol>

Keith Green - Biola

I strongly prefer K debate. Be warned: if you run a K with Marxism, Biopolitcs, Orientalism/ Po Co you will have to go deeper then a shell.    History: i have coached with Biola for two years, and I competed in Parli debate for two years with Biola University. I also did speech with them for one semester. I also competed for 4 years in STOA and NCFCA Voting: I vote on what you tell to me, provided you’ve put in the work on it. Eg, if you run a really horrid T, that is missing most of its parts, saying “a priori ” doesn’t mean you win.  On Procedurals: if you’ve lost ground, prove it to me. Otherwise, I default to competing interpretations. I will usually not vote on vagueness and unpopular procedurals except if they are really, really, necessary.    On K’s: I LOVE K’s. PLEASE RUN EXPERIMENTAL K’S IF YOU HAVE THEM. The way to make me happy is to have a unique K, with a CITED LIT BASE, a INTERESTING ALT and run by teams who understand the K they are running.      On Alts: I understand that reject alts are really common and do fit the average criticism, BUT if you run an alt that is more than just reject, it greatly increases your chances of me picking you up. (provided you can defend it)hint: non-violence can be very effective. I like project K’s, I really dislike.  THEORY and LIT bases: I have read extensively from Foucault, Butler, Spivak, Saide, West, Saussure, Derrida, Althusser, Marx, bell hooks, Nietzsche, Barthes, Bhabha, Beauvoir, Edelman, Segwick, Wilderson, Sexton,  Baudrillard, Jameson, Zizek Fannon, Fiere, Chomsky and Bell, and Ghandi.    I am familiar/have read the following schools of theory: Femm, Queer, Po-Co, Marxist, Critical Race Theory, anti-blackness and afro-pessimisnm, Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, reader response, intersectionality, and Eco-Fem. I do not like Deep Eco, and I do not enjoy psychoanalytic. I DO NOT LIKE ANTHRO K’s. Other kinds of lit bases I am not as well versed in which means you may have to a run a specific thesis block. I enjoy personal narratives as advocacy provided you make it clear how to weigh them IN ROUND. Same goes with performance debate.    On Speed: gotta go fast! I can follow nearly all CLEAR speed. If you mumble I will not flow it.  On Trichot: I will never vote for you on a fact res. The first person to say the word fact loses. Period. Same for value. Just run policy or I will be mad. Impacts: I like them to be clear, well warranted and realistic. Running nuclear war as an impact is bad, and any good team can beat that. I will vote on critical impacts if you actually terminalize them. Saying their imperialist is not an impact. You need to explain to me the pre/post fiat impacts.  I love GOOD WARRANTED impact scenarios. Just saying “econ improves therefor JOBS” is a good way to lose. Do impact calculus EVEN FOR YOUR CRITICAL IMPACTS. Warrants: have them for important aspects of your advocacy. Preferably for everything. Calling out NO WARRANT is not an argument, it is at the very least, poor defense.. Points of Order: you should call them. I will try to protect as much as I can, for new arguments, but I will miss some. Don’t abuse POO though. CP: I agree with Sean Hansen: “I think PICs are a good strategy decision, while delays and 50 states tend to be lazy strategies unless specifically justified. I think topical CPs are not only theoretically legitimate, but also probably the only way to allow NEG reciprocal access to the round (though I’ve picked up AFFs who have argued otherwise). I am also open to conditional CPs, and even multiple conditional positions, but allow AFF theory responses equal weight. My openness to CPs generates a corresponding openness to good perm debates, although I tend towards the perspective that legitimate perms use all of AFF text and some or all of CP text (unless severance is somehow justified, which can certainly be done, but is a hard theory battle to win). Perms should have a net benefit, and should usually be run with solvency deficits / turns to the alt.” Speech: I start at 30spks, and go down. If you get lower than 26 you pissed me off. Interpreting my non- verbal’s : 1. If I knock that I means I like your argument. 2. If I laugh, that’s means something funny has occurred. If you can’t figure out what it is, its probably you. 3. If I stop flowing, that’s bad. Give me things to flow. 4. If I stare at your team during rebuttals I’m listening to a new argument, and wondering if you are going to call it. 5. If I shrug that means I’m not impressed but I can buy it. 6. Nodding quickly means I agree with what you are sating. Speaking of things that piss me off: 1. Any kind of racist, sexist, homophobic, transist, bi, ablest, imperialist, classist, ethnocentrism, exceptioanlism, patriarchal, and jingoist statements as well as generally being unaware of one’s privilege will KILL your speaker points, and may cost you the round. 2. Repeating arguments. 3. Interrupting speeches. 4. Not taking ANY questions. (taking at least one won’t hurt you) 5. Lying about what the other team has or has not done. 6. Being rude. (don’t tell me their DA is crap, I’ll know) 7. Looking at your competition, unless it’s a diag/expo round.

Kelly Kehoe - Biola

Kennedy Clayton - Utah

Things that annoy me: Not respecting people, their pronouns, opinions, beliefs, triggers, etc. Also, people who get offended and upset with others without specifying their pronouns, opinions, beliefs, triggers, etc. Not giving me a road map at the beginning of each speech. Not consolidating in PMR/LOR: give me 1-3 reasons to vote for you, tell me how/why you win this argument, pinpoint where these arguments are. People who don't follow the Rules of the Game. You are "playing" the game, know the rules. And, if you don't know the rules, ask for them. All of the -isms (aka sexism, racism, ageism, size-ism, etc.) Don't be an a**hole. Double wins. It won't happen. I was taught better. Just donâ€™t try it. General Information: I graduated from the University of Utah May 2016. I competed on the Uâ€™s forensic team in Parli for roughly 2 years. The very first collegiate tournament I ever competed at was Mile High, thus I have a real love-hate relationship with it. Life (read: forensics) really does not need to be taken so seriously. We win some, we lose some, we continue to exist. Anyway, that being said, I am down with just about every strat. I won't do the work for you, don't drop args. I absolutely hate vague impacts that EVERYTHING WILL ALWAYS LEAD TO NUKE WAR AND OH BOY WE ARE ALL DOOMED, so just don't be vague. Give me a real reason for everything. I like big impacts with subpoints. Side note: you will probably think I am either still in high school or maaaybe a college sophomore when entering round. I assure you, while I am fond of my small and youthful genetics, I am qualified enough to judge your round and over the legal adult age. So, don't be surprised when I walk in. Framework: In my opinion, this is the STRONGEST part of any debate. I need you to tell me/convince me how I should evaluate the round and why. This is a priori to any argument in front of me. If I don't know how to weigh your argument in this round, chances are your opposition will give me a way that you would not be too stoked about. Topicality: Oh boy, oh boy. I was coached by Rob Layne, so I do love a good topicality to vote on. Yes, a GOOD topicality, meaning clean, clear, concise, extended, and fought for. If you go for topicality, I prefer you make that your only arg in the rebuttal. Obviously, must prove clear abuse. Advantages/Disadvantages: Please don't lie on politics likely I'll know and be incredibly annoyed. Also, on politics, I don't buy that Republicans, Democrats or Liberals, Conservatives are evil/good. That is a HUGE generalization of individuals and largely fueled by the information fed to us via social media or clickbait news articles/videos based off of one person's words. I love a good Heg or Relations AD/DA. Don't be vague though give those links some beef (or the vegetarian/vegan equivalent). Case: I like a solvency page, like a real solvency page or at least a statement of "hey judge, our AD's are our solvency". I think a solely off case neg strat is pretty bold and I would not necessarily recommend that in front of me. But, yo, if you can make it work, Iâ€™d love to see you try. Counterplan: Pretty basic: I think you should have one. Condo bad every time. Be VERY clear on solvency and why it is better. Time delayed CPs are real silly: 0/10 would recommend. Permutations: Perms are always a test of competition as far as I am concerned, unless you specify differently. Intrinsic and severance bad, but I won't do the work for you. Tell me how and why. The K: Vague = Bad: which is really all I have to say about that. Except I appreciate topic specific critiques the majority of the time. Also, probably best to slow down and make framework and plan text a little more clear. I can follow fast spreading for the most part, but when introducing your theory, I would appreciate clarity. Etc: (speaker points) Oh boy, speaker points, what we all really care about! For a variety of reasons, I think speaker point are real silly. But, I must engage in the system. Here are some pointers to get points: Be kind to one another: abusive language, attitudes, and non-verbal behavior are likely to immediately receive a VERY low score and I will intervene. It is Parli rules to take at the very least 1 question in each constructive speech: don't be an a**hole though. Take questions, answer nicely, and also don't ask stupid questions (yes, there are such things as stupid questions). Spreading is fine: but again, don't be an a**hole. If I can't understand you (unlikely) I'll say something. I'll ask you to slow down or clear your voice. If an opponent asks you to and you don't, you are giving me plenty of reason to give you low points and giving them plenty of reason to run a kicka** abuse argument (that they ABSOLUTELY should run). Also, I clearly don't mind if you curse around me. But, we should be mindful and respectful of others if it bothers them. 10/10 would recommend including a quote from "Mean Girls" or a Star Wars reference. Chances are you'll get a 30.

Kevin Yanofsky - PDB

Background: I debated npda/npte parli for UC Berkeley from 2011 to 2015, where I graduated with a degree in computer science.  I also debated three years of circuit LD in high school.  Overall, I largely view debate as a game, and think that you should do what you think gives you the best chance to win it.   Overview: - I am fine with whatever level of speed you wish to debate at, but be sure to make sure the rest of the debaters in the room are as well. - I will listen to any type of argument you like, as long as you are able to justify it.  However, I’ll go into further detail in later sections as to my tendencies that might deviate from the average parli judge. - I evaluate the round based on my flow.  As of now I'm not sure what to do about arguments telling me this is bad.  Perhaps the best case for you if you tell me this method of evaluation is problematic is that I will be slightly less picky about my flow, but don't count on it. - My overall knowledge of the world is limited mostly to news headlines and debate experience.  If you are reading an intricate scenario, just explain it carefully and you should be fine. - My personally experience of debate was split fairly evenly between policy and critical. - I do have a moderate preference that the affirmative defend the resolution (perhaps if you want to be critical, find a topical way to do so without fiat).  That being said, good argumentation can certainly override this preference, and while I might like a good framework debate, I will not give credence to a bad one.   Case Debate / Disads: - For both the aff and neg, the more specific your links are to the plan the better. - Be sure to fully terminalize your impacts, I might feel uncomfortable doing that work for you.  If the terminalized form of your opponent’s impacts are not obvious, I find pointing this out to be a strong way to outweigh them.   Counterplans: - I have little bias for or against condo, debate to your style here. - If you want to run other “cheater” counterplans, I find that topic specific reasons those counterplans should be relevant are persuasive responses to theory.   Theory/Topicality: - A personal favorite of mine, at least early in my career.  I will appreciate nuanced and well thought out theory debate, but don’t think that I’ll give you credence on a bad shell or make internal links for you. - I default to competing interpretations, and absent a clear definition of some alternative, I find it very difficult to evaluate theory under reasonability. - Competing interpretations means you need to either win a we-meet or superior offense to a counter interpretation. - I personally find fairness claims more compelling than education, but any arguments about the order of these two made it round will instantly override that. - By default I will assume any 4 point shell is reject the team, and any paragraph theory (often seen as responses to cheater perms) is reject the arg, absent the team reading the shell specifying the opposite. - RVIs will be a very uphill battle, if you really want to go here please read unique, maybe round specific arguments.   Kritiks: - I read and collapsed to Ks in the majority of my neg rounds.  I believe I would be comfortable evaluating most Ks that could come up in parli. - Specific warrants and examples from the real world, as opposed to making the same assertion that your author claims, will generally help put you further ahead both when reading and answering a K. - A pet peeve of mine is when every alt solvency argument is just a perm pre-empt (you'd be suprised how often I've seen this).  Please also warrant why your alt solves your K. - I might be slightly less inclined to wave away the framework of a K than the average parli judge, especially if there are more specific arguments being made than the standard stuff where everyone’s impacts seem to end up getting compared on the same level.  That being said, if all you plan to do is read the super generic K framework arguments, I’m perfectly fine if you just cut it out from the beginning and go for root cause.  Side note, if you do this, be wary of timeframe on extinction impacts. - I read a lot of pomo as a debater, so if you want to bite the bullet and make people to justify why intuitive things are real/bad, go ahead and do so.   Aff-Ks: - As I said earlier, I prefer that teams find a way to defend the topic. - I find topic specific critical affirmatives or smart critical advantages to be very strategic. - If you are answering framework, saying that the shell is a re-link to the K is not independently a logical takeout of the theory.  Often these debates devolve and become a circular mess of each position denying that the other should exist.  Find a way to make your approach to this problem more nuanced than your opponents'.   last updated: 1/3/2016

Kinny Torre - WWU

First year out of the activity. I've debated for 7 years (3 years policy and 3.5 years parli) I've coached high school debate for 3.5 years and I currently coach for WWU    tl;dr My judging philosophy is contextual to each round so, show up ready to debate and there shouldn’t be a problem. I know that debate has radical potential but we can probably only achieve it if we have some fun along the way ;)    Usually, I default to the flow because it’s best way for me to process information. I’m not saying that I’m objective and to consider judges that evaluate debates through the flow as inherently objective is very harmful. That being stated, I do my best to evaluate the round through the competing lens that I am given; otherwise, I will be left to my own arbitrary view of debate. Note: that’s not to say that I will view the round through the lens of a policy maker but rather that I’ll evaluate the arguments the way that I think they should be evaluated unless I am told otherwise.   In other words, run tix and delay, Nietzsche and heg, a project, or several procedurals. My judging philosophy is centered around the belief that the debaters ought to determine the way through which I evaluate the round. Unless given an alternative lens, this means that I default to competing interpretations on procedurals and framework because I’m not sure how else I would answer those questions.   Lastly, a few tips if you want me to like you as a debater: <ol> <li>Obviously, don’t be exclusionary or an asshole to your opponents or partner. If you're mean to your partner or your opponents there's a higher chance that in a close round I'll do the work for the oppossing team. </li> <li>Usually, you don't have to call a point of order; often it times the argument doesn't matter and (usually) my flow is good enough that I should be able to tell. Nevertheless, if you feel like you need to call them then shoot. </li> <li>I usually do not find "this is not the place for this argument" style of argument to particularly persuasive unless you can prove that there was a significant imbalance in ground AND that this is bad. </li> <li>Please don't make one argument an RVI...you should have entire positions that prove why you should win. </li> <li>Don’t assume that just because I was a K hack during my last few years that I know about the random argument that you found on redcritque; every argument needs a clear a warrant  </li> <li>Read all advocacies and texts twice or slowly (or both). I know that you have super dope argument about the semiotics of capitalism but I also need to know wtf you're gonna do about it</li> <li>If you’re clearly winning sit down</li> </ol>

Korick Sisomphone - AppState

Section 1: General Information  I debated for 2 years at Appalachian State University. I am now the Assistant Debate Coach for App. Debate is game so have fun and learn!  Section 2: Specific Inquiries  1. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given. Typically give the top speaker 29 points and then 28, 27, 26 for the rest of the debaters accordingly. Exceptional performances will be awarded with 30 points. I typically think the best speaker in the round was the most strategic, had the most clever/creative arguments, was very clear and articulate (especially at speed), etc.  1. 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I love criticisms! I personally think that even when running a policy case it should be critically framed. I'm decently well versed in critical literature, but a clear and well explained thesis can go a long way for both me and the other team.  Yes aff k's are totally fine. I do believe that they have to be topical and it would some strong justification and framing to convince me otherwise. I don't think it's terribly hard to do the research and link the res to your criticism, so please do.  I don't really think any argument should contradict another argument you plan on running and I feel the same about k's. Be consistent in your advocacy.  1. 3. Performance based arguments… So in the end I'll evaluate whatever argument I'm presented with, but if performance based arguments are your thing, I might not be the best judge for you.  1. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?  For me to vote on topicality I would prefer to have clear articulated abuse. In the end though I'll evaluate the arguments that I get, articulated or potential. T's should have an interp, violation, standards, impacts, and voters. I evaluate procedurals before any other argument.  1. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? PICs are bad, but the other team has to call them out with a full pics bad argument (interp, vio, standards, impacts blah blah). If the other team lets it slide I'll happily pull the trigger on a PIC.  Please disclose the status of your counterplan.  I'm not a real fan of textual competition. CPs should be functionally competitive.  1. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Sure   1. 7. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? Procedurals, kritiks, everything else. Unless there are arguments telling me to do otherwise, then that is my default.  1. 8. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? The more warranted argument will beat a less warranted argument.  I typically prefer systemic impacts. Dehuminization will typically outweigh mass death. But if told to evaluate otherwise I totally will.  My default impact calculus is probability > time frame > magnitude, unless told to do otherwise.

Korry Harvey - WWU

Background/Experience I debated a lot (CEDA, NDT), and have coached and judged even more (CEDA, NDT, NPDA, NPTE, Worlds). I teach courses in argument theory, diversity, and civil dialogue, and I am heavily involved in community service. While my debate background comes primarily from a “policy” paradigm, I have no problem with either good “critical” debates or “persuasive communication”, and am willing to listen to any framework a team feels is justifiably appropriate for the debate.   I think that debate is simultaneously a challenging educational exercise, a competitive game of strategy, and a wonderfully odd and unique community – all of which work together to make it fun. I think debaters, judges, and coaches, should actively try to actually enjoy the activity. Debate should be both fun and congenial. Finally, while a written ballot is informative, I feel that post-round oral critiques are one of the most valuable educational tools we as coaches and judges have to offer, and I will always be willing to disclose and discuss my decisions, even if that may involve walking and talking in order to help the tournament staff expedite an efficient schedule for all of us.   Unique consideration I am hearing impaired. No joke – I wear hearing aids in both ears, and am largely deaf without them. I think most would agree that I keep a pretty good flow, but I can only write down what I understand. I work as hard as just about any of your critics to understand and assess your arguments, and I appreciate it when you help me out a little. Unfortunately, a good deal of my hearing loss is in the range of the human voice – go figure. As such, clarity and a somewhat orderly structure are particularly important for me. For some, a notch or two up on the volume scale doesn’t hurt, either. However, please note that vocal projection is not the same as shouting-- which often just causes an echo effect, making it even harder for me to hear. Also, excessive chatter and knocking for your partner can make it difficult for me to hear the speaker. I really want to hear you, and I can only assume that you want to be heard as well. Thanks for working with me a little on this one.   Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) Although I don't see absolute objectivity as easily attainable, I do try to let the debaters themselves determine what is and is not best for the debate process. Debaters should clarify what framework/criteria they are utilizing, and how things should be evaluated (a weighing mechanism or decision calculus). I see my role as a theoretically “neutral observer” evaluating and comparing the validity of your arguments according to their probability, significance, magnitude, etc. I very much like to hear warrants behind your claims, as too many debates in parli are based on unsubstantiated assertions. As such, while a “dropped argument” has considerable weight, it will be evaluated within the context of the overall debate and is not necessarily an automatic “round-winner”.   Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making As noted, clarity and structure are very important to me. It should be clear to me where you are and what argument you are answering or extending. Bear in mind that what you address as “their next argument” may not necessarily be the same thing I identify as “their next argument”. I see the flow as a “map” of the debate round, and you provide the content for that map. I like my maps to make sense.   That said, good content still weighs more heavily to me than slick presentation. Have something good to say, rather than simply being good at saying things.   Additionally, 1) although I think most people speak better when standing, that’s your choice; 2) I won’t flow the things your partner says during your speech time; 3) Please time yourselves and keep track of protected time.   Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making I find that good case debate is a very effective strategy. It usually provides the most direct and relevant clash. Unfortunately, it is rarely practiced. I can understand that at times counterplans and kritiks make a case debate irrelevant or even unhelpful. Nevertheless, I can't tell you the number of times I have seen an Opposition team get themselves in trouble because they failed to make some rather simple and intuitive arguments on the case.   Openness to critical/performative styles of debating See above. No problem, as long as it is well executed – which really makes it no different than traditional "net-benefits" or "stock issues" debates. To me, no particular style of debating is inherently “bad”. I’d much rather hear “good” critical/performative debate than “bad” traditional/policy debate, and vice versa.   Topicality/Theory While I try to keep an open mind here, I must admit I’m not particularly fond of heavy theory debates. I think most debaters would be surprised by just how much less interesting they are as a judge than as a competitor. I realize they have their place and will vote on them if validated. However, screaming “abuse” or “unfair” is insufficient for me. I’m far more concerned about educational integrity, stable advocacy and an equitable division of ground. Just because a team doesn’t like their ground doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have any. Likewise, my threshold for “reverse voters” is also on the somewhat higher end – I will vote on them, but not without some consideration. Basically, I greatly prefer substantive debates over procedural ones. They seem to be both more educational and interesting.   Parliamentary procedure While I have no problem with them, I tend not to follow much of the traditional stylizations or formal elements of parliamentary practice: 1) I will likely just “take into consideration” points of order that identify “new” arguments in rebuttals, but you are more than welcome to make them if you feel they are warranted; 3) Just because I am not rapping on the table doesn’t mean I don’t like you or dig your arguments; 4) You don’t need to do the little tea pot dance to ask a question, just stand or raise your hand; 5) I don’t give the whole speaker of the house rap about recognizing speakers for a speech; you know the order, go ahead and speak; 6) I will include “thank yous” in speech time, but I do appreciate a clear, concise and non-timed roadmap beforehand.   I lean toward thinking that “splitting the block”, while perhaps theoretically defensible, is somewhat problematic in an activity with only two rebuttals and often only makes a round more messy.

Kyle Cheesewright - IDAHO

“All that you touch   You Change.   All that you Change   Changes you.   The only lasting truth   Is Change.   God Is Change.” –Octavia Butler, “Parable of the Sower.”   Debate is a game. Debate is a strange, beautiful game that we play. Debate is a strange beautiful game that we play with each other.   I love debate. It’s the only game that exists where the rules are up for contestation by each side. There are some rules that aren’t up for discussion, as far as I can tell, these are them:   1/ Each debate will have a team that wins, and a team that looses. Say whatever you want, I am structurally constrained at the end of debate to award one team a win, and the other team will receive a loss. That’s what I got.   2/ Time limits. I think that a discussion should have equal time allotment for each side, and those times should probably alternate. I have yet to see a fair way for this question to be resolved in a debate, other than through arbitrary enforcement. The only exception is that if both teams decide on something else, you have about 45 minutes from the start of the round, to when I have to render a decision.   Pretty much everything else is open to contestation. At this point, I don’t really have any serious, uncontestable beliefs about debate. This means that the discussion is open to you. I do tend to find that I find debates to be more engaging when they are about substantive clash over a narrow set of established issues. This means, I tend to prefer debates that are specific and deep. Good examples, and comparative discussion of those examples is the easiest way to win my ballot. Generally speaking, I look for comparative impact work. I find that I tend to align more quickly with highly probable and proximate impacts, though magnitude is just so easy.   I tend to prefer LOC strategies that are deep, well explained explorations of a coherent world. The strategy of firing off a bunch of underdeveloped arguments, and trying to develop the strategy that is mishandled by the MG is often successful in front of me, but I almost always think that the round would have been better with a more coherent LOC strategy—for both sides of the debate.   At the end of the debate, when it is time for me to resolve the discussion, I start by identifying what I believe the weighing mechanism should be, based on the arguments made in the debate. Once I have determined the weighing mechanism, I start to wade through the arguments that prove the world will be better or worse, based on the decision mechanism. I always attempt to default to explicit arguments that debaters make about these issues.   Examples are the evidence of Parliamentary debate. Control the examples, and you will control the debate.   On specific issues: I don’t particularly care what you discuss, or how you discuss it. I prefer that you discuss it in a way that gives me access to the discussion. I try not to backfill lots of arguments based on buzzwords. For example, if you say “Topicality is a matter of competing interpretations,” I think I know what that means. But I am not going to default to evaluating every argument on Topicality through an offense/defense paradigm unless you explain to me that I should, and probably try to explicate what kinds of answers would be offensive, and what kinds of answers would be defensive. Similarly, if you say “Topicality should be evaluated through the lens of reasonability,” I think I know what that means. But if you want me to stop evaluating Topicality if you are winning that there is a legitimate counter-interpretation that is supported by a standard, then you should probably say that.   I try to flow debates as specifically as possible. I feel like I have a pretty good written record of most debates.   Rebuttals are times to focus a debate, and go comprehensively for a limited set of arguments. You should have a clear argument for why you are winning the debate as a whole, based on a series of specific extensions from the Member speech. The more time you dedicate to an issue in a debate, the more time I will dedicate to that issue when I am resolving the debate. Unless it just doesn’t matter. Watch out for arguments that don’t matter, they’re tricksy and almost everyone spends too much time on them.   Before I make my decision, I try to force myself to explain what the strongest argument for each side would be if they were winning the debate. I then ask myself how the other team is dealing with those arguments. I try to make sure that each team gets equal time in my final evaluation of a debate.   This is a radical departure from my traditional judging philosophy. I’ll see how it works out for me. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. For the record, I have strong opinions on just about everything that occurs in a debate round—but those strong opinions are for down time and odd rants during practice rounds. I work to keep them out of the debate, and at this point, I think I can say that I do a pretty good job on that account.   I just thought of a third rule. Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I thought speeches are. If you tell me what speaker points I should give you, I will listen, and promptly discard what you say. Probably.   For the sake of transparency: My personal gig is critical-cultural theory. It's where my heart is. This does not mean that you should use critical theory that you don't understand or feel comfortable with it. Make the choices in debate that are the best, most strategic, or most ethical for you. If your interested in my personal opinons about your choices, I'm more than happy to share. But I'll do that after the debate is over, the ballot submitted, and we're just two humans chatting. The debate will be decided based on the arguments made in the debate.   “[Y]ou can’t escape language: language is everything and everywhere; it’s what lets us have anything to do with one another; it’s what separates us from animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so on.” -David Foster Wallace, “Authority and American Usage.”   Old Philosophy A Body's Judging Philosophy Debate has been my home since 1996— and when I started, I caressed Ayn Rand and spoke of the virtue of selfishness.   I am much older than I was. These days, I am trying to figure out how subjectivity gets created from the raw material of words and research.   I have no interest in how well you can recite the scripts you’ve memorized. Or at what speed.   I will not be held responsible for adjudicating your bank balance. And I will not provide interest on your jargon. I will listen to your stories and I will decide which story is better, using the only currency I am comfortable with: the language of land, and the words that sprout from my body like hair.   I remember the visceral intensity of the win and loss, and the way that worth was constructed from finishing points. I am far too familiar with the bitter sting of other names circled.   I think that the systemic is far more important than the magnitude. Politics make me sick. And I know that most of the fun with words, has nothing to do with limits, because it’s all ambiguous. And nothing fair.   These days, I read Deleuze and Guattari, and wonder what it means when classrooms are madhouses. And all that remains is the affect.

Lauran Schaefer - Jewell

Overall, I honestly want debaters to do what they do best in round. I do have a few caveats, however. First, I was never a theory debater and I can get lost in them very easily. I would suggest a few things, most importantly, slow down on the most relevant parts of the theory debate, specifically interpretations. So be advised, I need a clear story and proven abuse to feel comfortable with a decision on theory. I understand in some cases where the other team meets your interpretation, but you don’t have any good positions to go for, in that case be as clear as possible. Second, I prefer probability to magnitude and I will explain that in a later section.â€¨â€¨ â€¨â€¨I’m probably too generous with speaker points. I generally give between a 27-29 and avoid 30’s unless the speech is close to perfect. If the round is full of speakers who are generally at the same level, I default to giving the best a 29, the second best a 28.5, etc. (Rob Layne is quickly making me change my point fairy-ness, so bear with me.)â€¨â€¨ â€¨â€¨I really like critical debates. Affirmatives can run critical arguments, but I think they need a clear framework with an interpretation and standards. Specifically, tell me why this particular critical aff is warranted. Your interpretation can’t be some “reject blah blah” that are somehow mutually exclusive and some bs solvency telling me how the world will all of a sudden change their mindsets from collapsing some “ism.” Although, I ran arguments like that, I now see that made me a bad debater.  Explain your solvency. What does the world look like after the action is taken? â€¨â€¨Performance based arguments…â€¨â€¨I’m fine with them, but I need to know how to evaluate them. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? â€¨ Like I said, I prefer proven abuse. Competing interpretations is probably your best bet. I’m not sure I would even know what to do with out one unless you’re critiquing T. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?â€¨ PICs are a good strategy. The opp should identify the status IF they are asked to, otherwise it’s fair game. Perms should be functional in my ideal debate world. If you’re going to go textual comp you’ll probably want to run more theory than you would with functional telling me why I should prefer it. â€¨â€¨ Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)â€¨ I think as a courtesy, you should always give a copy of any plan text or counterplan text, especially if asked. I don’t care if teams want to share anything other than that.â€¨ In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?â€¨ Procedurals are obviously first. Next, I would go to framework, if necessary, to determine if the K comes first. Then the substance. I default to the impact debate. â€¨â€¨ How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?â€¨â€¨I look to probability, first. Then magnitude. Finally, timeframe. If you want me to vote on huge impacts that are incredibly unrealistic, you should warrant exactly how these impacts will occur. Not some x country is pissed, the US gets involved, boom, big explosion because some random action causes a war in which rational actors would absolutely have to use nuclear weapons and it would cause a dust cloud that covers the sun. Although I did this, it’s because I had no idea if what I was saying was actually true. â€¨â€¨ Other Things: â€¨Making fun of Colin Patrick would make me smile. Forrest Gump, Keith Stone and Honey BooBoo references are a good idea.

Leah Fugure - NPDA 2017 Hired

n/a

Louie Petit - UNT

Debate is a game.    My preference is debate centered around a plan focus style of debate.  This is not say that other debate styles should or do not exist, but it is to say, I prefer policy debates, and I enjoy judging policy debate rounds.  I will not immediately rule out or prohibit other styles of debate, but I want to be clear, my preference is debates about the plan and competitive policy alternatives. As a judge, an educator, and a debate coach, I can respect all styles of debate/arguments, but prefer certain ones as well.  My preference serves as a starting point to how I think about debate, but will not be used to exclude any style of debate.   Counterplans I lean heavily neg on counterplan theory questions.  Conditionally is generally good, but I think the format and speech times of parli debate begs the "generally good" question. If both teams are silent on the question, my presumption will be that counterplans identified as “conditional” mean that status quo is always an option for the judge to consider, even if the counterplan is extended by the 2nr.  This presumption can easily be changed if debated by either side. Counterplans which result in the affirmative, probably, not competitive.  I’ve written many of these counterplans, and voted on many of these counterplans many times, so do not think they are off limits  The K First, see above. Second, If you are going for the K you best have well developed link args to the plan and alternative that is competitive. Explain what the alternative does and how it interacts with the AFF.  Topicality All about competing interpretations and which interp is best for debate.

MATTHEW LANE-SWANSON - SMC

New for the 17-18 season - looked at the poem and was like..... damn, this is old I see debate as a contest of two sides of an argument.  The aff picks the argument and the neg responds to it.  Many times, the aff will select their comments based on a resolution that is provided by a third party.  Personally, the topic and customs of the round matter not.  What is the point of me trying to enforce rigid standards of competition that are not necessarily agreed upon by the individuals participating in the debate?  As such, I see my position in the round not as a participant but as an participant-observer.  I am someone who will enter into the field of debate with you and observe/record the data you present to me.  However, unlike traditional P-O methods I would prefer for you to do the analysis for me.  At the end of the round I will render a decision based off of the arguments in the round as instructed by the participants of the debate.              To unpack this further, to perform what I consider a debate there should be two sides to the debate.  Unfortunately for the negative, the burden they are given is to refute the affirmative.  The reason I feel this is unfortunate is that I believe the affirmative needs to offer an advocacy that would be better than the sqo.  This does not require the aff to pass a policy through the usfg/state/whatever agency in my opinion.  This does not grant the aff a free ticket to do whatever.  While I may not have those requirements the negative team may and they may even have compelling reasons why lacking those concepts is reason enough for you to lose the round.  The purpose of this is to explain that the debate I am to observe is up to you to determine as participants in nearly all ways.  The only rules I will enforce are structural such as start/end round times, speaker times, and speaker order.             In my RFDs there are two things I like to cover, arguments you did make and arguments you could have.  The best RFDs I have seen starts with what people are going for in the rebuttals and they work backwards in the debate and I have tried to implement this style into my RFDs.  Sometimes I want to run arguments by you and see what you think of them.  Not because they are the “right” argument but because I respect your opinion and wonder what you have to say on the matter.  Does that mean it affects the round?  No, of course not.  However, if we assume that all learning from debate happens in the round and not after I think we are selling ourselves out.  Lots of people, the greatest people, like to ask my opinion on what I would do in whatever situation and I think it is a great way to learn a little more by asking these hypothetical questions.             When it comes to speaker points I see a 30 A+; 29.5-29.9 A; 29-29.4 A-; 28.8-27.9 B+; B 28.4-28.7 B; 28.0-28.3 B-; 27.8-27.9 C+; C 27.4-27.7 C; 27.0-27.3 C-; 26.8-26.9 D+; D 26.4-26.7 C; 26.0-26.3 D-; Less than 26 = I will be looking for your coaching staff after the round.               I feel as though there are certain places my mind wanders in a debate that I am forced to fill in for debaters and so I wanted to share some of those concerns with you.  First, impact prioritization.  I often times will have one team saying nuclear war will happen and the other talking about poverty and nobody compares the two arguments with one another.  They just claim to win their impact and that impact is bad.  What happens when the aff and neg both win their impact?  Nobody really 100% wins their impacts ever so for however likely the impact is what should that do for my evaluation of the round?  Basically, the whole two worlds theory assumes a vision of the round where your impacts do not interact with the other sides impacts.  Would an overnight economic collapse with a poverty impact make a nuclear war more or less likely to occur?  Maybe you could tell me.  Second, how to evaluate the round.  I think this comes back to a larger question of impact calculus.  I feel that teams debating in front of me who are surprised by my decisions do not generally compare their impacts against the other team’s as often/thoroughly as they should.  They know they have won their impact, poverty kills and that’s bad, but they think I will just vote on that because I have a bleeding heart.  I am not going to fill in for you so do not ask me to.  I want rich explanations of concepts, especially later in the debate.  It is not that I do not understand the concepts but it is your job to explain them to me so I can evaluate them fairly.  When you say something without a warrant I just write n0w in the next cell, my abbreviation for no warrant, and move on.  I will not fill in the warrants for you or apply arguments to places you do not.  I might talk to you about doing so after the round but it will not play a part in the round.    Previous philosophy: Thoughts from Matthew Please speak up, I am still really hard of hearing.  I do sit in the back of the room almost exclusively to make you work harder.  If you want me to not sit where I want ask me to move, I have no problem moving.   Debate has been my home since 2k When it came to competing I did OK It is 2015 and I am still here Doing something that is so dear Before you decide that I am a worth a strike Question if that is really what you would like I have yet to go Mad as a Hatter don’t you fear But some of this may not be what you want to hear   Where do we come from and what have we seen Debate is about all of these things and more if you know what I mean Debate has something to offer us all Perform it how you want that is your call But when you say “new off”, condo, I squeal with sooooo much joy… Skipping that strat is something you may want to employ   Don’t just deposit your arguments, I am more than a purse We all have our own rhyme rhythm and verse As fast or as slow before time has been met Say what you can, leave no regret Teach me these things you believe I will listen to any argument that you conceive   Many of you will pretend to be the state If you don’t it won’t make me irate Yet, I read as much of your lit as you did of mine I say this now so you don’t again hear me whine Explain what you mean and mean what you say Wouldn’t want that pesky discourse getting in your way   Do you think this is some kind of game Probability magnitude timeframe Impacts are not dead, they represent life Be aware of where you point your knife   Now comes the end of my little story Go off and live – fight for your glory I wish you the best with an open heart As a judge, my time is yours, until our ways part

Margaret Rockey - WWU

Background: Parli coach at WWU for one year. Competed in parli at Whitman for three years and one year independently (sco Sweets!). I have no idea if I am or if people perceive me as a K- or policy-oriented judge. I guess I read a lot of disads, topical K affs, disads, and always read, but never went for politics, but I strongly preferred being a double member because I gave no shits about what our strategy was and would defend whatever. So I have no strong preferences regarding argumentative content.  I’ve tried writing a philosophy four or five times this year, and every attempt has ended with one sentence rejecting the proposition of writing in a philosophy in the first place. The short version, and what you probably want to know, is that you can read whatever you want, and should give me a reason why you win and a reason why the other team loses. In the event that the reason you win is also the reason they lose, you should explain how it is so. What follows is not a syncretic philosophy but a disorganized and unenclosed series of thoughts on debate, some arbitrary biases and thresholds, and judging tendencies I’ve noticed in myself. It may or may not be helpful. Judging Generally I find I feel much less certain about my decisions as a judge than I did about my predictions as a competitor and observer. Actually doing the work of making and justifying a decision almost always necessitates getting my hands dirty in some form or other. Most of my decisions require intervention to vote for any one team, either because certain core questions have not been resolved, or some resolved questions have not been contextualized to one another, or some combination of the two. Recognizing the frequent inevitability of dirty hands in decision-making, I try to stick to both a general principle and practice when judging. In principle, I try to have a justification for every decision I make. In practice, I find I try to limit my intervention to extrapolating from arguments made to resolve unanswered issues; if a certain team is winning a certain part of the flow; what does that mean for this part where no one is clearly ahead but where someone must be to decide the round? This is also means that an easy way to get ahead is doing that work for me--provide the summary and application of an argument in addition to making it.  Framework In general I think framework either tells me how to prioritize impacts or understand solvency, and in particular how to situate solvency in relation to debate as a practice. Most framework arguments I see in-round seem to be made out of a precautious fear of leaving the something crucial open on the line-by-line, but with little understanding of the argument’s application to interpreting the rest of the round. At least, that’s what I felt like when I extended framework arguments for awhile. I don’t understand the argument that fiat is illusory. The advocacy actually being implemented has never been a reason to vote aff, as far as I can tell. The purpose of fiat is to force a “should” and not “will” debate. Framework arguments that dictate and defend a certain standard for the negative’s burden to argue that the advocacy “should not” happen are ideal. I’m open to arguments proposing a different understanding of solvency than what a policymaking framework supplies. My only other observation about framework debates is that every interpretation seems to get slotted into some “critical non fiat –ology” slot or “policy fiat roleplaying” slot. This is a false binary but its frequent assumption means many non-competitive framework (and advocacies!) are set against each other as if they’re competitive. Policymaking and roleplaying are not the same thing; epistemology and ontology being distinct doesn’t mean they’re inherently competitive, for a couple examples.  This is also the major flaw of most non-topical K v. K debates I see—the advocacies are not competitive. They feel like I.E. speeches forced into the debate format when the content and structure of that content just don’t clash—I mean, it’s like the aff showing up and saying dogs are cool and the neg firing back that cats are cool. It’s just not quite debate as we’re used to, and demands reconceptualizing competition. This is also why I don’t think “no perms in a method debate” makes any sense but I agree with the object of that argument. The topic creates sides—you’re either for or against it. In rounds where each team is just going to propose distinct ways of apprehending the world, whatever that looks like, I see no reason to award noncompetitiveness to either team. (Oh, this should not be used as a justification for negative counterperms. How counterperms being leveraged against perms represents anything less than the death of debate is a mystery to me) I’m not saying don’t have nontopical KvK rounds, please do, just please also read offense against each other’s arguments (cats are cool and dogs are bad). In those rounds, your reason to win is not the same reason the other team loses, which is the case for advocacies which are opportunity costs to each other. For the record, I think critical literature is arguably the most important education debate offers. I just think debate is structured for competition oriented around policy advocacies and the ways that kritikal arguments tend to engage each other challenge that structure in ways we have yet to explore in parli (at least, writ large). Theory Don’t have anything in particular to say about this other than that I have a high threshold for evaluating anything other than plan text in a vacuum in determining interp violations. Everything else seems a solvency question to me, but make the arguments you want to and can defend. Independent Voters I’ve noticed that I have a pretty high threshold on independent voters. I voted for an independent voter once when the block went for it. Arguments about discursive issues serve an important purpose. But for arguments read flippantly or as a gotcha or, more often, that lack any substantive impact, I always feel a little guilty voting there and jettisoning the rest of the debate, like feeling bad for picking one spoon over another when you’re a kid. I think a lot of judges want the simple way to vote but I don’t, as far as I can tell. They don’t necessarily have to be complicated, but I like thorough ways to vote, which do often involve a lot of nuance or at least word dancing (I believe debate is fundamentally competitive bullshitting, which I do not mean derisively in the slightest).

Marie McCrary - NPDA 2017 Hired

n/a

Mariel Cruz - Santa Clara

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara Univerisity, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School  I judge both Policy and Parlia debate. I just both events pretty similarly. I do have a few specific notes about Parlia debate at the bottom. Parlia debaters, be sure to read the notes at the very bottom as well.  Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. This is my second year coaching, but I have seen a lot of rounds and know a lot about debate. I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly. I’m good with speed, but be clear. I’ll let you know if you aren’t. However, if you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow.  I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of K literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater, but I don't work with Ks as much as I used to, so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough.  I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I also think conditionality and topicality are pretty awesome. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this. I'll vote on theory and T if I have to.  I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line, so make sure to make those type of arguments as well, ie impact analysis and comparative claims.  I’m cool with paperless debate. I was a paperless debater for a while myself. I don’t time exchanging flashdrives, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.    PARLIA Debate I only went to a hand full of parlia tournaments as a debater, but I helped coach the parlia team during my entire debate career, and I coach both policy and parlia. And, as a policy debater, I'm familiar with all your arguments (since most of them come from policy). I'm also really good with speed, since I had to flow fast rounds all the time for policy. Just be sure to sign post so I can flow properly.  Since the structure for parlia is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parlia rounds than in policy rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parlia, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation.  I'm pretty familiar with debate jargon, but after judging some parlia rounds, I've come to realize that the some terms have slightly different interpretations in parlia than in policy, so you should err on the side of explaining and elaborating instead of just using these terms. For example, explain what "dispo" means, or explain your "try or die" situation, etc.  For any other argument, I judge it the way I would judge policy, so you can look to the information above if you want to know anything else. Also, feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.

Mark Bentley - AppState

Mark Bentley, Appalachian State University Section 1: General Information I approach debate as an academic exercise with critical rhetorical implications. I vote on arguments, not people. I will not vote for a team based upon personal characteristics they were born with or somehow acquired. I do not consider myself capable of judging the merits of an individual's narrative, and I am not generally disposed to personal narratives (that I cannot verify, and am not willing to dismiss) used as competitive leverage to win a ballot. I believe the debate space should be about critiquing ideas, not attacking people. I really like specific, well run critical debates. They are my favorite, but I'm also totally good with non-critical arguments. So, if critical arguments are not your thing, don't feel like you have to run them in front of me or I won't vote for you. I vote for plenty of non-critical arguments. Likewise, just because you run a critical argument doesn't mean I'm automatically going to vote for you. I evaluate arguments in whatever framework I am presented with, as long as it's warranted (don't just tell me something is important, tell me why it's important). I usually do not vote on defense alone, and prefer offensive arguments on positions rather than just defensive. When weighing arguments, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and timeframe, but I will weigh them differently if you tell me why. I have a rather high threshold for spec arguments and need to see clearly articulated in-round abuse, or I will not vote on them. This usually manifests itself as obvious underspecified, groundshift-ready plan situations. Spec arguments generally function best for me as link insurance for other positions. Asking questions are a must when running spec arguments (also, as a general rule, answer at least some questions). Generally, the Neg gets 1 conditional advocacy and the status quo. I am willing to vote on conditionality with multiple conditional advocacies. However, even if an argument is kicked, its rhetoric has already been introduced into the round and I still consider valid link access to that rhetoric. I tend to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but like POO’s called when whoever’s giving the rebuttal thinks they’re getting away with sneaking new arguments in.  I tend to protect the PMR against arguments suddenly blown up in the MO, and the opposition from arguments suddenly blown up in the PMR. Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?           25-30. 27-30 is my typical range, 25 and below is for really bad speeches a/o abusive individuals. 2.  How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I definitely prefer critical arguments that are “grounded in the specificity” of the resolution, over generic, over-run kritiks (if your criticism is as important as you say, you can certainly link to and specifically engage with any res/arguments the other team runs). I will vote on permutations and theoretical objections. I also give weight to performative contradiction arguments as deficits to solvency (or however else you would like to use them). I get bored with highly generic kritiks. I will also vote on topicality for nontopical Aff K’s (again, if the issue is that important, it's also embedded in the resolution). That said, I really like critical arguments when they’re not generic and the ideas are clearly articulated. Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think it’s important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction the criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don’t drop or omit solvency of the criticism. Also, don’t give blanket blips of “alt solves all” because, no, it doesn’t. I understand that argument as a game piece, but if your advocacy is worth voting for you need to have more analysis than that. Use solvency as a way to justify the need for the criticism through analysis of what it actually does.   3.   Projects and performance based arguments… I don’t tend to find "performance based arguments" particularly persuasive, and aren’t really my thing. Unfortunately, I think the structure (meaning actual structure like speech times, speech order, ballots, win/loss, number of judges, etc.; not white, sexist, cis-centric, etc. structures) of the debate space and inherent competitive nature of the exercise is too constricting and self-defined to allow for "performance" solvency. The way "performative arguments" are often run makes it too easy for the other team to non-unique the "performance" with links to existing power structures/discourses/performances. I don’t buy arguments that your in-round "performance" solved for more than what it might have in the immediate context (if you advocate for suspending the illusion of the debate world). I also hold that the act of debating, criticizing, and advocating itself is a performance, and so you will need to do extra work to justify how and why yours is extra unique. I do think "performance" as critical metaphor can have access to rhetorical solvency, but it's harder for me to access literal solvency. For "projects": I have and will vote for "projects" that engage with the topic of the resolution and the other team’s arguments. I will not vote for a team based upon personal characteristics they were born with or obtained. Avoid debates about the personal characteristics of the people in the room. This leads to bad things for lots of reasons. As I've said, I am not in a position to be the arbiter of personal narrative validity, and really dislike being in that position. There is so much we don't know about everybody involved in this activity, I have no right to decide what somebody is/isn't and I don't think you do either. By all means, PLEASE indict rhetoric, but not individuals in the round. If you place me in a position to judge the validity of an individual's personal narrative, at best I will ignore your arguments putting me in that position. 4.   Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I tend to weigh topicality through competing interpretations (make them clear what they are), but a clear “we meet” by the Aff can also be sufficient if it’s obvious. I prefer specific ground abuse stories when voting on topicality, though they don’t have to always be “articulated in-round” abuse. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? I tend to view most counterplans as theoretically legitimate and like to leave it up to the debaters to determine what is or is not legitimate in the given round. I don’t like delay counterplans, and will not be likely to vote on a PIC when the resolution calls for a specific plan action on the part of the affirmative. I am open to voting for a PIC bad argument. Neg should also give CP status. 6.   Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Yeah, I don’t really care what you share...but that also doesn’t mean you don’t have to flow and just use the other team’s flows. Also, I don't think teams are necessarily under any sort of obligation to share their flows with the other team, but this can also be contextually dependent. 7.   In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? First off, you should definitely tell me which order I should evaluate and why. If you haven’t, this usually tells me you haven’t done your job. I usually evaluate K’s and T’s, then impact calculus. As stated above, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and timeframe. 8.   How do you weigh arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? Again, if it gets to this point, you haven’t done your job and I won’t be real happy, and you probably won’t be happy with my decision. I don’t automatically weigh death more than dehumanization, but can go either way based on the context and arguments. Well warranted impacts are always preferred over poorly warranted ones.

Marshall Thompson - Wheaton

Brief History: I did ‘circuit’ LD debate for four years in high-school, graduating in 2011. I have had a good degree of success in LD both as a competitor and coach. I did Parli for about a year and a half at the beginning of college but for various reasons decided not to continue it and have been an assistant coach for the Wheaton team this last year, I have not judged as many parli judges as many people, but have judged a lot of HS LD rounds over the last four years. General (Possibly) Useful Things: While I don’t think that ‘tab’ judging is coherent, my decisions still tend to correspond with those decisions made by other supposedly ‘tab’ judges. I think there is value in having a plurality of modes of discussion in any activity, especially forensics; and will be fairly willing to vote on most arguments assuming you adequately defend them. That said, because of my experience with HS LD I am far more receptive to ‘analytic’ philosophy, especially as regards ethical questions, than most judges in parli (assuming you explain and defend it well). I am almost perturbed by how readily the parli community tends to adopt a vague and poorly defined consequentialist calculous. Certainly I will use a standard of ‘net-benefits’ but if you propose a different one it will not be an uphill battle in front of me, I don’t have any predisposition to assuming net-benefits is the end-all be-all of ethical deliberation. Also because of my experience in HS LD I am probably a better (not necessarily that I am biased in favor of them, but just that I trust my ability to make the right decision) judge for those types of debate that tend towards abstraction ‘philosophy’/’framework’/’theory’ than I am on ‘classic policy’ style or more ‘progressive performative’ style arguments. I default fairly strongly to explicit weighing and give significantly more weight to weighing extended from earlier speeches than to weighing first made in the rebuttals. If there was one thing that I think Parli debaters do in miss adapting to me it is a lack of nuanced weighing, especially when answering theory and Ks (people running theory and Ks tend to weigh a fair amount). Theory: I have a lower threshold for voting on theory arguments than many people in the parli community (especially in my willingness to vote even when there is no ‘actual abuse’). However, I also think that theory debaters in parli are generally very poor because there is a lack of internal coherence between the individual standard arguments and the logic and argument of the voter. Spamming counter standards will be less useful in front of me than weighing a specific standard in terms of its relevance for what matters in debate. Flowing/Speed: I can follow just about any parli speed in the sense of comprehending the arguments being made. That said, I have never been great at flowing (I am dyslexic and so have difficulty recording information in a written fashion). I have not had difficulty in most fast parli rounds, but top speed parli does begin to push my limit in terms of getting everything down. What that means then, is that you can probably go as fast as you want (in terms of my ability to flow, I will still expect you to make arguments in a way your opponent can access), but if you are being both fast and quite blippy I may have a problem. If you use speed to judge develop greater detail to a smaller number of arguments then your fine. Speaks: I try to assign speaks based generally as follows: 30-There was nothing that could have been clearly improved on 29.5-30-Your speeches would probably have beaten the top teams in the country. 29-29.5-Your speeches might not beat, but would hold their own even against the top teams in the country. 28-29-There were no major strategic, argumentative or technical flaws, but the fine-tuning separates these performances from the top ones. 27-28-There were occasional major issues of strategy, clarity, argument quality etc. 26-27-There are major issues with most of distinct aspects of your speeches. My speaks are probably disproportionally influenced by how ‘clever’ I find your arguments and strategies. I will drop your speaks severely for being mean or disrespectful to your opponents. I will drop your speaks severely if your increased debate exposure to exclude your opponent from the activity. You can use speed to develop your own arguments, do not use it to keep your opponents from getting your argument down. You can use Jargon to precisely refer to an idea, but do not use it to keep the idea you are getting at opaque from your opponents.

Matt Gayetsky - UT-Tyler

Matt Gayetsky – The University of Texas at Tyler Judge Philosophy Revision 2015-16 Season Hi folks, Another year of judging, another attempt to try to capture how I feel about debate. Most of the things remain the same from last year, although with a year of NPDA experience I feel like I’m in a better position to nuance some of my claims. The short version remains the same – You should probably make arguments you’re comfortable making rather than trying to adapt to any of my particular preferences. If you think that debate should be about a topical plan clashing with the status quo or a competitive counterplan, make the debate about that. If you think debate is about the best methodological techniques to confront interlocking oppression, make the debate about that. If the teams disagree about what they think the debate should be about, tell me why your version of debate is better, and why you win in that world. The longer version – I coached and judged CEDA/NDT debate for 8 years, and have 1 year of NPDA experience. I’ll still keep calling speeches by their policy debate analogue. Life is hard sometimes, and inertia is a thing. I’ve coached alongside a tremendously talented and diverse set of colleagues over the years, and have osmosed as much as possible. The overriding claim I would make, though, is that I am less concerned with the form your argument takes than I am with the way you make clear how your arguments relate to your opponent and the resolution. Sometimes this means that the disad/CP combo is going to be the best response, as there is an obvious solvency deficit. Sometimes it means the unconscious desires of the 20 minutes of PMC prep manifest and structures their affirmation of the resolution, and you believe that this is a prior question that must be addressed prior to their policy action. I don’t care about the arguments you make, insofar as you are able to provide a framework for evaluating your impacts and explain why this means you should win the debate. Debates are won or lost in the trenches of impact calculus. This isn’t restricted to your classic probability-magnitude-timeframe discussions of a nuclear war vs. poverty claim, but instead abstracted to consider how all arguments have an impact of some sort. Tell me about how the impact to some link argument intersects in a meaningful way with uniqueness or impact claims at other parts of the flow and I’ll be a happy camper. Stories that are sophisticated and compelling are good ones. Tag-line extensions of arguments, even if they’re conceded by your opponent aren’t. Just because something your opponent makes a mistake by not answering things, you need to do the work to tell me why it’s important that this was unanswered, and how it impacts things in the round. I don’t reward lazy debating. The personal biases: We’ve got them, but they can be broken, but know that you might have an uphill battle. This is probably most important for theory arguments. I tend to default against those teams that introduced the argument. That means PICs are probably more likely to be good, and that your aff is more likely to be topical. Plus, your perm is more likely to be theoretically legitimate, but so is their K alt. If you’re going to go for a theory argument, go for the theory argument, but you need to impact these arguments and spend some significant time winning each part of your argument. I think that conditionality is good. If you’re going to argue that conditionality is bad, you’ll need to explain to me why, as a policymaker, if I am confronted by a bad option and a worse option, why the logical policy maker wouldn’t say “Hey folks! There’s a status quo over there, why don’t we just stick with that thing?” After a year of judging, I’ve yet to see why the absence of backside rebuttals meaningfully changes this. The block collapses to one thing, rather than the 2NR. Nothing is broken. BUT if I’m not a policymaker, well, game on, I have no reason conditionality must be good here. The most important part of me evaluating the debate is about impacts, and that’s all about storytelling. Whether it's that the disad turns the case and the EU CP avoids the link, or why your experiences with prejudice informs your understanding of policymaking, the story is what is important. Since it’s all about telling stories, this probably means all debate arguments are a performance. So rather than saying your opponents are cheating, you should probably consider how these ‘framework’ arguments are instead net-benefits to your performance. It’s probably strategically better, and benefits from being more inclusive.   So tell me, why does your story justify rejection of the other team?    After reading lots of judging philosophies talking about how speaker points are arbitrary, I wonder, “Yes, but why is this such a bad thing as long as they are consistently applied?” I think that the problem is that they are arbitrary AND opaque. I feel obligated to do this because I find that my points are often a lot lower than other people. So for the sake of clarity, this is what my points mean: 30 = That speech should be in the finals of NPTE. 29.5 = One of the top 10 speeches I expect to hear this season. 29 = That speech was awesome. Pat yourself on the back. 28.5 = That speech would win you some elim debates. 28 = Mistakes were made, but there’s more good than bad. 27.5 = We’re all still learning! We can build from this speech. 27 = We’ve got to start somewhere! X<27 = That was rough. You did something to really frustrate me. Let’s talk about it sometime soon and find ways to improve.

Matt Reisener - UT-Tyler

Background: I spent four years debating for William Jewell College and competed at both NPDA and NPTE from 2010-2013. General Information (TLDR Section):  As a rule, debaters should not feel that they need to substantially alter their strategies to fit my preferences. Just because I read Heg and PTX every round when I competed, doesn’t necessarily mean I expect you to do the same. Read whatever arguments you believe will best help you to win the debate round, and I will do my best to fairly evaluate them in making my decision. That being said, understanding my thoughts on certain arguments may help inform your strategies, as I’m much more qualified to judge a Heg Good/Bad debate than Lacan vs Baudrillard. -I believe all affirmatives should include a fiated, topical plan text. -I am a big fan of warrants. As a rule, if a team reads an argument against you that is not coherent or warranted when it is initially read, I will give you a certain degree of leeway in answering it in later speeches. For example if the LOC reads a disad that does not make any sense to me until the MO/LOR, I will give the PMR a longer leash in answering that argument than I would under normal circumstances. This won’t be a problem in 99% of debates, but if your strategy is to purposefully muddle the debate in the constructives, do so at your own risk. -I will clear you if I can’t understand you. I feel pretty confident in my ability to flow fast debaters, though I may ask you to increase your volume if you tend to speak quietly, particularly if I am relegated to the back of the room. -I believe each debater should have to take at least one questions during a constructive speech (if asked). -While I am not in the business of discounting particular arguments on face, I will warn you that I am not likely to vote for “fact/value debate good,” “perms are advocacies,” “Aff doesn’t get fiat,” anything dealing with attitudinal or existential inherency, or reverse voting issues unless the other team just drops these arguments completely. - I flow the LOR on a separate sheet of paper. It probably goes without saying, but I think splitting the block is extremely abusive, and will likely discount the LOR entirely if it is spent going for arguments not in the MO. -If you think an argument is new, call a point of order. I will do my best to protect you from new arguments, but it is to your advantage to alert me when the other team is making one just to be safe. -Please provide copies of all texts (if at all possible) and read all interpretations slowly and at least twice. -Numbering your arguments does wonders for my flowing. That being said, I promise I will still write down your arguments even if they are delivered stream-of-consciousness style and absent any tags. -An average speaker will receive 27 speaker points from me. If you receive 30 speaker points, it means that you have given one of the single best speeches I have ever seen in a debate round. Theory: -Unless specifically told otherwise, I evaluate all theory arguments as a priori. -I view all theory debates through the lens of competing interpretations. If you do not have a coherent interpretation on a theory position, I will find it very difficult to vote for you. -I do not necessarily need proven abuse on theory in order to vote for it, but being able to articulate a clear instance of in-round abuse will likely increase your chances of winning a theory debate. Kritiks: -I don’t hate the Kritik, I really don’t. But I honestly do not have a ton of background in most of the K lit, particularly more post-modern arguments. I feel fairly comfortable with the Cap, Biopower, and Militarism debates, but I do not delude myself into thinking that I have read all of the relevant literature on these topics. Therefore, if you want to debate the K in front of me, PLEASE give me a general thesis of the argument at some point during the shell, and try to define all of the obscure terms of art you use so that I can figure out what you’re talking about. -The best Kritiks are either topic-specific or include specific links that directly answer the affirmative. The worst Kritiks are those that are composed entirely of post-modern buzzwords, rely on links of omission to interact with the affirmative, and name-drop authors at the expense of reading warrants. If you believe you can debate the K without falling victim to the pitfalls listed above, then you will probably be safe reading it in front of me as long as you can explain the argument effectively. -I have no idea what judges mean when they tell LOCs/MGs to “engage the Kritik” when answering it. If they mean that you should answer its substantive claims as opposed to exclusively reading procedurals and permutation arguments, then I absolutely agree. But in my experience, certain critics use “engage the Kritik” as a euphemism for, “the only way to answer the Kritik is by trying to move father left than the Kritik.” I am not one of those critics. If you want to answer the K by out-lefting it, go right on ahead. But you should also feel free to impact turn, read framework offense, defend the merits of fiat, or just read 8 minutes of reasons why the alternative would collapse hegemony. In my mind, giving a list of reasons why the thesis of the Kritik is a terrible mindset to adopt is the definition of “engaging the K,” regardless of which side of the political spectrum you approach it from. -I am predisposed to think that the Aff should get access to the impacts of the PMC. -Alternatives should include a clear description of what the world looks like after their implementation. If you do not defend that anything physically changes in a world of the alt, you should include an explanation of what happens after the critic takes this action. Narratives/Performance/Non-Traditional Debate: -If you’re aff, my preference would be that these arguments are somehow couched in the defense of a fiated, topical plan text. If you’re neg, go crazy. -I’m inclined to believe that debate is a game, that policy-making is good, and that the affirmative should generally try to talk about the topic, but if you can justify not doing these things, then don’t let my predispositions stop you from debating the way that you’re best at. Just make sure that everyone is treated with respect when reading or answering these arguments, which can be very personal for competitors. Remember, this is supposed to be fun. Disadvantages: -These arguments are much more in my wheelhouse. Disads that outweigh and/or straight turn the affirmative tend to be the most strategic in my eyes. -It would take a Herculean effort on your part and/or a concession on the part of the other team to convince me that it is legitimate to perm a disad. Counterplans: -I assume that all counterplans are conditional unless specifically told otherwise. -All counterplans should strive to be textually and functionally competitive.  -For what it’s worth, I tend to think that PICs, Conditionality, and Topical Counterplans are all acceptable, while Delay, Veto/Cheato, and Object Fiat CPs tend to be pretty abusive. However, I will allow these questions to be settled in the round. -Permutations should include some sort of text explaining how the affirmative can interact with the counterplan (example: perm-do both, perm- do the counterplan, etc). -I tend to think that severance and intrinsic perms are abusive, and that a well-warranted theoretical objection is a reason to reject these arguments, but I will let this question be decided in the context of the debate. Weighing Impacts: -You should do this. A lot. Kevin Garner taught me how to debate, so I am very partial to buzzwords like, “probability,” “timeframe,” and “magnitude,” being used to describe your impacts. -Absent arguments to the contrary, I will default to voting for impacts with the largest magnitude. -Offense wins championships in debate. Defense can be very useful insofar as it prevents the other team from accessing their offense, but defense alone cannot win you the debate round.

Matthew Hogan - UNR

Name: Matthew Hogan School: University of Nevada, Reno Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. To begin, I have about 12 years experience in the activity between competing in high school policy, competing in college parli, and coaching parli for 3 years. My general approach to evaluating the debate is that the government team has the responsibility to defend the topic and their case, while the negative can challenge either of those two burdens to win the round. I believe the affirmative team should defend the resolution. This means that if you want to run a critical affirmative, you need to explain to me how this position is topical under the specific resolution. I allow quite a bit of leeway when it comes to affirmative interpretations of resolutions, so the least you can do is spend the extra 30 seconds explaining how you are topical. My only exception to this burden is a project affirmative, but I need a good framework explaining why this is more important than the topic, and probably an explanation as to why you are not running the position just to skew your opponents out of the round (ie: disclose your project if it is that important to you). Opposition Teams, your Kritik should also be topical either to the resolution or specifically to the plan text. Generic links, links of omission etc, don’t really do it for me. Link specific discourse, the plan text or the wording of the resolution. Really try to engage your opponent or the resolution with the kritik, don’t run the kritik just for the sake of running it. Also, I believe in negation theory, so you can have contradictory arguments in the round. Just make sure you parameterize down to one of the two arguments by the rebuttals. If you are going for both arguments in the rebuttal and are winning both, I don’t know what to do with the two competing claims you are winning and, thus, disregard them both (government teams should know this too). I am open to procedurals of all kinds, kritiks, diusads and counterplans. I am willing to vote for either liberal or conservative positions, so long as those arguments are not deliberately racist, sexist, etc. I am ok with speed, so far as you give a little pen time between claims, since this is parli after all. A good idea would be to give a warrant after the claim, so I can get pen time and so you can actually support your argument. Above all else, I expect both teams to be respectful to each other. Don’t deliberately be mean, rude or patronizing. I am ok with banter, sarcasm, etc, but being rude just for the sake of bullying your opponent will upset me. Not enough for me to vote against you, but enough for me to dock your speaker points substantially. Points of order should be called in front of me. If something is blatantly new for me, I will do disregard the argument. If there is a grey area, I may allow the argument unless a point of order is called. I think it is better to be safe than sorry. My idea of net-benefits is probably not traditional, where whomever has a higher magnitude wins. Unless you tell me why I need to prioritize magnitude first, I will evaluate net-benefits to my default standard which is: probability>timeframe>magnitude. My political philosophy is that high magnitude debates stagnate real action and reform, which is why I prioritize probability. That isn’t to say that I won’t evaluate magnitude first if you tell me why I should abandon my default judging standard. If you have any specific questions, feel free to email me atmchogan86@gmail.com. Best of luck to you all!!! Section 2: Specific Inquiries Please describe your approach to the following. 1.â€‹Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? â€‹26-29 2.â€‹How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? â€‹Critically framed arguments are cool with me for both teams. Critical affirmatives should be topical to the resolution (see above), and still give the negative some ground in the round. Critically framed arguments should have a clear framework for both teams that tell me how I should prioritize the position. Without a winning framework that prioritize the critical argument first, I will weigh it equally to other positions. Yes the position can contradict other positions, as long as you collapse to only one of the positions in the rebuttal. My one exclusion to this rule is that if you run a critical position based off the discourse someone uses, and then you use that discourse, then your contradictory positions can cost you the round, since you can’t take back your discourse. 3.â€‹Performance based arguments… â€‹I am also ok with performance based positions, so long as they meet a standard of relevance to the resolution. However, it needs to be clear to me that I am evaluating the performance rather than the content, with reasons why I should evaluate performance first. The opposing team should have the right to know if they are actually debate the performance or the content, instead of being excluded by a team switching back and forth between frameworks. 4.â€‹Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? â€‹ â€‹I don’t require competing interpretations. If you tell me why your opponent has a bad interpretation, I won’t vote for it. If you want me to vote for your competing interpretation, though, I need counter-standards. I don’t need in-round abuse as long as the standards and voters you are going for aren’t related to ground (ie: grammar and Jurisdiction). However if you are going for a fairness voter with a claim to ground loss, then I need the abuse to be present in round. I do give government teams flexibility in being creative with the topic, as long as they can win topicality, but I am also more likely to vote on topicality than some other critics may. 5.â€‹Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? â€‹Counterplan is assumed dispositional to me unless told otherwise. If asked about the status of the counterplan, the negative team should answer their opponent. Counterplans of any kind are ok with me, as long as you can defend the theory behind the counterplan you ran. All theory is up for debate for both teams when it comes to counterplans. My favorite counterplans are plan exclusive counterplans, but I will entertain any kind. 6.â€‹Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) â€‹Yes, teams can share flowed arguments. 7.â€‹In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? Procedurals first, krtiks second, then net-benefits. You can easily tell me why I should prioritize differently in the debate. Additionally, if nobody is winning the theory as to why I should look to one argument first, then I will weigh procederuals vs. kritiks vs. plan/da/cp equally under net-benefits and weigh the impacts of each. So you should be winning your theory debate on your position.â€‹ â€‹ 8.â€‹How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? â€‹As mentioned before, I prioritize probability first. I will still consider things like magnitude and timeframe, I just give more weight to more probable impacts. Therefore things like dehumanization can outweigh extinction or vice versa, as long as you are winning the probability debate. The other option is give me framework reasons as to why I should prefer magnitude or timeframe first. BOLDED TEXT REFLECTS CHANGES TO MY PHILOSOPHY ON 10/29/12 Case Arguments: Fact cases generally make me upset and uncomfortable because I feel I must always intervene. Value resolutions, a little less so. I am most comfortable with policy rounds because I think it incorporates the other two types of rounds and then goes beyond; however, I will listen to the round no matter how it is formatted. Affirmative cases should be well-warranted, clear, and solvent; after all, affirmative does get the benefit of choosing their case. I think inherency is a difficult battle to win for the negative; however the link and impact debate are incredibly important. I probably give more value to solvency attacks then other critics. I view solvency/advantage links as the internal link to all the impacts I weigh for the affirmative, so for the same reasons why proving a no link on a disadvantage make it go away, I feel the same is true for solvency. Lastly, I will default to a net-benefits framework until either team provides me with a different framework in which I should view the round. Disadvantage Arguments: Generally enjoy the disadvantage debate. Disadvantages must be unique, with well-warranted internal links and articulated advantages. I hate hearing big impacts like global warming or nuke war without a clear articulated scenario of how we get there and how the impact occurs (same goes for the affirmative case). Example of a bad impact: Emissions create ocean acidity and lead to extinction in the ocean and the world. Example of a good impact: CO2+H2O results in carbonic acid, eating away the calcium shells of shellfish and coral, which are the 2nd most biodiverse place on earth and a major food source for all animals. I WILL NOT DO THE WORK FOR YOU ON THE IMPACT DEBATE. Links are very important as well, and while a risk of the link will get you access to the impacts, probability will greatly decrease, which given the right affirmative rebuttal may still not result in me voting for large impacts. Link turns are only offense if the government is winning the uniqueness debate. Counterplan Arguments: The following are my default views on counterplans; however, counterplan theory is completely up for debate, and I will listen to any counterplan if you defend and win the theory debate. I actually enjoy very clear, competitive counterplans. Delay counterplans generally are unfair and honestly quite unnecessary, since if you are winning the disadvantage, the CP isn’t required unless you have small impacts. Consult counterplans are a little less unfair than counterplans, but I feel somewhat the same towards these counterplans as I do towards delay. Consult CP’s have a little more offense, though. PICs are fine, but a little abusive (just a little J). I would just hope that you have a specific disad to the part you're PICing out of. I'm fine with topical counterplans. My default view is that perms are a test of competition, and not an advocacy. A perm is all of plan, and all or part of the counterplan. Anything outside of this, and I'll have a sympathetic ear to Opp claims of severance or intrinsicness. I prefer if you write out the counterplan and perm texts on separate pieces of paper to avoid debates about shifting perm/CP texts. I view all CPs as dispositional unless I'm told otherwise. To be clear, this means that Opp can kick it only if Gov perms it. If Gov straight turns the CP, Opp is stuck with it, unless they've declared it conditional at the top of the CP. Lastly, losing the counterplan doesn’t mean a loss for the opposition. Multiple Conditional (and usually contradictory) Counterplans will probably lose you the round, if your opponents tell me why they are abusive. They force the gov team to contradict themselves, run multiple uniqueness scenarios and definitely skew your opponents out of the round. Please do not run them. You already get the option between the status quo and/or a competing advocacy. You don’t need 3 more! (This applies to a kritik alternative and a counterplan, unless the counterplan is the alternative. Kritik Arguments: Framework of kritiks is incredibly important. Without a clear framework, I will simply weigh the kritik against the case, which generally means all you have is a non-unique disadvantage. I would much more prefer specific links to the aff case/rhetoric over resolution links (I am somewhat sympathetic to the affirmative when they don’t get to choose the resolution or side). More local impacts (personal/individual) will get you further in terms of the solvency of your alternative than huge impacts like “root of all violence”. However, I will listen to larger impacts as well, as long as your solvency can convince me that I can solve the root cause of all violence simply by signing my ballot!!!. Your alternative should be written and clarified if requested, and your solvency needs to be articulated well. Best option for the affirmative to answer the kritik is to perm, answer framework, or challenge the solvency. Impact turning something like, “the root of all violence” is risky, and chances are, the kritik probably will link in some way to the affirmative case. T and Theory Arguments: I give a lot of flexibility to the affirmative to be creative with their interpretation and affirmative case. On the flipside, I enjoy topicality debate more than most judges. I guess the two balance each other out and will result in me being able to hear arguments from either team regarding topicality. Interpretations should be clear, and preferably, written out. Ground/Fairness claims should have proven in-round abuse in order to win them; however, you might be able to convince me that prep-abuse is important too. Otherwise, in-round is the only thing that will win you a fairness debate. Other standards and voters can still win you topicality, though. Your voters should be related to the standards for your interpretation. Short, blippy, time-suck topicality will make me very sad and less likely to vote for it. If you are going to run topicality, you should be putting in at least as much effort as your other arguments if you expect me to consider it. Other theory arguments like vagueness, policy framework best, etc are all up for debate in front of me. However, theory should be explained clearly, and you should give enough pen time on these arguments, since generally there are not as many warrants for theory arguments as there are for case arguments. Approach to Deciding: Net-Benefits paradigm until told otherwise. I cannot stress enough the importance of the rebuttal for evaluating impacts. Tell me where to weigh, how to weigh, and why I should weigh the impacts the way you tell me too. I prioritize impacts in the following order unless told otherwise: Probability of impacts comes first, Timeframe second, and magnitude last. I will not vote on a try or die of nuclear war that has low probability if the other team has a 100% chance of feeding 100 people and saving their lives. This is contrary to my personal political perspective that catastrophic rhetoric can lead to political paralysis. However, if you want to go for big impacts, you can convince me to change my prioritization of impacts by arguing why I should prioritize timeframe or magnitude. Convince me why timeframe matters more than anything, or probability, or magnitude. Any of these can be enough to win you the round, even if you are losing one of the other standards for weighing. Big impacts don’t necessarily result in a win, unless you tell me. Without any weighing, I feel like I must intervene and do the work for you (which I don’t want to do), and you may not enjoy the decision I make if I do. Without weighing being done, I will default to probability over timeframe and then timeframe over magnitude. If you fail to argue why I should change the way in which I prioritize impacts, you may lose the round despite winning the line by line because I will default to a more probable impact scenario. THIS IS IMPORTANT, since most judges evaluate magnitude first and this is not in-line with my own views on policy-making. So if you are a large magnitude impact debater, you must make it clear why the magnitude should come before a highly probable, small impact advantage for your opponents. Presentation Preferences: Speed is generally fine with me. There are only a few teams that may be fast for me, and I will let you know during your speech if you are going to fast. Should you decide not to slow down, then you may not get your argument on my flow. However, I believe that this is an educational activity while also a competitive one. Therefore, if your opponents are asking you to slow down because they can’t engage, and you refuse to, you may win the round, but you may not get very good speaker points in front of me. I believe using speaker points is the best way of balancing my responsibility in making sure debate is inclusive and educational, but at the same time not being interventionist by giving somebody a loss for speaking to fast. Sitting is fine and won‘t affect your speaker points, but you’ll generally speak clearer and quicker standing, so I don’t know why you wouldn’t want to stand for your own sake. I am fine with communicating with your partner, but will only flow those arguments that are coming from the speaker. If communicating with your partner is excessive, then your speaker points may be affected. The person speaker should be answering cx questions (but you can get input from your partner). CLARITY is the most important thing in terms of presentation.

Michael Harvey - USAFA

I enjoy a thoughtful debate without pre-canned arguments. I will attempt to flow everything. Even if an argument appears rather inane, please address it even if it's brief. Please show courtesy to each other.I am not overly fond of critiques, but will listen.

Michael Middleton - Utah

Michael Middleton Judging Philosophy A Quotation: “The present situation is highly discouraging” –Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari A Haiku: Debate is Awesome Judging Makes Me Cry Softly Do I weep in vain? Some things to consider (when debating in front of me): 10.  I DO NOT support speed as a tool of exclusion 9.    I DO NOT like deciding for myself what is the most important thing in the round or how to evaluate the competing arguments; You should do this for me.  You will like it less if you don’t. On the other hand, I will like it more. 8.    I DO like well-structured debates. I also like interesting structures. 7.    I DO like creative interpretations; I DO NOT like when you don’t explain/provide a rationale for why I your interpretation makes for a productive/rewarding/interesting/good debate. 6.    I DO NOT like nor understand potential abuse arguments; I DO like and reward teams that demonstrate compellingly that the quality of the debate has been compromised by an interpretive choice made by the other team. 5.    I DO NOT vote for any given argument or against any given type of argument.  Run whatever strategy you like; Be clear about your strategy. 4.    I am a participant in the round also.  While I make my best effort to vote on who is winning and losing the debate based on the arguments, I use speaker points to evaluate and highlight both excellent and poor behaviors, i.e. if you create a hostile environment, you get massively low speaker points. 3.    Jargon does not equal argument. Nor does it equal a good time. 2.    Cross-application does not equal new argument. It doesn’t really equal anything. 1.    Debate is not life.  Losing a ballot will not steal your humanity.  I tend to prefer rounds that demonstrate everyone in the room knows this. 0. Have Fun

Miranda Rowley - SMC

Miranda Rowley -Saint Mary’s College of California   Background: My name is Miranda Rowley, I debated three years in HS, and four years at Saint Mary’s College of California. I graduated in 2016 with a double major in Politics and Women and Gender Studies. I am currently in Law School at U.C. Hastings.  In Debate, I was the other half of SMCRT. The last two years of my debate career my partner and I ran the K almost every round. I ran arguments such as Xicanafemism, FemIR and whiteness. I also ran performances, and arguments indicting debate.   The K: I love a good K debate! I ran a K most rounds my last year of debate. That being said, I am not familiar with all the lit out there, please avoid using taglines without explanation. In K debates, I need a clear framework. Tell me how I should view the round and how to weigh your arguments. There should be an alternative with a clear solvency. I am open to most alts, just explain to me what your method is and how it solves. If you want to run the K on the aff be my guest! I am open to both topical k- affs, and non-topical k-affs, just be ready to justify it.      Performance based arguments: It’s your round and your space, do it if you want.  I will listen to them. Just be clear about your method. I did performance arguments and I loved them.   Policy: Just because I ran the K does not mean I am opposed to policy debates. This is your debate, do what makes you comfortable and happy!  Unless otherwise told I default to NB in policy debates.  Say your plan text twice, or give a copy to the other team. Make sure you have a strong solvency, please explain clearly what your plan actually does. I will not do the work for you.   Topicality:  I vote on competing interpretations. I do not believe that T is a reverse voting issue.   CP/CP Theory: I am open to teams running any CP they wish, PICs, Alt Agent CPS etc. My requirement is that you say you your text twice, preferably give a copy to the other team. You should say if your CP is conditional (if they do not Aff you should ask). I am open to conditional counterplans, but will vote for clear and warranted arguments for the affirmative on why condo cps are abusive.  I see perms as tests of competition and not an advocacy.  Like my views on Alts, and Plan Texts, tell me clearly what your CP does, and how it solves.   Note on speaker points: I will lower your speaker points if you are excessively rude, or engage in offensive language/behavior throughout the round. Debate can be a heated and stressful activity; this does not mean that we should make it a hostile space!

Nick Budak - Lewis & Clark

I competed in Parli for four years at Whitman (RIP). I currently work at L&C. My degree is in Asian Studies, with some Politics experience. I am receptive to and can be expected to know critiques like Orientalism and those that deal with IR theory, plus a grab bag of things that the average MG would have learned to answer. Be nice, especially to your partner. People who interrupt others are difficult for me to watch. Humor is a lost art and may yet be the salvation of our awful little community. Theory Theory serves an important role as in-round immune system of the community - it allows us to excise toxic elements (and playtest new and exciting ones). There are no theory arguments I will outright ignore, though I may visibly react if you unironically read spec (Carlton). Counterplans are important and useful, including conditional ones. However, I side with Zach “Harvard Law” Tschida: despite my opinion that condo is theoretically justified, one ought not deploy it so as to detract from thoughtful debate. If you keep a conditional advocacy in the block, I will evaluate it and not the status quo. I adhere to the community norm of looking down upon delay/consult CPs. If you’re reading one, it should be because it has special relevance to the topic and because you can answer theory on it. Textual/functional competition and the legitimacy of a given permutation are issues that should be decided in the round. If you can relate your competition theory back to the topic in a specific way, more speaks for you. All theory questions are weighed on competing interpretations; reasonability is a pipe dream. Kritiks As Zizek says, “Nowadays, you can do anything that you want—anal, oral, fisting—but you need to be wearing gloves, condoms, protection.” Words to live by.

Nick Stump - Palomar

n/a

Nicole Brown - TTU

Nicole Brown_________________ School: Texas Tech_________________   Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE.   I think that the debate is for the debaters so I will listen to anything. I am not against any particular type of debate as long as it is well explained and please don’t rely on me knowing all the jargon or all of the philosophers that you want to talk about, as long as it is explained I can follow. I think that good impact calculus is important in the debate round. I like a comparison of the issues to make my decision easier. I am also not the best at keeping up in a fast round so it might help you to slow down a little.       Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.   1.        Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 27-30     2.        How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   I think that critically framed arguments are fine. I like to have a clear way to evaluate the round. Please don’t expect me to understand very jargon heavy positions. I have been out of the activity for a while.  I like to know the role of the ballot and why I should vote the way I should. I think that the framework debate is important to understand access with certain positions. I like for things to be simplified so I don’t have to intervene.  I don’t see a problem with arguments being contradictory unless the other team argues it.   3.        Performance based arguments…don’t bother me. I don’t have anything against them.  I just like a clear framework on how I should vote.     4.        Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?  I think that in round abuse is the easiest way to win topicality in front of me but I will vote on T if you are able to explain what ground was lost and why you should have access to that ground.  I prefer if you could slow down the interpretation or repeat it to make sure that I get it.   5.        Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? I will listen to any CP. I feel that all of these questions are things that should be debated out in the round. I think that the opp should  identify the status of the CP.     6.        Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) It does not bother me.   7.        In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? I feel like all of this should be done in the round but if it isn’t I generally look at Topicality/procedurals first then evaluate the rest of the issues based on importance in the round.     8.        How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? Again I think this should be done in the round but if not done I generally will compare abstract concepts less than concrete impacts but this shouldn’t be a problem because I will listen to whatever happens in the round.

Patrick Muenks - Washburn

General Things • On delivery: Clarity is important to me, rate (aka speed) is not. Feel free to run a speed criticism in front of me if you want to, but know it will be an uphill battle to win my ballot with that particular argument. • Speaker Points: Speaker points are awarded based off of your performance in the round. I do not care if you sit or stand when you speak. • Dress: As long as you are wearing clothes, your attire is of little concern to me. I'm in the back of the room to listen to your arguments, not to pay attention to what you are wearing. • If you ask me what my "paradigm" is, I default into policy maker and will weigh the round based off of net benefits. • Ask Questions: If you do not understand something about my judge philosophy, please ask before the round starts. Disads • Uniqueness/Link: Uniqueness controls the direction of the link for me. Relating this to philosophy, I look at uniqueness as the necessarily condition and the link as the sufficient condition. Thus, you have to be winning uniqueness in order to win a risk of a link. I believe possible for both teams to be winning uniqueness and link arguments. In these instances, the team with better specificity and nuanced arguments will win. Counterplans • I default to assuming that counterplans compete via net benefits. The net benefit must operate as an opportunity cost to doing the plan (IE it has to be competitive). • Consult Counterplans are okay in front of me, but you need to win arguments that normal means does not include consultation. • PICs, Delay and Alt Agents are fine in front of me, but again, they need to be competitive. • If the aff reads a perm, I do not treat it like an advocacy, rather it is a test of competition for me. Thus, if I find no opportunity cost to voting for the plan and counterplan (or some permutation), I will vote for the perm. Theory • I hold theory in debate to be a way for debaters to access or not access arguments in the round. I have yet to vote down a debater for running a theory argument. Theory for me, is a tool debaters use to shape rounds. • Please make sure that the theory you articulate in round is specific to the event you are competing in. If you read a block which makes claims that the 2NR checks abuse, I will probably grin and shake my head while not flowing anything. • You need to tell me what you are trying to accomplish with your theory arguments. For example, if you read arguments as to why consult CPs are bad, characterize them as a reason to reject the counterplan, otherwise I will treat them as what they are "reason why consult CPs are bad". Criticisms (The K) • I was not a K debater when I competed, however I have come to enjoy K debates since graduating. • Resolutional specific Ks will get more traction in front of me as opposed to "generic" Ks. The exception to this is projects which I am fine with. • I require specific parts of a K in order for it to function in front of me â—¦ Framework â—¦ Links/Impacts or Thesis â—¦ Alternative: does not need to have a text, but an alternative should function the same way as a plan/CP should in that there needs to be a stable advocacy for the oppositions to engage. • Perms on the K are fine. The K should be an opportunity cost to doing the plan. Again, I don't treat a perms as an advocacy so please don't argue that they are. Procedurals • I believe that the affirmative should specify to the level of the resolution. Calls for agent, funding or what specification usually won't fly in front of me and I have a high threshold for voting on such positions. I will almost always treat procedurals as presses of solvency rather than a reason to reject the case or the debater. There are a few exceptions. â—¦ On politics disads, if you are the affirmative and read bill specification, I believe the negative debater should have to provide you with the information necessary to attack the politics disad since there usually is a lot of different versions of a given bill. However, if the negative states that they will not link out of any arguments, then I will not vote for the procedural. â—¦ I may vote on other procedurals but again it would be on a case by case basis and my threshold is very high. Topicality • I believe the affirmative should be topical as a prima facia burden. This belief does not require there to be proven abuse in round to justify voting on topicality. • If you are running a topicality in front of me (or a procedural) it needs to have the following: â—¦ Interpretation: define the term(s) on which you will base your topicality argument â—¦ Violation: explain to me how the affirmative is not meeting the interpretation you provided â—¦ Standards: Also known as reasons to prefer. These should be the reasons as to why your interpretation is preferable to whatever the affirmative says â—¦ Voters: I will default to competing interpretations as a framework to evaluate Topicality. This means that I will evaluate one interpretation vs another and based off of that comparison, a winner will be determined. • RVI: The negative should be able to check the topicality of the affirmative; more importantly they should not be punished for it. I will not vote on "RVIs". This means I will not vote on RVIs for Time Suck, Reciprocity etc. • Effects T and Extra T â—¦ I will listen to arguments as to why Effects T is good, but make sure it is related to the round (and resolution) at hand as opposed to the abstract. I have a high threshold for voting for Effects T good, but again, specific instances have convinced me otherwise. â—¦ Extra T: I do not believe in severing advantages or planks of plan; mostly because I do not believe their is a fair way to do so. An affirmative case should operate within the confines of the resolutions. I consider plans that solve beyond the scope of the resolution to not be topical even if they solve for the resolution in the process.

Reed Ramsey - Pacific

I am a policy maker. I evaluate the debate through a comparative impact comparison. If you forgo this comparison I will have to make that call for you, which is never a good thing. I will listen to your kritik, but only if it has specific application (IE specific links/narrative) to the topic. That being said I want you to have a topical plan text. I think topical plans foster a more productive discussion from both sides of the debate. Theory is fine, but only under certain circumstances (mainly when it is egregious abuse). I also think that negative CPs and Ks should be unconditional. In my ideal world, I would like to hear two disads and a lot of case arguments from the negative, and a ton of impact calculus in the rebuttals. My approach to debate is that it is a game, and everyone can play however they want. With that being said I believe that the current trends of parli show that it is hard to be a one-trick-pony, which means that debaters should have a grasp on politics of the world as well as critical argumentation. Bottom line, I think debate is fun, and I would like to keep it that way.

Richard Ewell - Concordia

Hello, all! My name is Richard Ewell and I currently serve as one of the Co-Directors of Debate for Concordia University Irvine. I competed for El Camino College for three years and Concordia University for two. When I first set out to write my philosophy my goal was to give you all some insight into how I evaluate arguments as a critic. The interesting thing I have found is that it is difficult for me to do that because I don’t have a great deal of experience judging anything other than one-sided high policy debates. So unfortunately you are stuck with a bunch of random things I think about debate. Hope this helps! Disadvantages: Yes, please? No judge has ever squawked at the idea of a case specific disad with an intuitive link story, and I don’t plan on being the first. If relations, hegemony, or politics is more your thing, that is perfectly fine too, as I spent a large chunk of my career reading those arguments as well. Counterplans: Counterplans like condition and consult are legitimate under the specific condition that there is some sort of solvency advocate presented. Otherwise I will be skeptical of the theoretical legitimacy of such arguments, and thus more likely to reject them should an objection be made by the opposing team. Perms are never advocacies, and are only tests of competition. But you knew that already… Theory: I will listen to your SPEC shells, and I won’t penalize you for running it, but the likelihood that I endorse such an argument with my ballot is slim. I believe such debates are best resolved through debates about what constitutes normal means. When evaluating theoretical objections I am inclined to reject the argument and not the team (except as it pertains to conditionality, which we will get to in a second), but will listen to arguments which suggest a harsher punishment is warranted. As for conditionality…I don’t really think it’s that bad. Considering I was unconditional for 90% of my career I might be inclined to favor the “condo bad” over the “condo good” arguments, and multiple conditional strategies are likely to annoy me a great deal, but logically consistent strategies which include disads and/or case turns with a conditional K or counterplan don’t seem that unreasonable to me… K’s on the Negative: I read the K a good deal in my final years in debate, and I enjoy these types of debate very much. However, NEVER assume that I have read the foundational literature for your K because I make it a policy to not vote for arguments I don’t understand… K’s on the Affirmative: I read K’s on the affirmative a great deal. But even when I was doing it I wasn’t sure how I felt about it. Was it fun for me? Yeah. For my opponents? Probably not so much. That bothers me a bit. Does that mean that you ought not read these arguments in front me? No, that is absolutely not what I mean. In fact, topical critical affs are some of my favorite arguments. If it is not topical aff (perhaps, a rejection of the res) that is fine as well so long as there are specific reasons why the res ought be rejected. Put simply: the less your argument has to deal with the topic, the more likely I am to be persuaded by framework and topicality. Miscellaneous Stuff: -Be nice! Providing a spirited defense of your arguments and being kind are not mutually exclusive. -Not a huge fan of “no perms in a methods debate” type arguments. Tests of competition are generally good for debate, in my opinion. I understand the strategic utility of the position, so I will not fault you for running it. I would just prefer that you not (get it? prefer that you not? never mind). -I am also not a huge fan of “you must disclose” type arguments. I think topicality is the argument you should read against critical affs, but do what you will. -I don’t know what to do with text comp. I think I know what it is, but for all of our sakes making a specific theoretical objection (delay bad, consult bad, etc.) will get you further with me than text comp will. -And last, have fun! (EDIT FROM AMANDA: Richard is a TOTAL REBUTTAL HACK. Also any fantasy football references or shoutouts to the Philadelphia Eagles will get you speaks)

Rico Hilliard - USAFA

Rob Layne - Utah

As an overview, I have been competing in and judging debate rounds since 1993.  I competed in policy debate, was in deep outrounds at NPDA, and was competitive in NFA-LD. I have been a primary prep coach for all of the teams that I have directed or assisted with including Willamette University (before they cut their NPDA program), Texas Tech University, and the University of Utah. With over 20 years of experience in debate, I have watched debate formats change, transition, replicate, and reform.  I’d like to think that I am a critic of argument, where the rules of the game matter.  That doesn’t mean that appeals to authority are sufficient, but feel free to assess these conceptions of debate as part of your audience analysis.   Some general notes: (As a competitor, I always hated reading a book for a judge philosophy so here are the bulletpoints).   <ol> <li>Compare warrants between contrasting arguments.</li> <li>Compare impacts using words like “irreversibility,” “magnitude,” “timeframe,” “severity,” and “probability.”</li> <li>Use warrants in all of your arguments.  This means grounding arguments in specific examples. </li> <li>Make sure your permutations contain a text and an explanation as to what I do with the permutation.  My default with permutations is that they are simply tests of competition.  I don’t typically believe that permutations get you out of a disad (shielding the links) or that you capture a counterplan win you when the perm.  If you have a different conception, make an argument to convince me how your permutation should work.</li> <li>Use internal and external structure like Subpoint A 1. a. i. instead of saying “next” or stringing arguments together without breaks.  I try to keep a careful flow, help me do that.</li> <li>Be cordial to one another. There’s no need to be mean or spikey.  I get that it’s an event that pits a team against another and debate can feel personal…but there’s no need to spout hate.</li> <li>I take a careful flow…if you’re unclear or not giving me enough pen time don’t be upset when I ask you to clear up or slow down a touch.  Let me have time to flip the page.</li> <li>Allow me to choose a winner at the end of the round.  I don’t award double wins or double losses.</li> <li>Have voters and standards attached to procedural arguments if you want me to take them seriously.  “We meets” and counter-interpretation extensions are your friends.</li> <li>I will protect you from new arguments in the rebuttals. There’s little need to call superfluous Points of Order.  If you call them, I’ll take it under consideration.</li> <li>Have an alternative attached to your criticism or at least explain why you don’t need one.</li> <li>Be on time to the round. Already have used to the restroom, gotten your water, found your room, etc.  I will follow the tournament instructions on lateness, regardless of prelim or outround. Please don't come to the round and then go to the bathroom, please relieve yourself before prep begins or during prep.  </li> <li> Compare standards if there are competing interpretations present.</li> <li>Connect the dots between different arguments to illustrate how those arguments interact.</li> <li>Kick arguments in the opp block to go deeper on selected arguments.  Going for everything tends to mean that you’re going for nothing.</li> <li>Know the difference between offensive and defensive arguments. I still think arguments can be terminally defensive as long as it’s explained.</li> <li>Avoid extending answers through ink. Answer opposing arguments before making key extensions.</li> <li>Extend arguments/case via the member speeches to have access to them in the rebuttals.</li> <li>Not everything can be a turn. Please avoid making everything a turn.</li> <li>I do think that you can cross-apply arguments from other sheets of paper in the rebuttal.  It’s not like paper is sacrosanct.  If the argument was made in a prior speech, then it’s fair game.</li> <li>Enjoy the debate round. I’m not going to force fun on you, but not everything has to be so serious.</li> </ol>     Speaker points: I typically give speaker points from 25-30. My average is a 27. 30’s from me are rare, but they are occasionally given. You likely won’t see more than one 30 from me at an invitational tournament. At NPTE, I’ve typically given out 3-4 30’s. I expect that most debaters at the NPTE will likely be in the 27-29 range.   Critical Arguments:   I tend to enjoy critical arguments as long as they’re well explained. Framework your argument (Role of the ballot/judge and/or interpretation about what you get access to) and provide an alternative (tell me what the world post-alt looks like and have solvency grounded in examples). Affirmatives can run critical arguments. If you’re running arguments that are incongruent with other arguments, you should likely have an explained justification for doing so.   Performance based arguments: Please don’t ask me to sit in a circle…have a discussion…rip up my ballot…get naked…or do anything that most folks would find mildly inappropriate. I think that debate is a performance. Some performances are better than others. Some performances are justified better than others. If you prefer a framework of a certain type of performance, make sure your framework is well articulated and warranted.   Procedurals:   I require an interpretation, a violation, and a voter. You should probably have standards for why your interpretation is better than other interpretations. I don’t require competing interpretations, but it can be a useful tool. I don’t require in-round abuse, though it will help to prove why your interpretation is preferable.  I have a low threshold on procedurals.  Folks do wanky stuff…explain why your version of debate is preferable and why that means I should vote for you.  I am skeptical of MG theory arguments and will hold them to a higher standard than I would LOC theory.   Counterplans I think folks should tell me why they get access to their counterplan in the LOC. I might have a very different conception of a PIC than you do (for example, PIC’s are plan inclusive counterplans, which mean they include the entirety of the text of the plan). I think opp’s should identify a CP’s status to avoid procedural args like conditionality. Permutations should be explained. I want to know how you think they function in the round. My default status for a won permutation is that I just stop looking at the CP. If you have a different interpretation as to what I should do with a permutation, you should articulate my options.

Rosemary Loehr - Jewell

Background:  I debated parli for four years at William Jewell College. General Thoughts: At the end of the round I want debaters to feel like they had the opportunity to contribute something meaningful to the debate space. Please, at least when you’re debating in front of me, try to make that your goal too. Slow down if the situation calls for it, take questions, explain your arguments, don’t be exclusionary.  If you want this activity to be more than a game, if you want this activity to continue to grow, learn, and be instructive, try to reflect that in your round. Speed: I have not judged a debate round in about two years. Keep that in mind when considering how fast you plan on speaking. Don’t forsake speed for clarity and don’t use speed as a tool of exclusion. I would much rather hear a few thoughtful, deep, strategic arguments than a bunch of blippy ones.  Don’t get me wrong, it is great if you can read 16 good arguments against a politics disad in 30 seconds, but that doesn’t mean that you need to.  Sometimes I feel like the normative style of debate has gotten so fast that debaters feel like if they’re not putting out as many arguments as possible they’re doing something wrong.  If you ever feel that pressure know that you shouldn’t have to feel it in front of me.  Slowing down to be thoughtful, more in-depth, and more strategic with your responses will only ever help you. Theory: Having specific abuse isn’t necessary, though it certainly doesn’t hurt. I believe procedurals, and particularly arguments like topicality, are sufficient when they can articulate why another team created limits that negatively implicate the debate space.  I get that these types of arguments are procedurals, but that doesn’t mean they cannot be substantive – so use that to your advantage when debating in front of me. K Affs: I don’t care if K affs support the resolution. K’s in general: Like all offense, the more specific, the more creative, and the more warranted the better off you’ll be.  The strategic utility of Ks is that they should link to just about everything, the substantive utility is that they can reveal problematic underpinnings. Make both of those things work in your favor. Contextualize your links and have a clearly stated thesis/framework. Performance/Narrative-Based Arguments: The last time I judged a debate was NPTE 2015. During a preliminary round of two competing narrative/performance-based arguments, I witnessed two national circuit debaters use their skin color, social, and credentialed/reputational privilege to berate and exclude two women of color. It was the most disturbing round I had every witnessed.   If you’re reading a piece that asks for my ballot to mean something, then on-case arguments aren’t necessarily going to cut it. I’m not going to use my ballot to support behavior that I find unethical or damaging. I will prioritize the safety and validation of vulnerable debaters. I will not be kind to well-credentialed debaters who use their privilege to marginalize others – intentionally or unintentionally. DAs: same as K’s, the more specific, intrinsic, and creative the better. The best DAs, in my mind, turn the AFF, have an auxiliary net benefit, and are also competitive via time frame, magnitude, and/or probability CPs:  I only evaluate functional competition. I think textual competition is a new way of saying Pics bad, plan plus, etc…if the CP is plan plus or if it is an abusive pic, run a theory. Perms: Perms test competition, can resolve links to disads, and can present auxiliary net benefits. If you want to advocate for a perm that is intrinsic or severance, that’s fine, just justify it. Likewise, if you want to argue that something is intrinsic or severance, go ahead. Conditionality: Condo is fine and the calculus behind argument selection is one of most applicable educational benefits of debate. That being said, there is a point to where you are a) being exclusionary or b) sacrificing breadth for depth. I find the style of debate that attempts to overwhelm the team with a multitude of shallow, blippy arguments very unimpressive. Case debate: The ability to quickly recognize and generate offensive from logical inconsistencies in another position is a great skill. Too often LOCs are too quick to ignore holes in cases, or worse, sneaky hidden arguments. Really, the more you engage any position on face, whether it’s the case, the K, the DA, or the CP, the better off you’ll be. Defense:  Thoughtful, strategic defense is very underutilized. I’m perfectly happy assessing that a position has zero risk of an impact if you are fine with giving me in-depth defensive arguments that go beyond yelling, “MAD checks back nuke war”.

Sage Smith - NPDA 2017 Hired

n/a

Sam Leist - Notre Dame

My background includes three years of parliamentary debate experience in college, as well as one and a half years of coaching parli. I have judged multiple tournaments. My approach to decision-making is a form of tabula rasa. I endeavor to enter each roundas a blank slate, and will only use information given to me by the debaters. That said, if anargument is based on what is very obviously false information, then I reserve the right to ignore that argument. Essentially, I will accept information given to me as true unless it is very obviously not true; in such a case, I will either award points from that argument to the other team, or drop it completely. A team who encounters an argument based on clearly false information should point it out to me in order to better guarantee a win on that point; I will not make an argument for you. As far as presentation/communication skills are concerned, I do look for effectivecommunication of argument. That said, a team which sounds good but is lacking substance will always lose to a team with effective communication and substantive argumentation. Substance first, flash second. In a substantive tie, however, quality of communication may impact my decision. I don’t have any particular preference when it comes to balancing on and off-case argumentation, but I generally find that teams which argue both sides make the better arguments. Arguing that one case entirely offsets the other is a risky tactic, though one which can succeed. I don’t love kritik arguments, but a good kritik can be a valuable addition to a debate round. If the kritik is thrown in because a team’s argument is lacking substance, then it will generally not be well-received. If it is used in balance with substantive arguments, however, I generally don’t mind a K argument. Counterplans are encouraged where relevant. Topicality arguments are fine, as long as they are not used as a stalling tactic in order to disguise a lack of substantive arguments. Points of Order are fine, but make sure to: (1) make it obvious to the judge that a POI is being made and (2) where possible, reference which rule you believe the point falls under.

Scott Elliott - KCKCC

Scott M. Elliott., Ph.D., J.D. Years Judging: 25.  Special Note for Novice and Junior Varsity Debaters: After years of consideration, I have made the decision to make TOPICALITY an absolute voting issue in novice and junior varsity debate. By this I mean that if the affirmative's 1AC is not topical, they will lose the debate. Extra-topical advantages or extra-topical or non-germane critical aspects of the affirmative 1AC will not be considered in my reason for decision. That being said, what constitutes a "topical" affirmative case is still open to debate. Especially given this year's college topic wording, the traditional framing of the agent of action, or whether really is an agent of action is very much open to debate. Competing interpretations should be debated out. In other words, addressing why one interpretation is better for debate, education or better for students is still open to debate. You can use whatever types of warrants and data to support the claim (the resolutional statement). This means that if you want to "perform" your 1AC (all 1AC speeches are performances anyway), that is fine. If you want to use forms of poetics or aesthetics to support your defense of the resolution, I am willing to listen to it.  Topicality is a gateway issue and will be decided before anything else in my decision except for instances of some egregious behavior from debate particpants that violates standards and norms of the activity (.e.g. ethics challenge, certain language choices, intimidation or physical confrontation). Topicality is a minimum affirmative burden of proof. It is not a reverse voter. I do not want any more persons telling stories thirty years from now about the time they won a debate round on an RVI. In case you are confused, let me give you some examples of 1AC's that would not be topical, and would thus LOSE the debate, if the negative team made and properly defended a topicality argument all the way through the debate: 1) Debaters need to eat healthier; 2) not enough ramps on campus for disabled debaters; 3) debate participants have been somehow abused or neglected by the debate community, other debaters, or coaches prior to the reading of the 1AC; 4) the general shittiness of your ontological or epistemological existence; 5) the refusal to affirm the resolution because you object to one or more of its terms; 6) you feel like academic policy debate unfairly constrains your freedom; 7) the world, or the debate activity, is generally racist, homophobic, abelist, sexist, capitalist and any other form of oppression that is not tied directly to affirmation of the 2014-2015 Cross Examination Debate Association resolution for policy debate for CEDA/NDT tournaments or the assigned resolution in a parlimentary debate tournament.  If you do not like this portion of my judging philosophy, I suggest that you either do not pref me or debate in open division. For persons in open/varsity debate and other issues related to debate: I prefer a standard topical plan with advantages affirmative case versus counterplans and disads from the negative team. That being said, I listen to, and vote for, critical affirmatives and I have voted for many kritiks. Common Issues: Topicality and Framework. I will vote on topicality. I think a lot of negative teams allow themselves to be run over by critical affirmatives’ framework arguments. There are good reasons why topicality should be a voting issue. Develop them. I think the smartest argument I have heard on the T/framework debate is, “it’s not the ground we lose, it’s the ground you gain.” That pretty much encapsulates why T should be a voter. That being said, I often vote for critical and non-topical affirmatives because the negative team fails to make good arguments, or kicks T/framework in the 2NR. Disadvantages. Run them if you have them. There should be plenty on this topic this year. I am usually not a fan of politics debates. However, on this topic, I think there are actually real links to political capital and elections disads. I think link turns are really good offense because, at worst, they function to take out the link to a disad, or make it a wash. Affirmatives should note, impact turns are fine with me. Counterplans. Please do. There should be plenty of counterplan ground on this topic. Agent counterplans seem pretty legit (Ex-O, Congress, maybe courts or States) until proven otherwise on theory or based on the topic literature. Consult---maybe, but you are going to have to read some topic specific evidence to justify it. As long as it is grounded in the topic literature, I am probably going to accept the legitimacy of a counterplan. PIC’s….I think people read blocks that are nonsensical on both sides. Kritiks: I will vote for them. I find a lot of them to be nonsense. But, many affirmatives do not know how to respond to nonsense. Debate it out. Affirmatives probably need to discuss the transition to the end-state envisioned by the K authors. Things I tend to do in rounds:  1) I try to be fair to the teams. That means I will listen to any argument and try to figure out to the best of my ability what the speaker is trying to say;  2) I protect the 2NR. I don't give much weight to new 2AR arguments. The 1AR better extend and explain an argument if you want the 2AR to go for it;  3) I evaluate what went on in the round, not what I think your (K or solvency) author really thinks;  4) I usually look at evidence only when the last two speakers ask me to make an evaluation or comparison. I will rarely call for every card read in the round and reconstruct it as I see fit.  5) I like the last two speakers to tell me, "we win this debate for the following reasons" and "even if they win this argument(s), we still win because." On the other hand, I tend to dislike five minute overviews. Be responsive to the other team's arguments. Do not make me do all the work. Allowing me to connect the dots will often lead to an outcome that you did not anticipate and you will not like; 6) If I think I missed something in your speech, I will ask during the round what the argument was. If I say clear, and you don't change your rate or style, be prepared to not have those arguments evaluated in the round. I don't read your speech documents as you speak. But I will ask for it after the round as a matter of team policy; so I can post cites and argument outlines to the debate caselist. Memorable examples of ways teams have unexpectedly picked up my ballot:  1) Voted for Baylor one time because Emory misspelled their plan text;  2) Voted for Emporia once because their plan wiped-out the universe, destroying all life (you had to be there);  3) Voted numerous times on anthro kritiks, De-Dev, Cap K's, anarchy, malthus, space, aliens A-Life, etc.; 4) voted for a counter-performance because it made me feel more emotional than the 1AC narrative;  5) voted for porn good turns;  6) voted for genocide reduces overpopulation turns;  7) did not vote, but the team won, because they took my ballot filled it out, gave themselves the win and double 30's;  8) voted once on a triple turn--link turned, impact turned, and turned back the impact turn (had to be there);  9) voted on inherency; 10) voted on foul language in a round--both ways--foul language bad and "yeah, we said F***, but that's good" turns; 11) voted for veganism K while eating a cheeseburger. One last point: All of you need to flow the round. The speech document they flash over to you is not the debater's actual speech. Look. Listen. You may be surprised what the other team is actually saying.

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: <ul> <li> I don’t do flow work for debaters. If you want it flow it through. </li> <li> I don’t like bad law. If you don’t know it don’t get complicated with it. </li> <li> 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.  </li> </ul> Do Like <ul> <li> Clash-don’t just dismiss and assume I know the position. I like link and clash work. </li> <li> Easy decisions-tell me where and how you want me to vote. </li> <li> Run what you would like-I try not to be interventionist  </li> <li> Aff to define round-Will buy a trichotomy/framework issue if it is blatant and abusive. </li> </ul> 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!

Shelbie Konkel - Washburn

General information: I debated for Washburn for three and a half years between 2010-2014. I’ll default to a net benefits unless told otherwise. For the most part I am fine with whatever you want to do so long as you justify it. I am fine with a rapid pace of delivery so long as you can be understood. For your benefit (and mine) be as specific and well warranted as possible, even if it means slowing down. Make smart arguments, and make them well – particularly on case.  DA’s: I’m fine with generic DA’s like Politics so long as you do the work on the link level. I would prefer one well warranted DA rather than three or four different short shelled DA’s with shaky link scenarios. Theory: I wouldn’t say I have a particularly high threshold for voting on theory so long as the collapse is well warranted and clean. I default to competing interpretations unless you tell me why I should evaluate the debate in a different manner. Critical arguments and K’s: When I debated, I read the same one or two generic K’s over and over again that were just quite frankly awful; but I had more success than I deserved because people couldn’t ever answer them well. While I would say that I have a predisposition to the topic (and the ramifications of policy decisions) I am fine with whatever you want to do on the affirmative or negative. You have to explain it well – and I think a lot of the time that means ditching a rapid delivering and making fewer arguments that are longer and more well thought out. If you are going to make critical arguments frame the debate in a fashion that leaves no doubt how I am suppose to evaluate your arguments.  Counterplans: Counterplans should be functionally competitive. I’m fine with PICs and think that conditional CPs are okay (unless the affirmative argues otherwise). I tend to think that if you can theoretically defend it, it is fine. Misc.: Be professional and courtesy. Feel free to call points of order. I will protect, but it never hurts to call attention to something you think is a new argument.

Shelby Ryann Dolezal - Notre Dame

BG: I am currently a third-year law student and the senior coach at the University of Notre Dame. This is my second year as a parli coach and judge. As an undergrad, I was a parli debater for the University of Montana. High school LD and a little policy. I have only judged a handful of rounds this year. General: You should already know this, but be sure to structure your arguments correctly, roadmap (off time), and signpost. Tell me where you are on the flow. Approach to decision-making: Tabula rasa. I only know what you tell me. Tell me what framework to use and how you’re winning within that framework. Make my job easy, write my ballot for me. Presentation skills: As long as I can understand you, I don’t care about your presentation skills in my decision-making. I probably won’t look up from my flow. Speaker points: I primarily consider 1) organization, 2) quality of argumentation, 3) clarity of communication, and 4) presentation skills. And this should go without saying, but I expect everyone to treat everyone else with respect.  Procedurals/CPs/Ks: I do not think it is my role as a judge to dictate what arguments you make. Make any arguments you want, but be sure to tell me how those arguments work in the round and how they should be weighed vis-à-vis other arguments. With that being said, don’t assume that I or your opponents are familiar with whatever K you run (I’m probably not). Make the K accessible to your opponents. Importance of on-case arguments: You decide what your strategy is. But do I typically find on-case arguments persuasive? Yes. Points of Order/Points of Information: Use when needed and don’t abuse. If you want me to disregard a new argument coming out of a rebuttal, you need to Point of Order. I only know what you tell me. Speed: I have no moral opposition to speed. However, I have only judged a handful of rounds this year and they have all been very slow, so unfortunately I am out of practice with flowing speed. I will try to keep up and yell “clear” if necessary.

Sina Mansouri - Tulane

n/a

Sohail Jouya - KCKCC

AFFILIATIONS: Director of Debate at University Academy (DEBATE – Kansas City) Coach at Kansas City Kansas Community College BIG PICTURE - I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you. - Truth > Tech, but I recognize that debate is a game competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of reasonability, what it does mean is that embedded clash between opposed positions (the “nexus question” of the round) is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper. - As a coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/debate space.  Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious, if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well: FORM - All speech acts are performances, consequently debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.   - “Are you cool with speed?” In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb. I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the amount of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team.  - Ethos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise roundvision, assertiveness, and swag. I’m personally quite annoyed at many judges who insert a “decorum” clause in their philosophy regarding the “need for civility.” These notions are quite loaded and make broad assumptions that ought to be unpacked and questioned, particularly if the deployment of this concern consistently villainizes certain subsets of debaters. I certainly believe debaters should show mutual concern for each other’s well being and ought to avoid condescension or physical/rhetorical violence – but I do not conflate this with respectability politics. Arguments are arguments and deserved to be listened/responded to regardless of mainstream notions of digestibility or the personal palate of an opposing team. In all honesty, some humour, shade, and disses have a place in rounds so long as they aren’t too terribly mean-spirited. Please don’t misinterpret this as a call to be malicious for the sake of being cruel. - Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:  1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like 2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely. While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for hypothesis testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it. FUNCTION - The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic. Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.   - The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution.  It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible. - I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances. - I will vote on Framework. That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter. Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.  - I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates. -Presumption is always an option. In my estimation the 2NR may go for Counterplan OR a Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both. I will not “judge kick” for you, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.  “But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” I haven’t been in too many of those and if this is a claim that is established prior to the 2NR I guess I could see voting in favour of an Affirmative on presumption. - Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. If they fail to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing contentions that may not function well without a good warrant. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s affirmation of an unfalsifiable truth claim. - Framing is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better. - Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.  - My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default tocompeting interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like its interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents.  The same is true to a lesser extent with the voters as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a counter-voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact. I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Multiple topicality and specification arguments is not strategic, it is desperate.  - I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.  Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.  Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.   - Probability is the most crucial components of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).  - Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.” - Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a racist puts on a cardigan, eats a Werther’s Original, and uncritically watches Mad Men. KRITIKAL DEBATE I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilize a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).  It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense. In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams then there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame). THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion as been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies requires an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text. Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.  Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

Stacy Stevens - NPDA 2017 Hired

n/a

Stephanie Eisenberg Todd - NPDA 2017 Hired

n/a

Steve Woods - WWU

Debate Background: 14 years at WWU Coaching since 1987 overall (K-State, Florida State, Vermont, Wm. Jewell) Overview: I tend to default to a policy maker framework. However, I am open to a variety of paradigms if explicitly introduced and supported in the debate.  As such, I do NOT automatically dismiss an argument based on its "name" (DA or Kritik for example), BUT I do put a premium on how well the argument fits the context of the round.  Often, policy arguments are incredibly generic and poorly linked to the PMC, and critical approaches may be well linked and appropriate (and vice versa).  So, concentrate on the substance of the issues more than the "type" of the argument.  I can tolerate high rates of delivery, but clarity is your responsibility. I also find that high rates of delivery are a cover for a lack of strategy rather than a strategy.  If you go fast, have a reason.  Specifics: Topicality--I tend to give Govt extensive leeway on topicality. Proceduerals/Spec arguments--must be more than plan flaw issues and show real in round abuse. Solvency--I do weigh case versus off case, so Solvency is a part of the overall decision factor.  While it may be tough to "win" on solvency presses and mitigation, good case debate is useful to set up the link directions for the off case arguments/case turns. Disadvantages--HAVE TO BE LINKED to Plan text.  Generic positions tend to get weighed less likely. Counterplans--Issues of competition and permutations neeed to be clear.  I don't need perm "standards" and the like, but clear delineation between the policy options is required. Critical--Acceptable if well linked and relevant.  I tend not to be impressed by appeals to philosophical authority.  Team introducing has an obligation to make argument understandable. How to get High Points: Be polite and collegial to your opponents.  Use clear structure (labeling and signposting).  Have a good strategy and display round awareness.  Generally strong substance is more rewarded than speaking performance.  However, the combination of both is appreciated :)  Good rebuttals and clear strategic choices that make the RFD your work instead of one I have to concoct will help you.  Humor and good will are always appreciated as well. Strike or No Strike? I feel that I am pretty tolerant of a variety of styles and approaches.  I have a policy background but have coached parli for 13 years, so I have seen a lot of different styles and approaches,  I try to be tabula rasa to the extent both teams seem to be in agreement for the paradigm for the round--but do reserve the right to be a "critic of argument" when issues are left unresolved by the debaters, but I do try to limit intervention in those cases to a bare minimum.

Steve Doubledee - Washburn

Debate is a game of strategy and persuasion. Those who can strike the perfect balance between these two will always win my ballot. Things I prefer... 1.I prefer debaters embrace the topic... Topic specific Aff, DA, K, CP, Politics-(specific links), Case, T, Specs etc...are all appreciated. I also understand sometimes you have to run a critical aff via poor ground for the Aff.If you like running identity based arguments I am probably not the judge for you but I will listen. 2.I prefer debaters give impact analysis via timeframe, probability, and magnitude. I will always privilege high probability small impacts over low probability big impacts. 3.I prefer debaters not attempt to speak at a rate they cannot handle. Things I demand... 1.I want a written copy of all texts Plan, CP, Alts, Perms etc... if overly complicated...if plan is the rez then no need. 2.Be kind to each other. If you are rude it will hurt your speaker points. I am not a big fan of cursing in debate rounds. Theory thoughts...All theory arguments are fine. Below is my only "theory pet peeve". Conditional strategies are fine but should be justified through the lens of Aff/Neg flex. So many times debaters want to list off all the advantages of conditional strats but fail to justify why they deserve the right to conditionality in the first place---Aff/Neg flex is how you do so. If the Aff has high flex--(meaning a lot of possible Affs, bidirectional resolution etc...) then the Neg probably has some good justifications for why they need the reciprocal right of conditionality to counter the Aff's use of parametrics.. If the Aff has low flex--(meaning one possible Aff) then the Neg probably will have a harder time justifying why they should have the right to conditionality....Seems like a PIC would be better in this instance. peace dd

Steve Farias - Pacific

Steven Kalani Farias – University of the Pacific PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY   Updates: My threshold to vote on theory has decreased. Proven abuse is not a necessity on T, though it is preferred. Also, my thoughts on role of the ballot has changed under my section for K's.   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; however, theory I generally have a high threshold for voting on except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually 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 IF PROBABILITY MEANS ANYTHING BESIDES A DROPPED, BLIPPED INTERNAL LINK—which I think it does.   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 don’t ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say “I didn’t 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 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 K’s 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. NEW: 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 provied 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 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. Also, please do not make myself or your competitors uncomfortable. If they ask you to stop your position because it emotionally disturbs them, please listen. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not. I believe you should be able to run 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 competeing definitions and a question of abuse in my book. Not either or. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an aff who was not abusive, if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T. To win, I also think you must either pick theory OR the case debate. If you go for both your topicality and your K/DA/CP I will probably not vote on either. Caveat-  I think that negative teams should remember that a contextual definition IS A DEFINITION and I consider multiple, contradictory definitions from an affirmative abusive (so make Aff doesn’t meet its own interp arguments).   In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized interpretations 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 my ballot on theory.   Counterplans- CP’s are the best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team (or at least some alternative advocacy). It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with. I do not think that “We Bite Less” is a compelling argument, just do not link to your own disad. In terms of perms, if you do not in the end prove that the Perm is preferential to the plan or cp, then I will simply view it as an argument not used. This means if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the CP should be rejected as an offensive voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. 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.   Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as 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 (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s 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) 6 years coaching experience (3 years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale)    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; however, theory I generally have a high threshold for voting on except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. 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 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.    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 debater’s lack of clarity you will say “clear” (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debater’s 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 don’t 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 (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s 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 achieveable 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 i should ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all therory 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 you tell me too. 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!

Steve Robertson - Palomar

Ted Torous - Rice

Edward (Ted) Torous Judging Philosophy: <ul> <li>Background:  Debated (NPDA) 2004-2008 for Rice University.  Since competing, I’ve judged approximately one to two tournaments a year each year.  Currently, I’m a practicing intellectual property attorney. </li> <li>Judging Philosophy: <ul style="list-style-type:circle"> <li>Overview:  I’ll do my best to vote where you tell me to vote.  It is my goal to not import outside knowledge into the round.  When weighing impacts, I appreciate analysis as to likelihood and probability. </li> <li>Topicality:  If warranted, and properly articulated, I will vote on topicality.  I believe that there should be articulated reasons why topicality is a apriori and voting issue. </li> <li>Critical Positions:  Again, if warranted, and property articulated, I will vote for critical positions.  I believe it is important to explain why the critical position is a voting issue that warrants the ballot.  Critical positions should have more than a tenuous link to the topic.  If the position does not link, I’d encourage the opposing team to articulate why it does not link and why I should vote against such positions.</li> <li>Debate Theory:  I’m willing to listen to, and vote on, debate theory (e.g. “PICS BAD”).  But as why topicality and critical positions, please articulate the voting issues related to the theory position. </li> <li>Speed:  I’m generally fine with whatever speed you wish to go.  That being said, speed is not a substitute for well-thought out and articulated positions.  An unwarranted assertion that is dropped will not win the ballot.  A good rule of thumb with speed is to watch me:  if I’m flowing your argument, then your speed is fine.</li> <li>Points of Information:  I’m generally a fan of entertaining at least one point of information per speech. </li> <li>Points of Order:  Please call all points of order.  If a new argument is raised, and not objected to, I will generally accept the argument.</li> <li>Please be respectful of your competitors. </li> </ul> </li> </ul>

Tom Schally - Lewis & Clark

I've always believed having someone else write your judging philosophy yields better insights and nobody knows me better than James Stevenson, so I present to you: Tom Schally, â€&lsaquo;written â€&lsaquo; by James Stevenson: “First, the highlights. Tom’s generally interested in all types of arguments – policy, K, whatever. He’s got a very technical mind and a clean flow, but tends to vote for arguments which demonstrate superior nuance and contextual specificity. Explanation is a big deal to Tom, and he won’t necessarily consider an argument dropped if it’s blippy and undeveloped. He understands debate as both a game that is fun (sometimes even when it stretches what is ‘true’) and as an educational endeavor that should probably teach us something valuable. He also considers the communicative aspect to be a central component of debate, so rhetorical skill, drawing connections in CX and late rebuttals, and humor/self-awareness will take you far. Clash and argumentative comparison, as with most judges, are key. I’m not sure the stuff I below will actually be helpful, but here’s the bottom line. Tom’s a smart person with a lot of debate experience and know-how who takes judging very seriously. He doesn’t decide debates lightly, and will take his time to give a clear, sound explanation and good feedback. --- As a background, Tom just started a job at a political communications firm or something, and studied public policy and administration in grad school. He has like seven years of experience coaching college debate, mostly in NPTE/NPDA parliamentary, but has been at least partially involved in policy for the last few. He did a year of college policy at Macalester before transferring to Western Kentucky University, where he was ridiculously successful in parli and NFA-LD. I hesitate to mention this because CEDA/NDT folks can be super elitist about their style of debate, but debate is debate, and Tom’s good at it. He can also speak much faster than I ever could, so as long as you retain clarity, speed is probably not an issue. In his personal life, Tom is probably a pragmatist more than anything else, but in a very broad sense. What he sees as the ‘pragmatic’ move is largely context-dependent, particularly in debate – I think he likes to see teams draw direct linkages between where we are, what we should do, and why we should do it, especially in a reflexive and self-aware manner. This is, once again, largely a function of good explanation and strategic/argumentative nuance, rather than ideological location – he picks between “trying or dying” or “reflecting/resisting” based on who better outlines the relevance of their method, the validity of their knowledge claims, and the implications of their arguments. He’s pretty knowledgeable about public policy subjects, and also is pretty well-read on K stuff like Marxism, postcolonialism, and critical IR, but is fairly detached from what the debate argument flavor of the month is, so don’t assume he’s familiar your specific jargon or ideology. In “policy” debates, Tom is willing and able to defer to traditional debate risk analysis tools like “try or die” or “uniqueness outweighs the link,” but I think he gives more credibility to good defense (even if it’s uncarded) than other judges do. Card quality matters to him, and he’ll definitely read evidence after a round and consider it significant if its quality is put into question during the debate. In particular, evidentiary specificity is probably a big deal on aff and CP solvency debates. Additionally, he prefers counterplans that compete with the substance of the plan over those premised off “normal means” or process. Tom will vote on T. As with other kinds of debates, I think he values comparison of offense over an enumeration of many possible lines of offense. Keep in mind, Tom does some topic research but isn’t stalking the caselist 24/7, so throwaway references to particular schools or affs might not make sense to him. As for theory, he’ll probably reject the argument instead of the team without some substantial work. Conditionality could be a voting issue, but not necessarily. As with T, comparison and argumentative interaction are paramount. Tom likes the K and other nontraditional argument styles, and this has been more and more of what he’s coached over the last few years. That said, he still expects clarity and rigor on the basics – what the ballot does, how decisions should be made, what kinds of stuff should be prioritized, and so on. If you are defending alternate styles of argument competition or analysis, this kind of explanation would be especially important. Buzzwords and mystification will not impress him. I think that on framework/clash of civs debates, smart and well-placed defense (on either side) would go a long way. Clever references to Twin Peaks would probably make him laugh."

Ty Graife - NPDA 2017 Hired

n/a

Ty Greafe - NPDA 2017 Hired

n/a

Tyler Gillette - KCKCC

Vasile Stanescu - Mercer

Name: Vasile Stanescu School Affiliation: Mercer University Education: Ph.D. from Stanford University  Professional Background: I worked as a professional magician for a year to pay the bills after my undergraduate degree. Currently, I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and DoF at Mercer. I love my current job but, if I'm honest, the first job was a definitely cooler.  Debate Experience: I won some stuff in policy debate. Some of it was kind cool at the time but, you know, Myspace was also kinda cool at the time. I assume no one still cares. Don't worry; I'm qualified.     Judging Experience: I have judged over a hundred rounds of both parliamentary and policy debate.  Short version:  When I debated in policy debate, I could "name" the black debaters. When we competed at Wakeforest (a policy tournament) this year, we had two rounds of two black debaters against two black debaters judged by a black judge. That would be impossible at virtually any of the national parli debate tournament we attended; there aren't that number of double black debaters; there are not always that number (-2-) of black judges. It is not the case that "debate" is inherently "a white activity"--as I've heard in rounds--it is the case that "parli debate" remains predominately white. If policy debate can change, why can't we? Why can I still "name" all the black debaters--and judges--in parlimentary debate?   I Hate "Performance" Debate: Please stop pretending like you are a person in Congress, parliament, or a “policy maker.” In contrast, I do appreciate it when people genuinely speak about their actual lived experience both within and outside of the debate community. I think the debate space would be a better (as well as a more socially responsible) space if people stopped performing, role-playing, and acting like Congresspeople and started being honest and sincere. I think that debate currently does a very good job of training both lawyers and politicians; I think that we have enough lawyers and politicians. I think this space could more effectively be used to start to train activists, ethical thinkers, and scholars. How would debate look different if our goal was to train the most effective activists instead of the most effective trial lawyers? What would we value? How would we judge? What would we want to change about this activity? What would you want to do differently? If debate could be anything, how would you remake it? I Love Speed: For me, things cannot change quickly enough: Ferguson, Eric Garner, the prison system, climate change, factory farms, wealth inequality, TRUMP so many things. I’m a former policy debater; I can understand people at any speed. However, talking at a speed that anyone can understand will probably help all of us to bring along these changes a great deal sooner. PICS are OK: Also selfies. Really any way that you'd like to film or record a round is OK with me. I think that the debate space has to be opened up. If you make a powerful performance about what needs to change, everyone should have a chance to see it. Right now how many people come to see a round?  Maybe a few dozen if you're incredibly lucky? And it's a final round? The first video when I googled  "funny cat antics" had 32,401,857 views. (Seriously; here’s the link: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tntOCGkgt98">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tntOCGkgt98</a>). How many times have you been in round where you heard some argument about changing people through the in-round advocacy?  And there were five people in the room? If you actually want to start to make a difference: talk in a way that people can understand, film the rounds, put them online, and reach out to people. I don't care how you run counter-plans. Of course, if people don't want to filmed--for whatever reason--that's fine too. Consent is king.  Perms are OK: Really any hairstyle. What is not OK is sexism or, really, any type of discrimination. You know that women and minorities join this activity a higher rate than white men? But the reason that we don't see more of them is because they quit? Why they quit is complex, but, at least in part, it stems from issues such as unnecessary and off-putting jargon, intimidating speed and speech patterns, having to pretend to be "policy makers", and, perhaps most importantly, feeling that they cannot talk about their actual experiences even when the topics they are debating are about these very experiences.  Can you imagine any experience more alienating than not being able to talk about your own experience with racism on a topic actually about racism? Or not being able to talk about your experience of sexual harassment even on a topic on sexual harassment?  If you need numbers, I chose this one article (among many, many others. It's slightly old but specific to the NPDA.): "Much research in the collegiate debate community has centered on investigating sex as it compares to win/loss records or speaker points (Hensley & Strother, 1968; Bruschke & Johnson, 1994; Hayes & McAdoo, 1972; Rosen, Dean, & Willis, 1978).  These studies generally indicate that female participation is lower than male participation overall, and female participation in outrounds is not representative of overall female participation.  Fewer females compete than males, and even fewer women than men break into national outrounds.  In fact, some studies (Logue, 1986; Friedley & Manchester, 1985) have found female participation in NDT and CEDA to be as low as 20% and 30% respectively. Stepp and Gardner (2001) collected ten years of demographic data from CEDA national tournaments.  They found that over the ten years female and minority participation was increasing slightly.  However, the rate of success for female and minority groups stayed the same, and this rate is much lower than the rate of white males." This specifically applies to the NPDA: “Clearly, NPDA as an organization is unable to retain female debaters.  NPDA needs to discuss why female debaters are leaving the activity in such great numbers.  Recruitment does not seem to be the problem.  In fact, if the same amount of female novice debaters who competed this year stayed on for four years of competition, then the demographics of NPDA would be nearly equivalent.  Thus, individual debate programs need to be mindful of not only reaching out to local high schools to recruit females but also focusing on retaining the females that they already have.”   And:   “It is clear that NPDA is overwhelmingly Caucasian, and individual programs and coaches do need to do a better job recruiting minority students in order to promote racial and ethnic diversity within NPDA.  However, it is not clear why minority students do not advance at the same rate as non-minority students in outrounds at the national tournament.  Since minority students tend to have the same or more experience on average than non-minority students, minority students may not be advancing because of discrimination within the organization.”   (Jennifer H. Parker, forensics coach at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, “Female and Minority Diversity Within NPDA: An Examination of the 2002 National Tournament;” 2002) If we want to keep the debate space as friendly as possible to straight, white males from upper-class backgrounds, there is--literally--nothing that we need to change. T is always a voter: Well, technically, he missed a couple of years in the 80’s. But, for the most part, Mr. T is all about civic virtue. What doesn’t make me want to vote for a team is when people run "Heg good" for the 50,000,000th time in debate and then claim that the "performance" team is unfair because it "hurts education."   Or when a team runs an economics DA claiming that marginal spending on an obviously good social program will lead to nuclear war; then claims that debate teaches "real world skills."   Nor am I fan of two white "bros" drinking red bull and running a critical race argument (wilderson) against a team that is actually composed of people of color. Please do not run a critique of sexism against a team composed of two women of color because they used one word you didn't like on a topic about sexual violence. Also please do not run a critique of anthropocentrism as passionately as possible in front of me and then, immediately, eat hamburgers after the round. (None of these are hypothetical examples; all of these have actually occurred in front of me ).  Please reflect (beforehand) on these types of decisions.  Please reflect before you treat others’ suffering (minorities, women, animals or others) as only a type of toy, strategy, or commodity that you can marshal and use  to win another debate round but does not, in fact, represent something you believe in or commit yourself to trying to change or eliminate in your own life or in the wider community of debate.      Final items the form tells me that I have to include: “Preferences on calling Points of Order:” Please pronounce it with a thick British accent. Placing your hand on your head is highly encouraged. Extra speaker points will be given for any debater who wears a large white wig. In other words: Sure? However, please reflect on the performative nature of college undergraduates acting like they are in British Parliament and shouting specialized jargon like “the severance permutation justifies the inround abuse on conditionality for the counterplan” while speed reading like an auctioneer through Latin phrases, Continental philosophy, and "Brink" updates about the Bond market. Please remember: a person reading a poem about their actual experience with racism is not the person who is making this space exclusionary. “Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:” I rate it at 7.3 (on a ten point scale). Above counter plans but below Foucault critiques. Roughly equal to the “bright line” standard on topicality. While not a prima facie burden, as a tabela rasa critic, I have to weigh it under a principal of odi profanum vulgus et arceo. In other words, I have no preference about this or any of these other preset questions. Run whatever type of critique, counterplan, “stock issue” that you like. I have no preferences, whatsoever, on any of this; I'll even vote on trichotomy (it's happened).  However, what I am trying to communicate, is that I think, all of these, are entirely the wrong questions to be asking.  What I will say is: Why not run a “performance” or a “project” yourself? If debate isn’t the space that people can talk about their experiences with racism, sexism, or marginalization where should they have a chance to actually be heard? Think about how many times they/you have already been told that. And, if you are going to prima faciely exclude all of these voice/people/experiences—why do you think that this activity still matters? Is that the kind of space you want to create with your time and your energy? Here’s the thing: Hopefully, we will dedicate a large chunk of our lives to making this the spaces around us reflects our beliefs and values. The debate community, itself, should be a place for us to start: that's my judging philosophy. I hope that none of this seems disrespectful to anyone in any way. That is not my goal. I have spent over a decade in this activity; I value it and I treasure. It is because I love debate that I think that the activity (in both policy and parli) needs deep and fundamental change. Come show me how it should be done.

Zach Schneider - AppState

Hi! I’m Zach. I debated for 5 years of NPDA/NPTE parli (4 at Cedarville University and 1 at SIU) and this is my second year coaching/judging at SIU. I aim to remove my argumentative preferences from the debate as much as possible and allow you to argue whatever strategy you think is best. I’m involved in debate because I love the activity and I want to judge you regardless of what style you prefer. With that said, I provide the following as guidance as to my opinions and predispositions. Quick Hits <ul> <li>As a competitor, I debated a variety of strategies, about 2/3 policy and 1/3 critical. On the critical side of things, I’ve spent a lot of time in debates reading Nietzsche, DNG, Wilderson, and disability based positions.</li> <li>I’m fairly predisposed to believe that the affirmative should defend the resolution (not necessarily fiat) via a topical plan or advocacy. I also think most teams are bad at reading/going for framework and I'm very unpersuaded by generic framework arguments. Take that as you will.</li> <li>I strongly prefer to evaluate debates based on the arguments on my flow. Since this seems to be a small trend, you should know that I have ADHD; if you ask me not to flow your speech, I will honor your request, but I will also probably literally not remember your arguments when I'm thinking about my decision. I'm happy to listen to your speech in whatever form it takes, but if you don't want it flowed and you also care about competitive success, it's in both of our best interests that you strike me.</li> <li>Tech > truth. Debate is a competitive game composed of moving argumentative pieces that are only occasionally indicative of reality. It's your job to identify the faulty (factually incorrect) pieces and tell me to disregard them.</li> <li>Generally, speed is good. Don't use speed to make people hate the activity and/or to punish novices for being novices. Enunciate; if I clear you, you probably need to be clearer, not slower.</li> <li>I keep stats on all the rounds I judge in a <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OAE7LV2off4DLvcNdRLNAmMDAUPYOQtDJ9R6UMpWnZI">Google doc5</a> to hopefully give some data on how I actually tend to vote in debates.</li> </ul> Offense/defense <ul> <li>Offense wins championships, but smart defense is underutilized. I am quite willing to assess terminal defense/no risk of something. I generally evaluate defense as either probability (arguments that the impact is unlikely - e.g. MAD checks) or possibility (it is structurally impossible for the impact to happen - e.g. Brazil cannot launch a nuclear first strike because they do not have nuclear weapons). If you concede your impact is impossible, I will assess 0 risk of it. If you concede your impact is improbable, I will compare the strength of the two claims and decide how much risk to assess (or, ideally, you do this comparison for me in a rebuttal).</li> </ul> Disads <ul> <li>Intrinsic, specific, well-sourced, big-stick disads are beautiful to watch, particularly if they implicate economic stability or hegemonic certainty. Use words like timeframe, magnitude, and probability in the rebuttal to contextualize your disad to the affirmative.</li> <li>"Extend the defense" is not an argument, please take the five seconds to say "extend MAD checks nuclear war" or whatever. I am often enamored of affirmatives that exploit lazy kicking of disads.</li> <li>Compelling politics disads require a robust description of the status quo (both the bill/process that the disad is centered around, and the motivations that hold the status quo together) as well as a coherent link to the affirmative; I find that the best politics disads are top-heavy, while the ones that give politics a bad reputation have few/blippy uniqueness/link arguments stuck on top of a big impact.</li> </ul> Case debate <ul> <li>It’s good and you should do it. Counterplans can be a useful component of a negative strategy but anyone who thinks you need one to win is wrong.</li> <li>I don't care if you read mini-disads and kritiks on case but please let everyone know if you plan to do so extensively (more than 2-3). Few things are more annoying than trying to piece back together a messy case flow after the debate.</li> </ul> Counterplans <ul> <li>PICs are good unless the topic is a whole bill or (maybe) permits only one topical affirmative. Agent CPs are good. Consult is fine if accompanied by a compelling argument that consult is not normal means.</li> <li>Delay, veto cheato, object/utopian fiat, and whatever other obviously cheater CPs people come up with are bad (which isn't to say I won't vote for them if the aff doesn't answer it correctly/read theory).</li> <li>Text comp is an artificial standard that has never made much sense to me. You're better off reading PICs bad or other, more specific theory.</li> </ul> T <ul> <li>I default to evaluating the debate through competing interpretations. Feel free to argue another framework, but I think I’ve yet to hear a credible justification (or even definition) for reasonability.</li> <li>The affirmative should lose every debate if they fail to read either a "we meet" or a competitive counterinterpretation to T. I do not require in-round abuse to vote on T.</li> <li>T is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue; the aff does not get to win because they were topical. (K of T is a bit different - I am quite inclined to believe that T is good/does not lead to genocide, but I will not dismiss the argument with prejudice as I will generic RVIs.)</li> </ul> Spec <ul> <li>I will not vote for spec arguments of any variety under any circumstance unless you can demonstrate actual ground loss because of egregious vagueness on the part of the affirmative. I won’t punish you for reading it in the 1NC (other than perhaps with an annoyed glare) but you will lose the debate and probably get terrible speaks if you go for it in the block and the affirmative wasn’t blatantly abusive.</li> </ul> The K <ul> <li>I love the K debate. I went for the K in about a third of my negative rounds and occasionally on the aff as well. A knowledgeable, deep MO going for a specific K with strong, intrinsic links to the affirmative is one of my favorite speeches to watch.</li> <li>I don’t automatically let the aff weigh their aff. The aff should defend why the aff should be weighed, which usually involves defenses of consequentialism, threat response, scenario planning, and/or empiricism.</li> <li>I’m often suspicious of alternative solvency, particularly "alt solves the aff" claims -- but many affirmatives lose debates simply because they don’t answer arguments. Tags like ____ comes first/is a prior question, no value to life, root cause of violence, or alt solves the aff should be setting off alarm bells if you’re giving the MG.</li> <li>The permutation is always a test of competition and never an advocacy. The recently popular argument that "you don’t get a perm in a methods debate" doesn’t make much sense to me; the permutation is then a question of whether it is possible or desirable to employ both methods in the same world. Specific permutation net benefits are always more compelling than your memorized generic block.</li> <li>Unless the aff fails to identify the contradiction, I don’t think it’s possible to win the K debate if you read the K along with positions that double turn it (e.g. cap with an econ disad). If you get to sever or somehow handwave away your link then so does the aff.</li> </ul> Identity based/performance/not-about-the-topic positions <ul> <li>I do not think that identity-based positions are well-suited to parli; these debates are extremely difficult to fairly adjudicate (particularly without evidence to contextualize critical claims), and I sincerely believe in parli as a unique forum to have academic discussions on a wide variety of topics. If you find it liberatory to discuss your experiences with systemic oppression in debate, I don’t think it’s my place to tell you what arguments to read; but you should also know that, like all judges, I am more compelled by positions that reflect my own personal views. In more concrete terms, I’m probably a low B or high C pref for you if this is your kind of debate.</li> <li>As I mentioned at the top, I am fairly predisposed to believe the affirmative should defend the topic. Even if you read the same position in every round, adapting it to the specific context of the topic will help you a lot in front of me. If you don't contextualize your position to the topic (or even if you do), I prefer if you focus your argument around the defense of a specific method in a specific context.</li> <li>When reading or answering framework, comparative impact analysis of the standards and counterstandards is important to me; for that reason, I think the best framework shells function as disads to the method of the 1AC and/or net benefits to policymaking. As a debater, I essentially think of framework as a counterplan/countermethod of policymaking, contrasted with the method/advocacy of the 1AC; I thus often find arguments that "there's a topical version of the aff with a net benefit" (topic education, policymaking good, etc.) to be compelling.</li> <li>Outside of framework, I think reading a countermethod, a PIC out of some portion of the affirmative's advocacy, or even just case turns can all be effective strategies. I think reading your memorized panic K is often a less effective strategy.</li> </ul>

linsey VanLuvaneen - Oregon

n/a

2017 NPDA National Championship