FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Marineau - Oregon

Name: Aaron Marineau School: University of Oregon  Section 1: General Information I competed in debate for 8 years. With 4 of policy and LD in high school and 4 years of  competing in parli for the University of Oregon with (some) policy mixed in. As a judge, my goal is to decide on a round based off of how you've told me to vote. I  would like to avoid using my own opinions on arguments. It is your round and activity.  Tell me why I should comparatively vote for the position you're running. I don't have any preference for/or bias against specific arguments. That said, on procedurals, I usually don't vote unless the position is made into a fully  realized argument with explained standards and a realized impact scenario. In short,  unless completely dropped, I feel my tolerance for procedurals is mildly higher than  normal. I view debate as a game. Although, I've experienced how it can be transformative  beyond those parameters. If you would like me to participate, please give me a  framework to evaluate it. All I really ask is that you weigh your impacts and make comparative impact claims.  The rest is up to you. Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Please describe your approach to the following. 1.         Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker  points given)? My average is a 26.5-27.5. 2.         How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical  arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I have no bias against critical arguments, on aff or neg. But for me to vote on them,  please give me a framework or explain how it operates inside the Net-benefits  framework.  I am open to hearing multiple and contradictory tests of the affirmative's policy action  from the Negative. If the negative is willing to defend and can prove why that is good  then more power to them. 3.         Performance based arguments… I'm into it. What is a performance anyway, maaaaan? 4.         Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse  necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? In round abuse is preferred but not critical for me to vote on topicality. I don't require  competing interps but I do require well thought out standards. 5.         Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the  counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? Opp should probably identify the status of the counterplan, but it's up to them. But if  they don't and then don't take a question, they're assholes. 6.         Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other  during the round (not just their plans) If it helps clarify the debate then I'm all for it. If it's disagreed upon in round, I'm open to  hearing arguments as to why that's bad/good from both teams. 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, then advantages/disads and counter plans unless told otherwise.  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")? In these cases, I usually vote for the cleanest route to the impact and decide based  off of who is winning/getting the most access to that impact story. But if you're at the  NPTE, you should probably know to tell me why I should prioritize an impact over  another.

Aaron Donaldson - Clark CC

I have enjoyed participating in the collegiate debate community since 2000. I have watched, coached, and judged primarily NPDA/PTE debate with some bits and pieces of novice NDT/CEDA and "World's" B/P thrown in. I think all debate activities are incredibly important and equally educational. In NPDA/PTE, I consider 25 speaker points (out of 30) as "average," 26-27.5 as "outround ready," 28-9 as "see you in the final" and 30 as outstanding. I do not typically give 30's to teams who do not create a welcoming and inclusive atmostphere, as I believe those aspects of our performances in-round are most important.   I try hard not to supplement justifications or warrants for or against arguments I engage as a judge.This means bad arguments that are not responded to can be exploited for a win, it also means dropped arguments that are underdeveloped in the constructive speeches may not get much weight in the rebuttals. It does not take much to develop the "arch" of an early argument, but one or two word phrases can quickly become suspect.   I believe procedural arguments are an important part of the "real world," that many parties will exploit these arguments and that for these reasons they are an integral part of debate education. I do not see much substantive value between debates about "the issues" and debates about debate, if anything I tend to lean towards the sides which argue that the rules to the activity that we play matter more than the imaginary worlds of our advocacy. I love a good T debate more than just about anything but I do not like 1-word arguments at the voter level of these pages. I think procedural arguments need to have clear consequences on the strategic decisions of the debate (this can include prep time) and that these consequences need to be articulated not only as reasons to prefer but also assesed as examples of why I should vote. I presume procedural arguments are strategic unless they are labled a-priore.   I believe critical or "kritikal" arguments are like any other argument. As with the procedural debate, if anything I tend to believe that the consequences for our performances, mindsets, and strategies in the educational activity we are all wrapped up in are more immediate than those of the imaginary world of our advocacy but those implications still need to be spelled out and clearly developed to win my ballot. As with procedural arguments I will assume these arguments are strategic unless they are labled as a-priore.   Counter-plan and/or Alternative debate (particular debates involving the theory and/or "status" of the C/P and/or ALT) is probably one of my weaker areas. Until I resolve that "blind spot" all I can do is offer fair warning.   I think rate of delivery has proven to be one of the most divisive and potentially abusive aspects of our activity. Teams who "weaponize" speed against new debaters or against those who, in my mind, are obviously struggling to participate risk losing the debate. If your opponents are fast I have no problem with fast debate - I will say "clear" or "slow" if I am struggling to follow. If they are not I don't mind so long as you are not excessively ignoring them, mocking them, or otherwise neglecting their attempts to participate. Most speed-bad arguments I have seen break down at the standard level, there is obviously no brightline, but more than anything I feel that debate should be inclusive and rate-of-delivery, among all else, jeopardizes that. Fast debate that is only repetitive can cost speaker points, fast debate that I feel is unneccesarily abusive can cost you the ballot.

Adam Testerman - Lewis & Clark

Background   Hi there!  I have competed in debate and forensics for over 10 years.  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.  This is my second year coaching for Lewis & Clark College.    General Issues   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.  The only thing that I hate is awkwardness.  Please don’t be rude or overly confrontational with your opponents, because it makes me feel awkward and I will probably try to reassure myself with your excess speaker points.  I will vote for arguments I think are stupid 10 out of 10 times if they are won in the round.    Etiquette   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.  It will be difficult to explain why fact or value debates aren’t horrible, so roll that way at your own risk.  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 see above for awkwardness.]  RVI’s have never been good arguments, read them at your own risk.  <a name="_GoBack"></a>I am not the best judge when it comes to speaker points.  I tend to average a 28-point something, but I don’t vary outside of that range much.  I am trying to adjust my scale, but fair warning that I’m not the judge giving everyone 30s.    Theory/Procedurals   I cut my teeth on procedural arguments in college, so I understand why they can be useful.  It is probably true that debates are less substance-driven when they become about procedurals, but that won’t impact my decision at all.  To vote on a procedural, I require 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.  I think bad T arguments are REALLY bad, but good T arguments are some of my favorite debates to watch, so… 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.  If you plan on running linear DAs, please spend time explaining how the affirmative triggers a new impact that is not present in the status quo [or makes a current impact worse.]  Defensive arguments are useful, but they often serve to make offensive arguments more impactful or serve as risk mitigation, as opposed to terminal takeouts.    I ran politics in a majority of my negative rounds and I coach my teams to read the position often as well.  So, I will totally vote on politics every time when it’s won.  That being said, I’m finding the position to be one my least favorite and least compelling these days.  The obscene nature of congress these days makes the position even more laughable than it was in the past [and it’s always been sketchy at best, without cards].  Read the DA if you’re a politics team, but there are almost always better arguments out there.    Critiques   Critique debates can be fun to watch, but only when the position is clear at the thesis level. If your shell argues that the K is a prior question or something like that, spend some meaningful time explaining why 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.  I really hate when critiques prove the “people who hate critiques crowd” right, by being excessively confusing and blippy.  Critiques are totally dope, but only because they have the potential to make compelling arguments… not because they are obtuse.    Framework debates are a waste of time a vast majority of the time.  I don’t 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’s 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.    CPs   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.  In general, the CP/DA debate is probably what I feel most comfortable judging accurately and I think CPs that solve the aff are very strategic.  Multiple CPs in the round is probably bad for education and not strategic.

Alexis Litzsky - NPDA Hired

n/a

Alyssa Sambor - NPDA Hired

n/a

Andrew Potter (Hired) - Jewell

Experience 4 years high school policy at a small Kansas school on the UN, Civil Liberties, National Service, and Sub-Saharan Africa topics. 4 years NPDA/NPTE parliamentary debate at William Jewell College The Nitty-Gritty I learned debate from Kevin Garner, Kyle Dennis, Luke Landry, Tim Brooks, David Dingess, and the all-knowing Gina Lane. A lot of what they think about debate is what I think about debate. Seeing as they are probably judging you, it would behoove yourself to read their philosophies because it sheds light on mine. That being said, I have come to some realizations about myself as a judge during the year I have been out. First, this is your game not mine. You do what you feel comfortable with if you can justify it, then you can run it. Wanna run a K aff? Better win the T debate. Wanna run multiple conditional positions? Better know the theory. I have voted on almost anything this year as long as the argument is won so do your thing. I only have one thing to add though, I think all resolutions are calling for a policy. Initial Thoughts As I am sure almost anyone can tell you, I like a good joke. I think debate should be fun for those debating and for those who watch. Political jokes are good and I am not really one to be offended easily by humor. The things I will be offended by are general disrespect for your competitors or using hate speech. Those are sure fire ways to get your speaks nuked.  I like: Star Wars Lord of the Rings Big 12 Football and Basketball Kansas City sports Video Games (Specifically Zelda, God of War, and Starcraft) Dingess jokes Incorporating these likes into a joke or an analysis of an argument effectively will improve your speaker points. Offense/Defense Defense may win championships in sports but offense is what wins debate championships. However, that does not mean to cast off defensive arguments because those can be damn useful when weighing impacts. Use both offense and defense strategically and you will likely get higher speaker points and access to my ballot. Status of Counter Plans/Kritiks I am prone to believe all positions are dispositional. Each piece of paper has an impact on the round once it is said. A good example is a DA. Team A runs the DA. Team B answers the DA Once the argument has been answered there are one of three scenarios that are true with regards to said position. 1)Team A avoids the impacts, 2)Team B avoids the impacts, 3)There are no impacts for either team. It is up to both teams to tell me which of these three scenarios I am supposed to believe. Every position (CP, K, DA, T, Theory, Adv, etc.) ran in the debate is prone to these three scenarios. Now, this does not mean I will not vote for a conditional CP or K. What the former paragraph means is that I am swayed by dispo but I will give all arguments their fair shake.  My definition of dispo is: If you straight turn the CP, we have to go for it. If you prove it is not an opportunity cost to the plan i.e. a perm, CP links to the DA, Net-Benefit has no impact, then you reserve the right to defend the SQuo. I also believe the status should be said right before the text as in “The CP, the Unconditional Text, US Congress will pass and President Obama will sign blah blah blah”  Flowing I flow the Resolutional Analysis, Background, Plan, and Solvency contention (if there is one) on one piece of paper. All subsequent advantages/off case positions get their own sheets of paper after that. I break up Counter Plans and the Net-Benefit into separate sheets of paper. I flow the K on one sheet.  I flow answers to positions in a long column starting with 1,2,3 etc. Speed My general tendency towards speed is that if you are going too fast for me to flow, then I will yell “clear.” I do not believe speed is the issue, it is clarity. There is nothing wrong with going slower but being more clear. You will probably win more rounds and get better speaker points if you do so. Also, I do not like seeing speed used as an exclusionary tactic. If you are clearly faster than your opponents and they yell clear but you do not slow down or try to accommodate them, then your speaks are gonna suffer. However, I do not find “Speed Kills” arguments persuasive because it feels like some sort of intervention would have to happen on my part to vote on that position and that is not a position I am comfortable judging. Also, here is how you can make sure I get all your arguments. For example, if you are answering a DA then it should go something like this “1, Non-Unique, Dems capitol low b/c blah blah blah. 2, Non-Unique Obama capitol low b/c blah blah blah. 3, No-Link, plan doesn't affect captiol. 4, Turn, plan increases Dem cap blah blah blah......” Warrants Yes, please! I fall into the Luke Landry school when he says, “I guess I missed the meeting where people decided not to use warrants.” I will have a high threshold voting on positions that are lacking substantial warrants. I will also have a tough time voting on positions that are one thing in the LOC and another thing in the MOC and will be pretty sympathetic to new PMR characterizations of MG responses to fit the transformed position. I do not like adding warrants for the argument based off of my own knowledge, and I like being able to repeat the position I am voting for (the story of the Adv, DA, or theory position), so add warrants. Also, since there is no pen time, then you need to add that time with the warrants so I can get your argument down and will not miss the next one. Questions I believe it is the duty of every constructive to take one question. Every constructive has importance for another speech's strategy. If Team A is speaking and Team B asks for a question but Team A says they are not taking a question, then I will do one of two things but probably both 1) give leniency to the strategy choices of Team B or 2) allow Team B to shout their question while Team A is speaking. Team B will suffer no consequences of speaker points while the speaker from Team A who refuses a question will see a deduction. In a format that does not allow C-X and is getting increasingly fast and techy it is ridiculous to refuse to give ONE question. Also, the time it takes Team A to refuse and to justify why like saying “not during the constructives” would take the same or less time than answering the question in the first place. Theory I ran theory a lot in college and feel like I have a decent grasp on the ins and outs of theory. However, that does not mean I will fill in blanks for theory. Every theory position should have an interpretation that is read twice and preferably slower than other arguments, a violation, reasons to prefer, and voters. I view theory debates similar to CP/Plan debates. There are texts, DA or Advs to those texts, and impacts for voting for or against a certain text. I would say I have an average threshold on voting for theory but if you can run it well and win it, then my thoughts should not detract you from making that strategic decision.  Disads I feel like this is the most straightforward part of my philosophy. Disads need to be unique and warranted. I feel this is a question more on Econ or Politics debates. On Econ, instead of just throwing numbers my way, why not make some comparison why your numbers are more important/predictive of economic trends. Politics is the same way, do not just throw out Dems high, Bill gonna pass, you stop it, bill woulda done some good things, WE ALL GONNA DIE. Instead, I like Politics that focus on key members of the Senate or House who would be influential in the bill's success or demise and EXACTLY what the bill does. That will give me a better idea of how to evaluate the claims of the debaters.  Impacts Run any impact and make it important. I usually default to Timeframe 1st with Probability and Magnitude 2nd and 3rd. I like good impact analysis with Timeframe because if you win the impact to a disad/adv before the other DA/Adv happens, then it probably changes the impact story of the other DA/Adv.   CPs  CPs need to be functionally competitive and have a net-benefit, whether that is an advantage the CP captures that the plan does not or a DA that is avoided while gaining the Solvency of the Aff. I feel like I have a decent grasp on what textual competition is and I have determined it is not nearly as important as people have made it out to be. Functional competition is the way to my heart.  Types of CPs to be ran in front of me: Alt Agent (mmhhmmm they warm my soul) PICs  Alternate Plans that avoid the DA but solve the Case (Example: Plan regulates Ag pollution with an Environmental Adv. CP is to clean up ag pollution and run a regulations bad DA.) Advantage CPs Ks These were not really my thing in debate. I ran them occasionally but it was nothing super tricky or too post modern. Basically I ran Biopower. However, I have judge multiple K rounds this year and I have found them a lot easier to judge than I expected. I have voted for criticisms and voted against criticisms both on the aff and the neg. I will just say that if this is some new kind of K that is supposed to catch the other team off guard, then you should explain it well because I am not the most well read in that area.

Ashley Graham - El Camino

This is probably the most important thing to know about me: I believe that debate is a game.  Therefore everything to me is viewed as a way to win.  While education can happen and critical thinking can happen, ultimately you want the ballot otherwise there’s no impact to how I judge debate rounds. Overall a clear framework and specifically a way to evaluate the round are going to be important in finding a way to evaluate the arguments in round.  That being said, impacts win rounds. Structure and signposting are also extremely important.  On Topicality: this is a voter for me; however it can also be used as a tool to secure ground or for competing interpretations.  This is up to you as whether or not going for the T in the LOR is the best choice. I don't dislike T debates just multiple poorly warranted T rounds.  On Kritiks: I will vote on the K as long as there is some type of legitimate alternative/solvency mechanism.  I have voted on the K and have no unique pre-disposition against them. On Speed: Overall speed is okay.  Usually I find that an increase in speed leads to a decrease in clarity.  Most times speed is unnecessary but again it is your strategic choice. On NFA-LD: here the rules are much more explicit and I will vote where the rules tell me to.  This does not mean I will outright intervene, but it does mean that I will have a higher propensity to vote on procedurals that are run when the rules are violated.  For example if there is a position about speed, then the chance that I will vote on it is high unless there’s some brilliant response.

Ashley Givens - CSULA

Bear Saulet - El Camino

Ben Reid - UT-Tyler

Ben Reid—The University of Texas at Tyler 1 year of bad high school LD in KCMO. 4 years of college Parli (and some LD), mostly at McKendree University. OVERVIEW When it comes to evaluating the substantive debate, I generally imagine myself as a policymaker. In an ideal world, the affirmative would defend the imagined implementation of a topical plan text, and the negative would defend either the status quo or a competitive (preferably functionally and textually) counterplan. That said, my role as a policymaker is subordinate to my role as an observer and participant in a game. Thus, absent the establishment of some kind of an alternative judging framework, I generally default to evaluating topicality, theory and other procedurals first. Beyond that, the substantive debate will be evaluated based on how it shakes out. While it goes without saying at this point, what you are reading are only my predilections and preferences regarding judging parliamentary debates. I do not want to impose my views about debate on anyone else unilaterally. That means you should do everything you can to make my decision calculus simple and clear. This is especially true if you’re out of my wheelhouse. I will work hard, but there’s a limit to my prowess that hovers somewhere around the point of “mildly clever”. Decisions are made based upon specific comparative impact and link analysis work done in the PMR and negative block. Unfortunately, I find that specific, logical impact analysis is often overlooked, and this makes me sad, because it's usually the most interesting and important part of a debate. Developmentally, my biggest influences were probably Cory Freivogel, Jeff Jones, and Kyle Dennis. These influences often varied by subject area, but that may well give you some insight into how I like to approach these issues. TOPICALITY Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. The affirmative does not get to win because they read a topical affirmative. Topicality is probably always a question of competing interpretations. I've yet to hear an argument for why reasonability is a preferable topicality framework, and I'm still not sure I've heard a logical explanation of what reasonability would even mean in this context. This means you need to do work on the standards debate. Standards are best debated like any other impact—this means developed stories late in the game. For those of you playing left of center—do your best to move in the direction of the topic. Despite the my unequivocal statement in the last paragraph, I can be persuaded that there is perhaps a reason not to be topical in the traditional sense (I would have voted for Emporia in finals of the NDT last year, for example), that struggle will be an uphill battle for you, not least because I often think of policy debate and parliamentary debate differently. As a general rule, play it safe, and see if you can get creative and do what you want to do while adapting your argument for relevance to the topic. SPECIFICATION Do not let (insert silly specification argument) be your A-strat. I think these arguments are largely anti-educational. If the MO is 8 minutes of spec, then something has gone horribly, horribly wrong, and nobody’s going to get much in the way of speaker points. I understand the utility of reading A/F/E-spec as link insurance for your CP/DA, and will (try) not (to) hold the fact that you read an LOC shell against you. If the affirmative unfairly shifts their agent in responding to the negative’s substantive strategy, then the negative will not be punished for going for spec in the block. This hypothetical example is probably the lone caveat to my distaste for this position as a judge. P-p-please don't do this to me.   CRITIQUES I'm not nearly as hostile to these positions as my competitive persona has lead y'all to believe. The reality is that I’m not hostile to these positions at all. It's true, I preferred to read DA/CP/Case strategies as a debater, and these positions are the ones I'm most knowledgeable about and comfortable evaluating. That said, I appreciate the educational and competitive value of critiques and want you to do what you do best and what's most strategic in the context of a particular debate. I think you should have specific link evidence in your shell. I’m not convinced that an alternative is a necessary component of a critical argument. Should you choose to forego using an alternative, then framing and role of the ballot questions must be clear, and instructional as to what the implications of a position are.  Should you read a critique that is inclusive of an alternative text, then the alternative should be clear, and utilize explicit, specific solvency evidence. The negative would do well to have specific blocks to common permutations prepared. You should probably know that in most cases, I'm not sure why the alt solves (and I often find that the perm solves about as well as the alternative), so you should make that clear (and make explicit differentiations between the solvency of the perm and the alternative). I believe the affirmative should be allowed to weigh case against the critique, which magnifies the importance of your alt. solvency evidence. As far as how the affirmative should respond—Cory Freivogel's expanded philosophy about answering critiques is generally the way I think about things. Too many otherwise decent affirmative teams lose K debates because the MG is preoccupied with answering the position line by line in a fashion similar to basically every other argument. This seems a waste of time. I like affirmative team's that try to engage the substance of the critique. I'm also a big fan of impact turning. The affirmative should not forget that they have an aff. For some reason, people need to be reminded of this. I want to be the very best judge that I can be. Unfortunately, we’re all going to have to deal with the gaps in my knowledge. While I cannot promise that I will make a perfect (or even necessarily a “right” decision all of the time), I can promise you that I will do everything I can to deliver a decision that is fair, impartial, coherent, and helpful. If it helps you at all, critiques of traditional IR theory are the Ks that make the most sense to me, so those are a good place to start. Be clear. Don't assume I've read your authors in the same depth you have, because I haven't. By now you’ve noticed that I devote more language to critiques than to any other section of my philosophy. Perhaps this is overcompensation on my part. I hope not. You should know that a number of “critical” issues are near and dear to me. I spend a lot of time thinking about privilege, race, sex, sexuality, gender, and social class. Justice is important to me. So I will reiterate the promise—I will do the best I can. DISADVANTAGES You should read them. Specific, intrinsic, highly probable, big impact disads with fast time frames are my favorite negative arguments. Reading them, reading them well, and going for them will make me happy, and that bodes well for you. COUNTERPLANS I tend to side with the neg in theory debates. Theory is most likely a reason to reject the position, not the team. The affirmative would benefit from reading disadvantages to the CP. You're probably better off not saying consult, delay or veto/cheato (though, if your solvency ev is good, I find consult less repulsive than the other two). Decisions in intense counterplan theory debates are tricky things in Parli. In policy, I default to thinking that the quality and specificity of your solvency evidence is the arbiter of legitimacy. Obviously in parli, this isn't possible. If the debate is going to be centered on questions of CP theory, then they should happen slower than most other debates. Like with topicality, interpretations should be read slowly twice to ensure precision. CASE DEBATE Good case debate is (I think) the most enjoyable type of debate to watch. If the negative has sweet, specific answers to the aff and a DA with good link evidence, they will likely win. Defending the status quo is a good idea. Anyone that tells you that the negative needs a counterplan to win is just straight up wrong. OFFENSE/DEFENSE Offense wins debates. I can’t deny this. That said, smart defense is better than stupid offense. I think your defense will legitimize your offense. It makes your offensive claims more appealing, and provides weight they might not otherwise have. I often reward debaters who make smart, defensive arguments an integral part of their strategy. I am quite willing to assess zero risk of something. A WORD ABOUT SPEAKER POINTS I haven’t done my due diligence in running down everyone’s speaks yet, but my guess is that I’m sitting slightly below average in speaker-point distribution. To this point, I’ve started from the assumption that an average speaker clocked in at 27.5, and have scaled up and down from that starting place in tenth-point increments. It seems that community norms have an average speaker earning slightly higher points than this. While I think this is just evidence that we ought to use some weighted system for in-bracket seeding and speaker-award distribution, I think it’s clear I’ve lost that battle. Because I don’t want to give the teams debating in front of me an unfair disadvantage, I will make an effort to find the community median, and adapt to it. Again, I do not promise precision or perfection, but I promise to try real hard.

Ben Dodds - Oregon

Name: Ben Dodds School: Oregon 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. 2014 NPTE 100% rewrite -- read me even if you know me I think honesty in philosophies is one of the best ways to advance the activiy. Let me be perfectly clear what I am trying to accomplish by writing this: I want to be the top preferred judge at every tournament that I go to. I have judged every NPTE since 2009, and attended each since 2006. Seriously, I want to judge all the debates, all the types of debaters, and I want to judge seniors one last time before they go save the earth. I enjoy nothing more than seeing people at nationals when they are at the top of their game. I will stay in the pool until the tournament ends, Oregon debaters left in or not. That is a promise that may be relevant to you filling out your form, I'll stay till the end like a hired judge.  While, there are people that I don’t think I am an ideal ordinal #1 for, I work really hard to make sure that I get better at whatever flaws are the reason for that, so give me a shot to be your #1. I will proceed to explain why I think I am a good judge in most all debates, and why you may want to consider me for your ordinal #1. The exact question: 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 – I did policy debate for the majority of my career. I ended with a few years of parli at Oregon. I think flowing is a very important judging job that I try very hard at. I will use my flow as the official scorebook. I think letting the debaters use their arguments to win is important, so I try very hard to keep my own thoughts out of the debate. However, where there are thoughts that I think are better served by the debaters knowing them, I will let them know them. In my opinion, the number one reason I should be your number one judge is that you will know how I feel about your arguments far earlier than other judges will let on. I will try my absolute hardest to make sure I have communicated to you what I am thinking about your arguments as you make them. I will use verbal and non verbal communication to get this information communicated. This season I have:  Asked for things to be repeated, asked for acronyms to be broken down, asked for things to be written, asked for people to be clearer, asked for people to be louder, asked for people to have more distinct tags, given people obvious signs to move on or told them to move on, and used other obvious nonverbal to verbal communication like: laughter and smiles, head shaking, exaggerated nodding and knocking, and even flat out telling folks that “I don’t get this, explain it better”. Do not be astonished if I ask you a question like that mid speech. I do all of this because I love you all and love good debates. I want to you be in my head with me the whole debate. I don’t think it is valuable for you to invest 25 min in something that I can’t vote on because I couldn’t hear. Similarly, I don’t want anyone spinning their wheels for 20 min when I got it in two. So, I really want to be your top judge, and should be because you will not have a question about where I am at during a debate, but if you would rather debate in blissful ignorance, I’m not your person. Also, there are things that I will not pretend to know about the world. I took the classes I took. Learned whatever I learned, I remember whatever I remember, but not more than that. There are issues that you, as undergraduates, know more about than I do. If there is a confused look on my face or I seem to asking for more explanation a lot, you have hit on something that I don’t understand. You should not just read this argument to me, it should be clear to you that you have to teach it to me. These two things are not the same. Your ability to know the difference is the greatest skill of all. Reading the audience and dialing your message to their knowledge base. If you have not educated me well enough on your magic fission technology, don’t get mad at me for voting on the argument that it won’t work. Still sound like magic to me, that’s on you. Any judge not willing to admit that there are things that they do not know about the world is lying to themselves, and to you. Strike them, pref me, and teach me your argument. I flow things in columns. I prefer to flow from the top of one page to the bottom of it. I'll be on the laptop, so '4 pages or 1 page' is up to you. Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Please describe your approach to the following. 1.         Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 27-30 I have given 10-20 30s in competitive debates of consequence in my career. Most of them are at NPDA/NPTE. Every year there are one or two people spitting pure fire that weekend, so no, I am not the "never seen perfect" type. Debate is subjective, while there might not have been a perfect speech yet; I have seen people debate without a flaw that was relevant to the debate many times. If that is you: 30. Beyond that, I will say that reward good choices higher than pretty choices. I’d rather watch you explain the double turn for 3 min and sit than explain it for two and then go for your DA for two. I don’t like contradicting arguments being advanced in rebuttals, unless there is some explicit reason for it. I won’t floor people at 27 or lower unless they are repugnant, and as articulated above, you’ll get to know from me verbally before I let you just bury yourself in bad. It is very unlikely that you will get poor speaker points from me, because I will let you know what you are doing that I like mid debate. I am like the bowling bumpers of non-verbal communication. You should be able to score pretty well here. 2.         How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Anyone can do whatever they want. I think this is the right forum for debating about things with claims, warrants, and impacts. I am not scared of arguments based on the titles or format that they are delivered in. No on can make any argument without a claim, warrant and impact. If you have those three things, I don not care what you title it, how you structure it, or really anything more about it. You do you. As I stated above, I don’t like hearing contradictory arguments advanced in rebuttals, as by that time, I prefer to hear one strategy that is consistent being advanced, but I will hold out for a well-explained reason that contradictions are ok. Not my favorite, but certainly a winnable argument, just like all arguments are and should be. If you claim that contradictions are ok, and have a warrant and impact, you have made an argument. If you win the debate over that argument, you will win that argument. If you win an argument, I will filter the debate through that won point. 3.         Performance based arguments… Do whatever you want. I think I would be a good judge to try new things with. I have voted for all manor of performance debate as it has come into parli. I have seen parli evolve from the K being a fringe argument to performance being acceptable. I understand the theory that is in play in this debate as well. I am down to vote for either side of every issue on this discussion I am your judge for a new performance that Ks debate, but you’d better be ready to answer debate is good, because I am your judge for that argument too. I reject the notion that the argument framework: Ks cheat, or the argument framework: fiat is bad, are all that different. Just two sides of a coin, I am totally into watching a debate about those two things against each other. I’ll also entertain Ks vs performances, performance affs vs. performance negs, or whatever other arbitrary dichotomy you have to make between schools of thought. They are all just claims, warrants and impacts to me. 4.         Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I require a full shell to vote on T. The neg needs to prove they have an interp that should be preferred, that the aff does not meet that, and that I should vote on T. I will default to that interp until there is a counter interp and/or an argument that says that I should not evaluate interps against one another (reasonability). I will default that T is a voting issue until the aff convinces me otherwise. However, no, I do not require “in round abuse”, because that is arbitrary. Competing interpretations debate resolves this entirely, if that is how T is evaluated, then the interp is good or bad in theory, not practice, ergo, in-round abuse is irrelevant. If the aff wins reasonability, and has an interpretation of their own, that is usually a good enough out. Now, don’t get confused, the reasoning for arguments about in round vs out of round have a place, its just in the reasonability debate, not just drifting in the ether of T is not a voter. Competing interps might be bad because they don’t force the judge to evaluate in round abuse over potential abuse. See, just a claim, warrant, and impact, placed somewhere relevant. I think case lists make good topicality standards. That encapsulates your ground and limits claims well. This works for the AFF and NEG. 5.         Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? This question is silly. You all determine all of these things for me. Do I have opinions on these issue, yes, and I will list them here, but they are hardly relevant to the debate, because theory is not a hard issue for me to just listen to you debate about and vote on. This is totally up to you in the debate, I promise I have voted on the exact opposite of everything I am about to say about how I feel about theory. PICS – Arbitrary distinction. Can’t be good or bad if it is actually impossible to define. This argument usually boils down to complaints like you should not get that CP, or you should not get that many CPs, both are ok arguments to me, just not likely a reason why PICs are good or bad. There is likely another, better theory argument that your claim, warrant, and impact would fit under more intuitively. Perhaps the problem is that the CP is only a minor repair (CP - treaty without one penny)? Perhaps the problem is that the CP is competing through an artificial net benefit that only exists because of the CP (CP - aff in 3 days)? All arguments are conditional unless otherwise specified. While the neg should state this, and I could vote on the claim (with good warrant and impact :P); "vote AFF, they did not specify the status". Or better maybe, "err AFF on condo bad, they didn’t even specify." This form does not ask my opinion on the actual statuses of CPs, but you are getting them anyway. I don’t believe that conditional advocacies are bad. This is the status I think is best: an advocacy that is competitive should have to be advanced. If there is a perm, the NEG should be able to concede it to make their CP go away. A non-intrinsic, non-severance perm to an advocacy is 100% the same argument as no link. If the AFF and NEG advocacies can exist together without repercussion, the NEG advocacy is testing no part of the aff, and is irrelevant. However, this is just my opinion, you do whatever you want. I have, and will vote on condo bad. If it has a claim, warrant, impact, it’s a winnable argument. If the impact to the voter is reject the team, so be it. A legitimate permutation has all of the aff and part or all of the neg advocacy. I will not insert my opinion on that meaning that the function or text of the CP in your debate, again, that is for you. My opinion is that text comp is an arbitrary tool made up to limit otherwise unfair feeling CPs that debaters have not been able to defeat with the appropriate theory arguments. Text comp and PICS bad are actually basically the exact same argument. They both arbitrarily eliminate a bunch of CPs to try to rid debate of a few. Artificial net benefits are bad is the argument that both of these poorly conceived arguments are trying to get at. You should not get the save a penny CP, but that is not a reason that we must use text comp or that we must reject CPs that include the plan in them. That is a reason to reject save a penny CPs, they are just hard to define. There is the rub on all theory, interpret the rules to restrict the exact set of argument that you intend to. 6.         Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Yes. 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?)? This question is just sad. It should read, if the debaters you are watching fail to debate, how will you choose? Well, here goes. I will order things: some Ks, some theory, other Ks, some AFFs, other theory, DAs and other AFFs. Don’t do this to me. Either make it clear that you all think the debate should be ordered the same, or debate about the order of these thoughts. If you let me choose, you have not completed the debate, and the decision will be based on something arbitrary, like me ordering issues on my own. 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")? I won’t. I also don’t think the things listed are as abstract and concrete as the question leads on, nor are they necessarily diametrically opposed. In any case, this question, as phrased, is another example of something you should not do to me. Either, make it clear that you all think the debate should be ordered the same, or debate about the order of these thoughts. If you let me choose, you have not completed the debate, and the decision will be based on something arbitrary, like me ordering issues on my own. I think both of the things listed in the question, death and value of life, are important. I could be compelled to separate them based on number of people affected. I could be compelled to separate them on the time the impact occurs. I could be compelled to separate them based on the likelihood of each occurring. I could be compelled that one of these impacts is reversible while the other is not. I could be compelled that one affects other policy choices while one does not. If there was none of that for me to sort it, I would say death is bad, because that is what I think. If you let the debate get down to what I think, rather than something you said, you failed.

Bill Neesen - Long Beach

Bill Neesen Cal. State Long Beach/IVC Years Judging Debate: 22+ Years Competed in Debate: 7 What School Competed at: Millard South/ OCC/CSU- Fullerton Section 1: General Information I think that debate is up to the debaters in the round. They the privilege of defining what debate should look like, but also the responsibility to defend that interpretation. I like Case debate (this is a lost great art), CP, DA, K and performance (but I really hate performance that is bad). I will listen to and vote on theory but you have to make it clear. Other than that I would say that debate is a game and I always play games to win and would expect you to do similar things. Also while I do not think that any judge can be truly non-biased and not intervene at all, I think intervention is a bad thing that the judge has a duty to try to resist as much as possible. Other things to think about: some people think that I am a hack for the K. While I have coached many great K people (or performance) I was a CP/DA/Case debater. This really does mean I love to see it all. I am a very fast flow. I hate lying in debate and would suggest for people to try to get facts straight. I do not vote against people who lie or make bad arguments (I leave it up to the other team to do that) but your points will reflect it. Well I do not mind critical arguments and think everyone can run them no matter the side. I treat them the same as every other argument. If they have a framework argument I will start there and see how I should frame the debate (and do not think I default crazy, many great debaters have won policy making in front of me). Once I decide how to frame the debate than I use it to evaluate the debate.  As far as contradictory K positions with counterplans I do not like it if the K works on a level of discourse as a reason to vote for the k. I have a hard time with the whole language is most important and what we learn in debate is best, followed up by someone using bad rhetoric and saying the other team should not use it. I do not just vote for it but I do find the whole you contradicted it so either you lose or the K goes away persuasive. I would give some warning before I talk about Crazy in debate. 1. There is a winner and a looser in each debate, just because you were doing something crazy does not mean you get to avoid it. I have very few things I get to do and I enjoy the power (I give winner, looser, and speaker points). 2. Bad performance is not only horrible to watch (which kills speaker points) it also is easy to turn if the other team know performance or makes simple logical arguments. This means that it needs to be prepped and practiced it is not normally something that just comes to you in prep and if it does you might want to resist it because they go bad on the fly. Having said all of it I have seen some amazing performances over the years and it was cool when they were good. I have an old school approach to T. I do not mind it and while it does not have to have in round abuse it is always better to have it.  To vote on it you need to win that there is a reason why what they did is bad and in the round the best thing would be to drop the AFF. As far as competing interps go I have a little rant. I do not know what else there is but competing interp. I mean both sides have their interp and the standards they use to justify it. In the end to win T you would have to prove your interp is the better one (hence the winning interp from the competing interps) and that topicality is a voting issue. I have no idea why people say t is about competing interps (because it always has been and will be) and I have no idea what that argument gets them in the round. I love counterplans. I have heard very few counterplans that are not pics (and they were really really bad). Topical counterplans are the best for debate and policy making because they are honestly the heart of most of the literature.  If you plan on kicking the CP I would put the status in the cp because otherwise you run the risk of the PMR getting angry about the kick and it is always messy for the judge at that point. Perms need to have text unless it is do both (because the text is literally both). Types of competition are interesting text seems a little weaker than functional but both can be good and lame too. I want to remind you here that even though I have told you about what I think about theory arguments I still vote on them all the time.  Even the silly argument that you only get one perm and it is always advocated (Yes cheesewright I am insulting you :P). I also think conditionality bad is a smart argument even if I don’t always get to vote for it. MPJ: My recommendation for teams is to pref me based on the people they are debating that weekend. I see people who are not fast or cannot handle the K (or defend policymaking) well and that is sad because they ranked me an A. You should rank me biased on what is most likely to win you rounds and I would never be offended by this.

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brian Norcross - Pepperdine

If you read nothing else read this: There is such a lack of explaining and warranting arguments at the moment that I am about three bad rounds away from just not flowing anymore.  At least that would make you explain your arguments because you would know you need warrants and actual explanation to persuade me.    While I know I am risking sounding like the old man who is yelling at the young kids to get off my lawn, here are my thoughts about debate, which you should probably take into account when I am judging your round.  The debates that I have seen over the last three years were all middle and high school students who were not debating in their native language.  Watching (and enjoying) these rounds led me to the following observations about debate, and specifically about parliamentary debate.  Debate rarely resembles reality; both in terms of the way arguments get deployed in round and also in the specific arguments that are made.  Watching two teams get a resolution and then watching both of these teams debate the merits of that resolution without everything ending in nuclear war was a refreshing experience.  There was something very nice about a good case debate, or a simple case / counterplan-disad strategy.  There have been tournaments since I have been back where I have not seen a single case argument, which while somewhat annoying, is probably just bad debate strategy.  Warrants and explanation for links are particularly important.  Living in one of the areas of the world where many debate scenarios take place, seeing links involved in those scenarios happen everyday, and then seeing nothing come from those actions, has only increases my threshold for explanations and warrants.  I find clear explanations of how the world works very persuasive in terms of taking out much of the link level of arguments, which makes it easier to generate the offense you need to beat the rest of your opponent’s case.  Since I have been back I have learned that the faster you speak the worse my flows become, and the likelihood of me making a decision that you are unhappy with increases.  So I will do my best, but take that as a warning about one of my limitations as a judge. The more I hear criticisms in debate (and particularly parliamentary debate) the more I am convinced that this format is not conducive to the argument.  Part of the problem is the limited time has made much of the explanation or the framework / worldview superficial at best, relying on the judge or other team to fill in the gaps.  If the explanation of the way you view the world is superficial, the rest of the debate generally follows the same pattern.  The time and speech limitations, the limitations of evidence, and just general practices have led to arguments that are barely warranted and poorly explained.  You also need to have a competitive alternative that includes what the world looks like after I vote for you.  If your alternative includes the words vote against the affirmative, that would seem to illustrate that your advocacy is just not competitive.  I am not saying that I will not vote for criticisms, just that I hold them to the same standards that I would other strategies, and given the nature of the arguments, fulfilling those requirements are incredibly difficult in a parliamentary debate round.    As a debater, I thought that all resolutions were policy resolutions, and years of judging have only reinforced that view.  I find fact and value cases to be races to see who can find the most examples, making them very difficult to judge.  I know how evaluate policy rounds, something that I still cannot say with any level of certainty about fact or value rounds.  Choosing how you support the resolution is always a strategic decision you get to make, but with me as a judge choosing anything but a plan would be a bad decision. Perms are tests of competition.  Counter-plans can be topical.  Because of the structure of parliamentary debate counter-plans need to be unconditional, and will be taken as such unless otherwise stated in the round (although why would you state otherwise when I just told you they need to be unconditional).  You should try and have reasons for theory arguments that include the unique structure and format of Parliamentary debate, which are the types of explanations I will default to when there are competing interpretations.    NPTE Specifics 1.     Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? -        27 is average with 29’s being excellent speeches.  I rarely give 30’s, they are reserved for exceptional speeches (I don’t think I have given one this year).    2.     How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? -        Critical arguments are usually weighed in the same way that non-critical arguments are, primarily because no one really tells me how to weigh them differently (or do so in a way that makes any sense).  Affirmatives can run critical arguments, but if you want me to weigh something differently you should probably tell me why and then how to do it, otherwise I will treat it like a traditional argument in the net-benefits paradigm.    3.     Performance based arguments… -        Performance based arguments have the same responsibility to actually make an argument.  Just because it is performative does not mean it is better, with the majority of my experience being the opposite, making the argument worse or harder to understand.  Simply, you are probably going to have to work harder to make performance arguments work, and given the time and limits on pre-prepared material, parliamentary debate is probably a bad venue for them.    4.     Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? -        My requirements here are pretty standard for a procedural, in other words, I am not someone who really likes to vote on T, or someone who will just not listen to the argument.  In round abuse is not necessary, but probably helpful.  Not sure how you have a T debate without competing interpretations, unless the affirmative teams just doesn’t meet their own definition, which would just be dumb.    5.     Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? -        Most of this is open to theoretical interpretation and argument, but anything but unconditional counterplans seem problematic because of the structure of parliamentary debate.  Overall I like it when you give specific justifications based in the specific debates (either structural, like parliamentary debate, or in round arguments).  Perms are tests of competition.   6.     Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) -        I’m not sure why anyone would care either way, however, I could care less about a lot of what goes on that does not affect either the arguments or the credibility of those arguments.    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 à Everything else   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")? -        I usually weigh them in such a way that at least one team is going to be annoyed, so to avoid that anger, I would recommend you actually weigh them yourselves.  If you do not do this weighing, expect my brain to do it for you, and that is both a really bad idea and probably not very predictable.  Also see the above on probabilistic impacts versus large impacts.

Caitlyn Burford - NAU

Burford, Caitlyn (Northern Arizona University) Background: This is my eigth year judging and coaching debate, and I spent four years competing in college. Please feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. Specific Inquiries 1. General Overview I think debate is a unique competitive forum to discuss issues within our rhetoric about the state, power, race, gender, etc. in a space that allows us to rethink and critically assess topics. This can come through a net benefit analysis of a proposed government plan, through a micro political action or statement, through a critique, or through some other newfangled performance you come up with. In that sense, I think debate is a rhetorical act that can be used creatively and effectively. Running a policy case about passing a piece of legislation has just as many implications about state power and authority as a critique of the state. The differences between the two types just have to do with what the debaters choose to discuss in each particular round. There are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. Thus, framework is imperative. I’ll get there shortly. You can run whatever you want as long as a) you have a theoretical justification for running the position, and b) you realize that it is still a competitive debate round so I need a reason to vote for something at some point. (a.k.a Give me a framework with your poetry!). 2. Framework This often ends up as the most important part of a lot of debates. If both teams are running with net benefits, great, but I still think there is area to weigh those arguments differently based on timeframe, magnitude, structural weight, etc. This kind of framework can make your rebuttal a breeze. In a debate that goes beyond a net benefits paradigm, your framework is key to how I interpret different impacts in the round. Choose your frameworks strategically and use them to your advantage. If the whole point of your framework is to ignore the case debate, then ignore the case debate. If the whole point of your framework is to leverage your case against the critique, then tell me what the rhetorical implications (different than impacts) are to your case. 3. Theory It’s important to note that theory positions are impact debates, too. Procedural positions, topicalities, etc. are only important to the debate if you have impacts built into them. If a topicality is just about “fairness” or “abuse” without any articulation as to what that does, most of these debates become a “wash”. So, view your theory as a mini-debate, with a framework, argument, and impacts built into it. 4. Counterplan Debate This is your game. I don’t think I have a concrete position as to how I feel about PICS, or intrinsicness, or textual/functional competition. That is for you to set up and decide in the debate. I have voted on PICS good, PICS bad, so on and so forth. That means that it all has to do with the context of the specific debate. Just make your arguments and warrant them well. Unless I am told otherwise, I will assume the CP is unconditional and my role as a judge it to vote for the best advocacy. 5. Round Evaluation Again, framework is important. Procedurals, case debate, and critique debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality/procedurals, then the case. Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team. (Again, this is only absent any sort of weighing mechanism for any of the arguments.) If there is a topicality/procedural run without any voters, I won’t put them in for you and it will be weighed against the case. I will not weigh the case against the critique unless I am told how and why it can be weighed equally. A concrete argument is always going to have a bit more weight than an abstract argument. A clear story with a calculated impact will probably outweigh an uncalculated potential impact. (i.e. “15,000 without food” vs. a “decrease in the quality of life”). But, if you calculate them out and do the work for me, awesome. If I have to weigh two vague abstract arguments against each other, i.e. loss of identity vs. loss of freedom, then I will probably revert to the more warranted link story if I must. 6. Speed, Answering Questions, and Other General Performance Things I’m fine with speed. Don’t use it as a tool to exclude your other competitors if they ask you to slow down, please do. I don’t really care about how many questions you answer if any, but if you don’t then you are probably making yourself more vulnerable to arguments about shifts or the specificities of “normal means”. It’s your round! Do what you want!

Chris Fleming - Whitman

Chris Pierini - UWash

Background: I debated 4 years in high school, 2 years LD, 2 years Cross X. I debated Parli at UW for 2 years. I'm now head coach at UW and been coaching the team for 5 years. This will be my 15th year involved with debate. In General: ·         My flow is strict and speed is fine. ·         I default “net benefits” if no other framework is engaged. ·        Read any textual advocacy twice (PMC plan, perm, K alt, CP, T violation, ect) or have your partner give me and your opponents a copy of the text during your speech. The last thing I want to judge is a theoretical argument predicated off of text I don’t have word for word. ·         I’m willing to do a “gut check” on absurd arguments to protect the academic value of the activity. If Gov makes an argument that a country does not exist to no link a relations DA that argument is not going to fly. I want to vote for intelligent and strategic arguments. ·         Terminal defense: Sigh…..at some point I guess defense can win you the argument/round. A “we meet” on T or 0 solvency because of a plan flaw, come to mind. 0 risk of a link is just hard to prove. Defense combined with offense is a much easier way to win my ballot. In fact I think defense is undervalued in most debates. ·        If you and the other team have agreed to specific terms before the round like say “we will provide a written copy of CP text if they provide a written copy of plan text”. I must know about it before hand, those ethical debates are nearly impossible resolve. ·        I think debate is fun. Don’t put me in a position where it’s not fun.  ·         POO's: Call them but I'll probably just take them "under consideration".  ·         POI’s: You should probably answer a question or two. If a team can not engage your argument because it’s unclear (usually I’m thinking of a T violation or wtf the K alt means) and you refuse to answer a question….I'm probably going to give a lot a weight to any theory coming your way.  ·         If you have a question please ask, I’m more than happy to answer it. chris.pierini@gmail.com Section 2: Specific Inquiries  1.      Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? ·         26-29.5 standard range. ·         Points are awarded on the basis of strategic decisions made in round. ·         I will only go outside of this range if you are horrifically rude to me, your partner, or your opponents. 2.      How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? ·         The “level” at which the K operates is dependent on the framework. ·         Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? That’s for the debaters to engage or not. ·         Kritiks are like any other argument, they can be run poorly and they can be run well. ·         If you start throwing out hyper specific buzz words (especially in your alt text) OR a melding of 16 different authors it would be prudent to define/terms and explain your argument more than going for laundry list links and impacts. 3.      Performance based arguments… ·         I will evaluate every argument made in round.  Isn’t all debate a type of performance? ·         I will vote for performance based arguments…if you win the performance should win you the ballot.   4.      Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? ·         My threshold for pulling the trigger on a theoretical argument, I would not consider high or low. However, you must have all of the right components to warrant the trigger being pulled. Winning your interp and standards without winning a voting issue pretty much means I’m not voting for the argument. ·         Make sure you’re going for and impacting to the correct voting issues. You should probably have reasons why education/ fairness/ abuse/ jurisdiction/whatever is an impact-able argument. ·         I don’t require competing interpretations to vote for T but it’s probably helpful. ·         I don’t require in-round abuse but it’s probably helpful.   5.      Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? ·         CP’s they are an argument. ·         I have zero bias for CP theory. What arguments are run is purely a question of strategy. ·         I think solvency isn’t necessarily binary. You can solve better or worse in a lot of instances. This means CP vs Case solvency is really important for weighing impacts.   6.      Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) ·         Absolutely   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?)? ·         Theory (either throw out the argument or reject the team) then I do straight net benefits: K or/and CP or SQ impacts vs Case impacts….in general. ·         If your losing a K framework without articulating how your K operates in the Gov framework I’m probably going to reject the argument as it no longer functions in a decision making calculus. ·         If you have specific scenarios, I’ll do my best to answer them but with the variety of how arguments interact I can’t reasonably explain every permutation possible.   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")? ·         Without argument interaction, PMs and LOs will be punished in speaker points ·         I have absolutely voted for positions like DeDev which went for value to life outweighing the nuclear war deaths and voted against when the warrants were not present. ·         If things are so diametrically opposed with ZERO argument interaction then my gut tells me I would default Gov as the Opp hasn’t presented a compelling argument to reject the Gov case. This has NEVER happened to me. Someone makes an argument which demonstrates impact interaction which I will evaluate because at this point judge intervention has become necessary to resolve the debate. I will intervene using arguments on the flow not my own personal bias. Basically, the better warranted or more logical argument will win out. ·          I give a lot of weight to specific scenarios vs generic impacts for reasons of probability.

Chris Reinhold - Clark CC

Colin Patrick - WWU

Colin Patrick WWU   Overview: I believe that the round is ultimately the debater’s to control. I will default to Net-benefits unless otherwise told to do so. The best way for you to win my ballot is to compare impacts in the rebuttal. Also, I would like a copy of all plan, counter-plan, perm texts. I’ve had multiple rounds this year where teams have referred to the plan text when making arguments and running procedurals/plan flaws off of misspellings and abbreviations on the written out copy. I feel that this is necessary in these hyper-technical debates. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given. Anywhere between 25-30, but usually around 26.5-28, unless something extremely offensive is said, or there is general meanness exhibited. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I’m open to all K’s run by either side. That being said you will have an easier time winning my ballot if you properly elucidate on how your alternative solves. Unless otherwise told so, I believe that the Neg can run conditional contradictory positions. Performance based arguments… Again, I am open to all arguments, just be clear. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? In-round abuse is not necessary for me. The reason for voting on topicality should be made by the debaters. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? The legitimacy of a CP should be debated out. Unless otherwise told so, I believe the CP is conditional. If you want to lock the Neg into something, then ask a POI. Perms are always a test of competition. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Don’t care. 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?)? The order of argument importance should be set up by the debaters. 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")? I will default to Net-Benefits unless otherwise told to do so. If you want to win on a dehumanization impact, then argue why that is the most important. If you want to win on a nuclear war impact, then argue why that is the most important. If this is not done then I will probably have to intervene somewhere.

Cory Freivogel - NPDA Hired

n/a

Dan Sietman - Wheaton

Bottom Line: Run your positions, and defend them. Warrant your arguments. Avoid fallacious arguments. I value probable impacts affecting smaller localized populations over apocalyptic ones. Weigh your arguments. Concentrate more on the holistic arguments than the line-by-line. I’d like to think that I’m one of the most fair-minded judges you’ll face. Background: I have a BA in Comm from Cedarville University. My program heavily emphasized public speaking, and so I am well-trained in argumentation, persuasion, etc. I hold a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I began judging in NPDA in 2003 when my wife was hired as the Cedarville University DOF; she is now the DOF at Wheaton College. Approach: I will try not to intervene in the round, but I am not perfect. I will assess the quality of your arguments; I will not necessarily vote for you on the basis of an absurd argument to which your opponents do not respond; you must both persuade me and defend your position. I will adjudicate the interactions of your arguments according to the relative weight you give them; if you do not weigh your arguments then I will do so according to my own standards. I believe in the legitimacy of fact, value, and policy debates, but feel free to run Tricot-Bad positions; you can win on nearly anything so long as you warrant and defend it well. I believe that in most cases “normal means” covers stock issues adequately, and in general I am willing to grant risk of solvency. I would rather hear how a policy decision will impact things like marginalized individuals, single communities, regional economies, or local conflicts than how it will prevent or devolve into a global extinction scenario. Presentation: NPDA’s ideal is that you present your arguments clearly such that a total stranger could walk into the room and render a decision. As far as ideals go, I think it’s a good one. Good delivery enhances your ethos and pathos. I am used to Midwestern speeds (slowish) but I can flow all but the fastest West Coast speakers effectively. Those of you who wish you could speed, but can’t, please don’t. True speed is both fast and coherent. On/Off Case: Case is as important as you make it. Remember that if you under-cover or fail to cover case, and if I don’t buy your off-case, then you lose. I value offence; simple mitigation on case generally won’t win you the round, but every once in a while a given round just needs a good well-warranted defensive strategy. Remember that “turn” isn’t a magic word; warrant your turns. Procedurals, CP, & Kritiks: I give Gov wide latitude under the right to define, but run T as necessary. K, including Gov Res-K is fine. Feel free to put an RVI on any a-priori position, but like anything else, if you expect me to vote on it, warrant it. Counter Plan can be whatever you make it in the round. Points of Order: By all means, call Points of Order in the rebuttals. They are your protection against your opponents. I cannot promise to protect you as well as you can protect yourself.

Dave Zimny - Los Medanos

~~ZIMNY, DAVE – Los Medanos College, Pittsburg CA BACKGROUND:  I earned my master’s and doctoral degrees in political science from Yale University and have taught college courses in the social sciences for 40 years, so I should be fairly familiar with the factual and argumentative foundations of most parliamentary debate resolutions.  I was a high school and college policy debater before there was such a thing as collegiate parliamentary debate.  This is my third year as an intercollegiate judge.  Over the last two years I have judged approximately 100 tournament rounds, including 16 preliminary and two elimination rounds at the NPDA National Championship Tournament. JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:  I am a noninterventionist; I will not reject or accept any substantive argument on the basis of my own knowledge or values.  In the absence of well supported voting criteria from either team, I will vote on the stock issues.  I firmly believe in supporting assertions with evidence, even in parliamentary debate.  Examples and hard data will go a long way toward persuading me.  I prefer adherence to the trichotomy; if you choose to argue a value proposition as policy, be sure to justify your choice. PRESENTATION:  Debate is a speech activity.  Unclear locution and garbled syntax will definitely cost you speaker’s points, and they could cost you my vote if I’m unable to understand your arguments.  Speed generally doesn’t bother me.  If I can’t follow your speech, I’ll let you know by saying, “Clear, please.”  I will always try to rule on points of order rather than taking them under consideration, to minimize uncertainty for both teams.  Prompting your partner is allowable, but excessive prompting will reduce speaker’s points.  I have no objections to sitting while speaking.  As with any competitive activity, good sportsmanship will be much appreciated, and a touch of wit will definitely garner you more speaker’s points.  I will award 24-26 speaker's points for competent presentation, 27-28 points for above average presentation, and 29-30 points for outstanding presentation.  I will never award fewer than 20 points. PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS:  I am open to topicality arguments, critiques and counterplans based on logical analysis of the Government’s case, but I frown on generic arguments of all kinds.  I will treat topicality as an a priori voting issue, but I will vote on actual, not theoretical, abuse.  I am more open to assumption and reasoning-based critiques than to language critiques. DEBATE THEORY:  Below are my personal opinions on some issues of debate theory.  I will never apply these preferences preemptively without actual argumentation by the teams themselves.  I’m there to listen to your advocacy, not make your arguments for you.  That said, debaters that I judge should be aware of my opinions.  I am generally “old school” – substantive arguments hold my attention; “metadebate” bores me.  I believe that: A counterplan may be either an actual alternative to the Government’s plan or a means of arguing competitiveness and opportunity costs.  If a counterplan is conditional or provisional, the Leader of the Opposition should announce that fact as soon as the counterplan is revealed. The Opposition should not present a topical counter plan.  I have no objection, however, to plan inclusive counterplans. The Opposition should enjoy exactly the same fiat power as the Government. Argumentation begins with the enactment of the plan or counterplan.  Neither team should base advantages or disadvantages on contingencies that precede enactment – e.g., particular voting alignments or bargaining in legislatures that might be required to enact a plan.  “Fiat turns the link.” The Opposition should not "split" its 12-minute constructive/rebuttal block, with the Opposition Member's constructive presenting new arguments and the Leader's rebuttal responding to the Member of Government's constructive.  This practice puts an undue burden on the Prime Minister's rebuttal. PLEASE NOTE:  I don’t claim to be familiar with all the recent developments in debate theory.  If you’re not sure about my knowledge of a particular theoretical argument, please ask me before the round begins. Debate is competition, but it’s also an educational and social experience.  Let’s all have some fun!

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 Airne - U of M

4 years HS Policy; NDT 3 years and 1 year LD in college Coached HS Policy, HS LD, HS PF  NDT/CEDA, LD, IPDA and Parli for +10 years.   Upadated: January 2018 and also on Tabroom.com The quick overview to my judging is really simple. I judge things on what happens in the context of the round and it is up to those in the round to write that ballot for me. If you do not write it for me then you leave it up to me and I do not really want to intervene in the round, so write the ballot for me. So use the rebuttals to write my ballot. Asking me what arguments I like is silly, run what you want and if you are winning it then I vote on it. If you run things I happen to not like that just means you might have a higher threshold needed to win it, but if you are winning it then I vote for it. I typically default into a policy maker, but I am happy to vote wherever the round takes me. Finally, I will openly admit I do not give the highest of speaker points when compared to others (26-28 is pretty typical) but good debate warrants higher speaks when it occurs. Any specific issues you want to know about continue reading or just ask me since I am happy to tell you. However, note I teach, research, and publish in political communication (campaigning) and gender (masculinties, in particular). Those issues are difficult, at times, for me to step away from and while you are not debating against me as the juege, it can make it more difficult for me to evaluate the argument because it those issues are ingrained in my head and I see them in different ways that you may be arguing those issues (especially in Parli since we do not have access to evidence, but in evidence based forms that is different). That does not mean that you cannot run those certain positions, but they get a differnet listen than other arguments due to my work in the area. Framework: If you have a framework be sure you explain how it functions for me in the round. Remember, I tend to default to policy maker so without a clear explanation of it I will use that lens in the framework. So you have to tell me how the AFF/NEG views compete with each other. Critical Stuff: Never have had any problem with it other than I do not like them run poorly and I am not a fan of running them in the 1NC with other contradictory positions so that you can pick which arguments are your winners. It does need to be well developed and explained, especially in forms of debate where there is no evidence that I get to read after the round. Otherwise, feel free to run whatever critical arguments you want but be sure you explain how it compares to the AFF or NEG so I see how it operates in the world. Doing those things make critical arguments always great to hear. Traditional Policy Arguments: All are fair game. Be sure that you give me some way to evaluate the impact and show me how it relates to the AFF/NEG. However things like "RVI", or "T is a voter for fairness and education" do need some form of explanation. Your unsubstantiated claims are not going to work so well against one that is supported and explained. Parli specific notes--Points of order: You are welcome to call them, but just know that they are all under consideration and that is how I will answer to all of them. I tend to feel that me ruling on them has to potential to provide some unfair advantage for the team and it feels like a form of intervention since now you know how I "feel" about an argument so I just default to the under consideration answer to avoid that perception/advantage one side might get from the argument. Any specific questions you have please feel free to ask and I am more than happy to answer.

Dayle Hardy-Short - NAU

Dayle Hardy-Short - Northern Arizona University Saved Philosophy: Background: I have not judged NPDA parliamentary debate this year--I have judged BP and Lincoln-Douglas. So my flowing is a little rusty. On speaker points, I look to such things as analysis, reasoning, evidence, organization, refutation, and delivery (delivery being only 1 of 6 considerations I made for speaker points). Thus, I virtually never give low-point wins because if a team "wins", then it has done something better than the other team (i.e., like had clearer organization or better arguments). Generally: Generally, I am open to most positions and arguments. I expect the debaters to tell me what they think I should vote on, and why. I appreciate clash. I will not do the work for the team. I believe that the affirmative/government has the responsibility to affirm the resolution and the negative/opposition has the responsibility to oppose the resolution or the affirmative. Such affirmation and opposition can appear in different forms. I feel pretty comfortable in my understanding of whether or not something is a new argument in rebuttals, and I will not vote in favor of new arguments--just because someone extends an argument does not mean it's new, and just because someone uses a new term does not mean the argument is new (they may be reframing a previously-articulated argument based on additional responses from the other team). I prefer debates in which debaters clearly explain why I should do what they think I should do. This includes explaining use of particular jargon and/or assumptions underlying it (for instance, if you say "condo bad", I may not necessarily understand in the heat of the debate that you're talking about conditionality versus something you live in; similarly I do not understand what “fism” is—you need to tell me). Do not assume that simply using a particular word means I will understand your argument (argument includes claim, explanation, and evidence of some kind). Please consider not only labeling the argument, but telling me what you mean by it. I will listen as carefully as possible to what's going on in your debate (I will try to adapt to what YOU say and argue). Do your debate, make your arguments, and I will do my best to weigh them according to what happened in the debate. I am not arrogant enough to think that I get everything on the flow, nor am I arrogant enough to claim that I understand everything you say. But if you explain important arguments, most of the time I can understand them. At least I will try. Topicality is a voting issue for me, and I listen to how teams set up the arguments; I consider it to be an a priori argument. I have an extremely wide latitude in terms of what affirmative can claim as topical within the scope of any given resolution. I don’t like T arguments that are ONLY about so-called abuse (indeed, I do not find them persuasive). I prefer that you focus on why the affirmative isn’t topical. Thus, I prefer in the round you explain why something is not topical (standards, alternative definitions, etc.), but you do not need to articulate abuse (which I define as "they're taking ground from us; they’ve ruined debate; or similar arguments”). I guess it does seem to me that if a case is truly non-topical, then it almost always follows that the position is unfair to the negative--as long as the negative came truly prepared to debate the topic. Thus, the negative does not need to belabor the point--say it and move on. I will assume your counterplan is unconditional, and if you think it should be otherwise, please explain and justify that position. With an articulated counterplan, then my job becomes to weigh the best advocacy with regard to the resolution. Please provide me (and the other team) with an actual CP plan text, so I can consider arguments about it as they are made (I really do prefer a written plan text, or please repeat it 2-3 times so I get it written down correctly). I certainly am not opposed to permutations, but please have a text that you can show me and your opponents. I am not opposed to critiques nor performance debate, but please be very very clear about why they should win and what criteria I should use to evaluate them and/or weigh them in the debate as a whole. Abstract impacts should be clearly demonstrated and explained, and concrete impacts need to have similar weight. A final note on speed and civility. I don't have particular problems with speed, but clarity is essential--clear speakers can speak very quickly and I will get the flow. I believe that debate is an important activity, both as an intellectual exercise and as a co-curricular activity in which we get to test classroom learning in a more pragmatic way (application and reductio ad absurdum), including communication skills and the extent to which arguments can go. The way we behave in rounds often becomes habit-forming. So show some respect for the activity, some respect for your opposition, and some respect for the judge. I'll try to keep up with you if you'll treat me like a human being. I will think through your arguments if you will give me arguments worth thinking through.

Dena Counts - ACU

I am the DOF at ACU.  I have been coaching Parli for the last 7 years.  For those last 7 years, I have judged on average 65 rounds per year.  This year I have been judging less but still should be able to keep up with you.   I vote with the better quality of argument. When I say better quality, I am looking for depth of arguments and warrants behind your claim. I attempt to remove my individual biases from the round and make debaters tell me where and why to vote. I understand that biases do seep into my judgments, but I do feel that I should make decisions based upon your argumentation – not my worldview. Probably, I’m more of a game player when it comes to a decision maker.  Love new and unique strategies. I really think almost anything goes in this thing called debate. I say "anything" as I don't like cursing, nakedness, or slurs, but strategy wise, you can do what you need to do to win. Know that I’m very expressive in my nonverbals. If I am getting your argument, you’ll know. If you’ve lost me, you should know from my nonverbals. I have only been coaching for five years, so there are times that super speed (not typically speed) can lose me. Again watch my nonverbals, and I’ll let you know. I flow, judge on the flow, and don’t do the work for you.  Use your rebuttal to tell me why you win and where on the flow your arguments overwhelm the teams.     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 to 30 25 to 27 means you need work 28 to 30 means you are pretty awesome   2.     How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   Kritiks are great from both Aff and Neg. Explain your framework, impacts and give me a realistic alternative.  I do think you need an alternative and it shouldn't bite your story.  No I don’t think when you run other negative arguments they should contradict other neg positions unless through the running of those positions you are trying to make a point.     3.     Performance based arguments…  Great.  Just tell me how I should interpret them, how they function in the round.     4.     Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?   I will vote on T but would rather vote elsewhere. To pull that trigger in -round abuse is typically necessary. Also, competing interp is necessary.     5.     Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?  CP’s are fine. PICS are fine. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t run argumentation of why PICS are bad though. Yes, ID the status of the CP. PERM the CP every which way you can. If you can think of a new way to PERM that would be super fun.   6.     Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)  Yes that’s fine.     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?)?  Topicality is first.  Then I look to Criteria or Framework to tell me where to go.  Usually it is impacts or turns on case.  I REALLY like rebuttals that tell me where to vote and WHY to vote.     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")? If you don’t tell me WHY your impact outweighs their impacts on timeline, magnitude or probability, you are gambling on my choice or priority.  I would probably go with concrete impacts over abstract ones.

Drake Skaggs - Puget Sound

Background: I competed in parliamentary debate for four years for Whitman College on the national circuit. This is my first year as a coach. As a debater, I read a lot of politics and CP/DA strategies, blippy textual competition and T shells, and Neitchzx,.ej,we and Neoliberalism bad Ks. General Information:  I strive to be the kind of judge that I wanted in the back as a debater: flow-oriented, without proclivities for/against certain arguments, and willing to answer questions at the end of debates.  I am fine with speed and if I cannot flow you/understand you I will tell you to slow down or clear up.  I believe that debate is a game and you should use whatever tools are at your disposal to win the game.  You are best served going for strategies you understand and are capable of executing instead of complicated arguments that you think make you sound smarter. Debate to your strengths and you have a higher chance of picking up my ballot. Just because I read text comp and Neitchzizekwekljmk doesn't mean you should, especially if you don't understand the argument. One of the most important things for me is impact comparison and contexualization. At the end of the debate, I should have a good idea of what offense you are winning and why it is important. Discuss your impacts in terms of the opponent's impacts (i.e. DA outweighs and turns case impacts because...). While I will vote just as easily on generic strategies, specific strategies are better for education in debate and also much more interesting. I will reward you with better speaker points if I think your strategy is unique and interesting. I love warrant comparison. Tell me why your warrants are more specific, predictive, etc. in later speeches instead of just extending your partner's arguments. I will protect you from new arguments if I assess them to be new. If you think the other team is about to get away with a new argument and its critical to your strategy, go ahead and call the POO. I think debaters should slowly read and repeat all plan/CP/alt texts and theory interps for the judge and provide a copy to the opposing team if asked. Jokes are great and will get you extra speaker points. +.5 speaks if you make 3 good pokemon references in one speech (limited, of course, to the first 151 pokemon. -1 speaks for any reference to pokemon after Mew). Other favorite topics for jokes include anyone involved in the Whitman debate program, how bad/how much of a hipster James "First Place" Stevenson is, and how much Lubbock sucks. Speaker points range is subject to variance as a result of the above comments about jokes, but is generally between 27-29.5 Theory: If you are reading topicality and you think there is a chance you will go for it, you should slow down on your interpretation and read it twice, same when you’re answering as the MG. Far too often T debates come down the exact wording of interpretations and the LOC/MG was unclear/too fast for the judge to get every word. I will listen to your T debates happily, though I prefer to hear substance debate if it’s a viable strategy. I would say my threshold for voting on T is lower than many in the community; if you’re winning a controlling standard and effectively arguing why it’s the controlling standard, I have no problems pulling the trigger for you. I am amenable to all other theory arguments except spec unless you didn’t get a question, in which case you should read “you have to take a question” as a procedural instead, I’m much more likely to vote on that. It’s an uphill battle to win that one conditional counterplan is bad. Abusive PICS should have PICS bad/textual competition read against them. Kritiks: While I enjoy the K debate, I understand it better from a debate point of view than a literature point of view. I might even be worse read than Nick Robinson. What this means is that you need to be clear in the shell of your criticism, especially the alternative. Don’t assume I know what Heidegger says about Being, because I don’t. This doesn’t mean I’m stupid; I can grasp philosophical concepts as long as they are clearly explained. Real-world examples and big-picture moments will make me much more likely to vote for your K. When responding to the K, I think you are best off reading impact and alt solvency turns, and I love a good perm debate. Counterplans: CPs are good. Conditionality is fine. Make sure you have case-specific solvency. As an MG, make sure you create a substantial solvency deficit to the counterplan. I will assess that counterplan has durable fiat EVEN IF the aff reads arguments that say counterplan would never happen IRL (e.g., aff reads USFG should send Jimmy Carter somewhere, neg reads non-US organization should send Jimmy Carter somewhere, MG response "Jimmy Carter is usually associated with US policy and wouldn't travel with non-US organization" is not a responsive argument). DAs: DAs are good. Make sure your story is comprehensible coming out of the LOC shell; a good way to do this is to have summary phrases explaining the general thesis of the Uq/L/IL/Impx every step of the way if you think the DA is more complicated than normal. DAs that turn case are a good idea. DAs that are only competitive because of your PIC out of a tiny portion of the aff are a less good idea. I am in favor of more complete explanations of the status of bills in Politics scenarios, by which I mean I want you to tell me where the bill is (i.e. passed the House, in Senate committee etc.).

Emily Sheldon - UNR

Gary Rybold - IVC

Judging philosophy for Professor Gary Rybold   <h1>Retired Director of Forensics – Irvine Valley College</h1>       I debated for four years of high school and four years of college.  I coached for 25 years (primarily at community colleges).  Typically, in an average year, I judged over 25 rounds.  Many years I coached both parliamentary and policy debate (but not since 2003). I view myself primarily as an educator in this activity.  My great respect for academic debate comes from a traditional approach to coaching, judging, and following the rules. However, I will try my best not to prejudge your specific way of debating. Although I will listen to new ideas, please do not think I will necessarily like/understand them. Merely uttering a term and assuming its impact or how it functions will not be your best strategy in the round. This is what I would like debaters to know: PREFERENCES – I hold that there is value in debating various types of propositions (not just policies).  I think that most fact propositional debates are misplaced (and may require me to activate my knowledge to provide a check on the evidence for the positions advanced).  I also feel that as a community we have lessened (perhaps intentionally) our ability to effectively debate value propositions.  Still, I will try to start my evaluation of the round on the basis of stock issues, dependent on the type of resolution, as they function in the round.  The key term for every team is justify.  At all levels should you want me to accept your interpretation of the topic, definition, criteria, decision rule, plan, contention, or debate theory you should explain the superiority of your position.  I love teams that refute before providing their rationale – clash is essential for high points. Therefore, the burden of rejoinder is the key element of my decision. I will listen to topicality should the government be unprepared to defend their interpretation (although it pains me to vote on trivial technicalities when there is little ground lost). Stellar delivery will get you extra points.  I crave solid organization. I desire wit and a demonstration of knowledge from the debaters.  Ultimately, I will vote on the basis of critical thinking skills exhibited in the round based on what you impact on my flow sheet.  I will like your round more if you avoid: rudeness, ignorance, destructive verbal/nonverbal aggressiveness, shiftiness, Ninja-like tricks, whining, style over substance, viewpoint discrimination, profanity, politics DAs and extending numbers not arguments. I know that there are too many topic areas and a limited preparation time, but please try not to utilize a distorted interpretation of the empirical dimensions of reality; it really puts me in a bind on decisions. CRITIQUES - A special note for those who care about critiques: I am probably a few years behind the trends. I disapprove of the tactic of pushing automatic privileging of any postmodern theory as the superior position, possessing the moral high ground over all other arguments (especially since I am a Christian). Therefore, please explain your position with solid justification. Let me know how the argument functions in the round (hopefully more than a non-unique DA). Trying to silence a team, because their language is boorish, seems antithetical to good debate and the first amendment. I have yet to hear a pre-fiat argument that changed me in a round (making pre-fiat just as illusionary as fiat for me).  Should you want to take the discourse to a micro level, please be advised, I will activate my own voice through the ballot. SPEED – I understand you may want to go really fast. But most of the gut spread parli rounds I see just don’t allow for a genuine development of ideas. Often it seems like little more than unwarranted tags being thrown out.  So, while I know intervening may be considered a violation of our social contract, I will just stop flowing if I can’t understand you (>225 wpm). Please don’t expect me to yell “clear.” If it gets a little too fast I may not vote against a team because of dropped arguments. Please don’t make me make those choices. ULTIMATE GOAL - As a community college educator I hope for an optimal educational experience in each speech. As the debate culture changes we should also encourage discourse that allows the evolution to be rational and civil. Our community should encourage higher values.  My hope is that all debaters will respect the activity so much that they would try to reach a bit further in the rounds I judge, so we can all fulfill our educational mission.

Geoffrey BrodakSilva - CSULA

My comments in this paradigm should be understood as the horizon from my point of view--not dictates.  I love debate because it allows teams to argue about what they feel is important. I have been active in debate for over 20 years at both the high school and the college level.  In that time, I have watched as 2 documentary film crews followed two separate teams on mine (1 high school, 1 college).  I have worked several summer institutes, coached in the Northwest and Southwest, started an English Language Debate League in Mexico City and continue working with the LA Metro League.  I am currently the Director at Cal State LA and have judged about 15 rounds this year. Many years ago I wrote an article about why I think the tricotomy, while conceptually helpful, fails to provide a fair and debater centered approach to topic interpretation.  I feel much the same way about the stock issues, where inherency plays the role of fact, harms the role of value, and solvency playing policy.  Like most of the policy-maker paradigm, I see significance and topicality as derivative of the coordination of other three.  That is to say, I will use my real-world experiences both in and out of rounds, and therefore cannot feign ignorance of their import. I do not feel that the ability to speak quickly is even close to one of the most significant things I have learned from forensics.  I can flow fast debate because I have been trained to, not because I enjoy the tactic.  I do not feel that rate is a substitute for making strategic choices. I believe that the negative has the burden of rejoinder and, as such, must respond to the substantive arguments of the affirmative.  I dislike the 1-off LOC because while tactical choices are made, it also necessitates a “going for everything” strategy that does not necessitate making strategic choices. I rarely vote on procedural arguments because they are usually pale shadows of a more important substantive issue.  There have been times when there is clearly articulated in-round abuse; but it goes without saying that the procedural argument trades off with another actual position, not a potential position. A counterplan needs to test the solvency of the affirmative’s advocacy, which is to say, it competes with the plan on the level of net benefits.  Both textual and functional competition have the possibility of fulfilling this standard, if they can demonstrate an opportunity cost.  Since uniqueness can be counterplanned, the status of the advocacy need not be unconditional.  A permutation is the plan plus any part of the counterplan--“Do both” is not a permutation. Kritik is a label to describe arguments that do not easily fit into either the stock issues or the policy maker paradigm.  Teams should feel free to use “framework” to ease this disparity, but not as a substitute for demonstration of an alternative.  However, I do believe it is possible to defend rejection as such an alternative. Points of order should be called if you are worried that a rebuttal argument is not being understood as new.  I will protect teams from arguments that create a new strategic field once rebuttals have begun.  In preliminary debates, points of order will be well taken or not; in out-rounds, points of orders will be taken under consideration. At the end of the round, the best arguments win.

George Talavera - Concordia

“The following information is probably relevant in some capacity if you find me in the back of the room.”  -Bear Saulet   Experience: 4 Years of Parli Debate: IVC 2 Years CUI 2 Years.   TLDR: I debated all of the types of debate during my time as a competitor; you should feel comfortable going for whatever you want.   Theory: Of all of the different facets of debates I find theoretical debates to be the most fascinating. You should have an interpretation and a violation that clearly explain the thesis of your claims. Your claims should be supported by impacted standards that explicate what fairness or education looks like via the violation. I generally believe that resolving issues about the rules are a perquisite to evaluating other portions of the debate. All of that being said, I think that theory debate exists as a space where debaters get to challenge one another’s actions and choices through a channel of fairness and/or education.   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. Do not mistake this with an unwillingness to vote for condo bad if you can’t justify your instance of condo.”  -Joe Allen   Offense/defense:  “Defense is the most underutilized tool in debate.  However, I still believe that the uniqueness controls the direction of offense in nearly every instance.  This does not mean that you cannot nullify the disadvantage or reduce its risk with effective defense, but I do not believe that you will win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate.  There are two scenarios where I think you can win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate: (1) The impact to the disadvantage is systemic.  Poverty exists in the United States.  If you win that the plan increases the economy and decreases poverty, then this is a tangible, offensive impact.  (2) If you add a systemic impact as a part of your link turns.  If you lose the uniqueness debate on helping the economy where the impact is nuclear war, you will not win offense.  However, if you contextualize your link turn with an argument that any increase in the economy helps reduce poverty, then you can theoretically make the link turn an offensive argument.  Argument comparison is necessary in all debates, but I cannot stress how important they are in nuanced debates like I just described.” -Kevin Calderwood       Politics: I don’t want to exclude you and your choices of what arguments you can run but I WOULD REALLY PREFER YOU NOT READ THESE DA’s in front of me.   DAT K DEBATE THOUGH: “I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link and what is the impact, how does that team resolve the impact? Functionally all the framework page does is provide impact calculus, it just explains ahead of time which impacts should be evaluated and which shouldn't so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation and if you really want to make me happy that ROB will be your FW interpretation. Beyond that, I prefer kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the world from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to define some of those concepts on a thesis page of some sort. Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. If you're reading framework arguments about the resolution being a springboard then your interpretation of how to be topical should be different, right? Beyond that affirmative kritiks still need to read links, which should link to the topic or activity directly. Teams that want to have performance debates: Go for it. Read some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify. Teams that don't want to have performance debates: I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while most of those are theoretical and frameworked arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of the performance and thesis of their claim at some point.”  -Zach Moss

Isaac Mayeux - Cedarville

Isaac Mayeux Judging Philosophy   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 debated for two years with Cedarville University from 2006 to 2008. I’m an English professor now, so I like stories. I also enjoy literary theory, so I’m familiar with some of the theorists people use as the basis of their kritiks. This is my first year as a judge, and I’ve been to Mile High, Webster, Wheaton, and Loyola so far.   Tabula Rasa is probably the most important concept to me as a debate judge. I don’t plan on voting anyone down because I find their argument morally repugnant. It’s the job of the debaters to tell me why or why not a certain position is morally acceptable. Aside from the basic rules of NPDA, such as protecting from new arguments during the rebuttal speeches, I view everything in the debate round as a set of conventions and preferences. As such, I’ll listen to, flow, and vote on just about any argument. For example, I have voted on counterplans that I felt were abusive because the affirmative did nothing to show me why the counterplan was abusive. Within the framework of the NPDA rules, do whatever you want; just be polite to others.    Speed should be fine. I’ll tell you if you’re going too fast or if you’re unclear, but I've judged a number of high-level rounds and I haven’t done this so far.   Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.   Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given.   I tend give 26-27 points for speeches that I think are decent. A 28 signifies a really good speech, while a 29 means the speech was excellent. If I give a 30, I probably think this speech was nearly perfect; a 30 is probably also a funny speech.   How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?    I appreciate a well-run kritik, but I probably won’t vote on it without solid examples of how the other team bites the K. I see no reason why the affirmative couldn’t run a critical argument, whether it’s a kritik or a critically framed affirmative. I do think it’s a problem if a negative bites its own K, but I wouldn’t vote on that without the affirmative making that argument and supplying examples of how the negative bites. Overall, I’d say that the negative should do their best to put arguments on case without biting their own K. For instance, if part of the K is that impacts are bad (I’ve heard this with Camus, Baudrillard, and maybe Becker), the negative team should probably avoid using impacts in the round.   Performance based arguments… I personally would probably rather not see performance-based arguments, but I’m open to them nonetheless.   Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?    I would be willing to vote on topicality as long as the negative proves that the affirmative can’t uphold the resolution with its interpretation. Proving abuse makes that argument much stronger, of course. I don’t see how I can vote on T without an example of what the interpretation should have been, so competing interpretations seem rather important.   Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?   PICs are typically fine, but I have seen cases where a PIC is somewhat abusive. For instance, if we’re talking about a bill in congress with hundreds of pages and you remove a single page, then that might be a problem. Identifying the status of the counterplan is generally a good idea. Functional competition is inherently important. Textual competition is less important to me. If a counterplan isn’t textually competitive and it causes abuse, then the affirmative can make those arguments about why I should vote on abuse.   Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)   As long as both teams agree, I’m fine with it.   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 would use the ordering laid out in this question: procedurals, kritiks, and then case.    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")?   I don’t think arguments have inherent weight. Arguments weigh no more than what the debaters make them weigh in the round via rhetoric. For example, if the PMC has a decent economic advantage but no one talks about it ever again in the following speeches, then that advantage stops mattering to the round. I’ll probably give the most weight to whatever arguments are most discussed. When looking at opposing claims, I’ll lean towards whomever has the best narrative. I don’t favor concrete impacts over abstract impacts or vice versa, but I expect debaters to tell me specifically why an abstract impact like “dehumanization” is particularly important compared to a concrete impact like “one million deaths.”

Jacob Stutzman - OKCU

22 years in debate, HS policy, NFA-LD, but mostly NPDA (judging for the last 14 years).  This year I’ve been in tab a lot, so I haven’t judged many rounds. I want the debaters to decide the form and substance of the round.  I’m not opposed to any particular argument or strategy that you feel fits the purpose of the debate. Framework debates are good, but rarely dispositive. Absent a specified framework for viewing the round, I default to whatever makes it easiest for me to render a decision. I get very frustrated by debaters who do not think their way through the round. This shows up when debaters don’t make connections between positions or go after obvious deficits in the other team’s arguments. If you can’t compare solvency of the plan vs. the CP or give me specific link analysis on the K, then something is wrong. On the flip side, debaters who do those things usually make it easy for me to vote for them. Smart debaters are the ones who take the easy ways out of the round. I’d like a copy of plan and CP/alt text. Perm text too, if possible. I tend to prioritize probability in impacts, so tell the better story on your positions. Regardless of how fast you’re going, I’ll let you know if you’re not clear. Please take into consideration the size and shape of the room and any other atmospheric factors that may complicate my hearing you. I prefer that you only call points of order on arguments that are likely to be very important to my decision. Calling points simply to disrupt the speaker or to contest minor arguments will be given very little leeway before I start docking speaker points. Absent punishment for that sort of stuff, exclusive language, or otherwise improper behavior toward your opponents, speaker points are usually 25-29, very rarely above that, and are decided based on the amount of enjoyment I get out of your participation in the debate round. Make smart choices and explain those choices to me well, and you’ll come in at the top of that scale. Don’t assume I know your lit on the K. Explain the warrants to me and make the links very explicit.

Jacob Jones - IUPUI

Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.) o  Parli debate 2 years, coach/judge 2 years Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) o  I accept trichot arguments if they are justified well. I am likely to accept resolutional analysis that takes a fact/value and turns it into a policy round. Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making o  Ability to speak will effect speaker points, but not actual outcome. The only way the ability to speak effects round outcome is how it applies to the clarity of the arguments presented. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making o  On-case is important to me, either by linking well the opp off-case to gov case, or by providing direct response. Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks o  I accept CPs, perms, Ks, etc. I will vote on T. Preferences on calling Points of Order.   o  Call “point of order,” Judge stops time and asks for violation, then asks opponent for response, then gives decision and continues.

Jared Bressler - NPDA Hired

n/a

Jason Hosfield - IVC

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.

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.

Jeff Toney - Pacific

Jeff Jones - NPDA Hired

n/a

Jesus Caro - NPDA Hired

n/a

Joe Allen - Concordia

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 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 an exceptionally 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. Do not mistake this with an unwillingness to vote for condo bad if you can’t justify your instance of condo. 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. 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'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 sad. 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. A good question to ask the LOC when they read their alternative is whether or not the plan can pass in a world of the alternative. 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. I am not principally opposed to severance or intrinsic permutations, but appropriate applications of them have a high degree of difficulty. Theoretical objections to them are a reason to reject the permutation, not the team, unless argued persuasively otherwise. 6) Failure to offer impact comparison. 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 silly during the debate. Do not take me too seriously. I vote for silly 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.

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark

Joe Provencher – Lewis and Clark   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 Gantt - Lewis & Clark

If you drew me as a judge, you’re probably thinking “Gantt doesn’t judge, he tabs tournaments. I have no idea how he sees a debate.” That is a fair statement. In fact, it has been a while since I have consistently been in the judge pool, so I should give you some insight into my philosophy. However, you should know that since I have not judged consistently in the past few years, I can easily be convinced otherwise on some of the following statements, i.e., make the theory argument in the round even if the below seems to indicate I may not agree with your perspective. I am always listening as to why I should evaluate the debate differently and I will vote on that if properly persuaded. I try to avoid intervention in general, but beware, we are all interventionists. Topicality: Yup, yup, run it. I will vote on it. In my pre-tab judging life, I was known as a T hack. I probably have a lower threshold here than most. I’ll default to competing interpretations and T as a voter unless convinced otherwise. Theory: I will reject the team, not the argument, if a theory position is won that asks me to make that determination. I am also open to listening why I should not do so. CPs: Love them. I think a well-crafted PIC may be my favorite argument in debate. If Neg runs a “Cheater CP” (delay/consult), I will still vote for the CP- it is the job of the Aff to show me why that CP is not legitimate. One theory position that is a hard win for me is text comp- I generally believe that if a CP has achieved functional competitiveness, I will vote there. You need case specific solvency to win here. I see CPs as opportunity costs to plan, so I default to conditionality as OK because there can be multiple opportunity costs to plan. Once again, win the condo bad argument and I’ll vote there. I have some qualms about that because that condo can be abused and hurt fairness (see perms), but from the pure theoretical side I have no problem with it. Ks: I love Ks. I do find, though, that as Ks have increased in popularity, they have decreased in their explanatory nature. Do not expect me to know the argument, it’s your job to explain (and if you do not, you should expect me to give Aff a lot of leeway in explaining your argument when answering it). Permutations: “Going for the perm” –ugh. Most of the time, no. Perms are not advocacies, they are tests of competition. At the very least, you need to explain to me why the permutation can be advocacy when making the argument, because if you don’t, I am going to default back to tests of competition- which means that if I buy the perm, I’m back to evaluating plan vs. SQuo. I am more likely to allow the perm as advocacy if Neg runs multiple conditional advocacies. Especially on K perms, I need to explicitly know how the permutation functions. Without such an explanation, I am much more likely to accept Neg’s explanation and reject the perm. Impact Calc: Teams underuse probability. If you’re able to utilize risk analysis well, you have a better chance of winning my ballot. In the rebuttals, in general, if you’re not weighing, you’re losing. Offense/Defense: Yes, terminal defense exists. It is rare. I do want a combination of offense and defense. You will probably not find a judge that values good defense more than me, but it is helpful to use that to leverage your offense, not as a winning strategy alone. Speed: I have no problem with speed. BUT- GIVE ME PEN TIME! Remember I haven’t been consistently judging for a while. If you’re going too fast/not clear enough for me to catch arguments, that’s on you, not on me. Civility: I like fun debates. A little bit of clowning done with a smile is a great thing. When it becomes mean/rude, expect your speaker points to take a gigantic hit.

Joey Mavity - NPDA Hired

n/a

Jon Agnew - Boise State

Saved Philosophy: Last updated: 24-March-2018 I have been involved in competitive forensics for 13 years. I am cool with speed as long as tags for claims are not cumbersome and difficult to flow. I’m cool with just about any argument as long as it is well warranted. I won’t want to hear “genocide good” “rape good” or similar arguments. Moreover, I’m not sure of all the preconceived biases I have about judging debate. I know I am more inclined to prefer probability and timeframe arguments over magnitude. But overall, the game of debate is however you want to play it. Just play it well and play it by the rules. Last thing, as a critic at the end of the round I prioritize arguments that have been denoted in the debate via jargon or argumentation as most important. I always try and work through these arguments before working through the rest of the debate. What I mean by this is questions of: a priori, decision rule, RVI, framework, role of the ballot, role of the critic, theory sheets….I try and resolve these kinds of questions before resolving other substantive issues in the debate. Question 1 : What is your judging philosophy? Background: I debated 4 years in at Hillcrest High School in IF, Idaho. I did 3 years of LD, 1 Year of CX/PF, and speech. I debated Parli/IPDA for 4 years at Boise State and I.E.s. I have been an assistant coach at Boise State since 2013. And this will be my 13th year involved in competitive forensics. Other Background: <ul> <li>I will default Net-Benefits/Policymaker unless told otherwise.</li> <li>I try to be as Tabula Rasa as possible. I don’t want to involve myself in your debate. I don’t have any preconceived biases about what arguments or strategies should or should not be deployed in any given round.</li> <li>I will vote for arguments I do not ideologically agree with every time IF they are won in the round. </li> <li>I am relatively okay with speed. I have difficulty flowing overly cumbersome or wordy taglines. Plan texts, Interpretations, CP Texts, K alts, perms, T vios need to be read slowly twice OR I/your opponents need to be given a copy. I find it difficult to judge textual questions in a debate round when I don’t have the text proper written down word for word.</li> <li>I am lenient to “no warrant” or “gut check” arguments. I don’t want to do the work in your round. I do not want to fill in the blanks for your scenarios. In saying such I will always evaluate a developed warranted impact scenario over a generic one, IF the arguments are won in the round.</li> <li>I think offense and defense are necessary to win debate rounds. I am also relatively lenient on terminal defense. If you win the argument that there is absolutely no risk of a link or impact I will evaluate it strongly. I want to hear intelligent, sound, strategic arguments in every debate round. The aforementioned claim strongly influences my speaker points.</li> <li>My high school coach used to always say “debate is a game you play with your friends”. I identify strongly with the statement. In saying such, please do not put me in the situation where debate is not fun, where any individual (partner, opponents, myself) feels berated, and please do not deploy obscene/vulgar arguments.</li> <li>POO’s: please call them. I usually reply “under consideration”. I’m not lenient on new argumentation in the rebuttals. Honestly, I feel this is important. I tend to flow everything in the debate round. Even if the argument is new in the rebuttal. I feel it is important to call these arguments. I don’t know how well my paradigm works with multiple judges. But ya, POO are ok and encouraged to call.</li> <li>POI’s: please do not get excessive. Teams should probably always answer a question or two. I will give weight to in-round argumentation regarding “you should have taken a question” on any sheet of paper.</li> <li>Speaker points: I tend to give between 26-29.5 at tournaments. 30s definitely occur. So do speaker points below 26. I tend to evaluate these via sound, strategic, intelligent arguments. Delivery/style is not the most important factor for speaker points. I have never looked but I feel like I give higher speaker points than most.</li> </ul>   Case: I’m cool with any type of affirmative strategy (mini-affs, K affs, performance, comp-ad). However, I want to know how your case functions in the round. Framework/RAs are very important. Advantages must have uniqueness, link and an impact. Aff’s should solve for something. Plan texts should be read twice or I/opponents should be given a copy. If you are running performance or a critical affirmative I need to know how it engages the round and resolution. For example, if you are criticizing—topicality, language, semiotics—I need to know how to evaluate these arguments with your opponents. I find these types of debate engaging/fun to judge, but I have often been put into a position where I do not have a clean and accessible framework to evaluate the rhetoric and argumentation in round. Additionally, I have always felt somewhat icky inside when my personal identity or the competitors has been attached to the ballot. If this is important to the round. Framework is everyone’s friend. I want to be as much as a blank slate as possible.   T/Procedurals: I ran a lot of procedurals arguments in college. I feel in order for me to vote on this position I need a clear interpretation explaining how the debate should occur, a violation explaining specifically why your opponents do not meet your interpretation, I need standard(s) to detailing why your interpretation is good and/or why your opponents do not garner/violate them, and a voter(s) demonstrating why I should vote for the argument. Again, please read your interpretation/violation slowly twice or give myself/opponents a copy. I really really enjoy watching good T debate. And vote on T relatively often. Kritiks: my partner and I ran a lot of kritiks in college. I need a clear and accessible thesis. Arguments that tend to be stuffed into kritiks (no value to life, K Alt solves aff, X is root cause of violence) should be well developed. Please engage these arguments on the case debate as well. I am familiar with a lot of the K literature (POMO, Frankfurt School, Lacan). However, I’M NOT AN EXPERT. I think a kritik needs a framework, link, implications, alternative. I am a fan of good kritik debate. I am persuaded by well warranted impact turns to K’s or compelling arguments regarding how the K engages the assumptions that inform the PMC. Please do not prove the “K’s are for cheaters” club by deploying confusing/absurd, and blippy arguments. CP’s: I am not very familiar with the ins and outs of CP’s. Functional CP vs. textual CP debates are usually educational for me. I say that because, I again, am not nearly as familiar with CP debates then K debates. I am not biased on any type of CP theory. I will listen to all types of CPs (consult, agent, delay, multi-actor, multiple, PICS). In saying such, some of these types of CPs are subject to very compelling theoretical arguments about their fairness and educational merit. I think solvency is very important for CP vs Case debates. I like to hear arguments regarding how the CP/Case solves or does not solve each advantage or net/benefit debate. Therefore, if the debate comes down to case vs. CP/NB/DA…solvency is very important for weighing impacts. DA’s: need uniqueness, link, impact to be evaluated. Please explain why the status quo changes post the affirmative plan. I enjoy listening to strategic DA debates. Well-developed impact and link turn arguments make for lovely debate rounds. Defense and offense is usually important to deploy in any DA debates. I find the interaction of these arguments critical in deciding the round. Please explain these relationships in regards to impact calculus. Like I said earlier I tend to evaluate probable scenarios over their magnitude. Politics debates are fun to listen to. I like well warranted scenarios. Additionally, I’m not a fan of perceptual IR DAs (they tend to be under-developed and lack warrants) but nevertheless I will definitely listen to them. If you have any other questions please ask. My email is jonagnew@u.boisestate.edu

Joseph Hykan - Whitman

TL:DR (skip it if you’re reading the whole thing) I think you can mostly do what you want in front of me.  I try to be objective, and I think I’m willing/capable of evaluating most all of the different strategies people like to go for.  I am not the fastest flow, the fastest debaters should slow slightly in front of me, I will attempt to issue verbal slows or clears as needed, but it’s difficult to do in round.  I place a very high value on depth and on argument interaction.  You must return to the big picture at some point, compare competing claims, discuss the importance of the arguments you’re winning, and weigh impacts.  I find I’m most likely to sit or to make a decision that one team is upset about when the work isn’t done in the block/PMR to put the pieces of my decision together for me.    I’m probably more amenable to voting on theory and to give heavy weight to defense than is the norm.  There are many critical affs that I like, but I do want a clear explanation of what the aff advocates/defends, and why that is a reason to vote for them.  While I really don’t like voting on cheap shots I do find it hard to just waive them away, so you need to cover your bases against all the little things.  I aspire to be an objective and hyper-detailed evaluator of the flow, and a judge that everyone feels comfortable doing their thing in front of, but I do have preferences/flaws/peculiarities and that’s what’s in the long version.  Updates New for Nationals -Regarding cheap shots (this is a significant change):  There are at least three rounds this year where I have voted on arguments I think were “cheap shots”.  Arguments with little warrant/analysis that are not very good, but when conceded change the outcome of debates (i.e. perfcon is a voter, you must give us a perm text).  I think so far this year I have been more willing to vote on these arguments than is the norm.  I think this practice is not in line with what I value in debate, and I want to handle these arguments differently at nationals. I’m going to be willing to dismiss arguments that don’t meet a minimum threshold of warrant/logic, especially if they were only very brief blips in the LOC/MG that were blown up later in the debate.  I can’t specify an exact threshold, and I still want to limit intervention, so it still is important that you cover your bases against these arguments.    - If I’m asking you for the order, I probably don’t actually care. I’m trying to politely tell you to stop taking prep.  -I think you should make the choice to either cede a debate round to have a conversation/forum/whatever, or you should contest the ballot.  I do not think it’s fair to ask your opponents to not engage in a competitive round, while still asking for a coin flip or otherwise hanging on to a chance of picking up the ballot. Experience I debated for four years in high school in Colorado, mostly LD.  From 2009-2013 I debated at Lewis & Clark in NPDA/NPTE. General philosophy I want you to have fun, and debate the way you like to debate.  I’ll evaluate the arguments made in the round within the framework offered, and hopefully resolve conflicting claims with comparisons and reasons to prefer that are articulated by the debaters. I want to limit my intervention in the debate, and I am not interested in imposing my own views about the truth of arguments or about what debate should look like.  However, I do have opinions about debate and about particular arguments, and I think it’s only fair to advise you of them.  Do not interpret any of the following as, “I won’t/will vote for x argument”, I still don’t plan to intervene; this is just an effort to share information and make this philosophy useful. Answers to common questions -Clarity/Speed.  I reserve the right to issue a verbal slow if you get too quick for me.  Honestly, if you are one of the fastest debaters on the circuit, you should probably go slightly below your top speed in front of me.  Especially if you are moving quickly between claims and leaving me little pen time. I also reserve the right to ‘clear’ you, although clear doesn’t necessarily mean you need to slow down.  If you were too fast or too unclear for me I will not spot you the argument, I will only evaluate what I have flowed.  -Regarding the K.  I like the K.  I tend to prefer, but not require, framework’s that include a clear interpretation, rather than a laundry list of method good/policy bad arguments that fail to tell me how to evaluate the round.  I think critiques are better when teams are clear and specific, and do not rely on author names or buzzwords.  I really don’t like when teams intentionally obfuscate what they are critiquing, or how the other team can respond.  I do not like Kritiks that are non-falsifiable, psychoanalysis K’s tend to be some of the worst perpetrators.  I believe that the most effective way to answer a K is by directly indicting the logic of the argument itself, and not relying on a bunch of generic perms/alt arguments, or framework.  Similarly I believe that the best K teams defend their arguments in the block, instead of trying to shift and run away from MG offense.  (obviously a strategic shift/collapse is good, but refusing to answer arguments that truly are sticky is not) I’ve said this in post-round almost every time I have watched a critique this year, so I’ll put it here too.  I do not think that Generic perm net benefits like the double bind, or juxtaposition, or generic alt arguments like “the alt is totalitarian” tend to be effective.  Good MOs have no trouble with them, and for these arguments to have real teeth you probably need to be winning other more central arguments against the critique.  I think you’ll be most likely to win my ballot by reading offense to the core of the critique, and contexualizing any of your more generic arguments as much as possible to the specifics of the kritik and the aff.    -K aff’s are fine too.  I’d prefer that they be germane to the topic (and in the right direction), but I’ll listen to your framework your and K of T should you choose to run them.  Clarity is particularly important on framework here.  What is your advocacy, and why does that advocacy mean that you ought to win the debate?  Clear interpretations that provide some level of brightline for me to assess who wins the round would be helpful too.     -Performance/”project” arguments.  (Sorry if these terms homogenize arguments in a way that isn’t ideal, but I need a way to refer to them).  These arguments are good, and important.  I want to support folks who want to run them.  That said I’m still working out exactly what I value in these debates, and how I feel about them.  Some bullet points of things I would prefer you do. -Be clear on what exactly your advocacy is.  -Explain clearly how the debate should be evaluated -I think setting up this debate in a way that allow opponents to engage on the method level is desirable -I won’t enforce this on my own in any way.  But I think there’s a strong case to be made that if your advocacy is totally unrelated to the topic that you should disclose it to your opponents in prep time.  I think forcing your opponent to prep for your performance and a policy aff generates a huge advantage for you, and renders parlis limited prep incoherent.  -Be clear about what your performance does and why that’s sufficient.  If you create real change tell me how and why that change is good.  If you simply expose problematic structures tell me that that’s sufficient. Answering Performance/”project” arguments.  I won’t say that there isn’t a framework shell that I would vote for, but you’ll have to be nuanced for that to get you anywhere.  I’m most likely to give high speaker points to folks who engage on the method level.  I will not be very interested in hearing you complain that this style of debate is inherently unfair. -Conditionality.  No strong feeling here.  But I will note that I believe many parli teams defend condo poorly.  I think ‘we’ll kick down to one argument in the block’ and ‘hard debate is good debate’, are especially bad arguments. -CP theory.  No big predispositions here. I think the more specific the interp/counterinterp, the better you’ll generally do on a position.  Generally speaking I’m open to hearing CP theory, but I think some allowances have to be made for the fact that parli has no back side rebuttal, and that the aff has a second-line monopoly on mg theory.  That doesn’t mean I won’t pull the trigger, but it means PMR second lines aren’t automatically golden, and that their quality has to be compared to that of the MO arguments and justified by the quality/depth of the mg shell.  -Text Comp: I’ll listen to it, but I think it’s just a lazy way of making Pic’s bad and other arguments, and not a coherent interpretation of what a competitive counterplan is.  Veto/cheato bad and delay bad: They aren’t autowins, but you’re in a very good spot. States: I think states is a far more abusive argument than people tend to believe.  PIC’s bad: I think this can be a very persuasive argument if the interp is specific to rounds in which the affirmative must pass the entirety of an existing bill.  -Regarding Spec.  I do not think these arguments tend to be any good.  They’re almost always normal means/solvency debates, which are not procedural/voting issues.  However I’m also not a fan of the trend of swearing at people for making these arguments and refusing to answer them.  Just read your answers. -Topicality.  These are fine debates, and I think people should go for them more often because they seem to frequently be answered poorly. I default to competing interpretations, and I think potential abuse is plenty.  I do not like arbitrary interpretations e.g. Military force means boots on the ground.  No it doesn’t.  Topicality is about the meaning of words in the resolution.  I think ground/education and fairness are poor standards as well, unless made in the context of the meaning of words in the resolution.  I think the Israel debate is fair and educational, but it’s obviously not the topical debate in every round.  The, uh… Trichotomoy? (is this still necessary?) I do not want to hear “value” or “fact” debates.  If you want to have to have these debates you probably should not pref me. -Speaker points. I plan on giving speaker points on the following scale; I think it will make me on the lower end of the spectrum, but I’m trying to limit that effect.             -26 Poor             -27 Below average             -27.5 average             -28 Above average             -29 Excellent             -30 Near perfect.     Bullet point things to know *New: I don’t like strategies where one team deliberately holds back on making their argument until the member speech (e.g. plan text in the PMC then sit down, than a new Nietzche shell in the mg).  I think these arguments are anti-educational, unfair, and really indicate a team is unwilling to have a real debate. I won’t intervene against these arguments, but I’ll be extremely compelled by responses indicating these strategies are unfair/uneducational/pointless.  -I find a lack of depth is a consistent problem in the debates I watch, including debates with very good teams.  If I am to consider an argument coherent, I need a clear claim, and a warrant, and an impact.  You must explain coherently the impact a claim has on the debate, or I will be forced to do that work myself.  A good example would be if an MG says on politics "Link Turn: Republicans like plan".  Unless the LOC link argument was "Republicans don't like plan" the mg needs to do more work contextualizing the importance of plan's popularity with republicans and explaining why that is in fact a link turn.   -Please slow down for theory interps, and repeat them. -Please also slow down for top level of politics disads, details really matter there too.  -Speakers must take and substantively answer a question if asked in the PM or LOC, and I will almost certainly vote on the procedural if you don’t (if there’s flex/cx the procedural ground is worse).  Generally speaking I like when people take and legitimately answer a few questions, but that’s tough to enforce. -You must give your opponent a copy of any and all advocacies.  And they shouldn’t have to wait for your partner to write it out, just have it ready before your speech starts. -I will protect against new arguments, but points of order are fine.  When calling points of order don’t be rude, excessive, or repeatedly wrong. -I am likely to give more weight to defense than I think is the norm.  If you’re really far behind on the link and internal level of a disad I’m not likely to just grant you ‘some risk’ and move on (absent you also being pretty far ahead on magnitude first impact calc). -I don’t consider arguments dropped if they are intuitively answered by other arguments in the round, although there is obviously some limit to what you can get away with.  Example: If someone drops a link turn on a china relations advantage, but extends the PMC link arguments as reasons why China loves plan, I think it is fairly clear that the aff has not conceded the debate about how china perceives plan.  The PMR can’t newly answer the link turn, but it’s ok to compare the strength/warrants/responsiveness of the turn and the link argument.     -The way we use the term dehum in this activity makes it largely meaningless, be specific about it if you want it to be important. -I have a pretty strong inclination to buy death > dehum, life is the internal link to value to life. -Etiquette: I love good natured banter, and I think tactful and respectful clowning/posturing is awesome.  I understand debate is a game, and one we want to win badly, but do not be a jerk.  Do not bully your opponents.  Do not be nasty, or personal.  If you’re debating a team that is much less experienced/capable than you, feel free to win handily, but do not excessively humiliate them or beat up on them.  -Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies.  If your opponent reads an illegitimate perm than your advocacy is competitive, but that is not a reason to vote for you..

Josh Ramsey - Pacific

Josh Melby - Wheaton

This is my eighth year involved in the wider debate community. In high school, I mainly competed in public forum debate. I have two years experience in parli. I am a typical flow judge but believe that presentation matters. I have a high threshold for low probability scenarios. I like government creativity so a simple t shell won't win me on topicality. I also don't like voting for blatantly untopical plans. I like hearing debate theory arguments; thus, I enjoy seeing good k-debate. I err gov often on perm theory so make sure your mutual exclusivity is air tight. I usually would default to opp defending squo if cp fails. Any other questions, ask before the round!

Joshua Harzman - Pacific

Name: JOSHUA CARLISLE HARZMAN School: U. PACIFIC   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’m a former debater so run whatever you want; however you want. My voting paradigm is tabula rasa until you tell me otherwise. Please be kind to one another. After you maintain competitive equity, do whatever is necessary to win.     Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.   <ol> <li>Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?</li> </ol>   27-29----To get the 30, you must clearly be the best debater in the room. I do not give 30’s every round.   <ol> <li>How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?</li> </ol>   You may argue whatever you want, but be able to defend it. If you claim in-round solvency or impacts, you better warrant those claims. Affirmatives have equal access to these types of arguments. For contradictory positions, again, be able to defend your representations if opponents choose to read theory.   <ol> <li>Performance based arguments…</li> </ol>   Give a framework for how I ought evaluate and I prefer arguments that allow your opponent access to the representations, however, I understand this is not always the case.   <ol> <li>Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?</li> </ol>   I require a definition, competitive standards, and voting impacts. If you give a standard, (don’t explain what predictability means) explain how your interpretation better upholds said standard (explain how your definition is better for a predictable debate). I think reasonability calls for judge intervention but if that’s how you want me to vote then make the argument.   <ol> <li>Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?</li> </ol>   All types of counter-plans are fine – until the affirmative tells me otherwise. All permutations are fine – until the negative tells me otherwise.   <ol> <li>Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)</li> </ol>   Yes, if they want to.       <ol> <li>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?)?</li> </ol>   The debate will answer this question. No one argument is theoretically “before” another until the debaters tell me as such. If T is A-Priori and the K framework comes before the 1AC, then I would evaluate theory, followed by methods, and then impacts. If T isn’t A-Priori and the Case gets weighed against the K, I’ll vote as such.     <ol> <li>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")?</li> </ol>     AGAIN, ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN INSTRUCTED TO VOTE OTHERWISE: Quantity > Quality Extinction > Torture Genocide > Dehumanization

Julian Plaza - CC

Justin Perkins - Palomar

Justin Perkins - IVC

<h2> </h2> <h2>Justin Perkins - Palomar College</h2> <h3>Saved Philosophy:</h3> Justin Perkins-Palomar College/Irvine Valley College   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.

Kevin Calderwood - Concordia

Quick Notes ---I prefer policy arguments.  ---You must take at least one question in every constructive. ---All advocacies in the debate are unconditional. ---All texts should be written down for the other team and repeated at least once. ---Framework is never a voting issue; it's a lens to view the rest of the debate. ---Topicality is always a voting issue, and is never genocide.  Spec arguments are never voting issues.  Permutations are tests of competition. ---I vote negative more times than affirmative.  ---I will err affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory (delay, consult, conditions, normal means, textual competition etc.).  Ask, and I am sure I can clarify this for you. ---Although I do not have a predisposition towards these arguments in debate, I find that capitalism is typically the best and most fair economic system, and that the forward deployment of American troops and the robust nature of American internationalism generally make the world a better place.   Additions to my philosophy (2014-2015): ---I tend to think that teams should not have to disclose.  My teams would prefer not when asked to disclose.  ---I believe it would be unwise to read delay counterplans in front of me.  ---I am flowing on paper from now on.  I find that it keeps me more engaged in the debate.  I might not have a complete record of the round, but research demonstrates that the ability to comprehend concepts greatly increases when taking notes by hand.  ---Teams that provide a warrant that connects their claim with their data are more likely to be successful.  This is really basic, but I think it is something that is done poorly at the moment.  Telling me that a minimum wage increase would reduce GDP 2% does not tell me why the reduction would occur.  Too often we are missing this key element of basic argumentation.   Additions to my philosophy (2013-2014): ---Be responsible and use the restroom before the end of prep time.  This means you use the facilities on YOUR time, not after prep time expires when you get to the room.  ---In critique debates, I would prefer that the MG answer the critique in either the same order, start someplace and work your way through, or just read your arguments as a frontline.  I flow the critique on one sheet of paper.  For example: answer the framework, links, impacts, and then the alternative; OR, answer the alternative, framework, links, and then the impacts; OR frontline your arguments (1: Alternative does not solve, 2: Link turn, 3: Fiat good, etc.). ---If you read a politics disadvantage that is not “the issue of our time” then you should specify the bill’s status and give some background about the bill at the beginning of the disadvantage.  On several occasions this year, I have heard politics disadvantages that were apparently on the “top of the docket” that I have never heard of before.  I consider myself well read on the news, and I doubt the veracity of all, or nearly all, of the claims I have heard about the “top of the docket”. ---I still believe that you must take one question one question in each constructive.  However, for me to vote on the (true) procedural that “you must take a question”, you must make a “good faith” effort to actually ask a question.  This would involve verbalizing that you have a question, and the other team categorically refusing to answer a substantive question about the debate.   Additions to my philosophy last year (2012-2013): --I like teams that spend a significant amount of time lighting up the case in the 1NC.  --I still think that I err affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory, but I have grown tired of the textual versus functional competition debate. I think that the legitimacy of counterplans I tend to dislike (process, delay, anything that changes the nature of fiat) is better resolved through objections specific to the counterplan in question (i.e. delay bad, etc.) ---I think teams spend too little time on the link story and spend too much time developing their impacts. This isn't to say that I don't think that having a developed impact story is important, but very little of it matters if the extent of your link is "GOP hates the plan, next..." ---I think that systemic impacts are underutilized, especially in economy debates. Recessions are bad.  Unemployment is bad.  These events have a life long effect on your physical and mental health that is ignored in debate in favor of improbable impact scenarios like resource wars, etc. ---I think that fairness is the most important impact for me to consider when evaluating theoretical issues (including topicality).  It is very difficult to convince me that education should come before fairness.  Not being topical does not lead to the collapse of debate, but for me, this is first and foremost a competitive activity, and thus I am most persuaded by claims about fairness.   Background: I am entering my thirteenth year of either competition or coaching in academic debate.  I have judged hundreds of debates in almost every format.  However, my approach to judging parliamentary debates is quite different, based mainly on structural differences.   As an undergraduate I studied international relations, and would classify myself as a liberal hegemonist (I believe that the United States should use its expansive power to establish free markets, promote democracy, and maintain peace).   In graduate school, I studied presidential rhetoric, with a focus on environmental communication.  I wrote most of my term papers dealing with the environmental justice movement, climate change rhetoric, democratic social movements, and Monsanto’s crisis communication strategies I will default to judging the round as a policymaker, and I generally prefer these debates to critical ones.  However, the best debates happen when debaters argue what they are best at.  If this means you are awesome at performance, then you are more likely to win than if you stumble through a CP/DA debate.   Working hard is the easiest way to win in front of me.  This means working hard in your preparation before the tournament and during the debate.  I expect you to be well read in the arguments you are running.  Lazy debaters are more often than not those that intentionally obfuscate the debate to confuse their opponents.  I reward hard work, and it’s really not difficult to identify those that work hard. I use should a lot in my paradigm.  This is a list of my preconceived notions, intended to help guide you in winning my ballot.   All of these considerations are how I think debate ought be, not what it is, so, they are obviously up for discussion. Offense/defense: Defense is the most underutilized tool in debate.  However, I still believe that the uniqueness controls the direction of offense in nearly every instance.  This does not mean that you cannot nullify the disadvantage or reduce its risk with effective defense, but I do not believe that you will win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate.  There are two scenarios where I think you can win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate: (1) The impact to the disadvantage is systemic.  Poverty exists in the United States.  If you win that the plan increases the economy and decreases poverty, then this is a tangible, offensive impact.  (2) If you add a systemic impact as a part of your link turns.  If you lose the uniqueness debate on helping the economy where the impact is nuclear war, you will not win offense.  However, if you contextualize your link turn with an argument that any increase in the economy helps reduce poverty, then you can theoretically make the link turn an offensive argument.  Argument comparison is necessary in all debates, but I cannot stress how important they are in nuanced debates like I just described. Framework: I find these debates boring and overly dogmatic.  Framework is a lens to view the rest of the debate; a filter for the judge to determine which impacts should come first and what their role is as a critic.  Framework, by itself, is never a voting issue.  It consists of three parts: (1) an interpretation of what your framework is; (2) what the role of the judge is (i.e. policy maker, intellectual, etc.), and (3) competing modes of impact calculus (i.e. utilitarianism, methodology, ontology, etc).   Debates are not won or lost on framework.  If you lose the framework debate, but win that the plan breaks down capitalism (link turn), or that capitalism is good (impact turn), you will still win the debate.  I find arguments like “fiat does not exist” quite sophomoric.  Most arguments placed in framework are really just hidden link/impact/alternative arguments that have no place in the framework debate.  Losing one framework argument most likely will not lose you the debate.  In fact, it is not necessary to have your own framework or even answer the other team’s framework to win.  Overall, I generally dislike “clash of civilization debates”, and prefer debates on the more substantive aspects of the criticism.  Critiques: I voted negative on the critique last year quite a bit.  I am much more versed in critical theory now, but if your argument is something you do not think I would be familiar with, take care, slow down, and be sure to explain everything a little bit better.  I have found it much easier to understand things the first time I hear them as a judge, but it’s still an important consideration.  I am not in the “alternative doesn’t matter” camp.  Having a real world alternative is important, especially if you do not win framework arguments regarding language and discourse.  If you win those types of framework arguments, then alternatives that rethink/reconceptualize/problematize the status quo are more persuasive.  Critique debates are more likely won by isolating that the critique impacts/alternative solve the root cause of the affirmative impacts as opposed to winning a silly framework argument that unfairly seeks to exclude the other team.   Counterplans: A counterplan or good case arguments are necessary to win.  Counterplans should be unconditional.  You should write a copy of the counterplan text for the other team.  You should take a question about the text of your counterplan.  Your counterplan should probably not mess with fiat (delay, veto/cheato, consult, etc.)  I believe I will generally err affirmative on counterplan theory in parliamentary debate (this is different than policy debate where the affirmative has more pre-round prep time, in-round prep time, and a literature base that limits down the number of predictable counterplans).   With that said, I am very much in the textual competition camp, largely concerning issues of fairness.  Case specific/topic specific counterplans are more effective, but I certainly understand the utility of agent/actor counterplans.  Permutations: A legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan.  Intrinsic and severance permutations are bad unless you win their legitimacy through a lens of textual competition.  Permutations should never be advocacies.  Multiple permutations are fine because there are a finite combination of legitimate permutations. Disadvantages: This section will focus mostly on politics because I do not have issues with any other disadvantages (that I know of).  Politics is generally boring and not well researched.  Links that are based on the process of the plan (i.e. focus, delay, using political capital) make no sense since fiat assumes the plan happens immediately.  Links based on the outcome of the plan (i.e. popularity, backlash, gaining political capital) are legitimate.  Defense is very important against politics disadvantages since they most likely contain small risk/high magnitude impacts.   Disadvantages alone are unlikely enough to win a debate, but those that both turn and outweigh the affirmative case are preferable.  Theory: All theory positions should have a stable interpretation, violation, reasons to prefer, and voting issues.  I find most theory in parliamentary debate to be behind the times (no negative fiat, permutations should be advocacies, etc).  If it has an interpretation/is an advocacy you should read it more than once to ensure that I have it written down.  I will not vote on a speed criticism except in the event that you are markedly better than your opponents and are using it as a tool of exclusion as opposed to a strategic tool.  Reverse voting issues are for lazy debaters. Topicality: This argument is probably not genocide.  It should be a voting issue.  I will judge this debate either through an evaluation of the standards debate or through a lens of reasonability.  Your interpretation should be grounded in a definition from the literature (or a dictionary) and should not be just an “interpretation” of the topic, like “back down = must be the WTO”. Specification: These debates are better conducted through a discussion of what normal means is.  Instead of defaulting to lazy debate by simply “out teching” another team on theory, you should engage in a substantive debate about what the most likely normal means mechanism of the plan is.  This is what we call a link.  I will vote on these arguments, but if you look at any policy backfiles and memorize those answers I do not see myself voting on these ridiculous arguments. Speaker Points: I will give you between a 25-30, unless you say/do offensive things (i.e. racist/sexist/homophobic, etc. language).  I start at a 27.5 and work my way from there.  My average was somewhere right around a 27.8 for the year. As a final note, I really hate cheap shots.  I also dislike having to decide debates on dropped arguments.  Most parliamentary debates are won or lost on the technical aspect instead of the substantive aspect.  I think this is unhealthy for the activity as a whole, and I will reward debaters who are willing to engage in the debate at hand instead of cowardly sidestepping in favor of a cheap shot.  I can’t stand “knocking” and find it completely disruptive.    Have fun, respect your opponents, and work hard.

Kevin Bryant - VSU

Kevin Garner - NPDA Hired

n/a

Kirsten McRae - NPDA Hired

n/a

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.

Kristen Stevens - WWU

Kristen Stevens Western Washington University Background 3 years policy, 1 year LD in high school. 3 years NPDA/NPTE style parli at Willamette University. I majored in political science and minored in philosophy. This is my 4th coaching for Western Washington University. General information and comments: - I will vote off the flow - The team that makes the most sense will probably win my ballot, so please, make sense. - I will default to a net-benefits framework unless told otherwise - Neither of us wants me to intervene, so please clearly tell me why to vote for you, and not for the other team - Please read all texts and interpretations slowly and twice - Please give me a copy of your plan/cp/alt text - Speed is generally not an issue, but if you’re one of the fastest debaters in the country, slow down a bit. I want to understand your aguments as you go, not just transcribe them. - Reiterating the thesis of each position throughout the debate will greatly benefit you. Do not assume that I totally understand your story coming out of the PMC/LOC. MO regional overviews are a beautiful thing. - Please prioritize and weigh impacts and evidence/warrants. - I prefer policy-oriented debates to K debates, but will vote for a K if you’re winning it (see below for specifics). I love DA/CP and good case debate relevant to the topic.    (From the NPTE Questionnaire) How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?             I am okay with critical arguments, and will vote for them on aff or neg if you’re winning them. However, I prefer policy-oriented DA/CP or case debates, and often find K aff versus K neg debates difficult to evaluate. I also much prefer critical affs that are topical, as opposed to, “we talked about x issue first and therefore win.” That said, if you’re at your best when reading a project, I will vote for you if you’re winning. Don’t expect to win your K on the neg if you haven’t tailored your links directly to the plan/aff during the PMC. If you fail to contextualize your argument to the aff and just read the generic links you thought up in prep time, I will probably end up voting on the perm. On either side please give me a clear interpretation of how to evaluate your arguments, and apply this to the arguments present in the debate (ie. indicate in rebuttals that your framework excludes x arguments). That said, I do not care for neg K frameworks that straight up exclude the aff and strongly dislike the specific role of the ballot arguments I’ve been hearing this year that tell me to vote for the team that best does something super specific that only one side is prepared to engage in. Instead, use those justifications to weigh and prioritize your issue in the rebuttals like you would normally.  Give me a little extra pen time for long/wordy alternatives (or give me a copy). Condo usually resolves any issues of “contradictory” positions, although the aff is welcome to make arguments about the implications of a “contradictory” neg strat. Generally, I think perf con arguments should be justifications for the perm. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?             I normally stay between 27.5-29.5, but I usually give at least one 30 per tournament. Being funny and making clever or creative arguments will increase your speaker points. Being rude, offensive, or exclusionary to other debaters, will decrease your speaker points. Performance based arguments…             Haven’t encountered these much as a debater or judge, so if this is your thing I might not be the best judge for you. That said, I will vote for a performance if you are winning it. Just please give me an interpretation for how to evaluate your performance within the context of the round. So if you want to tap dance during your speech time that’s cool, just make sure you tell me why that means you win. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?             Please read your interp slowly, and twice if you want to be sure I have it word for word. I think T is always a voting issue, and will default to weighing the argument under competing interpretations if not told otherwise. I will also assume T is an apriori voter unless told otherwise. Under a competing interpretations framework, in order to win T you must win an offensive reason as to why your interpretation is best. That means clearly connecting and winning at least one standard to the voting level. In round abuse is not necessary to win my vote, but helps tremendously. It’s cool if you want me to use another framework to evaluate T such as reasonability, please just explain what that means. Also voters such as fairness and education should be terminalized, and I prefer this out of the LOC. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?             As mentioned earlier, please read the text slowly and twice (or give me a copy). I think most questions of counterplan theory are up for debate. Personally, I think condo is good, but have no problem voting for condo bad. I will vote for PICS bad (or any other counterplan theory) if you win it, however I strongly prefer to hear substantive arguments over theory on the counterplan. Please specify whether winning theory means the other team loses, or whether that means the counterplan just goes away. I will default to the latter. If you are going to run counterplan theory, please don’t stay at the theoretical surface level. Prove that THIS particular use of the counterplan given the res and plan is bad. Also, tell me explicitly how CP captures case out of the LOC. I’ve been astounded at the number of debates I’ve seen in which this is never explained. Perms are tests of competition. Opp should probably specify status. If not, POIs should be used for clarification. If this is never established I will assume the counterplan is conditional. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)             Sure. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?             Procedural issues come first. After that I will default to the impact analysis present in the round. Unless otherwise told, I will evaluate kritiks second, and then case/other impacted issues. 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")?             Death is of higher magnitude and thus outweighs dehum.  Other Issues: Delivery: I can flow a pretty good pace, but if you consider yourself to be one of the fastest debaters in the country, you should slow down just a little bit for me. If you’re not sure if you qualify in that category, then probably err on the safe side. Or come ask me – I’m usually wandering around trying to find snacks. I’m also pretty expressive as I judge so just keep an eye out. Also please don’t lose clarity for the sake of speed. It makes me feel bad when I have to yell “clearer” at people. Disads: Run them. Topic specific disads that turn case, or politics. I can’t say this enough, MO/LOR/PMR overviews that reiterate the thesis of positions will help me enormously. Your line-by-line analysis will make a lot more sense to me if I have a firm understanding of your posititons.    Spec: I will vote for it if you’re winning it, but POI’s probably check. Points of Order: I will do my best to protect, but call them anyways. Etiquette and Misc: No need for thank-yous. Speak however is comfortable for you – sit, stand, lay on the ground, whatever. Take at least one question in your speech. Don’t be mean to each other - I love this community and want it to stay strong.

Kristy McManus - WWCC

I have been coaching since 2010.  I competed for two years at the college level.  I took a long break from forensics but returned when working on my second Master’s Degree in Communication.  I am currently the DOF at Western Wyoming Community College. I try to remain as tab as possible.  It is your responsibility to dictate what the round will look like. I put a lot of weight on the flow.  I will not “do the work for you”. CP’s, DA’s, K’s – sure!  Strategy is key for me but all must be done well and show understanding through warranted argumentation. Tell me what to do.  This is your debate.  Where should I look and how should I vote.  Impact calk is a must. T’s are there for a reason – if you need to use them – you MUST.  Otherwise, they are a waste of my time. Be civil – if you are rude, I stop listening.

Kyle Dennis - Jewell

Name: Kyle Dennis School: William Jewell College     I record nearly all of the debates that I judge on my MacBook. During the debate, you will see me creating position/answer markers so that I can easily recall any portion of the debate during my decision. I have developed a basic system to govern the conditions under which I will review the recording— (1) if I think I have missed something (my fault) I will note the time in the recording on my flow, (2) if there is a question about exact language raised by the debaters in the round, (3) if there is a Point of Order about new arguments in rebuttals, (4) I will review the exact language of any CP/Alt Text/ Theory Interp. Outside of those circumstances, I typically will not review recordings.   This new process has had a couple of important impacts on judging. I don’t miss arguments. I will take as much time to review the debate afterwards if I believe that I’ve maybe missed something. It has made my decisions clearer because I can hold debaters accountable to exact language. It does, however, mean that I am less likely to give PMR’s credit for new explanations of arguments that weren’t in the MG. It also means that I’m more likely to give PMR’s flexibility in answering arguments that weren’t “clear” until the MOC. I don’t provide the recording to anyone (not even my own team). Within reason, I am happy to play back to you any relevant portions that I have used to make my decision.   If you have questions about this process, please ask. I encourage my colleagues to adopt this practice as well. It is remarkable how it has changed my process.   If your team chooses to prefer (or, in the case of the NPDA, not strike) me, there are a couple of promises that I will make to you: I understand that the debaters invest a tremendous amount of time and energy into preparing for a national tournament. I believe that judging any round, especially national tournament rounds, deserves a special level of attention and commitment. I try not to make snap decisions at nationals and it bothers me when I see other people do it. I know that my NPTE decisions take longer than I will typically take making a similar decision during the rest of the year. If you spend 4 years doing something, I can at least spend a few extra moments thinking it over before I potentially end that for you.    I flow on paper. I find that I am more connected to the debate and can deliver more complete RFDs if I am physically writing down arguments rather than typing. When I watch my colleagues multi-tasking while judging debates, I am self-conscious that I used to do the same thing. You will have my complete attention. I can also guarantee you that my sleep schedule at tournaments will not hinder my ability to give you my full attention. I have made a substantial commitment to wellness and, if I am being honest, I have seen/felt significant improvements in my life and my ability to do my job at debate tournaments. Once again, you will have my complete attention.   Finally, I can tell you that I have come to a point that I am unwilling to categorically reject any argument. I have voted for negative teams with a 1NC strategy of a K, CP, DA, and case arguments (who collapse to an MO strategy of the criticism only) more times this year than I ever thought I would. Smart debaters win debates with a variety of strategies—I don’t think that I should limit your strategy choices. The debate isn’t about me. If we can’t embrace different styles of argument, this activity gets very annoying very quickly.   If I get to judge you, there are a couple of promises that I want you your team to make to me: Please slow down when you read plan texts, theory interpretations or perm texts unless you are going to take the time to write out a copy and provide it to me. Please do not get upset if I misunderstand something that you read quickly (an alt, for example) if you didn’t give me a copy. I will review exact text language on my recording, if necessary.   Please do your best to engage the other team. I like watching critique debates, for example, in which the affirmative team engages the criticism in a meaningful way rather than reading common framework or theory objections.   Please make all of your interpretations on theory as clear as you possibly can. This isn’t exactly the same as asking you to read it slowly—for example, a PICS Bad debate should have a clear interpretation of what a “PIC” is to you. I have generally come to understand what most members of the community mean by “textual versus functional” competition—but, again, this is a theory debate that you need to explain clearly.    Finally, please do not assume that any of your judges are flowing/comprehending every single word that you’re saying at top speed. As long as I have been involved in this activity, the most successful debaters have recognized that there is an element of persuasion that will never go away. I think that the quickness/complexity of many of the debaters have far surpassed a sizeable chunk of the judging pool. I often listen to my colleagues delivering decisions and (in my opinion) many struggle or are unwilling to admit that portions of the debate were unwarranted, unclear, and difficult to understand.   I have often observed an undue burden to make sense of 2-3 second blips placed on critics by debaters—this activity doesn’t work unless you help me to understand what is important. I have the perspective to acknowledge that if a critic doesn’t vote for one of my teams, that there is something that we could have done better to win that ballot. I would simply ask that you dial back your rate of delivery slightly. Understand that there are times that slowing down makes sense to put all of the arguments in context. The most successful teams already do this, so I don’t imagine that this is a very difficult request.   Other notes: I flow the LOR on a separate sheet of paper. My speaker point range is 27-30. I don’t give out many 30’s, but I am happy to give quite a few 29’s. I will protect you from new arguments (or overly abusive clarifications of arguments) in the rebuttals. I will be involved in all aspects of prep with my team. Regardless of what I would disclose, for me, clarity is your best bet. I generally advise my teams to assume that your judges don’t know what you’re talking about until you tell them. I generally try to remove my previously existing understanding from the debate as much as possible.   TL, DR: I want to make the best decision that I can, given the arguments in the debate. If I’m going to end your NPTE, I will do so thoughtfully and with my full attention—that’s a promise. Make the debate about you, not me. I love this activity and all of the people in it. I make a conscious effort to approach decisions (especially at nationals) with respect for the activity and the people in the debate.

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.

Lauren Knoth - Washburn

Currently at Penn State working on my PhD in Criminology with an emphasis on actuarial risk assessments at sentencing and victimization. Currently judging for: Washburn University Debate is a game. Each team will play it differently and ultimately you should stick to what you’re comfortable with. However, if you’re running identity/performance based arguments, you should strike me. Often I think these arguments replicate the types of violence they are attempting to solve for, they make far too many assumptions about the people in the room, and they are deployed in the wrong forum. More often than not, I will vote for framework arguments against these positions if you do choose to read them in front of me. My general preference is for a debate that embraces the topic. This does not preclude criticisms, but suggests that I would prefer topic specific criticisms. With that said, this philosophy is to make you aware of how I see the round in general, but the bottom line is if you win the offense in the round and can clearly explain this using warrants and interacting with the opponents positions, you’ll win my ballot. I also prefer debates to be civil and without any ad hominem arguments. If this occurs, it will be reflected in your speaker points. Preface on speed: this should be no problem; however if you are ridiculously fast, you may want to knock down to your mach 7 or 8 speed instead of mach 10. Clarity is most important, and if I can’t understand or follow you, I won’t hesitate to say clear. Developed, warranted arguments are also more important than a million unwarranted blippy arguments. Advocacies/Interpretations: two options – (1) provide me with a written copy of the text (preferred) or (2) slow down when you read the plan/cp/alt and read it at least twice. This is also important in theory debates. Too often a team has lost because they didn’t understand their opponents original interpretation OR the judge didn’t catch the entirety of the interpretation (Just ask Joe Allen). Really I do think the proliferation of texts is a good thing. Topicality: I need a framework for evaluating this argument, and without one I am likely to default to competing interpretations. Any other framework (i.e. reasonability) needs to be explained well. Other than that, I enjoy a good T debate and when done well I think it can be strategic. Theory: Overall I think there needs to be a discussion of the different interpretations, and like T I need a framework for evaluating the argument. It is up to the debaters to tell me if the particular theory argument is a voting issue, or a reason to reject the argument. One important distinction – thanks to my years being coached by DD, I do think there is an intimate relationship between aff and neg flex that often is ignored. Theory should be used to justify why you get to read specific arguments, not just reasons those arguments may be good or bad in general. For example, situations with large aff flex (insert whatever reason why) may justify the use of multiple conditional strategies (read: neg flex) for the negative. Including discussions of these critical issues is more likely to persuade me one way or another on a theory position. **One theory argument I am particularly compelled by is multiple worlds. I dislike when teams read multiple conditional strategies that contradict each other. At a minimum, if I’m not voting on this theory argument, I think it does justify severance perms from the aff (again read: aff flex). For example, if the neg reads a war with NK disad and a security K based on the representations of a war with China Adv, I think the aff should be able to “perm: pass the plan without the security representations in the adv.” If the neg is able to severe out of their discourse and reps with the NK disad, why shouldn’t the aff be allowed to do the same thing? Multiple conditional strategies can be deployed without these large contradictions.** Disads – yes please. Particularly if they are intrinsic. I understand the strategic choice to read politics in some instances (ask Calvin Coker); however, with topic areas and specific resolutions (i.e. pass X policy) I am more likely to be persuaded by a topic specific, intrinsic disad. CPs - Love them. I don’t care if they’re delay, consult, enforcement pics, adv cps, etc . I think each can be strategic and justified through NB. I am more persuaded by functional competition than textual competition. You can have this theory debate if you want, but I think your time is better spent beating the CP and NB. Ks – also fine. The biggest problem I have with K’s is the common assumption that everyone in the community is familiar with X author and everything they’ve ever written ever. This is certainly not the case for me. Criminal theorists I can get behind since I am immersed in this literature frequently; however other authors I am likely to need additional explanation for. This may be as simple as a clear concise abstract or thesis at the beginning of your K. This is also important if you are using author specific language that isn’t common knowledge. It may be strategic to slow down in the beginning and make sure that important terms or concepts are made clear early. Intrinsic k’s are preferred to the always linkable cap etc., but I am willing to listen to any of them. See the intro to this philosophy about identity based/performance K’s. ***Important*** I need to have a clear explanation of what the alternative does, and what the post-alt world looks like. Stringing together post-modern terms and calling it an alternative is not enough for me if I have no idea what the heck that means. I prefer to know exactly what action is advocated by the alternative, and what the world looks like after passage of the alternative. I think this is also necessary to establish stable solvency/alternative ground for the opposing team to argue against and overall provides for a better debate. Good theory is nothing without a good mechanism with which to implement it, and I'm tired of this being overlooked. Perms (CPs/Ks) As may be obvious by some rounds I’ve debated in, I love a solid perm debate. Perm texts need to be clearly articulated – slow down a bit and perhaps read them twice especially if it’s more complicated than “do both.” Do both is fine for me as a perm text, but you should explain what that means or how that happens. One last thing – IMPACT CALC. The last thing I want is to evaluate a round where I have no idea what should be prioritized over what, how disads interact with case advantages, and I just have a bunch of arguments randomly on the flow with no story or explanation. Rebuttals should serve to write my ballot, and if you’re lucky my RFD may be a quote from the LOR or PMR. I think impact calc is undervalued, particularly by negative teams. Probability, Magnitude, and Timeframe are all strategic tools that should explain why I’m voting for you at the end of the round. These also serve to clarify the offense in the round and provide a succinct explanation for your overall strategy.

Lauren Schaefer - NPDA Hired

n/a

Maclean Andrews - PLNU

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

Marie Arcidiacono - Los Medanos

~~Judging Philosophy: M. Arcidiacono Affiliation: Los Medanos College Years Judging: 3.5 Rounds Judged: 80-100 (rough estimate) Background of the Critic: I competed in Parliamentary Debate while attending California State University, East Bay. I have been coaching parliamentary debate since Spring 2011 at the Community College Level. This year I have judged approximately 30-45 rounds of parliamentary debate (I don’t keep track, this is a rough estimate based on the number of tournament my team has attended). Both of my degrees are in Communication/Speech Communication with an emphasis in Interpersonal Communication, which may or may not matter much in the round, but information for you nonetheless. On Decision-Making: I attempt to be as much of a “tabula rasa” judge as possible. I do NOT like to bring my background knowledge on a topic into the round. If I know that what you are saying is factually untrue, and the other team does NOT call you on it, I will let it happen (even if I don’t like that you’re not presenting factual information) because I try to also be a “non-interventionist” judge. Occasionally, I will have to do work for both teams, and if that happens I am a) not happy about it and b) probably going to put in my own viewpoint and background knowledge into making the decision and no one wants that. Tell me where to vote, tell me how to vote and tell me why to vote there. I do not want to have to do work for anyone in the round. I love CLEAR impact calculus in the Rebuttals. If I am weighing the round on N/B you want to make sure you’ve shown me how your AD’s/DA’s tie back to the weighing mechanism and how your impacts clearly outweigh your opponents impacts on Timeframe, Probability, and Magnitude. Of these, I tend to look at the order of importance in the following manner: Probability (if it’s not probable that your impact will actually happen, I won’t vote for it over another impact that probably will), Timeframe (if the impact occurs sooner than your opponents that matters, we live in the here and now, not the far, far away distant future), and then Magnitude. Speaking of Magnitude of your impacts, let me take a second to get on my soapbox: It really bothers me when teams try and impact out to Dehumanization and there is NO legitimate link to Dehumanization and/or they use the term Dehumanization wrong. Seriously, dehumanization does not occur because I didn’t get to cast a vote one time, or I didn’t get a new laptop. Dehumanization is a process that occurs over time via repeated acts against your humanity. I like when teams run actual Dehumanization arguments, not arguments that just magically lead to Dehumanization. On whether or not Dehumanization is worse than Death as an impact: You had better convince me with clear examples that one is worse than the other because you’re asking me to pick from the lesser of two evils here. On Stock Issues/On-Case Arguments: It is extremely important to me as a critic that as an Aff team you uphold The Burden of Proof in the round and meet your Prima Facia Burden. It’s actually a big pet peeve of mine when Aff teams just jump into the Plan Text without providing ANY type of Background to the round. I understand that you can provide the Background points in the Uniqueness of your Advantages, but I personally do not like having to wait that long to know what’s going on in the SQ that’s so bad that you are advocating for change. The sooner the better. I want to have clear cut Solvency articulated following the Plan Text as well. If you’re Plan doesn’t solve the problems in the SQ then I will vote on the Solvency Press. I like hearing Solvency Press arguments, however, if the Aff can convince me that they have Risk of Solvency of their Harms I will not vote on the Solvency Press. That “Risk” is a big factor for me. If there is even a 1% chance they can solve the Harms I will throw out the Solvency Press argument. I want warrants from both sides here though. FIAT: I believe that the Aff team does have the power of FIAT in the round—to an extent. Yes, you can FIAT that the Plan will happen, but I also believe that there are times and resolutions where the Opp team can argue, successfully, that FIAT is illusory. These arguments are AWESOME to listen to when they are run well. If you want to try it out, I’m your judge. On Counter Plans: I like Counter Plan argumentation. I believe that Opp teams can run Counter Plans and win the round. Just make sure that you have convinced me, without a doubt that your Counter Plan and the Plan are Mutually Exclusive and specify HOW the Aff cannot PERM your Counter Plan. One of the biggest things I want to see here once you have convinced me that the Counter Plan cannot be Perm’d is how the Counter Plan de-links out the Dis-Advantage AND provides an Advantage that the Plan cannot link to. Aff teams: If you want to PERM the Counter Plan I need to have clear cut argumentation on why you can do both and not be Extra-Topical. The Counter Plan should NOT be topical, but you can always run a Plan Inclusive Coutner Plan. Conditional/Provisional Counter Plans are fine to run, but the Leader of the Opposition needs to make that known ASAP when running the Counter Plan. On Procedurals: 1) The Tricot: I firmly believe that there are three (3) types of debate and that each type of debate is relevant and provide us with educational value. I will vote on a Trichot argument as long as it is a) warranted and b) ran well. Aff teams: If you want to win a Trichot argument you need to convince me without a doubt that debating the topic through a different resolution type is BETTER than the originally intended resolution. This argument is an aprioi issue for me as a judge. 2) The “T”: I used to really dislike the “T” because so many Opp teams ran it improperly and were too vague. That being said, I don’t mind the “T” when it is ran properly and you clearly lay out your Standards and Voters and provide specific reasons to warrant your Standard/Voter. If you are claiming “ground loss” or “loss of education” you need to tell me exactly what ground you lost and/or what education you specifically lost. Vague arguments here will NOT work in your favor. Aff teams: I love when you know you’re topical and you knock out the “T” and offer me a Reverse Voter. I love the Reverse Voter and I will vote for the Aff if they run this Voter well.  It’s highly under-utilized. I will vote on the “T” as an apriori issue. 3) The “K”: If you want to run a “K” in the round then by all means, do so; just make sure you have the theoretical framework clearly articulated. Do NOT assume I have a background in the theoretical framework, even if I do, I will NOT inject my personal background knowledge into the round. That being said, if you use a theory I know well you want to get it right. I am very interested in hearing Critical/Cultural Arguments and Gender/Feminist Arguments. Sidebar: Language “K’s” are awesome. I think there are some definite times where teams use offensive terms in rounds and I appreciate when a language critique is ran. If you run this well, I will vote for you. On that note: If you refer to people in ways that are deemed “offensive” or “politically incorrect” I will dock your Speaker Points. On Points of Information/Order: 1) You can call as many POI’s as you want and you can take as many as you want. My one pet peeve (and this will hurt your Speaker Points) is when you say, “I’ll take you at the end” and then don’t. That’s rude. If you won’t have time for it, let them know right away. If you have SO much information to get through that you don’t have time, you might not be using the right time management skills in the round. 2) Let’s all make sure that POO’s are handled correctly. I will rule as often as a possible without holding up the round. If I rule “under consideration” that means you should proceed with caution when it comes to your argument. You can call as many POO’s as you want in the Rebuttals—it’s your debate to win, or lose. On Structure/Sign Posting/Roadmaps: Clear structure is very important in the round—especially if you are trying to bring up the rate of delivery in the round. I like a nice, concise roadmap IF you are going to follow it and if you don’t follow it that’s frustrating so you had better signpost. If you are going to follow the EXACT same order as the speaker before you then you can just say, “Same Order” and save us all some time. I will not time your roadmap, but don’t think that’s an excuse to squeeze extra prep time. You get 30seconds maximum. On Speed/Spreading/Partner Prompting/General Delivery: I am NOT a fan of spread speaking in parliamentary debate. I will give you one warning if your speaking rate has gone past my threshold and after that I will stop flowing. Debate is a speaking performance and thus, should be presented in a way that a majority of people (i.e. non-debaters) can follow and spread speaking does not do this. Speed as an exclusionary tool is also frowned upon. If the other team asks you to be “clear” or “slow” more than twice you need to adapt to that and/or risk being labeled as “exclusionary,” and potentially losing my ballot. Note: If I stop flowing in the round because of excessive speed your ballot is in trouble. I do not mind if you prompt your partner. Just remember, that if you want it to get on my flow it needs to come out of the speaker’s mouth. I DO mind if you sit while speaking. This is a performance and speaking activity and that requires standing and speaking. If you choose to sit down and speak that might hurt your Speaker Points. Let’s all remember this is an educational activity and is essentially a GAME. Yes, there are big awards involved, but that is not a reason to be rude to each other in the round or overtly aggressive. There’s no need for big, over the top theatrics or yelling in the round. Foot stamping, hitting the lectern, etc. are frowned upon. Let’s keep it civil and as polite as possible. On Speaker Points: I usually give out points in the 25-28 range when speakers are above average. I try to not score you lower than a 21, but that has happened before. Ways to earn a score lower than 25: You have excessive filler words (uh, um, like, but, etc.), you are rude to the other team in the round, you are rude to me in the round, you disrespect speed warnings, your phone goes off (and it’s not your timer). If you want to score higher than a 28: You need to be an exceptionally strong speaker with clear articulation, assertiveness, politeness, and limited to no filler words. I like to give out scores higher than 28 when they are earned so give me a reason to award you a 29 or 30! Lastly: Have fun. Debate should be fun. If debate isn’t fun, you aren’t doing it right. If you want to get me to laugh in the round or earn some brownie points, throw in a couple solid references from the movie, “Mean Girls.”

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 Crossman - El Camino

Mark Rauschmayer - NPDA Hired

n/a

Mark Bentley - NPDA Hired

n/a

Marquesa Cook-Whearty - Palomar

Mat Myles - McKendree

Matt Gander - Whitman

Matt Gander Judging Philosophy  I will listen to any argument you want to read with an open mind attempt to reconcile its conclusions with the arguments presented by the other team. I will reward arguments that engage the substance of the resolution and demonstrate thorough research. The most important part of debate is having fun, so you should do whatever makes that happen for you.  As a general disclaimer, I have not done debate research since March. My news reading has been confined to the Huffington Post IPhone app and random news articles on Facebook. In college I studied History, Political Science, with a minor in Art History. I am currently a Masters candidate in the UO Conflict and Dispute resolution. I am most confortable with debates surrounding international relations, the American judicial system, the EU and political philosophy. I know a lot of random stuff from debate, but you should understand that a large part of my scientific knowledge base has been formed/corrupted by John McCabe. You can get into deep science/tech debates, but don’t expect me to be able to resolve them on their technical merits. Sorry. That being said, there were very few debates in college that I thought were beyond my ability to generally comprehend. I think you should be able to explain anything, but understand that going too far in one direction leaves you vulnerable to my ignorance. Feel free to ask before the debate.  I stole this from Zach Tschida because I think is perfectly phrased and get to the heart of how you will win my ballot.  As a rule, I appreciate debates and debaters that exhibit: 1. Nuance. I enjoy nuanced strategies, nuanced execution, and nuanced comparison between arguments (both in terms of line-by-line on each position and between different arguments). Ultimately, I am more persuaded by arguments that present a nuance that complicates the way the other team has portrayed the world. 2. A clear distillation of complex thoughts. As a rule, I believe that a speaker’s ability to convey and explain an argument is indicative of their understanding of that argument. Consequently, I think that a successful debater should be able to simplify potentially convoluted ideas in a manner that resonates with the audience. 3. Humor and civility. It is refreshing to see a debate that reminds me that this is a collegial activity in which all participants dedicate a significant amount of time and effort. I understand that it is difficult to balance civility and humor and I hope you will err on the side of humor. Please be nice. I understand if there are some teams/debates where that isn’t going to happen, but I think debate should be a place where everybody feels welcome to express their opinion. I would much rather you engage the other team productively than see you rub their face in the dirt. Debate is fun largely because you make friends, being overly adversarial is not conducive to making friends. I assure you that being mean will only hurt you chances of winning in the long run.  Speed I think speed is appropriate and beneficial to many debates, but it also detracts from many debates. Use your own judgment, but I would much rather hear 6 great answers to a position than 10 underdeveloped ones. I also don’t think you should use speed as a form of exclusion. Feel free to spread out any team ranked in the top 60, but I will be very upset if you use speed to confuse a team that you are probably going to beat anyway. I think this also holds true for strategic decisions, if you want to read 6-7 off against a decent team; I have no principled opposition to that. However, I doubt 6-7 off is conducive in a preset debate against two new debaters. Given the way I debated, I have very little room to tell you that you shouldn’t good too fast, but I can say from experience that it is not right for all debates.  T I think the affirmative team should attempt to be topical. Predictability, fairness and education are all good values to strive for, but I don’t think they need to be enforced as strictly as many other judges on the circuit. I think topicality is like apple pie and hand grenades close is good enough for me. I think debate theory is an important theoretical framework to understand the general responsibilities of each team, but I am not compelled by the argument that one side should lose because their arguments don’t conform to your ideal version of a debate. I will default to a framework of reasonability, but I am more than confortable voting down people that go beyond my interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable interpretation of what somebody can/should do in debate.  Framework  I really enjoyed debating the criticism and think it is an argument that should be in every team’s toolbox. I generally found that critical debates were most interesting when they attempted to interact with the topic and the arguments presented by the other team. However, I will be very reluctant to ignore the arguments presented by the other team purely on the basis that they are presented within a problematic framework. I think it is important to engage arguments on their own terms and attempt to create the best synthesis between competing truth claims because it is very difficult to win that your opponents arguments are entirely false.  Critical Debate  My reading of critical literature is spotty and you should not rely on me to understand the literature base surrounding your argument. I think good critiques in parliamentary debate attempt to directly engage the advocacy of the affirmative. I will be very reluctant to use your framework arguments as a stand-alone reason to reject the affirmative. Links are important, but there is no reason you can’t substantively engage the knowledge presented by the affirmative. I also think there are many debates and topics that conform poorly to critical debates. I prefer critical affirmatives to critical negative strategies. CP I think CP’s are good. I don’t think they have to be run unconditionally and I am unlikely to vote for PIC’s/Condo bad. I am more interested in theory arguments that speak specifically to the strategy presented in relation to the topic and the debate at hand. I don’t know how I feel about multiple conditional CP’s or strategies that overburden the MG, but like most theory arguments this will be an uphill battle. I think textual competition is irrelevant.  DA/Case Debate I have a warm spot in my heart for a good DA and case debate. I think parliamentary debate is primed for these types of debates, if they become small in the second half of the debate and reflect good research. I think Will Van Tureen was giving the most innovative LOC’s last year because every time I watched him he threw down hard on the specifics of the advantage and buttressed these arguments with a smart DA. I tend to think politics debates are silly, but it will be much more compelling for me coupled with good case arguments. These types of debates reward speakers that consolidate and compare impacts. Read whatever you want. I like link and internal link debates the most.  I tend to believe that new cross applications in the rebuttals are new arguments. There are some arguments that may be phrased in a manner that applies across specific pieces of paper. Contextualizing those within the entire debate is not problematic, but ideally the MG is doing that work. I want you to call points of order, but I will be very non-verbally expressive if I think you are calling too many. Also if you are calling POI’s to rattle your opponent, I will take it out on your speaker points.  Have fun and feel free to ask any questions.

Matt Conrad - CLU

I’ve been involved in forensics since 1994 and as this will be my 20th anniversary in the activity this fall, it makes me feel extremely old.  I competed for Illinois IE powerhouses Wheaton Warrenville South and the College of DuPage before transferring and finishing my BFA in Screenwriting at the University of Southern California’s film school where I debated parli for them, was an AFA district rep, qualified with my partner to NPTE, and was in outrounds at most major national tournaments.  Outside of my work in the movie business as a writer, I currently coach LD, policy, parli, and limited prep at the Polytechnic School and La Reina High School, and am involved in the public policy community in Southern California.   I think the most important thing to remember in chasing my ballot at nationals is that I’m a fan of each format of debate for what it is.  In the case of parli, that means an extemporaneous format of debate based upon well-read college students and not blatantly canned cases that took far longer than 20 minutes to come up with.  That also doesn’t mean defaulting to the norms of policy or any other format of debate.  Let parli be parli; if you want to try to out-research your opponents, feel free to do so in the formats of debate that are based on in-depth research.   On the affirmative side, the most important thing to me is to debate what the resolution actually is, not what you want the resolution to be.  If you run a canned case that bears no relationship whatsoever to the resolution, expect that if your opponents run topicality well that I’ll probably give them the benefit of the doubt.  On the other hand, I love clever but topical cases.  Feel free to run a clever interpretation of the topic.  In parli specifically, I generally grant gov teams a lot of leeway in defining the topic, but there’s definitely a difference between a good, topical case and something that you prepared months ago and are desperately trying to shoehorn in to fit the resolution at hand.   The above said, be sure to give me good top of case definitions and burdens and explain to me why ON BALANCE you are winning.   On the negative side, the thing I most despise is cheesy argumentation.  This typically takes the form of 10,000 non-unique disads that don’t link back to the case.  To win my ballot on the negative side you generally need to use the “part of this complete breakfast” approach of cereal commercials – off-case, case debate, K’s, disads, counterplans, counterdefs, counterwarrants, solvency takeouts, etc.  Relying solely on a solvency takeout or line by line on the gov case generally won’t cut it for me.  But running a K, a counterplan, and having good case debate probably will.   Big picture, I think of debate as a white collar form of professional wrestling or ultimate fighting.  You can’t just stand back and try and slap your opponent.  You have to get your hands dirty and PIN your opponent to win my ballot, and if by chance there’s an open fracture somewhere along the way, that’s cool too.   Lastly, I have very little patience for cheating and lack of decorum in this activity.  Debate is supposed to be an activity for the best and brightest and that generally means that I have high standards for all of you.  It is entirely possible to disagree without being an outright jerk or worse and it is possible to have a successful career both in debate and in the professional world without compromising your integrity.  Even if you don’t set off my B.S. detector by canning cases, lying about evidence, grossly mischaracterizing statistics, straw-manning your opponents’ arguments, and insulting your opponents, those things will eventually come around to get you.

Matt Reisener - NPDA Hired

n/a

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.

Matthew Swanson - Grand Canyon

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

Michael Cole - USAFA

Michael Dvorak - NAU

<ol> <li>Please describe your background and experience with debate.</li> </ol> I am fairly new to collegiate debate. I competed in both LD and Policy in high school but for the past four years I was primarily involved in individual events with a few parli rounds of competition during my career. I am currently a Graduate Coaching Assistant for NAU. During my (thus far) limited judging experience, I tend to vote with the more logical argument(s) that was presented. I will vote based on what is said in round unless competitors miss a crucial piece of evidence that trumps their argument that competitors should know about. I don’t want to hear arguments that are outlandish (I won’t vote because you say nuclear war happens if we raise taxes on cigarettes), but I will think outside the box so long as you provide me with sound reasoning to think that way. While I don’t mind speed, make sure I can understand you through watching my feedback. I am looking for high quality, well thought out arguments to judge on. I don’t want to hear arguments that you don’t think or want to win simply because they are a “time-suck” on your opponents. If you have any other questions about my paradigm I will attempt to answer before round if you ask.

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

Mike Eaves - VSU

I am a tabula rasa judge. I debated CEDA for 4 years82-87. Was asst coach for CEDA at FSU for 4 years 89-93, national runnerups in CEDA nats, 1991 Coached CEDA for 7 years 93-2000 at vsu and NPDA since 2000 at vsu. I reward creative interp and good arguments. If you have questions, just ask. I flow specs, procedurals, and other traditional off case args. Aff case must provide equal ground so T checks back abuse. Counterplans are fine...inc PICS and other lesser know CPS incl delay, study, etc. I love political, econ DA..know your story and analysis.    I debated policy in high school and in college. While I coach parli now, I still judge h.s. policy rounds.   Specifics <ol> <li>Speaker points <ol> <li>25-29 usually.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Critical Arguments <ol> <li>I am open to procedurals, and critiques in the round. </li> <li>Framework and criteria will be key.</li> <li>I am open to performance and counter-performance. Debate is a game. Play it well. </li> </ol> </li> <li>Topicality. <ol> <li>I tend to be equal on T. Since there is no resolutions in advance, negative must have T as a check against abusive aff positions. I will vote on RVIs unlike some judges. I have no artificial thresholds on T or procedures.</li> </ol> </li> <li>I am a tabula rasa judge but can default to a policy maker if I am put in that position. <ol> <li> The last two rebuttals are key in parli debate. Please go only for the arguments you are winning, especially when on the negative.</li> </ol> </li> <li> <ol> <li>Speed is great if clear. I will tell you if you need to slow or get clearer. If you ignore me, then I wont get your argument.</li> </ol> </li> </ol> I love to think outside the box. Feel free to run postmodernism, CLS, or any philosophical position. I do not have artificial thresholds on procedurals or critiques.

Mike Selck - SIU

Nathan Steele - CCSF

What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I aim to subdue my bias and objectively adjudicate rounds, voting for the team that presents the most logical, well-reasoned, organized, creative, clever and dynamic arguments. Debaters should provide/contest criteria for evaluating the round. Highlight key voting issues during your final speech. What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters? Be respectful of your opponents at all times. You can be a little snarky but do not make it personal. Attack the arguments and behaviors in the round rather than the people. Avoid obnoxious nonverbal-behaviors. Partner communication is acceptable, but don't parrot or puppet your partner. Heckling is acceptable but everyone (partner and opponents) should minimize interruptions to the debate and the flow of the speaker. I will listen to you throughout the round, and I hope you will continue to listen to each other. What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote? Don't lie. Convince me of how I should evaluate the debate and what the affirmative or negative team must do to win my ballot. I'm capable of believing any well-reasoned and supported claim, but I favor cogent, criteria-based arguments that are ultimately weighed against other issues in the round. When well warranted, I can vote on well-structured and clearly explained topicality arguments and kritiks. Debaters should be specific in their argumentation and provide clear voting issues in rebuttal speeches. How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements? The debate should be accessible to your opponents and judge(s). Delivery can be accelerated beyond a conversational rate, but I value clear articulation, emphasis, inflections, pauses, and vocal variety. Delivery style may affect speaker points but will not factor into a decision. Points of order can be called when rules are broken; I will stop time and hear briefly from the opposing side before ruling.

Nick Robinson - Texas Tech

Background/General<o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"></o:p> I debated at Willamette for four years and then coached at Whitman for two. I tend to be pretty expressive while I’m judging, I can’t help it. I try to keep my speaker point average around 27.5, which means I give as many 26’s as I do 29’s. I will listen to anything, but I am definitely happiest watching a disad/counterplan debate. Try not to lie. Presentation<o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"></o:p> The way in which you present your arguments will not have any influence over the outcome of the round as long as I can understand you. I will say “clear” at least a couple of times if I cannot. Being really mean to your opponents will cost you speaks. Rolling over/giving up against a really good team will also cost you speaks. Either give me a copy of your advocacy text or read it twice, slowly. Case/Disads<o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"></o:p> Most of this is obvious, so here are a handful of aphorisms: Organization is your friend. You should terminalize your impacts. Just saying “and you know, it’s like rivets on a plane” does not count. You should warrant your link arguments. You should warrant all your other arguments too, ideally. Read your plan text twice or give me a copy. Procedurals<o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"></o:p> I would much rather watch substantive debate than half an hour of theory. In virtually all circumstances, I determine that fairness comes first. I think that, in general, you win the procedural if you win that a) the other side violates your interpretation and b) you win that their interpretation is inferior to yours. The aff should be topical. To beat T, you need at least one good reason why the other side’s interpretation is bad plus a credible counter-interpretation. RVI’s are dumb and I won’t vote on one unless it’s really compelling, well-warranted, and completely conceded. Spec arguments are terrible. You should read your disad and explain why it links through normal means. In most cases, you should be able to generate links to your disads by making credible arguments about normal means. I will not vote on spec unless the other side is flagrantly abusive and there is really no alternative. Kritiks Last year everybody kept voting for one of my teams to “disrupt the velocity of the government war machine,” and I think that’s kind of hilarious. I am skeptical that a critical framework makes the PMC disappear. If you want the K to outweigh or turn case, that’s great, but pointing out that plan won’t actually happen does not compel me to ignore the logic of the other side’s arguments. The best K’s do not rely on framework to win, but rather persuade me that the logic of the affirmative is fundamentally faulty. They also have specific, well-developed link arguments that go far beyond “you use the USFG so you are statist.” You should be able to demonstrate exactly how the logic/rhetoric intrinsic to the affirmative links. I have serious trouble believing that a K alt can change the world, whether by sparking a movement or rewiring my brain. Counterplans In terms of theory, counterplans are best evaluated on a case-by-case basis. On some topics, for example, PICs are fine. On others, they are probably abusive. I much prefer to evaluate CP theory as a question of whether neg gets to advocate the CP rather than as a voter. I generally think that conditionality is good, even with multiple conditional advocacies. Of course, I would never judge a debate as though my opinion on a theory question is the word of God. Permutations do not need a text beyond “Perm: do both,” unless you’re doing something tricky like permuting only a part of the text. Asking for a text on “Perm: do both” makes you look dumb. The perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. You should articulate a net benefit to your permutation because pointing out that plan and CP can coexist is not really relevant to my decision. Rebuttals Three things good rebuttals have in common: they give thorough overviews that explain the interaction of all the arguments in the round, they make choices about what is important and what isn’t, and they weigh both the strength of warrants and the strength of impacts. You do not need to call a point of order in front of me, but you can if you want to. Cross-applications are not new arguments. The LOR does not need to explicitly extend each MO argument he/she would like me to consider in my decision. You do not get to split the block.

Nick Larmer - NPDA Hired

n/a

Nick Matthews - NPDA Hired

n/a

Nigel Ramoz-Leslie - NPDA Hired

n/a

Phil Krueger - SMC

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

Phil Sharp - UNR

I competed in HS Policy and College NPDA. I was formerly the ADOF at WWU (3 years) and the DOF at Univ of Montana (2 years). I took two years off to go and teach debate in Korea. I am now the DOF at UNR (9 years). I evaluate the round as a flow-based policy-making critic of argument. Not a fan of the original argument being nothing but a tag with no warrant and the PMR back-filling. I hold you to the arguments you made and as a critic of argument, I will evaluate the degree to which you have warranted and convinced me of that argument. If your argument did not make sense the first time you said it, it is not likely to win my ballot. At the end of the debate, all judges must do work to make their decision. I feel that I attempt to make my involvement in the decision something I am consciously aware of as opposed to pretending that debates somehow decide themselves. In the event that the decision is not clear-cut, I will attempt to use a standard and fair method. Some things that you should know: A. I will weigh arguments through the frameworks the debaters provide. If a team wants me to vote on an Education standard on a T but they are losing an RVI on Education on the K, How do I weigh who has harmed Edu the most? Procedurals and kritiks are ultimately a request for me to employ a different paradigm in the debate (not post-fiat policy-making). B. In the event of clash, I will side with the team who has the more reasonable story and articulates the best standards to prefer their argument. In the absence of standards, I will default to the team whose argument is most intuitive as presented. C. In the event of dropped or under-covered arguments, I will vote based upon how well you warranted the argument. If a team drops a 20 second T that didn't make any sense, I won't vote on it. If you think your arguments are winners, make them sufficiently the first time you present them. Additional Considerations: 1. I DO think that an AFF should be an inductive proof of the res, but I also think that as long as they are reasonable, the NEG should be quick on their feet with arguments. I might not vote on T but I will consider how well a Neg team does when caught by surprise and give them the benefit of the doubt a little. I like creative and strategic movement within a topic area, AS LONG AS YOU EXPLAIN HOW YOUR CASE IS A PROOF OF THE RES BEING TRUE. I prefer a policy, if the res allows you to do it. 2. I think that the current policy of blipping and back-filling is yucky. I don't mind how fast you talk but I think it is intellectually bankrupt to simply spew out a bunch of buzzwords and taglines and try to win without actually knowing what your arguments mean or explaining them. Please note that I haven’t judged a ton of rounds this year and so my pen is slow. 3. A lot of debaters get lost in the minutia and don't understand the purpose of the particular argument they are making. Then they say something like, "The Uniqueness controls the direction of the link." Which is true but is NOT persuasive to hear in a rebuttal. Explain what you mean and how that affects the outcome of the debate. All arguments should be impacted to my decision. 4. Rebuttals should not be line-by-line repeatals. You must crystallize the debate and provide some guidance into my decision making given the negotiated frameworks. The less you do this, the more I have to figure out how to vote. I will flow the LOR straight down the page (like a big overview). Once the PMR is over, I will look back at the LOR arguments before I vote. 5. I find Kritiks to be interesting (if people explain the critical perspective in a way that makes sense) but I find debate to be a problematic format for them. If you run a K or performance on the aff, please provide a clear Role of the Ballot and defend the fact that you defend the topic. If you run a K on the neg, I expect to see a unique link in the debate with a functioning alternative and solvency. Case-turns from critical theory perspective often work better through the policy-making paradigm. 6. Over-reliance upon buzz words like dehumanization will not be persuasive to me. Explain what it is and why it is bad and don't say things like "Dehum is worse than death" unless you have a good reason that is true. 7. Your internal link story is more important than big, wanky impact stories. 8. I would like to be entertained in the back of the room. Judges all enjoy good intellectual throwdowns with solid clash and warranted arguments. Few of us enjoy the dry, combative, boring rehashing of theory blocks and race to the bottom that teams are choosing in an attempt to win. 9. Watch my freaking non-verbals. If you continue to say "we are the most limiting interpretation" and I am holding my hands up and shaking my head, I probably am looking for you to explain how you’re obviously under limiting interp is actually providing for better limits. 10. I am liberal. I will vote in as unbiased way as possible based on the arguments in the round and my predisposition on questions of debate theory, but I thought it was fair to tell you my political leanings. 11. Don't be rude. Avoid sexism, racism, homophobia, general inappropriate behavior and all the other isms. Be a good sport. Some of the things you say are inevitably going to be less good comparatively. Don't act like you should win every single argument.

Rebecca Sietman - Wheaton

I am a former policy debater, and I have been coaching NPDA parli for 12 years. I believe it’s my responsibility to do everything I can to vote based on the arguments made in the round, and I will default to a policy/net benefits framework if not told otherwise. With that said, run the arguments you want to run. While I do my best to set aside my own preferences, here are a few specific things you should know about me: I will vote on procedurals and Ks, although procedurals are not my favorite arguments to vote on. Ks can be one of my favorite arguments or least favorite arguments, depending on how well you run your K. I typically find proven abuse most compelling on a T or spec debate because I give Gov wide latitude in interpreting/defending the resolution. I prefer depth of analysis/warranted arguments over generic shells/tag lines. I understand why certain arguments inevitably impact out to nuclear war, but I can grow weary of nothing but extinction scenarios. I will vote on politics disads, but they are one of my least favorite arguments because they often break down at the link/internal link level. I usually side with Gov on perm debates and think PICs are fine, but I’ll listen to any CP theory arguments you want to make. I enjoy case turns. I prefer that you use your rebuttal to tell me where you’re winning and why I should vote there, and I am more compelled by weighing that is extended into the rebuttals from previous speeches. I don't like to be yelled at. I enjoy spirited debate but want to see you treat one another with respect. I will protect you as much as possible by discounting new arguments in rebuttals, but I still prefer that you call points of order since it’s a good check against the effects of any sleep deprivation I might be experiencing at the moment. :) Since I'm from the Midwest, I never hear project debates so I will listen respectfully but might not know what to do with it if you run one. Being from the Midwest also means that the speed I'm used to is a little slower than some west coast teams. I prefer speed that is used to deepen your arguments rather than speed to proliferate blippy arguments. If you have questions about anything, please ask.

Rob Layne - Texas Tech

Rob Layne – Texas Tech University  1.       Compare warrants between contrasting arguments.  2.       Compare impacts using words like “irreversibility,” “magnitude,” “timeframe,” “probability.”  3.       Use warrants in all of your arguments.  4.       Make sure your permutations contain a text and an explanation as to what I do with the permutation.  5.       Use internal and external structure like Subpoint A 1. a. i. instead of saying “next” or stringing arguments together without breaks.  6.       Be cordial to one another. There’s no need to be mean or spikey.  7.       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.  8.       Allow me to choose a winner at the end of the round.  9.       Have voters and standards attached to procedural arguments if you want me to take them seriously.  I like “we meets” on interpretations.  10.   I will protect you from new arguments in the rebuttals. There’s little need to call superfluous Points of Order.  11.   Have an alternative attached to your criticism or at least explain why you don’t need one.  12.   Be on time to the round. Already have used to the restroom, gotten your water, found your room, etc.   13.   Prep Time and Round Arrival: I will subtract 5 speaker points if you are more than a minute later to the round than I am or after prep time has elapsed (which ever is later). After 3 minutes, I will begin the proposition team's speaking time.  Please don't come to the round and then go to the bathroom, please relieve yourself before prep begins or during prep.  This addendum is obviously reflecting my judging by myself and will not be inclusive of a paneled round.  14.   Compare standards if there are competing interpretations present.  15.   Connect the dots between different arguments to illustrate how those arguments interact.  16.   Kick arguments in the opp block to go deeper on selected arguments.  17.   Know the difference between offensive and defensive arguments. I still think arguments can be terminally defensive as long as it’s explained.  18.   Avoid extending answers through ink. Answer opposing arguments before making key extensions.  19.   Extend arguments/case via the member speeches to have access to them in the rebuttals.  20.   Not everything can be a turn. Please avoid making everything a turn.  21.   Enjoy the debate round. I’m not going to force fun on you, but not everything has to be so serious. 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 and provide an alternative. 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. Counterplans <span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">I think folks should define what a PIC is for me (make that just about any interpretation of a counterplan). I might have a very different conception of a PIC than you do. I think opp’s should identify a CP’s status to avoid procedural args. 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.

Robear Maxwell - PDB

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!

Sherris Minor - NPDA Hired

n/a

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

<h1>Skip Rutledge                                                                 Point Loma Nazarene University</h1> 25 +/- years judging debate                                                    14+ years judging NPDA Parliamentary 6 +/- years as a competitor in policy debate (college and high school)   Academic Debate Background: Competed 6 years +/- in team policy in High School and College (NDT at Claremont). Then coached and judged at the high school level for a number of years as a part time volunteer.  Returned to academia and have coached since 1989 in CEDA, we switched to Parli in about 1995. In addition to coaching teams and judging at tournaments I have been active in NPDA and helped at Parli Summer Workshops to keep fresh and abreast of new ideas.  I have also tried to contribute conference papers and a few journal articles on debate.  I love well reasoned and supported theory arguments where debaters are aware of the foundational issues and prior research on topic.   Judging Paradigm: For lack of a better term, I embrace what I know of as the Argumentation Critic paradigm, but certainly not to the exclusion of appreciating strong delivery skills.  I encourage fewer, well-developed arguments with clear claims, reasonable warrants, and strong evidentiary support to back up those warrants, rather than the shotgun method of throwing lots of claims out, hoping something slips through the others’ defense.  That probably makes me more of a big picture critic, rather than one that gets fixated on the minutia. I do recognize too, that big pictures can be defined by small brushstrokes, or that details can count heavily in proving big arguments. I don’t hold Parli case/plans to the same level of proof that I might in CEDA/NDT since they are constructed in 15 minutes without direct access to deep research, so spec arguments are not very compelling in many cases.  Disadvantages, solvency arguments, or counter-plans share the same burden of proof that the government does. Impacts are very important, but the establishing the links are critical. Debaters should be well read in current events, philosophy and especially political philosophy.  Poorly constructed arguments and/or blatant misstatements will not prevail just because someone happens to not respond to them.  While I attempt to minimize intervention, claims like “200 million Americans a year are dying of AIDS” does not become true just because it might be dropped (taken from an actual round).  I think your word is your bond.  If you say it with conviction, you are attesting that it is true.  If you are not quite certain, it is preferable to frame a claim in that manner.  The prohibition on reading evidence in a round is not carte blanche to make up whatever unsubstantiated claims you think may advance your arguments. I enjoy case clash, smart arguments, exposing logical fallacies, using humor, etc. . .  I dislike rudeness, overly quick delivery, or presenting counter warrants rather than engaging case straight up.  I will try to make the decision based the content of the arguments and also rely on delivery for determining speaker points.  It is not uncommon for me to give low point wins.  I also think it is the debaters’ job to debate the resolution, not my own views on styles of debate I prefer to hear.  If a resolution has strong value implications, please debate it as such. Likewise if there is a strong policy slant, debate it as such.  Additionally, I do not feel that there is only one way to debate.  I will not try to implement unwritten rules such as the Government must argue for a change in the status quo.  They certainly should if the resolution requires it, but may not have to if it does not.  I think the resolution is key to the debate.  This does not negate Kritiks. It invites sound logic and framing of Kritiks and alternatives. I do have some a priori biases.  I believe the resolution is what is being debated. That has implications on counter plans.  My a priori bias is that they should not be topical and should be competitive.  Just because the negative team finds another, perhaps even “better way” than the affirmative chose, to prove the resolution is true, does not seem to me to automatically warrant a negative ballot. I am though open to good theory debates, You should first know my beginning basis of understanding on this issue.  And although I enjoyed debating in NDT and CEDA, I think the speed of delivery in that format was built around the need to read evidence and specific research to back up the claims and warrants.  The absence of such evidence reading in NPDA should invite more considerate and slower argument analysis, not provide opportunities to shotgun out many more, less developed arguments.  I believe the reason for not allowing researched evidence briefs to be read in this particular format of debate was to encourage public focused debate, which implies a slower rate of delivery and genuine consideration of case.  The gamey technique of negatives throwing out lots of flak, or obfuscating issues to throw off governments time use, only to collapse to a few key arguments, does not seem to advance strong argumentation development, a fair testing of the resolution, or solid speaking skills..

Stephen Moncrief - WWU

Statistics (2012-present): Median speaker points: 27.8 AFF/NEG split: 50% AFF, 50% NEG over 70 open division prelim rounds Tournaments judged this season (2013-2014): Jewell, Bellevue, Lewis & Clark, UPS, Linfield, Mile High Tournaments judged last season (2012-2013): Jewell, Bellevue, Berkeley, Lewis & Clark, UPS, Mile High, WWU, PLU, Whitman, NPTE, NPDA Debate Background: 2.5 years of coaching NPDA at WWU (2010-11, 2012-present) 3 years of NPDA  (2007-2010) 3 years of high school policy debate (2004-2007)   Education Background: M.A., Political Science, University of British Columbia (Vancouver, BC, Canada) B.A., East Asian Studies & Political Science, WWU (Bellingham, WA) My research background is in security studies, with special focus on civil war and terrorism. I have virtually no background in critical approaches to the social sciences. I was trained to understand conflict and cooperation from a rationalist (as opposed to a constructivist) perspective. Overview: I aim to be as transparent in my decision-making as possible, and during my RFD, I will identify the specific arguments that informed my decision and explain my understanding of them. I am not very shy about admitting that I don’t understand an argument as you have phrased it. Everybody in this activity has gaps in their comprehension of some positions, and that is true for me too. I promise you my best effort at understanding and fairly evaluating your arguments. In return, I expect your best efforts at delivering them. I feel comfortable with the stylistic and strategic trends of contemporary parli. I have no problems with speed or extinction impacts. With a few exceptions (see below), there is no argument that I will not listen to. Of course, I have my biases and opinions on technique and strategy, so what follows is a modest attempt at describing my dispositions as a critic: My Proclivities:  To do well in front of me, remember two words: CAUSAL MECHANISMS. This means that your internal link and impact arguments need to be clear, linear, and well warranted with relevant empirical analysis, as opposed to plausible-ish chains of claims you threw together in prep. USE EXAMPLES. I think that relevant historical examples to illustrate past patterns of individual and/or institutional behavior are under-utilized in this activity. Your use of historical evidence will help me understand your positions much better than I might otherwise. EXPLAIN INCENTIVE STRUCTURES. Positions that describe a clear model of how actors can be expected to behave based on material incentives are very helpful to me, and are more likely to win. CITE SOME SOURCES. Knowing where you got some of your information can often help me understand the context of your claims. I think we have a terrible tendency to take facts out of context in this activity, and some of our debates end up inane as a result. Citing the work of authors when you borrow from their ideas greatly enhances your credibility in front of me. I look more favorably on smart defense than poorly warranted offense. I think that during my first year out, I was too quick to give credence to under-warranted arguments simply because they were phrased as offense. That was unfortunate, and I'm now comfortable giving badly warranted offense considerably less weight than really smart defense. I flow rebuttals on a separate sheet and follow the extensions/cross applications from the constructives. I listen to the rebuttals very carefully, so you should take great care to isolate your voting issues and explain them clearly. Arguments I will not vote for:  In some ways, it seems like this activity has an odd way of gauging which arguments are acceptable and which are repugnant. For example, “war with China good” seems to be prevalent, but “classism good” is not okay. So I will say this: I will not vote for any argument (even one run in irony) that suggests that the domination of one person or group by another is acceptable, especially if that domination is based on immutable physical characteristics, gender identity, or some other element of social location. More concretely, I will never vote for things like “racism okay” or “patriarchy good." Also, I will not vote for RVIs on procedurals. Behavior external to your in-round strategic decisions that will negatively impact your speaker points: STEALING PREP. It does not take 30 seconds to set up a podium or organize your flows. There are usually only about six to eight relevant sheets by the time the member speeches start. Dig deep and apply your organizational skills. If you fill up more than 15 seconds with paper shuffling or forced-sounding banter, I will just start your time for you. Also, if you are more than five minutes late to a round, I will drop you and turn in my ballot.  HOSTILITY. I really appreciate teams that are polite, and I like good-natured humor in the round. Snark, bullying, and other forms of discourteousness make the experience uncomfortable and unpleasant. NOT TAKING A QUESTION. You should allow the other team to ask at least one question during the constructives. More Specifics: Impact prioritization: death > dehumanization, absent excellent warranting to the contrary. I find the tendency to categorize as "dehumanizing" any impact short of death to be immensely annoying. Critical debate: time for an update on this issue. Last year, I voted for the criticism approximately one out of every three times the NEG went for it. I have found myself voting for criticisms less and less frequently, often because the mechanisms by which the alternative solves are too vague for me to feel comfortable evaluating. Although I pursued critical debate as a competitor, I have no formal training in critical theory/culture studies, and put simply, my interest in critical debate is declining relative to my interest in topic-specific disad/counterplan debate. Of course, if you choose to read a critical position in a round I'm judging, I will do my best to understand it to the fullest extent possible. To that end, here are some things that will increase the likelihood of your success with a critical strategy:  Excellent critical debaters phrase their arguments clearly and succinctly, show the intuitive appeal of their position, and specify its observable implications. While I think that the AFF should be able to weigh their case against the criticism, I also think that if the NEG has to defend their framework and their representations, the AFF should be held to the same standard. I'm not persuaded by "Ks are for cheaters"; if you represent political interaction in a particular way, you should be held accountable for those representations. For example, an AFF with a colorful array of balancing scenarios should be able to defend the assumptions underlying realist visions of IR. I prefer an alternative that goes beyond "Reject the AFF". I think you should have to defend a different and reasonably well-defined course of action, and you should have a significant solvency contention that explains how your alternative works. If I don’t understand what your alternative means, you are unlikely to win. If you are interested in pursuing a critical affirmative, I am certainly open to that. In my experience, critical affirmatives usually need a detailed series of arguments explaining how to understand the position in relation to the resolution, since critical affirmatives often appear untopical on face. Counterplan debate: I recognize that conditionality has become common, and that trend is unlikely to reverse. I am fine with conditionality, although I will certainly evaluate theoretical objections to condo. I am much less sympathetic to theoretical objections to dispositionality. I suppose that, ideally, counterplans would be both textually and functionally competitive. I have no strong feelings on the value of textual competition, although I am disinclined to vote for delay and consult counterplans. Please have a text of your counterplan prepared for the other team. I would also appreciate one, although it is not a necessity and I understand that your prep time is very limited. I believe that my understanding of permutations is pretty mainstream: alegitimate permutation is limited to all of the plan text plus all or part of the counterplan text. Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies Theory & Procedurals: These positions are fine, but consider yourself forewarned: I find these debates incredibly boring, and evaluating competing theory arguments is not my strength. Slow down when you read your interpretations, and explain very clearly to my why your interpretation garners your standards, and explain why your counterinterpretation is competitive. Also, please impact your procedurals with voters, and explain the voters with some depth. "It's a voter for fairness and education" is not helpful. Explain to me why I should care about something like fairness, which is both hard to quantify and impacted by a variety of other variables. Points of order: I am confident in my ability to identify new arguments in the rebuttals, and I will shield you from them. However, you should feel free to call points of order when you feel that an argument is new. More than two or three is usually excessive and becomes tiresome.

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 Bonner - UWash

Name:    Steve  Bonner  School:    University of Washington   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.   The most important thing about debating in front of me is to know that I try to vote exactly as I’m told. Please take time in the rebuttals to explain which arguments matter and why. I’m open to pretty much any framework for debate.  Just please tell me which one I should use and how arguments should be weighed. Please clearly compare arguments and how they interact. The team that does a better job of that will normally get my ballot. I’ll vote for the most probable arguments if I’m not told to otherwise.     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)? a.       I normally give 26-29 with the majority being 27s. Normally give one 28 or 29 each round.   2.       How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? a.       Critical arguments are just like any other argument, I will vote for them if they are well argued and make sense. I am ok with Critical Aff’s but keep in mind that you still have to win Topicality. (unless of course you run your K topically) Contradictory arguments are only a problem if the opposing team makes them a problem. If you run a performance or rhetoric based criticism, you should probably not be contradictory, but only because it guts your solvency. Though if the other side doesn’t make the argument, I won’t make it for them. I really like good K’s (especially ones that are relevant to the topic and function in a Policy/Fiat world) BUT I really dislike bad K’s.   3.       Performance based arguments… a.       I haven’t seen any of these done well, but if I see one, I can think of no reason I wouldn’t vote for it.     4.       Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? a.       To vote on T I only need arguments for why I should. I think that T’s need frameworks so that I know what to do with them. I guess I would say that my default way of resolving them is to decide if the Aff is so abusive that a fair round was impossible. I am more than happy to dump that framework and adopt any that either team makes.  In round abuse is not necessary to get a ballot, but you need to give me some reason to vote for the T. In-Round abuse, Prep skew, Lost DA’s and CPs,  and such are all good reasons to vote for a T, but not the only ones.   5.       Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? a.       I am open to all kinds of CP’s and all the Theory arguments for why they are good or bad. PICs are fine, but I’d vote for a theory position that claims they are not. Same with Agent CP’s, Timeframe CP’s, etc. Fair warning though, it would be pretty easy to win that Delay CP’s are abusive.  As for identifying status, competition etc, I think it is a good idea and it makes for better debate, but not a must. I’ll vote however I’m told to.   6.       Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) a.       Yes. Just keep in mind that I won’t be seeing them.     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?)? a.       PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me how to vote. I hate making decisions. Make them for me. But if I have to, I first would vote anywhere someone says “A priori” or “most important argument in the round”. If there are multiple I guess the order would be Theory, K’s, High Probability Impacts and then High Magnitude Impacts.   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")? a.       If arguments are not compared at all, then the only way to compare them is to intervene. I don’t like doing that. I read a lot and if forced to I will use the things I know to figure out which argument should carry more weight. Please don’t make me do that. My bias for weighing arguments is toward more probable impacts. If I have to weigh Dehum v Death, I slightly lean toward Dehum, but again, I’ll err on the side of probability.

Steve Clemmons - NPDA Hired

n/a

Sydney Awakuni - PLNU

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

Than Hedman - CU

I’ve been increasingly out of the game, so I know I’m an unknown quantity. I hope I judge debates most like Will Van Treuren, Jon McCabe and Corey Freivogel, so you are likely to do well if you debate like you would in front of them. My flow is much faster since I switched to a computer, but I'm still the slowness. Repeating and/or reading your interpretations slowly on theory is necessary in front of me. Slowing down or inflecting to emphasize key warrants or arguments is a good idea in general but especially in front of me.  I default to LOC theory being "a priori" and all theory being evaluated on competing interpretations. I definitely don't need articulated abuse on T. On spec, you should have either asked the question or have a reason you couldn't, or I'm disinclined to vote for you. Contextualizing standards to the actual round in question makes me inclined to vote for you. You probably need to take a question in each constructive speech if it's asked of you. I think multiple conditional advocacies are bad in parli, but I'm open-minded. I value well-warranted defense more than most critics. I believe terminal defense exists--uniqueness alone is like thermodynamics alone: diamonds are theoretically less stable than graphite, but they aren't turning into graphite* because there's no easy pathway for that to occur. I have a troubled relationship with the K. I am often ideologically sympathetic to the K but wary of ignoring the PMC and unable to see a relevant difference between the "realness" of the plan and alt. I am also as far from hip to the critical literature as one can get. The more esoteric your K the less likely I am to vote for it. I believe, above all, in engagement. Spreading out a team not remotely on your level leaves me bored and frustrated. How will young/new/outside debaters learn if they are never able to meaningfully participate in rounds? I will reward teams for slowing down to engage their opponents. Similarly, I will be angry if you don't react to a "clear" from the other team. If this happens, you should probably go back and address your last argument, since I may have missed it too. I will punish scientific claims that are patently false (as opposed to those that are a subject of current debate). This is somewhat true in other areas, but since I'm less confident there you have more leeway, probably. I don't think I could intervene in a decision on this basis, but I would probably give your opponent's arguments a lot more weight if you are blatantly wrong and may even drop your speaks significantly. I'm not Martin Harris, but I lean his way in terms of the intervention/facts debate. I default to extinction being the worst, though I'm open on that question. Vague notions of dehumanization leave me cold. *at any appreciable rate

Tiffany Dykstra - Utah

Experience… I did HS policy for 4 years and competed in parli and LD for four years in college- this is my fourth year coaching/judging.   I consider myself tabula rasa, I like well warranted and clearly explained arguments. Beyond that, I’ll listen to almost anything. If no one defends an alternative framework, I’ll revert to policy making.   Point of orders..… Although I don’t have a problem with speed, I struggle keeping up with confusing, messy or inarticulate speeches. Because this can be a problem in rebuttals, I appreciate points of order. I will do my best to protect but it’s just a much better idea to call out new arguments as you hear them. I will never dock speaker points unless you are excessively calling illegitimate POI’s for the sake of disrupting your opponent.   Speaker points…. I usually won’t give lower than a 25 unless you are extremely offensive or dishonest. 26-28 is my average. I will reward excellent articulation, efficiency and strategic decision-making.   Critical arguments…. I am open to critical debate but I usually don’t like voting on kritiks without an alternative. I also don’t like rejection alternatives. That’s not to say that I won’t vote for a reject alt, just that I appreciate more creativity and imagination. And I also always want an alt text. Critical affirmatives are fine with me, just be sure to clearly explain and justify your framework. If you read a kritik it has to be unconditional, I don’t like multiple advocacies or reverting advocacies. I am completely open to performance, but I don’t have a lot of experience evaluating these arguments in a debate context. As long as you are sufficiently knowledgeable and can clearly explain your position we shouldn’t have a problem.   Topicality…..I actually really enjoy a good topicality debate but I would prefer you to have some in round abuse. For me, evaluating potential abuse is problematic. Also, I will never vote on an RVI.   Impacts… It’s super important that you’re weighing things for me. Please, do not make ridiculous or warrantless dehumanization claims. I feel like this desensitizes people to real dehumanization and makes it less likely that people will recognize and respond to actual instances of dehumanization.

Tracy Valgento - NPDA Hired

n/a

Travis Smith - UT-Tyler

Name: Travis Smith School: University of Texas at Tyler   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 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 believe in freedom and America and all the great things that exist here like NASCAR, chubbies and happy hours that start at noon. On that note, I view debate as a game where one team tries to beat another team. In this regard, I am open to most arguments with the exception being performance based arguments. If you believe that an argument will win you the round, go for it. The only things I ask for are: warrant your arguments and make impact calculus so I don’t have to.   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)?   0-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30   2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   Kritiks are fine for both sides. A contradiction doesn’t mean that a team automatically wins or loses; I will evaluate the round as it is presented to me. I will vote on double turns if they are brought up and explained as to why I should vote on them. I will also vote on perf-con if it is legitimate and impacted out. If it is not a perf-con, but you keep claiming it is, I will probably mock you incessantly after the round. I am down for conditionality or dispositionality or whatever other ality you kids have come up with.   3. Performance based arguments…   Not a big fan, mainly because I don’t understand how they make a difference. It is probably best to not run these in front of me since I’ve been doing this for 11 years and I still don’t get it.   4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?   I require in-round abuse or a reason why in-round abuse is not important. Competing interpretations means I should look to the standards to evaluate the best interpretation, so that’s pretty important, but just saying those words doesn’t mean you win. I think T is a-priori unless otherwise noted. If you are kicking out of T and there is no offense on it, you don’t have to mention it in the MOC.   5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?   Debate what you want, I will not discount a counterplan on face, just defend it well and understand what competitiveness you are going for. I do not care about the status of the counterplan, just make sure everyone knows what it is and defend it. Please put voters on theory that actually means something, not just random words.   6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans).   People really do this? I don’t care what you share in the round, just keep it PG.   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 should be a priori, followed by pre-fiat impacts and then fiat impacts. I am open to being told otherwise though. I cannot stress this enough: please tell me how to vote and we will all be happier people.   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")?   I personally believe death outweighs dehume, but I will listen to other views, just make sure the warrants are there for whatever you are arguing. If no debater in the round has presented me with a way to weigh the round, I will close my eyes, point to my flow and whatever argument I am pointing at will win.

Trond Jacobsen - Oregon

Name: Trond E. Jacobsen_______ School: University of Oregon____ 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 consider the opportunity to debate and to judge debate to be  extraordinary privileges and I hope and expect that debaters treat the  moment with a seriousness of purpose and consideration for the activity  itself and for others in the activity. Debate should be fun and I do  like humor, but, on balance, I prefer debates where the participants,  including the judge, are engaged in an intellectual activity focused on  understanding the world for the purpose of considering what kinds of  changes to that world are appropriate rather than a mere game or excuse  to travel and visit with friends. Debate is not *only* a game for me  and those who treat it as such may find speaker points affected.  • My experience as a competitor and coach is extensive (Oregon, Alaska,  Vermont, Cornell) but until this year that experience was entirely in  CEDA-NDT debate and mostly some years ago.  • Treating people fairly and with respect is my most important value and I will  react to offensive behavior and am responsive to arguments that lesser kinds  of offensiveness should have ballot implications.  • My flow is reasonably strong (still) and is the focus of my decision- making. • My experience and strength as a competitor and judge was in finding,  using, and attacking evidence. In its absence I nonetheless expect  people to make arguments grounded in literature and it is acceptable to  give some reference to where your information came from and why it is  better for current purposes than where their information came from.  • You may hear me interacting during the round, for instance, I might say  “clearer” or “slower” or “louder”. Sometimes I give other kinds of feedback  and those who are observant may benefit. It is normal for me to be focused on  the flow rather than watching debaters. However interaction and adaptation  and some eye contact are important. • You are smart, so be smart. Think about what you are doing. Understand what  you are doing. Know what you know and know what you do not know and be  honest. Have a strategy and execute that strategy. Don’t pretend Senator X  opposes the plan when she doesn’t or you don’t know or you can’t prove it. • Anything contained in this philosophy that conflicts with NPTE/NPDA rules is  void. 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)? 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical  In a typical round the worst speaker will receive 26-27 and the best  speaker will received 28.5-29.5 on a 30-point scale. arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Anyone person or team can run critical arguments they find compelling  and they understand. I am under no obligation to vote for them unless  they win them and win that winning them wins them the debate. While certainly debatable, I tend to think poorly of contradictory  strategies and reward varied, nuanced, but cohesive argument  strategies. 3. Performance based arguments… All arguments are performance-based. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing  interpretations? I strongly dislike topicality in all but the rarest of instances.  I never feel good voting on topicality. I punish people who run  topicality in a cavalier way. When I vote on topicality it is because  the negative has provided a compelling definition and interpretation,  both of which are rooted in some appreciation of the relevant context  (e.g. what are field-specific interpretations, terms of art, etc.) and  have clarified meaningful in-round harms.  5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual  competition ok? functional competition? All counterplans are potentially admissible however some things about  them are required: (1) clear text, clearly delivered, especially the  “plan” part of the counterplan; (2) the counterplan competes with  the affirmative plan: It is a reason to reject the affirmative plan  (or advocacy) and not just a better idea. This means that when all  arguments are considered, the counterplan alone is better than the  plan (i.e., net beneficial) and better than all of the plan plus some  portion of the counterplan (i.e., the perm is not net-beneficial). Neg should identify CP status. I tend to dislike conditionality, am  ambivalent about dispositionality, and resolutely disinclined toward  multiple counterplans.  Nearly any potential scope of action or, range of actors, deserves  consideration depending on the strength of argument by their advocates.  Every kind of process CP, agent (from states to no states to all states  to other states), every kind of PIC, anything really is potentially  acceptable provided it meets the requirements described above. In my ideal counterplan debate, the negative introduces one counterplan  that is well-considered, consistent with other arguments, rooted  (outside of the debate) in some literature base, germane to the  affirmative discussion, and is fully developed during the debate as an  alternative, competitive course of action. I will need help to understand why textual competition is not a  pathetic argument. For one, it is a type of functional competition. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Knowledge is good and shared knowledge accumulates non-linearly. I  would prefer teams share flows rather than debate in ignorance. 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?)? This question is impossible to answer in a principled way because  debaters always make some argument about ordering or weighing, I hope  explicitly, but always at least implicitly. I can answer with respect  to how I perceive judging patterns (whether these are mine or me  voting on others’ patterns is an interesting question): I rarely vote  on topicality so, that is moot. Other procedurals would tend to get  evaluated first, provided they are well developed and explained. For  instance, I hate plan-spec arguments but if they are well argued and  impacted then they might trump other considerations. The rules and  fairness are important in general. People tend to argue that critiques should proceed plan consequences  (whether because it is pre-fiat, or personal advocacy, or whatever) and  so I tend to vote in accordance with that norm. I think it reflects a  profoundly limited conception of fiat and its role in the debate and  often undersells both the value of policy analysis and the role of  “critiques” in policy-making and policy analysis. Part of my job when judging is to identify explicit or  implicit weighing or ordering based on arguments introduced  by the debaters. I will work to do that before defaulting to  my preferences. These impressions are based on years as a  participant but with those years in the past until this year. 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")? Answer essentially the same as in #7. All impacts should be made concrete through powerful argument and analysis. For me this can mean that dehumanization is a very real  impact, very concrete, more so than a probabilistic risk of a war  resulting in an indeterminate number of deaths estimated to some  rough number. On the other hand, dehumanization can be flowery rhetoric used to hide from the real world consequences of one’s  advocacy. Tell me which description fits your impact(s).

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.

Will Van Treuren - CU

Experience: I debated for four years in high school policy and four years in college parli. I have coached CU for four years and a high school team for one. I enjoy the activity of debate immensely and see my role as a judge to keep my biases out of the round and let you play the game how you see fit. I will happily listen to traditional debate, the K, theory, performances, anything you want to do, and try to evaluate the arguments objectively and within the context of the debate. Here are my current preferences/biases formed over my time in debate. They are guidelines; you can convince me any of them are wrong (i.e. you still have to win that multiple conditional advocacies are bad, there are good reasons for them): Multiple conditional advocacies – I tend to believe multiple conditional advocacies are abusive to the affirmative. Frameworks that procedurally exclude offense – (like ‘aff can’t weigh their case because fiat is illusory’) are not particularly persuasive to me. If a framework question is unresolved I will default to thinking of myself as a policy maker and of the teams as advocates for the policies they are defending.  Alternate frameworks often lack a way to compare impacts (e.g. what is a methodology or ontology DA?) and I will compare the world of the alternative to the world of the plan in terms of articulated consequences (impacts) without filter unless you provide a clear decision criteria for what impacts to include or exclude. Case debate – I think the state of case construction and the level of case debate in parli is bad. Most cases I have seen in the last two years of judging have had internal contradictions/tension that were not exploited by the LOC. I reward clever case argumentation, and wish it would be a larger portion of LOC strategies. In particular smart defense in conjunction with a case specific disad or turn will often be more demonstrative of intelligence and clever strategic thinking (to me) than reading several counterplans and resolving aff offense with conditionality (same goes for smart defense coupled with a few clear pieces of offense against a CP, K, DA or whatever). Impact calculus – I assess internally consistent arguments that clearly articulate incentive structures (check out Stephen Moncriefs excellent philosophy for more) for various actors as far more probable impacts/links/uniquenesses. If your scenario is not internally consistent in some clear way, I will treat it with inherently lower probability. As an example, an aff with a really well constructed single advantage can often outweigh poorly warranted LOC disads (even if they are otherwise undercovered) by virtue of how important being able to construct the causal chain and incentive landscape for the actors is post your link for me. I will vote on RVIs if they are entirely unanswered, but my threshold here is very high – I think RVIs are stupid. I hold no bias for or against specification arguments.  I default to competing interpretations but think that the aff can easily win reasons why they are bad and/or their interp is good enough. In round abuse is not necessary. I think that PIC’s encourage strategic and in depth debate. It will be hard to convince me that they are bad without a more nuanced argument about functional and textual competition. I am a fan of most counterplans that are not veto-cheato style, but can more easily be convinced that plan contingent counterplans are abusive. My default ordering for argument evaluation is procedural then all other arguments equally unless arguments about the sequencing are made (i.e, impact filters, ontology precedes something, etc.). You can change my default. I think death is probably worse than dehumanization and that body counts are a more effective way to get my ballot then nebulous claims about dehum. However, I think that teams can seriously improve on impact calculus and more complex weighing of dehum versus death or probability vs. magnitude could be fertile ground to win an otherwise unwinnable debate. Style and speaker points: The only stylistic thing that I think merits inclusion is that I dislike arrogant or mean debaters. Intensity is encouraged but very easy to do that without being rude. I like to reward clever decision-making and technical prowess more than eloquence or being funny (but those things will help you as well). If you are not taking the debate seriously I will not enjoy judging you, and while I will try to make sure that doesn't impact my decision, it will likely influence speaker points. Critical/performance arguments: I am happy to listen to critical or performance arguments by either side. I think that a clear framework for my role as a judge needs to be established and that the alternative have explanation. I have backfile knowledge of many criticisms but am not deep on the literature so your arguments will have to be explained. I think that affirmatives under utilize ethics or critical style advantages and enjoy the strategic options they introduce into the debate. Being ‘contradictory’ with other negative positions doesn’t seem like a problem in a world of conditionality. Contrary to my reputation as an anti-K hack I frequently vote for criticisms but I have never voted for Baudrillard and Nietzsche (not to say that I won’t, just a word of caution).

Will Chamberlain - Oregon

Zach Tschida - Puget Sound

Zach Moss - NPDA Hired

n/a

2014 NPDA Championship Tournament