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

Brandon Rivera - Palomar

Section 1: General Information I competed for Northern Arizona University and am now coaching at San Diego State University. This is my second year judging collegiate debate and my first year coaching. My background is in Political Science, Women’s and Gender Studies, and Ethnic Studies. I was a “kritik” debater in my undergrad, but I would appreciate if you did what you know best. The biggest thing for me in debate was to have a critic with an open mind and the ability to listen. I hope to facilitate this role for debaters in the community and give people the opportunity.     Quick Notes:   DO WHAT YOU DO. Just because I know critical arguments more does not mean that I want to see those debates all the time. This is especially true if a team deviates from what they are good at in order to try and please me. Whether its “first strike” or “reject white civil society”, I will vote if I think you win the round.   I vote on examples within the debate more than a certain style of argument. By example I mean a historical, social, popular culture, or another type of event that helps to describe how your argument functions. “Dehum leads to otherization and is the logic of genocide” is not an example.   “Perm do both” is a borderline acceptable perm text. If you read these perms you roll the dice, especially if the other team points out that the alt/cp says vote neg. I know it takes time to read out both plan text, but I think it makes for the most stable perm debate.   Just because its dropped doesn’t mean I have to vote. I vote for well articulated and impacted arguments. Usually when something is dropped this means the other time gets to impact out their argument and prove why that argument is the most important in the round. Simply extending a drop does not guarantee “game over”.      Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Please describe your approach to the following.   1.       Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 25-30   2.       How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   I think that this is the type of argument that I know the most. I like critical arguments, but think that they require a few levels of analysis. I require a stable interpretation on the framework in order to give me something to evaluate the round. I do not believe that you “win framework = winning the round”, but do think that the framework gives you access to the impacts of your critical argument. I also prefer to have some explanation of your method, especially when the case is much more performative. I think that the affirmative can run a critical argument. The affirmative can both affirm the topic in a critical way, as well as read an affirmative that deals with larger social issues. Regardless of the route you take as the affirmative, the framework must justify the method and the viewpoint that you want me to evaluate the round based on.   I know there is a growing trend towards arguments that “function in multiple worlds” and often contradict each other. My personal disposition on the issue is that I think “contradictory” arguments make the debate confusing and I do not get why severing rhetoric is “ok”, even it is key to competitive flex. That being said, this is debate and if you have good reasons why being contradictory is good, I will vote.   3.       Performance based arguments…   This is another type of argument that I ran as a competitor and am generally familiar with. You need to justify your position and explain how your performance functions. I generally see all debate as a performance, and therefore it is the responsibility of the team to tell me why I should prefer one performance over another.   4.       Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?   I really like theory and think that it is one of the more under utilized positions in parli. I need in round proven abuse to vote, but will also listen to arguments about potential abuse as a voter. I generally think that competing interpretations is the best way to evaluate a procedural, but am open to different weighing mechanisms. I think the most important part to theory is making sure that teams have impacts built into the standards debate, and weigh those impacts against other claims made in the debate. I do not do work for you on procedurals. If you do not provide a counter interpretation, or just “cross apply case” I will not infer what you mean by that strategically.   5.       Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?   I think that the “PIC” debate is one of those things that debaters need to resolve in round and is largely contingent on the interpretations of the theory debate. I think that the opposition should give the status of the CP regardless. I think that most perms are best when they are functionally competitive. I have a very limited understanding of what text comp is and why it is important. If this is one of your go to arguments, please clearly explain what you mean and how you think that functions.   I did not read to many counterplans in my day. This means that if I hear something like consult, delay, “cheeto-veto”, I am less prone to know why so many people in the community do not like these positions. In other words, please be clear on your theory if you think these types of counter plans are “cheating”.    On the perm I require a perm text. This is not a written copy of the perm, but the aff should read the entirety of the aff followed by the parts of the negative that they want to perm. This helps me evaluate how the perm functions and increases the likelihood I vote. If a team says perm “Do both”, and does not explain what do both means, I am less likely to vote for those types of perms.   6.       Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)   I can see this being useful, especially if a more experienced team is willing to let a less experienced team have a look. I don’t have a predisposition but don’t waste time and get me in trouble for making the tournament late.   7.       In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?   I will look at the framework level of the debate in order to see what lenses and prioritizations I should put on the impacts. From there I will usually default to impact comparison made in the debate round. I do not necessarily think that procedurals come before a kriticism, but if no one collapses or weighs impacts, I would probably look at the procedural first. Sorry this section is not more helpful.   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 this is the situation that happens, no one will be happy. I do not have a general rule on these issues, but would probably weigh large-scale flash point impacts over theoretical concepts like “dehumanization”. I think debaters should avoid this situation at all cost, and can do so by making internal link claims in the implications. For example, if one team says that dehumanization is the root cause of all violence and the other says “nuke war”, I would vote for the “dehumanization” impact it comes before all violence.

Brendan Silk - UWash

Last Updated: 9/22/2014 Background This is my first year out, and the NW parli warmup will be my first experience judging open parli. I recommend keeping that in mind, since everything I’ve heard/seen suggests there can be a bit of an adjustment phase for new critics, and I don’t expect I’ll be an exception to this. My debate background is 4 years in high school LD and 4 in NPDA (going by semesters, it technically adds up to 3, but you can decide how much that matters to you). As a competitor, I tried to be as versatile as possible without strong preferences for any argument style - other than a bit of an implicit dislike of what I felt were overly normative stances toward how competitors should approach debate. To be clear: I love when people get excited about their preferred style of debate, because 1) that’s what it’s about and 2) that tends to make for much better debate in the first place. I am just slightly resistant to the idea that there is a right way to engage in the activity. That said, the point of the activity is to argue, and the critic’s job isn’t to impose views either, so I will certainly listen to any argument and will evaluate the way you tell me to. General Issues As implied above, while it’s hard to deny that bias is inevitable in an activity like this, I do consider it the critic’s responsibility to acknowledge and interrogate their own bias, and to do their best to remove it from the debate round. I think Joe Allen’s philosophy puts this especially nicely. The round is yours to do with it what you want, and I just ask that you make it as clear as possible what you want that to mean. As a side note - I always appreciated expressive judges, because I felt feedback and positive/negative reinforcement helped me correct and learn from my mistakes. Accordingly, I’ll do my best to be clear if I think you should move on or if I find a certain argument confusing. That said, I don’t think being a jerk teaches people much nor makes them want to debate more, and I think it’s often the judge’s responsibility to learn from the competitors, so I will not be over the top about this. If I look confused, it’s not because I’m trying to tell you I think you or your partner are dumb or wrong. Etiquette Be nice always! This is a great community full of great people, and I like it when debate rounds reflect that. I don’t care how fast you go or anything - you’ll know when I can’t understand you or can’t keep up. You should call points of order in front of me. I’ll always do my best to protect, but this will help you flag arguments you want me to take special care in evaluating while making my decision. That said, more than 2-3 in a rebuttal gets pretty exhausting. By that point, I’ll have a pretty good idea of how new the PMR may or may not be. Be sure to provide each other with copies of whatever text(s) you’re going to read. This pretty much always makes for better debate. I generally think it’s the responsibility of more experienced debaters to be friendly and welcoming to younger folks, especially in round. This activity can be real scary when you’re starting out, and I tend to think even the smallest gestures can go a long way in making newer people feel welcome. Plus, the best debaters I’ve seen never had a problem being incredibly nice between, before, or after their speeches. Or during, no matter how vicious their arguments might have sounded. Theory/Procedurals I always liked procedural debate, probably because there was more of it high school LD, but I acknowledge that its Iprevalence, utility, and average level of substance in parli appears to be on the decline. I’m generally sympathetic to the standard responses to your most common procedurals (e.g., POI’s check spec abuse), though I will always evaluate the arguments and responses as they’re presented. I both accept that time tradeoffs are a thing, strategically, and that most such arguments are also easily answered. For me, the best theory debates start with a solid, fixed interpretation (be as diligent with writing them as you are with plan or CP texts!) that has distinct, clear net benefits (standards) which are in turned tied to a clear, quantifiable, a priori voting issue (fairness, education). I think people too frequently spit through the end of a theory shell without explaining the reasons to vote for it in more than blips. To me, this is like reading a disad without an impact - some of the time people will fill in the blanks for you, but you shouldn’t count on it. If you want to be able to win a round on this kind of position, you need to do the work to impact it out for the judge. The most common procedurals I see these days are T and condo - I haven’t seen a lot else recently, but if I do I’ll update with my thoughts. For now, here are some specifics on those two: Topicality - I am pretty straightforward on topicality questions - as explained above, if you have a clear and well-supported interpretation tied to strong standards and fleshed out voters, you’ll be in good shape. I’ll evaluate T by first looking at the lens (CI vs reasonability), the level at which I’m told to evaluate it (a priori orrrrr….?), and the voter that is proved to be most important (fairness or education). Then I compare the net benefits (standards) of each interpretation as they relate to that voter. I don’t like to default in any direction on T, so please don’t make me. Conditionality good/bad - I will certainly vote for a conditionality bad shell, but I think the battle is always in demonstrating why exactly the abuse in kicking out of an advocacy differs from that of another argument in which there is a time tradeoff. For example, if your standards-level argument is that multiple conditional off force you to read contradictory arguments in the MG, I need a specific, voter-level explanation why that matters (e.g., why it’s unfair, why it demonstrably hurts education). While I think conditionality probably is better suited to an activity with backside rebuttals, I find these types of arguments against it pretty difficult to evaluate - especially when it’s become a widely accepted practice in some parts of the country (like the PNW!) and doesn’t seem to have caused a disproportionate neg bias. This could well be a case where the numbers say otherwise and I simply haven’t seen them. DAs/Advantages I (and my partner) got a bit of a reputation as a K hacky team, which is too bad because I think disads can often be smarter and significantly more specific. Topic-specific DA’s are what’s up, and I think they are some of the most interesting, satisfying, and fun to evaluate positions in the activity. They’ll also screw over an MG that doesn’t know the topic well. Research yr disads! Politics and other generics are fine by me as long as the scenario is clear. I think it’s a good habit to memorize a short thesis of the scenario and present it as an MO overview (this does help in the LOC too). Advantage-wise, I like to see some variety in impacts and impact modules, but honestly that’s only because I think it’s strategic, and you can do whatever the hell you want on that front. I do think impact framing of some kind in the PMC can be strategic regardless of the type of impact, though not at the expense of well-warranted scenarios. One more note about impacts - something I’d echo that I’ve heard a few times from folks who dislike the K or “project” type arguments (but appreciate the value of advantage/disad debate) is: crafting your own impact modules around types of oppression or violence you understand/know well/care about can be an excellent way to use your own voice in the debate round without having to modify your style. You’ll also probably win a lot of rounds with them. Critiques I’ll listen to any type of critique - aff or neg - but will echo what a lot of folks have already said in that you shouldn’t assume a critic wants to hear a critique simply because you’ve heard about them reading one. My partner and I read Nietzsche our entire freshman year together, but that was because I didn’t understand counterplans and disads, not because it was smart. I do really like well-researched kritik debate (obligatory #readabook) but, from my own experience reading kritiks without being well-versed in the literature, it can get pretty generic pretty fast if you just rely on an existing shell. I like nuanced frameworks, and especially K-specific ones. This tends to demonstrate that you understand the argument well, and get how it functions within the round. However, the way parli debate is going, I’m not absolutely convinced you need a ton of FW (or to spend much time on it in the block). I typically think a concise but spikey FW, focusing on how the K should be evaluated (why it comes first) is the way to go. With aff kritiks - when K-ing off the aff I tended to read either topical K affs or totally non-topical positions, and I think either is fine. Just please be prepared to answer the likely objections, and explain the function of the K if you’re rejecting the topic/policy debate/net-benefits.. CPs Not a lot to say here - I do think smart CP’s (esp. supported by a lit base) are, like good disads, what’s up. I don’t have a strong predisposition for or against specific kinds of counterplans, including the usual theoretical objections. I’m inclined to believe cheatery CP’s are easily answered with procedurals, but am probably also inclined to reject the arg vs. the team unless convinced otherwise.

Brent Nicholson - McKendree

This philosophy should give you a look into the way I think, but I believe that it will be totally sufficient given my outlook on debate. In the past, I’ve tried to be comprehensive, but I think that that lead to folks misinterpreting my thoughts on debate. Do not take my brevity to mean that I don’t have thoughts about debate, but rather that I think my own opinions ought not matter to you as a debater – this is, after all, your activity. My goal as a judge is to adapt to the round that the debaters have. This may seem to be empty to y’all, and that’s fine, but my goal as a coach and judge is to facilitate debate rounds that debaters want to have. I feel capable of judging any debate and would encourage you to do you when I am your judge. With that said, you’ll probably want a few things that I start off with to keep in mind. - I assume all negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. - I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts. - Give your opponents’ arguments the benefit of the doubt. They’re probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning. - Role of the ballot arguments do not make sense to me: if you have to win that the aff/neg does something good to meet the role of the ballot, it seems like you’ve already won the regular-old impact debate. Keep trying! But be aware that I was probably already voting for you if you won an impact.

Brian Horton - NPDA Hired

Brian A. Horton — Hired/Texas Tech University Background of the Critic: I participated in competitive speech in debate for over seven years (three years at the high school level and four at the collegiate level). I competed in Parliamentary Debate for four years at Texas Tech University. After graduation I coached debate and individual events at Rice University for two years. Since Rice, I have been working on my PhD in Anthropology at Brown University for the past three years and have not been as involved with forensics as I would like to be. My thoughts on debate: I tend to think that debate is a competition, a game, and an opportunity for you to out-strategize your opponent. Therefore, I aim to insert myself into the round as little as possible. That being said I want to make the best possible decision. As I judge I commit to giving my time and thought to my decision. As a debater I expect you to debate in the manner that you wish to and to tell me in some form or fashion what I am to base my decision on. While some debates come easier to me than others (see below for further explanation), my decision will ultimately come down to whatever is written on my flow and what arguments you tell me to prioritize in the debate. Part of the skill of being a strong debater is issue selection and impacting, thus I really expect you to do that work for me instead of allowing me to do it. Presentation Though I view debate as a game, there is a certain level of civility that I think is reasonable to expect. Confidence is wonderful. Arrogance often devolves into rudeness. Err more towards confidence and away from arrogance and confrontation. It won’t cost you the round but will probably reflect in your speaker points. I am fine with speed. If you mumble I’ll just yell clear. However do give me a sec to switch pages when you move from position to position. Call POIs but once you have flagged the issue as new you don’t need to keep calling it. POIs are a safety mechanism, not an opportunity for you to try and throw off the other team. Procedurals I think procedurals, especially topicality, are an important tool for the negative team to ensure access into the debate round and that the affirmative is actually affirming the resolution. Unless told otherwise I will look to the procedural debate first. Any procedurals should have a clearly articulated interpretation, a violation that explains how the other team does not meet your interpretation, some sort of standard that explains the implication of the violation, and a voter that explains why this issue is something for me to vote on. Please be as clear as possible when reading your interpretations and counter interpretations since these debates often come down to the precision of words. DA/Advantage Debates Many of these debates are won and lost in the uniqueness scenarios. Good debaters devote time to argument comparison on the uniqueness debates in order to win their particular story. I think occasionally defense can win you rounds but I am much more persuaded by offense. Lastly, the story you spin on the impacts is very important, especially in the LOR and PMR. The rebuttals are an opportunity for you to spin a story of why your impact scenario on the DA/Advantage is more likely, why it out weighs, and why it will happen first. I really like an explanation of impacts. As opposed to just shouting “nuclear war and that’s bad”. Take the time to explain why it’s bad. I promise it will help you in the long run. Counterplans  I like them and I think they can be a really strategic in difficult debates for the negative. That being said, I will give the affirmative full license to make theoretical objections or permutations to the CP as warranted. Kritiks/Performance/Projects Critiques were my bread and butter as a competitor and I feel very comfortable watching K debates. However this comes with a few caveats. Firstly, I think Kritik debate is at its absolute best when the thesis of the position is clearly articulated. The other team is smart. Your critic is probably smart. But that doesn’t mean that they will necessarily understand why the affirmative reproduces the sovereign exception. Take the time to explain the project and why it matters. I am not an expert in all literatures, so explanation would be super helpful. I am pursuing my PhD at the moment in Anthropology. I am comfortable with many of the following schools of thought: Queer Studies, Postcolonial Critique, Biopolitics/Sovereignty (Agamben/Foucault), Gender Studies, Critical Race Studies, and some debates on Poststructuralism in addition to the standard debates (CapBad, DeDev, Deep Ecology, etc). Where the framework is concerned, I am ultimately concerned with the role of the ballot in determining the round. I think much of the debate on a K will not be won in the framework but in the links, impacts, and alt/solvency debates. I am also ok with critical affs but the same expectations still apply. However I would like you to explain what you are doing with the resolution (whether you are upholding it or not). Please feel free to ask me any other specific issues I might have missed before the round.

Brian Lain - UNT

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

Catherine Eisenhauer - UWash

Background: I debated parli at UW for 3 years. I didnt have HS debate experiance so my knowledge of "Debateland" is pretty specific to NPDA/NPTE style debate. In General: -I’d rather not have to default or assume anything, but if no framework is provided I’ll default net bens. That said, you should really have a framework. -Read textual advocacies clearly (slowly if you’re speeding), preferably twice. -Be smart not shisty. I love clever strategies, but doing things like rushing through the framework of your K at the very bottom of your speech to confuse your opponents, avoid POIs, and cover up underdevelopment is more rude than clever. -Speaking of POIs, you should probably take a question. Your case should be plenty strong enough to stand up to a little prying; isn’t that the point? -As for POOs, I prefer to hear them called so that the other team can give a defense (if they have one), but I will also protect you from arguments that are clearly new. -Please do not lie. There are so many good, true arguments that resorting to he said she saids and lies is just bad debate. There comes a point where I’m inclined to reject arguments that are ostensibly and absurdly false. “China doesn’t exist” isn’t actually the most brilliant of answers to a relations DA. As a scientist, I also get particularly irritated when people try to win debates with bullshit science. There are probably some really awesome science reasons why you should win, go find one. -On the K: I do a lot in radical communities and have spent a lot of time studying critical theory. I enjoy critical debate and think the questions presented are both interesting and important. That said, bad straight up debate is unfortunate but bad K debate is often an offensive shipwreck of buzzwords and wrongfully appropriated struggles. Don’t be that person. -On Theory: I’ll vote on it if I’m given a reason. It it’s a topicality, you probably want the case to be actually not topical and in all theory you need to give me a real voter. Otherwise why would I vote on it? Section 2: Specific Inquiries   1.      Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? -26-29.5 standard. Awesome speeches happen and I’m down to give them 30s--but they better be damn awesome. Below 26 means you probably did something offensive and/or rude. Be nice kids. 2.      How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? -You can run whatever the hell you want. Just try to run it well. I’m open to Ks and am pretty well versed in critical theory. I really enjoy people getting into the meat of the K (on both sides). In the same turn  I get kind of bummed when I see critical theory bastardized and am unexcited when Ks are incoherent or deliberately confusing. -How a K can or ought to function with regards to aff Ks,  contradictory positions, etc are issues for the debaters to battle out in the round (or not). That said, your K should at minimum probably present a Framework telling me how it functions in the round and interacts with case. 3.      Performance based arguments… -...are arguments too and I’m down to evaluate them. I think the performance should have an actual point and underlying argumentative message; but I also think many performances can do that quite well. Your performance should probably still have a framework and way for the opponents to engage. 4.      Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? -I’ll vote on topicality. I thinks it’s a position you really need to go for if you want me to vote on it and it should have a pretty solid interp, violation, and set of flushed out voters. -Competing interps is a question of framework to be left to the debate. -In-round abuse might not be necessary but it’s certainly nice. Just make sure you’re getting valid links into your voters. 5.      Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? -CP Theory, including PICs G/B, perm theory, condo, competition, and all that noise is something the debaters can choose whether to engage. I don’t have a bias to vote for or against any kind of CP. -In terms of competition, I think solvency difference/deficit comparisons are undervalued and can be very useful when tied into impact calculus. 6.      Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)? -I don’t necessarily see why that’d be strategic, but yeah totally fine by me. Just agree on that stuff before the round. 7.      In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? -I’ll default to procedurals first, then K/Case. I think the K before Case decision is a true debate and prefer not to default either direction; the debaters should tell me in the round what I should care about more/first. -I think it’s probably smart to tell me how your K/Case functions in a world in which you lose your framework. 8.      How do you weigh arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? -I’m gonna be pretty sad if none of this comparison is done for me by the debaters. There are really good ways to weigh dehum over death etc etc...those arguments should all be made in the round and not by my intervention. I have no voting bias for either style of impact. If I end up being forced into doing work I will probably end up going with whomever needs the least work done. -I think “abstract” impacts are often only abstract because they aren’t flushed out. Debaters often hide behind tag words like dehum without getting into what that impact actually means. -I think the real systemic impacts (like cyclic poverty) are too often brushed to the side for sensational ones. I also will give a lot of credence to specific scenarios over generics; mostly because these scenarios (in general) will have much better developed link stories and uniqueness.

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.

Christopher Bond - MWSU

Cory Freivogel - McKendree

CORY FREIVOGEL JUDGE PHILOSOPHY Hi! My name is Cory Freivogel. I did four years of policy debate in high school in the Chicago area. After that, I spent four years doing Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate at McKendree University. I’m currently the assistant coach there. I will preface this philosophy in the way that most people do - I think you should debate however you debate best in front of me. That being said, I obviously have certain biases and I think you should be familiar with them. Some general notes…. 1. I think debate is first and foremost a game. I think you should do whatever it takes to win that game, and I respect people who play the game with a lot of heart and lot of intensity. 2. I like people who do work. This doesn‘t mean that I won‘t vote for lazy, trite strategies - I have no problem doing that. It just means I respect people who put in extra effort to develop or update sweet arguments. 3. I like people that talk pretty. I certainly don’t think you should ever sacrifice strategy and execution for eloquence, but if you can give a smart speech that’s funny and engaging it will bode well for you. Also, don’t try to be funny if you’re not. 4. Don’t dismiss defensive arguments. Of course I think you should be making a wide variety of offensive arguments, but do not assume you’ll be fine by saying that 9 smart, defensive answers to your affirmative are just defense. DISADVANTAGES I like these arguments a lot. Running well-researched disadvantages with a diverse set of link arguments and huge probable impacts is the easiest way into my heart. Generic disadvantages like politics, business confidence, etc. are fine as well so long as they’re specifically tailored to the affirmative and properly executed. Similarly, I think smart negatives (and affirmatives as well) will do a great deal of work comparing impacts. If you do not do this I will make my own determination about the probability and magnitude of a disadvantage’s impact. I am also probably more concerned about probability than some other judges may be. I am not often impressed by massive impacts that are highly improbable and under-explained. Phrases like “even a 1% risk of our impact outweighs the entire risk of the aff” are typically code for “our impact is absurd and our disadvantage barely links.” COUNTER PLANS These arguments are sweet as well. I typically err negative on arguments like PIC’s bad, conditionality bad, etc. I will vote on these arguments, but it will be an uphill battle. The argument that I should reject the argument rather than the team is usually a winner. I think condition, consultation and other silly process counter plans are of questionable legitimacy and I can definitely be more persuaded to drop teams on theory if they’re extending these arguments. That being said I like counter plans of all shapes and sizes and think that if you aren’t reading one or straight turning the affirmative, then you’re probably in trouble. KRITIKS I am not as hostile to these arguments as most people probably think I am. I am, however, probably as unlikely to understand these arguments as most people think I am. I have not and probably will not ever read any traditional or post-modern philosophy unless someone requires me to do so. I’m not trying to dog on anyone that does, but it’s just not my thang. This is mainly meant as a word of caution. If you run the kritik I will listen, flow and do my best to make a fair decision. But, I am not the best critic for you. If you somehow find me in the back of the room and you have nothing but your criticism, it will serve you well to slow down and eliminate all the jargon you imagine I may be familiar with. That being said, if you’re an affirmative answering these arguments do not assume I will let you get away with answering kritiks poorly. If you mischaracterize the criticism, concede framework arguments, or rely on defense then I’ll probably notice and you’ll lose. TOPICALITY I like good topicality debates a lot. If you are affirmative, then you need to meet the interpretation or you need a counter interpretation. Absent one of those things, you will probably lose. If you are going for or answering topicality you should be comparing standards and voting issues in the same way that you compare impacts. If you do not compare standards, it will make it very difficult for me to make a good decision and it will be bad for everyone. I am also more persuaded by arguments about ground than limits. I could care less if your interpretation “explodes the topic” given that the topic will only exist once and you don’t have to do any research in the future. ASPEC / OSPEC / FSPEC / BILL NUMBER SPEC / COMMITTEE ORIGINATION SPEC / BLAH BLAH SPEC…. These arguments are really not my cup of tea. This is mostly because I don’t like giant pieces of shit in my tea. I understand the strategic utility of introducing these arguments in the LOC, but I cannot understand why one would choose to extend them in the MO unless there was some incredible example of abuse. It is difficult for me to imagine giving any higher than a 27 to even the most persuasive extension of a generic specification argument. THE CASE People forget about the case all the time. That makes me sad because I love a good case debate. If you’re the LOC and you don’t have an incredible counter plan, then you should be putting a lot of offense on the case. Similarly, the MG should be extending and utilizing the case throughout his or her speech. It frustrates me to no end when affirmative teams assume they can entirely ignore the case until the PMR when it suddenly becomes the focus of the debate. Personally, I think you should have to extend the affirmative throughout the debate. POINTS OF ORDER I keep a pretty decent flow and think I can detect new arguments on my own. That being said, they are allowed by the rules and if you think there is a particularly egregious example of an abusive new argument feel free to call it. However, if I know an argument is new I will protect the opposite team regardless of whether or not you say it's new. If you call a bunch of unnecessary points of order on teams just to disrupt their speech or be funny or whatever I will be very unhappy. I hated when teams did that when I debated and I imagine I will hate it even more as a judge. Don't do it. POINTS OF INFORMATION I think as a general rule you should probably accept two of these per speech. I could pretty easily be persuaded to pull the trigger on a "they didn't take any questions" type of procedural. Also, no means no. If someone won't take your question don't yell that question or jump around waving your hands like an idiot or yelling "Please!! Just one!!" The only exceptions to this are in instances when you need to know the status of a counterplan or to have a text repeated / handed to you. I don't think you should have to raise your hand to ask for those things. Maybe there is no legitimate justification for that, but that just happens to be what I think. COVERAGE - I wanted to make a point of discussing this because at some point late last season I found myself voting on weak impact prioritization arguments and extinction claims that others chose to disregard. I’ve found myself doing this more and more. I believe that Claim + Warrant = An Argument. Whether that warrant is fantastic, idiotic or just okay is not for me to decide. Conceded arguments are true arguments - no matter how stupid or abhorrent they might be (I‘m looking at you “Dehumanization outweighs everything!“). If you ignore a potentially round-changing argument because you thought it was dumb or you just missed it, you’re probably going to lose.  Some judges don’t vote on these types of arguments because they are not thoroughly explained, they aren’t “fleshed out” or they aren’t given priority in the rebuttals. I understand and respect that philosophy, I just don‘t share it. I am constantly pushing myself to keep a flow that is as organized and detailed as humanly possible. In the context of debate, I find few things more resplendently beautiful than an immaculate flow. There are no computers, blocks or prep time in this game. As such, It is impossible to become a great debater without first mastering the art of the flow. I refuse to reward debaters that do not excel at the fundamentals. Perhaps it is unfair of me to push my dorky fetishization of the flow onto you, but I'm going to do it anyways. You should be aware of that.  DISCLAIMER: I love good, smart debates with dope strategies on both sides. Please DO NOT use this philosophy to justify ruining the debate with a whole mess of garbage arguments. I’ll probably give you a 17 or have Ben Reid wring out his sweat-soiled clothes on you.

Dana Harper Krementz - NPDA Hired

GENERAL: I competed in speech and debate for Northern Arizona University from 2010-2014 (first three were parli focused, fourth year was speech focused). I also did policy debate for three years in high school before NAU. I primarily ran Ks during my time with NAU but remember my policy/stock issues days fondly so feel free to run whatever you would like in front of me. You and your opponents set the round. As long as you define how the round will play out and can defend your interpretation, I am happy. That being said, I haven’t competed or judged a round since 2013-2014 so I am bit on the rusty side. Clearly explain all of your arguments like I am an intelligent five year old (who secretly has a bachelor’s degree) and you’ll be fine (this is just a good practice in general). I prefer conversational speed but if you need to spread I respect that (just don’t get upset if my decision subsequently lacks clarity); I’ll tell you if you’re going to fast or are unclear. DO NOT USE SPEED AS A TOOL OF EXCLUSION. Read all advocacy texts and interps twice. Constructive must take at least one question. SPECIFICS: Case: Do whatever you want; policy, critical, critical policy, etc. Affirmative doesn’t have to be topical as long as they establish and win why they don’t have to be. Please establish a clear weighing mechanism for the round otherwise I default to net benefits (probability, severity, magnitude; in that order). T/Procedurals: While I prefer on case arguments for substance sake, feel free to run theory if you need to. Needs specific interps, clear violations, contextualized standards, and impactful voters. Critical interpretations of procedurals or responses to make me very happy. DAs: Should be specific to round/case args; generic disads loose to generic answers. Links must be very clear and impacts must be terminalized. *Please note: I do not understand economic theory, if you run econ make sure that you really explain your arguments and do not just throw jargon at me. For my own understanding, it is also probably in your best interest to filter these economic arguments through lenses of material oppression/ability/race/gender/etc. CPs: All CP theory is acceptable and debatable, just be clear. CPs and Perms need stable text; written texts are nice but repeating texts will suffice. “Do both” is not a perm text. Kritiks/Performance: Read them, love them, run them (if that’s what you want and are comfortable with). I love K debate but I will not pick you up just for running a kritic. In order to get my ballot you must have a clear and defended interpretation of framework, accessible and contextualized thesis, stable and specific links, and terminlized impacts. Performance is awesome and great way to change up debates. Just give me a stable framework and method for weighing. I consider all debate to be a performance so you must clearly articulate how to weigh one performance vs another. *Please note: I am more comfortable with material critisms and my understanding of post structural theory is slim to none. Still feel free to run these arguments but please refer to my intelligent five year old comment in the general section of my philosophy when evaluating how you will approach these arguments.  Other: Over/under views, over/under views, over/under views! Links, links, links! Impact calc, impact calc, impact calc! Fun, fun, fun! This is your debate so do with it as you may; just don’t forget to tell me how I am supposed to evaluate the round as a judge. I default to net bens and will most likely prioritize probability over magnitude unless otherwise instructed. I was a rebuttalist throughout my seven years of debate competition and subsequently hold impact prioritization in high regards. Debate should be a safe space so I expect competitors to be respectful. Being polite is awesome, being fake is not. If you are angry or passionate about something, fuck yes!, be angry; but please refrain from aggressive or hostile behaviors to specific people in the room and/or in the community. Do not use racist/sexist/abelist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. language in round (or in general, please); you might not lose the round because of this but your speaker points will be diminished. Extra speaker/brownie points if you incorporate references to circus/aerial arts, Tom Robbins, Arkansas, or obscure sexual/reproductive processes of nonhuman organism (I got my degree in Biological Sciences :p ) CONGRATS ON MAKING IT TO NATIONALS!

Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia

Dr. Dan Schabot Lower Columbia College Years Debating: 5 total (1 years NFL LD; 4 years CEDA/NDT ) Years Coaching/Judging: 15 Total (2 years CEDA/NDT; 13 Years NPDA)   General Philosophy: Each team should make good (well supported and well-reasoned) arguments and clash with each other. I prefer 2 or 3 in depth positions to 5 or 6 blipped positions.   Specifics: Affirmative teams:  At this point in my judging life I am no longer interested in listening to debates that do not at least make an attempt to address the topic in the resolution.  You can run any position you want as long as you explain why what you are arguing deals with the topic.   Negative Teams:  I also feel that negative teams have the responsibility to address affirmative arguments as well as presenting their own.  Positions just run for the sake of filling time (such as generic T) have little weight with me.  Each position should be part of a coherent strategy to win.   Speed and Presentation:  If you feel the need to go fast that is fine.  However, running a bunch of positions just so you can go fast is useless.  Speed as a strategy (in and of itself) will not be rewarded.     RFD:  My preferences are listed above.  I have and will vote for just about any argument type. A team must clearly explain why their advocacy is superior to other team’s advocacy to win a round.

Danny Iberri-Shea - Palomar

This is from the 2006 NPTE. Danny Iberri-Shea NAU Parli Debates judged this year: 60+ Non-Parli Debates judged this year: 10+ Years Judging Debate: 4 Years Competed in Debate: 8 What School Competed at: L.A. Valley Moorpark NAU Making Decisions: '--My decision is based on my approach to decision-making though I do consider adjusting for what the debaters argue I am fine with games but please explain/justify what you are attemting to do.' Decision-making Approach: '--I focus on the stock issues (the government needs to show significance/harms inherency solvency disadvantages or for fact-value topics value-criteria and contentions) Solving for harms is more important to me than having groovy advantages. Significance is a stock issue.' Assessing Arguments: 'Weak arguments can be dropped without penalty. Weak positions should be promptly kicked. You can t have your cake and eat it too! <img alt="" src="http://www.net-benefits.net/images/smilies/smile.gif" />' Presentational Aspects: 'Any delivery rate is fine so long as it is clear. I don t like seeing speed used as a tool of oppression but then again I don t expect any novices at the NPTE. Have fun!' Strong Viewpoints: 'I find economic theory painfully boring. If the topic forces you to argue economics I would rather hear the human/labor/environmental perspectives that relate to economic theory.' Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'I love theory and jurisdictional stuff. That being said I feel that way too many neg teams rely on PICS these days as a means of avoiding critical and deeply challenging positions to cases. I will listen to most any position including why topical counterplans justify voting aff.' Other Items to Note: 'Not all claims warrant a plan. Think about what the resolution is asking you to prove. Be topical. Create unique burdens/criteria to prove each unique claim. Plese stand up for all questions and all speeches (this is only polite). Have fun be respectful and please avoid excessive talking while the other team is presenting arguments.

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 Dingess - CU

David Dingess - University of Colorado-Boulder Saved Philosophy: n/a Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy. Experience: 4 years of policy in high school. 3 years of parli at William Jewell. 1 year coaching/judging at Jewell. 1 year coaching/udging at CU Boulder. I have judged high school policy sporadically. Some Background Stuff: I value clarity in the arguments read in a debate. When I was judging last year I saw many debates where teams intentionally read muddled positions to obfuscate the debate. I think there is a big difference between reading a clever argument that someone happened to not anticipate and being purposefully unclear to try to get a less clever position answered poorly. I will not vote against people just for being unclear sometimes but I do expect you to make a good faith effort to engage your opponents with clear arguments. If I notice you purposefully obfuscating the debate, you will get, at best, mediocre speaker points from me. I also will not fill in argumentative gaps that were unclear when arguments are read. - All constructive speeches must take a question - You should read texts twice - Interpretations on procedural positions should be read slowly and clearly - The more you can make your theory arguments specific to the given resolution/plan text/etc. the better - Permutations are tests of competition. -A legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan - RVI’s are silly. Do not run them. - Speed K’s are equally silly. Do not run them either. - Use smart defensive arguments. - I feel like many judge philosophies that I read place emphasis on the need to prioritize warrants and clarity over speed. I definitely agree with these sentiments - Sarcasm is great. Rudeness is lame. Be respectful of your competitors. - I like it when the case is not ignored after the PMC. This means making case argument on the neg and utilizing the case to answer disads/effect impact calc on gov. The case shouldn’t disappear in the MG. - I will protect for new arguments but I understand the strategic utility of points of order. That said, please do not excessively point of order people. I’ll dock your speaks for it. - Don’t read fact or value cases in front of me. - You should state the status of your counterplan/k. If someone has to ask about the status, that does not count as a question Topicality I enjoy good T debates. My default is that topicality comes down to competing interpretations but I am willing to entertain arguments about why competing interpretations is a bad way to evaluate T. I am very skeptical of critiques of topicality. That doesn’t mean I won’t ever vote for them but just know that I am skeptical and it may be more strategic to try other arguments/just talk about the topic. I will be less likely to vote for spec/vagueness arguments than I will be to vote for T but that doesn’t mean I would not vote for a poorly answered spec argument. DA’s Please try to have warranted internal link and impact stories that have some propensity of actually happening. Otherwise, disads are pretty great. CP’s I will let the teams argue about conditionality. Just know I am usually not too friendly towards running multiple conditional advocacies. Last year I never voted against a team who had just one conditional advocacy. (This does not mean I always think condo is good, just that most people challenged it poorly) Delay/Object Fiat/Process CP’s are all bad. Consult is slightly less bad but you could definitely get me to vote on theory against consult cp’s. PIC’s are generally good but I am willing to listen theory that criticizes PIC, especially if the interpretation claims that PICs are bad for a specific type of resolution. Advantage/Alt Agent/Topical Cp’s are all good. Counterplans should be functionally competitive. Critiques I did not utilize critiques often when I debated. I am certainly open to hearing criticisms but I may be better prepared to evaluate policy debates. I think K’s basically should have a very clear explanation what exactly it is you are criticizing and why that is the biggest impact in the round. Please avoid appeals to/attack on authors when debating criticisms. When people run K’s in parli they don’t have to defend everything that their author ever wrote. Also, I probably may have not read your author and even if I did this K is your interpretation of a text so don’t just appeal to the author in place of warrants. Full Disclosure: last year I voted for a fair number of K’s during the year, however, I voted for very few K’s at NPTE. Take that as you will. Try and make your K’s specific to the resolution and case. This will help in the perm debate. Have fun!

David Bowers - SMC

I very much believe that in terms of debate you should do what you do best and I will try and evaluate it my best.  That being said I think there has to be a very clear way to evaluate the round come the LOR or the PMR, absent that I would probably default to a utilitarian calculus.  Experience:  3 years of Policy, 5 years of parli, 3 years of NFA-LD. Stuff that you will care about:  I generally think that more than one conditional advocacy is not good in parli, I also think that T is easiest evaluated in terms of competing interpretations.  If you have questions beyond that on things that I find important please ask.  Speed:  I haven’t judged a fast parli round in quite some time, so keep that in mind—it doesn’t not mean that you have to go slow but I would advise 7/10 speed.  Like I said, and I want to emphasize this, I’m generally fine with any argument so long as I understand it.  I haven’t judged parli in a while so I’m not sure how it’s changed, just make sure that everything is clear, that’s really all I ask.

Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell

General information: I did LD in High School, CEDA in College and now coach NPDA.  I have been coaching for 8 years and have been involved in the activity for many more. I don't keep track of the specific number of rounds I have judged this year. More than 40. I am open to a variety of forms of debate.  Each round should take on its own form.  Any form or strategy is fine as long as everyone is the room can communicate.  I attempt to bring as little to the debate as possible although no judge can be totally tabla rosa. Arguments matter to me more than style.  I judge in a clear order. Kritik (if they are in the round) then procedurals (again, if they are present in the round) then case (government must prove that it is worth attempting plan) then weighing advantages against disadvantages.  Specific information: Topicality: I appreciate strategic interpretations of resolutions and will give a fair amount of room for the government to interpret the resolution.  They key is that everyone has some ground and some ability to debate.  I will also give a fair amount of room for novices to work on format and learn the rules.   Counterplans: CPs are great.  Condo is ok if well argued.  Disclose condo or no condo in the first speech.  My strong feeling is that it should not be about tricking the other team but going after a higher level of argumentation. I am not a huge fan of PICs. I would be open to argumentation on the issue. Points of Order are fine. The kritik: Kritiks are great--aff or neg.  Make a good, well-reasoned argument and have a reason for the K.  Then make sure to engage.  Theory: Great.  Go nuts. Disads: Cool.  Link them.

Dylan Brugman - ACU

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

Emily Leber - AppState

I debated in NPDA/NPTE for three years. I view debate as a game, which means that every strategy is a game piece. Use it as you see fit, and play as you prefer. Speed is awesome, but there’s also a difference between speeding out a team and bullying novices; even then, it won’t lose you the round, but your speaker points may reflect overt abuse. I haven’t judged a team that can talk faster than I flow, but I’ll clear you if that happens so you don’t have to try to guess my threshold. Similarly, I value content over presentation. I don’t care if you sit or stand, wear a suit or sweats. Have some class; don’t treat your partner like a backpack- talk during each other’s speeches as much as you want, but speaker points may reflect consistent grandstanding over your partner. Kritiks are my favorite piece in debate, but if a policy affirmative wins framework or a perm, I have no problem voting there. Non-topical affirmatives are fine by me; just win the flow. Run T, theory shells, etc. as much as you want- it doesn’t necessarily have to be true if you’re the winning the argument. Don’t assume that if an argument is common, I will fill in the warrants for you. I also acknowledge that the debate world tends to have different realities than the real world- whatever is said in round will be assumed true unless argued otherwise. I will protect to an extent against new cross-applications in rebuttals, with the exception of basic impact calculus. I view ink as the wall between arguments- so points from the PMC shell can be pulled as support for the PMR if not discussed throughout the round. Likewise, a drop in the MG doesn’t get to be answered in the PMR. I generally protect in the PMR, but since it’s ultimately your ballot at stake, feel free to call points of order as you see them.

Emily Sheldon - UNR

Emily Halter - NPDA Hired

Emily Halter McKendree University   General Information:   I debated policy for 4 years in high school (which I understand is largely irrelevant now, but who knows), and then I did parli for 4 years at Lewis & Clark College, located in the lovely Portland, Oregon. I currently am an assistant coach for McKendree University.  This is my first year coaching and judging.    During my debate career I read a variety of different arguments so I am at least familiar with many various arguments and styles of debate.  If I had to choose, I would say I am definitely more comfortable with straight up counter-plan disad style debate.  However, I would also say that I am open to you doing whatever you want in front of me as long as you explain it well.  I expect debaters to tell me what is important, and how I should vote.    The only other bit of general information that I will add is that if you are debating a younger or perhaps more experienced team please remember that debate is an educational activity.  I do not look favorably on absolutely face crushing younger teams because that just isn’t necessary. Acknowledge that someone may perhaps not be as familiar with speed or critical arguments, and act accordingly. Answer questions and slow down when asked in these situations.     One more thing, debate is fun so debate like you actually care and want to be there.  If you are miserable and sound miserable, I can guarantee that I am miserable listening to you.    HAVE FUN!!!   Specifics:   Speaker Points: Obviously, since I have yet to judge a tournament, I don’t have a speaker point range.  However, I would expect 26-29.5.  That’s a rather broad range, but I guess we will find out once I start giving them.      Critically framed arguments: I am fine with criticisms run on the aff or the neg.  I also think that you can read a K with DA’s.  I don’t, however, think you can critique debate as a whole and then read procedurals and disads.  That doesn’t make any sense to me.    I am familiar with a variety of criticisms and ended up running them in a decent number of debates, but please don’t confuse that with extensive knowledge of critical literature because that I don’t have.  I understand the K and a have a shallow understanding of authors, but if you read something incredibly nuanced or confusing, please be sure to explain it.  I guess that goes for any criticism; I don’t think it is good debating to confuse the other team with philosophical jargon, and truthfully, there is a good chance you confuse me also.  So read Ks all you want, just please explain them well.    As of now, there is no criticism that I really don’t want to hear.  That may change, so as of now I have no preferences.    Performance Arguments: I became more comfortable with performance-based arguments during the second semester of last year, as my partner and I read one a few times.  However, I am still much more comfortable and familiar with more “straight-up” debate.  I will listen to performance arguments, and please feel free to read them, but please don’t think that I prefer or am more familiar with this style of debate.    Topicality: I would not say that I am a T-hack, but I also would not say that I have a high threshold when it comes to topicality.  I really enjoy good topicality debates when they are technical and clean.  That being said, if a T argument is dumb or insanely counter-intuitive, what a waste of time! I also do not think in round abuse is necessary.  I think that prep skew is a very real thing.    If you tell me to evaluate based on reasonability please tell me what that means.  If you just say reasonability without a definition of reasonability, I will not consider that a way to evaluate topicality because I don’t know what that means according to you.    Counterplans: Counterplans are beautiful.  I have always loved the counterplan/disad debate.  I think that I would be willing to listen to any counterplan.  That being said, I do think delay counterplans are super cheater.  I will listen to them, and I would never do anything like auto vote against them, but I will be incredibly amenable to a delay bad theory position or perm do the counterplan.      In terms of status, I think it is probably the job of the affirmative to ask the status of the counterplan, but it would surely be nice of the negative to incorporate that into the reading of the counterplan “thus the unconditional/conditional counterplan is ….”  Either way I guess.  I don’t have a status preference, just be prepared to justify conditionality if questioned.  That being said, you will have a hard time justifying multiple conditional counterplans or multiple conditional kritiks, because I think that’s dumb and cheating.  Let me clarify, I don’t’ mean you can’t read a conditional counterplan with a conditional kritik.  I mean, that you probably shouldn’t read multiple conditional counterplans or multiple conditional kritiks.   Even though I don’t have a problem with conditionality, I have no problem voting on condo-bad if that’s what the debate comes down to.    PICS ARE THE BEST THING IN EXISTANCE. I think that a good PIC is probably the most fun part about being negative, and I love to hear them.  That being said, I am FULLY sympathetic to aff teams reading PICS bad, and I strong suggest that they do.  I think PICS are awesome, but they are also probably pretty stinking abusive in many cases, so I am not more likely to vote for a PIC than I am to vote for PICs Bad, all things equal.    Sharing flowed arguments: I have never really been in any situation in which this happened.  I guess that’s up to the debaters to do their thang.  I’m not the one debating so it doesn’t really concern me.    Order of evaluation in making a decision: I like to think that I will evaluate the arguments the way in which the debaters tell me to evaluate things.  I will default net-benefits, but just tell me how you want me to vote on what position and why.  For the most part, I will evaluate the arguments in the order that they are prioritized by the debaters.  I think the answer to this question is it will largely depend on the round.    Comparing abstract impacts: The only noteworthy comment that I have here is that unlike some other people, I don’t think that value to life is the end-all-be-all impact.  I think that if you drop a value to life claim, you can easily recover.  I treat more abstract impacts like any other impacts.  If you read an abstract impact, I need you as the debater to do impact comparison and tell me why the particular impact is more important than nuclear war or whatever.  Please just come up and ask me if you have any questions.

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.

Hilary Boerger - Biola

Isaac Mayeux - Cedarville U

I debated parli 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 coach, but I judged last year at a handful of tournaments, including NPTE. 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. That being said, the present NPDA rules require that A) the affirmative team affirm the resolution and B) that I vote on something other than personal experience. This means if your opponents convince me that your advocacy is nontopical, I'll vote you down. This also means that I'm not going to vote based on personal characteristics, but rather the arguments themselves. Speed is fine. I’ll tell you if you’re going too fast or if you’re unclear.   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, Lacan, and a few others), 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.

James Luce - NPDA Hired

I competed in parliamentary debate for 4 years and attended NPTE and NPDA Nationals at least 3 of those 4 years.  I judged at nationals after graduation.  I prefer a somewhat more traditional debate structure but any argument is fine so long as it has structural integrity.  Sign posting and focusing on the flow matters.  Dropping arguments matters.  I have never found myself unable to keep up with a particular speed.  Presentation and communication matter are important but do not supersede the substance of the debate in any way. I try to be tabula rasa.  Stock issues and trichotomy are not priorities over dropped arguments and obvious logical policy-making.  Gov can suggest a framework and that will be the framework unless Opp engages.  Opp does not necessarily have to engage case so long as Opp can show impacts outweigh.  Impacts or pre-fiat implications should the central issues of the round.  I think debaters should take 1-3 points of order, but it really does not matter unless the debater is running a strat that requires clarification and does not provide necessary clarification.  I expect debaters to make an effort to take points of order if clarification is an issue.  I judge by looking first to procedurals, which can function as a pre-fiat critique. Then pre-fiat implications, then post fiat impacts.  There are different planes of analysis which can interact with one another, and the best debates will engage all relevant planes of argument and which one should have preference. Overall I see debate as a logic game which should be fun and interesting.  I will base my decision on the flow and treat arguments the way I am told to by the debaters.  Dropped/mishandled arguments should be extended through the round for maximum role in the decision.  Good luck everyone.

Jared Bressler - TTU

Question 1 : 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. Read what you are most comfortable with, teams who never read the K trying to impress me by reading one typically don’t. You just need some offence at the end of the round I like copies of texts when possible. I can be very harsh with speaker points if you step over certain lines. Don’t say racist, sexist homophopic ect things if you do you will lose points. Don’t shame your opponent or nock excessively or you will lose points. Also a few years ago there was a habit of asking for speak points (ie. Giving a short privew saying that all debaters should get 30s) if you do this you will lose a lot of speaker points. If you don’t do any of these things you will get 25 or above. If not I have given debaters 1 (mostly for shaming, or being real offensive when I thought they should know better) and more 15s (if they said something real offensive without thinking about it) so if seeding matters to you be nice. I have a reputation of being a K hack and historically I have voted more for Ks than against them, though this year that pattern is reversed. I think the reason I tend to vote for Ks is because teams are not responsive too key (often stupid) arguments such as questions of root cause, in round solvency, nuances of how the framework functions, and K turns solvency. I try to judge as much as possible as a robot evaluating the flow (I don’t know how good I am at it). If an argument is dropped it is true no matter how underdeveloped. That being said if there are opposing arguments with no analysis on which one prefer I will vote for the one that is the truest/ best warranted.  I also think comparing warrants is the best way to decide debates. Other things the NPDA wants I don’t look at presentation to make decisions as long as as long as I can understand you. I like POIs. I try to protect, but I’m not all that smart. 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)? 25 for a bad speech that is inoffensive (if you are offensive I will destroy your points). 27 for an average speech.</li> <li>How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Run what you can defend.</li> <li>Performance based arguments… I’ve voted for them numerous times, but they are not my favorite.</li> <li>Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?  I like competing interpations and will defult to that unless told otherwise.</li> <li>Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?  All counterplans are ok unless the aff argues that they are not, then I will look at the teory debate</li> <li>Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans). Sure</li> <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> <li>Proceduals first as for Ks I will evaluate them however I’m told or how they make since. I don’t like Ks that claim to come first but the rest of the K doesn’t justify that claim.</li> <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> I defult to death being the biggest impact. However I do weight how teams tell me, I have voted on dehumanization outweighs death before.

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 Jones - UT-Tyler

Question 1 : What is your judging philosophy? Section 1: General Information I believe debate is fundamentally and, indeed, exclusively a game of academic competition in which you maneuver your pieces (ie. arguments) to convince a judge to circle your side of the ballot (or, I suppose, write A or N on an e-ballot). It may have ancillary benefits but I wholly reject the notion that it has any higher purpose or meaning, and I think you should not live your life assuming that debate will bring you to Truth or Understanding. Debate will bring you trophies if you're good, and if you're not, hopefully it brings you some fun and maybe a little education. Section 2: Specific Inquiries How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?  Here's the deal with me and criticisms: I will vote for them if I can comprehend them. I don't find postmodern babble to be indicative of an argument, or even usually indicative of language. I have voted for many teams reading criticisms who I would consider to be very good and I find the common thread in those debates to be that those teams have gone in with the assumption that I am fairly to very stupid and explained critical arguments to me as such. I do fundamentally believe you must defend the implementation of your alternative, that your alternative should take a specific, describable action, and that the affirmative should have access to their advantages to weigh against the criticism. If your strategy relies on denying any of those things, you should at least not run a criticism in front of me, and probably not pref me at all because we likely view debates quite differently. Performance based arguments… The aff should be topical and the neg should grant fair access to the debate (as indicated above) and I very much doubt performance arguments would meet those standards. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I do not believe in round abuse is necessary and do believe the affirmative must have a competitive interpretation. I believe the round begins with prep time, not with the PMC. Good interpretations are, for lack of a better term, functionally competitive in the same way counterplans are. Your interpretation should have a net benefit with an impact, like anything else, and if you do sufficient impact calculus I will not hesitate to vote on topicality. Note that topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue, and I have a very hard time believing it could ever be the internal link to any kind of structural violence. I think most SPEC arguments are pretty terrible unless coupled with a link argument on a substantive piece of paper. I have once voted for ASPEC in semi finals of what I would define as a national circuit tournament. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? PICs are good if they have an impacted net benefit. Too frequently affirmative teams fail to mention that a miniscule PIC does not have a net benefit and I should affirm on presumption. This can be a pretty useful argument, given the proliferation of miniscule PICs, and the increasing frequency of that occurring at a topic area tournament. Absent identification of the status of a CP, I will assume it is conditional. I have no problem with conditionality, and think the MG should be prepared to be strategic and flexible. A permutation is always a test of competition and never an advocacy, but should also have some sort of net benefit. If there is a functional disadvantage to the plan but a functional advantage to the permutation, it follows to me that the CP is not competitive and the permutation captures sufficient offense. I believe counterplans must be functionally competitive and may be textually competitive, but think that the amorphous nature of texts in parli precludes a requirement for textual competition. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Yes. I will also note that I expect you to make a copy of any advocacy (plan text, CP, alt text) available to your opponents and preferably also to the panel. Texts of permutations can be necessary, but aren't always – Do Both is more than sufficient, for example, and I will not look favorably on teams complaining about a lack of text in that instance. 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 costbenefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)? Procedurals will be evaluated first, followed by a weighing of the impact debate. Absent framework arguments or impact calculus arguments to the contrary, I will weigh claims by magnitude. I view probability and timeframe as mitigating factors to magnitude. 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 worse than dehumanization. To convince me otherwise would take a very clear win on that level of debate, or perhaps a concession of a uniqueness level claim (if we're all already dead, who cares if I kill everyone).

Jeremy Weaver - CSU

I am a former collegiate debater (University of Wyoming & North Dakota State University), having competed for 3 years in Policy with a semester of Parli debate as well. In addition to competing, I have coached (University of Wyoming & CSU-Pueblo) and judged (4 years) both policy and parli debaters. In my years of competing I read both straight-up policy strategies and more critical strategies on both sides of the debate. I’m open to hearing Topicality and Theory arguments, Counter Plans, K’s, and Disads on the Neg. I’m open to hearing critical affirmatives, policy affirmatives, and even more value-based affirmatives.  My decisions will be greatly influenced by excellent calculations and comparisons of key issues going on within the debate (voters/voting issues). It is your job to make these connections at the end of the round and not rely on simple extensions of arguments or counters to your opponent’s arguments. I value depth and breadth in the statements you are making. Go beyond Tagline Debate, engage your warrants and demonstrate that you have a strong understanding of what the argument is. Demonstrate the clash between the opposing sides and address why/how your side is coming out ahead on that point or how your defense stands up against their attacks.  You need to be placing weight on your arguments. I shouldn’t have to work on making comparisons. If I have to make comparisons because you failed to make any connections, then the result becomes much closer. Let’s avoid this mess and do the work to convince me on what’s going on in round.  I’m going to ultimately vote on what is clashing (hopefully there will be clash), who is winning that clash, and who is making the stronger, deeper arguments in support of those reasons why you are winning the clash. Overviews help to organize why or how a team is winning. They let you outline the course of the speech, which paints a clearer picture for the critic.  Topicality is great. Be topical or be prepared to defend why you are or why not being topical is good. Opps, discuss the impacts connected to topicality.  Debate Theory builds a better debater. The more you know, the better you understand how debate works and how you can become a stronger competitor. This depth of debate appeals to me, but is not a requirement within a round. K debates are great for evaluating the spirit and letter of the issues we are covering. Make sure that you understand the argument your authors are making and how the Alt works. If your coach told you to run a K and you don’t understand it, do not run the K.  Case debate is a lost art. Don’t go off the beaten path too far and forget about what it is you are debating. The case args are crucial and need to be addressed. Counter Plans should be treated like the case debate. The kind of competition CPs bring to the table are true representations of what policy/issue debate really is. Net-benefits, solvency and competitiveness are key voting points for me.  Speaker Points: I award the best speaker in the round (winner or loser) with the highest points. The best speaker is someone who demonstrates a strong understanding of the components within the round, how those components interact, and can express themselves in a clear and confident manner.

Jeremy Christensen - Washburn

Name: Jeremy Christensen School: Washburn University (Hired) Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. My approach to judging relies upon the round I will judge; or, in short, I try not to decide a round before I enter it. In the follow pages, I explain some things I lean against or am less likely to vote for, that does not mean they are excluded; it means you will have to do more work to win them. With that said, as much as I try to let the round be yours and the arguments be yours, if I am given the choice between sensible and less sensible, I will likely default to the sensible. My sensible may be different than yours. I could be wrong. In nearly thirty years coaching debaters, judging debaters, and competing in debate in every format (excepting Public Forum), I can say I have made a few mistakes. I am honest (I do not rep out); I listen impartially (as long as you don’t attack me or members of the other team); and I want you to have the best educational and competitive experience possible while debating in front of me.  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.  My typical speaker point range is between 25 and 30, although particularly boorish behavior – swearing at a competitor, insulting me, insulting the other team’s college or the college with which I am affiliated, using racist or sexist slurs – will  minimally earn zero speaker points and the latter two issues will result in a report to the tournament director. Frankly, I really don’t expect any of that to happen, but there is the worst case scenario.  3. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Critiques are great when they are developed as more than non-unique disadvantages. With that said, I should point out a couple of things. First, I believe you need some alternative. That alternative may emerge as a framework, at which point you expect me to interpret the round through another lens that points beyond dead bodies, but that constitutes an alternative framework. For me that means you are advocating a different view. Second, I can be sold on something as simple as “reject the Affirmative,” but ultimately you need to tell me what that rejection gets me and what it is I embrace. Unless the framework is a Heddigerian nothingness or a Derridian deconstructivist mode, then I’m unclear where rejection leaves me. (Both of those frameworks would need to be fully explained.) Therefore, with your capitalism K, for instance, I would rather see some advocacy from Judith Butler or (gasp) even something from Marx, that suggests a new worldview or course of individual action gets me outside the mental or physical box of the Affirmative advocacy. Perming critiques is absolutely acceptable, although I think one needs to move beyond “I can can think and act,” permutations. To boil it down, I understand critiques as something along the lines of advocating a proposition of personal policy; e.g. “You should reject capitalism.”  The criticism requires no mechanism of coercion as would an agent of systemic policy, but does require a problem (implication) cause (link) and solution (alternative). With that in mind, the alternative becomes the plan and solvency for such a proposition, which means that the Affirmative can perm the critique just as they perm any other counterplan. That also means that I’m very sympathetic to arguments that say the absence of an alternative skews ground, so specification arguments on the criticism would come prior to the criticisms implication, unless, of course, the framework for the criticism can anticipate the objection and in some way mute the specification.  4. Performance based arguments… Strike me if this is your strategy. I do not understand them. That is not to say I find them invalid, it is just that I don’t see how the performance can engage straight refutation without some serious intervention on my part. You don’t want my intervention, as I will likely defer to an aesthetic standard driven by my background in critical theory and literary studies. Based on many of the performances I’ve seen, they would not fair well under the scope of those lenses. In the end, I appreciate your effort, but I am not the person to give the argument fair assessment. 5. Topicality and other procedurals. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? With the exception of topicality, I see procedurals as being viable only when a team can show in-round (meaning during the exchange of arguments), articulated abuse, especially with spec arguments. (See more on this in the flowsheet section.) Topicality, on the other hand, can be won on jurisdiction. I don’t necessarily have to see abuse, although I’m open to whatever on that discussion. Competing interpretations wins topicality debates, so the standards debate controls the internal link to the violation. This does not mean the Affirmative needs to generate counter-standards, if their interpretation meets the given standards better (what is the standard for that?) than the Negative. Also, counter-definitions may be unnecessary. As hard as this may be to believe, on occasion, Negative teams run crummy topicality arguments that the Affirmative actually meets. So, in those cases, a good “we meet” pretty well takes out the link to the violation, which means topicality goes away. This goes for spec as well. Win the standards, and you should be good to go. 6. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? Counterplans can be run as unconditional or dispositional without any challenges from me, although I strongly urge the Affirmative to clarify what the Negative means by dispositionality; e.g. what are the conditions they understand as being valid ground upon which to kick the position. Without that clarification, I’ll assume dispositionality means Negative can only go for one CP or the Status Quo or a procedural; however, I do not understand dispositionality as “whenever I feel like it, even with a perm on it” (that, I would understand as conditionality). A perm on the CP means, just like a turn on DA (which is functionally a Status Quo CP) means offense and the Negative needs out of that before they kick it.  Feel free, however, to make any arguments that dispo is bad; I’ll listen to them and keep my prejudices in check. Conditionality is not totally out of the realm of possibility, but the Negative needs to win the theory in a big way. As far as permutations are concerned, perms test competition, but do not constitute an advocacy. With that said, if the Affirmative keeps telling me they get “double solvency,” I will happily vote for double solvency unless the Negative points out that this perm constitutes an intrinsicness or severance permuation. Often I find teams kick out of part of plan to delink the DA, which would make for a severance perm, as well.  Perms are controlled by the negative at the level of uniqueness on the net-benefit. That means if the Negative can demonstrate how post-plan the impact from the DA exists even if the counterplan could be done later, first, in parts, etc., then the Negative wins the net-benefit and unhinges the perm. In short, I default to net-benefits to determine whether or not the perm is legit, but the negative and Affirmative teams need to do the work here. Finally on this point, develop a more articulated perm than “do both.” Run multiple permutations if you can and make them as clear as possible. Textual competition and functional competition – Given the nature of the format – limited preparation – my prejudices would move me toward a textual competition, (in almost any prepared format I would consider this bogus); however, there are a few exceptions. For instance, if plan does not specify Congress or Executive Order, then one would understand that the function of the plan would through normal means use only one option. (Clearly a bill passed by Congress and signed by the President would not also need an executive order.) Consequently, the Affirmative, like the Negative, gets one advocacy either Congress or XO. Whatever world they do not pick becomes competitive Negative ground insofar as the net-benefit to the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the Affirmative advocacy. As for consultation, which would include an other country or other countries, regulatory negotiation (doubtless a strategy for the environmental topic), mediation, etc., the fundamental structure remains the same. To keep the problems from amassing, clarify the plan in a question or ask for a copy of the plan and then clarify. You already know your CP option based on the disad shell or, hopefully you will prior to standing up, so ask a question or two that will narrow down the Affirmative advocacy and open the space for the CP. 7. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)?  I could care less about this. Share if everyone agrees. By definition, however, if a team coerces another team into surrendering their flowsheet, then it is no longer sharing. For example, one would not see this use of the term “sharing” as viable:  Iraq shared Kuwait’s oil in 1990; the United States Federal Government shared the Black Hills with the Lakota, etc. For the round, if someone declines to share a flowsheet, then the matter is over and I will not be inclined to vote on a tattle-tale procedure (TT spec.):  “Uh…the Negative didn’t give me a copy of their CP text, DA text, procedurals texts” etc. so that was unfair. Too bad. I will not participate in the co-option of the Negative or Affirmative’s physical and intellectual property. With that said, given the importance of the plan text for the debate, I will expect the Affirmative and the Negative to yield to questions that both repeat the plan text and allow for further clarification of the plan text.  Without CX (hopefully that will change some day), there has to be some mechanism for explaining the central concerns of the plan. If the Affirmative and Negative find it more time beneficial to hand the other team a copy of plan text than to repeat it, then great. That should leave more time for clarifying questions and the Affirmative or Negative to generate the position. If either team should refuse to slow down and provide the plan text orally or give a copy, then I would be most interested in a criticism. 8. 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?)? In the absence of a clean debate, I will defer to the frameworks for each position – the criticism against the procedural – and then make my decision. If that doesn’t work, then I will consider the procedurals first, particularly topicality, and make may way through the rest. If my answer seems confused now, imagine how confused it would be during the round. Just avoid confusing me. 9. 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 intervene when debaters do not explain things or weigh them out. Dehumanization sounds pretty awful to me, so depending upon the way people die in the scenario, I might be inclined to vote for dehumanization; e.g. nuclear conflict kills a million versus dehumanization of three million. Of course, it could go the other way, I might feel at that moment nuclear war is worse. It would be exactly how a normal person (not a debate judge) would operate on any given day. Is this bad given what I know and the present circumstances? Is this bad? Hmmm. Avoid putting me in the position. If no one impacts the arguments, tells a story, etc., then I cannot see how they could object to virtually any impact calculus I bring to the table.

Jess Rezak - NPDA Hired

Jess Rezac - Judging Philosophy Jess Rezac- Judging Philosophy    Experience: I debated for 3 years high school policy; 2 years high school LD; 3 years college parli (at Washburn). I have judged basically 1-2 tournaments per year since 2008 and listened to Kyle Dennis’s opinions on community norms since 2006.   I ultimately consider debate to be a game and whoever wins the match should receive a win. Thus, it is up to the debaters to determine the order in which arguments should be considered. If not articulated that I should do otherwise, at the end of the round, I will evaluate any procedurals still in contention prior to any critical or policy impacts.   I award speaker points in the 26 to 30 range.   I don’t see any problem with affirmatives running critical arguments or cases, but I do like Topicality enough that the affirmative should plan on being able to win that they’re topical under the resolution.   I don’t judge more than a few tournaments per year, so I do not keep up with the trends in critical debate arguments and therefore will likely not have the same background with an argument as other judges. I prefer that critical arguments not contradict with other negative positions. I have no preference for or against performance-based arguments.   I will and do vote on Topicality. It is an argument that is likely strengthened through in-round abuse, but it can be won without it. I don’t believe that a team must win a counter-interp in order to win on topicality.    Counterplans are good and probably necessary offense in most policy debate rounds. I don’t have any theoretical problem with PICs or different forms of perms. I tend to think Consult CPs open up a lot of fairness issues (with regard to fiat) and have a hard time solving for the aff.   I think it’s rare that teams wouldn’t explain either directly through a speech or indirectly through where the debate is focused how to weigh impacts. It’s much more likely that impact debates are won or lost at the link level. Even in debates where I was weighing impacts, it was often through the lens of propensity for the impact, which, again, takes the decision back to the link level of the debate.

Jim Hanson - NPDA Hired

Bellevue College Speech and Debate Coach Executive Director, Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate Parli Judging Philosophy I began judging in 1980 (I’m an old man!) I weigh the benefits of the topical parts of the affirmative advocacy versus those of the competing negative advocacy. STYLE ISSUES 1. Please speak loudly; speak with emphasis and meaning. 2. Please give clear thesis statements for your arguments especially any position you want to go for in the MO, LOR and PMR. 3. Please extend arguments with a reference to where it was on the flow (eg 5th answer). 4. I dislike 1) arguments that advocate purposely or actively killing thousands of people (e.g. "spark" “wipeout”); 2) “They are stupid” comments; 3) Personal attacks on opponents and carried too far could be the cause of a loss. 5. I think teams tend to cry “no new arguments” too much especially when they have a one line argument in the LOC that turns into several minutes of additional links and impacts in the MO/LOR. I am lenient about new arguments until the PMR. If you want me to “box-in” your opponent, then you will need a good explanation of what you could not argue and why that was so critical. THE MO-LOR BLOCK 1. If you are going to debate line by line at high rates of speed, then do it throughout the debate—line by line right through the PMR. If so, I support MO’s and LOR’s splitting the block. MG’s should put out lots of offense and PMR’s should go for the 3 to 4 key answers on each position. 2. If you want to run old style (and I like that), then the LOR should have clear voting issues “Our first voting issue is . . .” DO NOT GO POINT BY POINT ON THE FLOW repeating the MO. And, you MUST WEIGH AND COMPARE LIKELIHOOD OF YOUR ARGUMENTS AND THEIR IMPACTS. 3. If you want to argue splitting the block is abusive—you have an uphill battle but do so by presenting your argument in the MG or via a POI during the MO which lists off the reasons you want to go for. 4. Why I think the MO and LOR should split the block: 1) the MO has to race too fast with blippy arguments to cover everything; it ruins the quality of argumentation in the debate; 2) the LOR usually repeats the MO. I already heard it; 3) What am I supposed to vote on? Only what the LOR says? Can I vote on a specific MO answer that the PMR didn’t respond to but wasn’t directly in the LOR? I honestly don’t get it—you want me to vote line by line but with the split—I feel like I am voting on MO arguments that weren’t extended or I ignore them even though I found them persuasive and the PMR didn’t answer/had bad answers. (these concerns do not apply if the opp debates traditional style) TOPICALITY AND THEORY 1. I have a strong predisposition that affirmatives must be topical. I’m lenient on topicality including for post-modern/performativity/“we support but don’t traditionally fiat a plan” types of cases. However, affirmatives should not count on me voting that topicality oppresses you or that your case outweighs topicality; I’m very predisposed to believe that an affirmative does have to be topical. 2. My predisposition is that the negative must show a clear violation and that it has significant harmful effect (my default is not "competing interpretations"). Show the topic size explodes, becomes unpredictable for prep, kills core negative ground (eg the negative can't run "usfg action is bad" arguments; if you can't run a particular politics disad, i'm less likely to care). 3. I think my basic view of theory is: as long as an advocacy is clear, then argue it. Attempts to win theory with me on arguments such as “Conditionality bad” and “T is a reverse voter” and “A-Spec” tend to be uphill battles. To win such an argument, you should show that your opponent’s strategy destroyed your ability to debate effectively--not just that you lost an ability to run "x disad" or "y counterplan." Theory arguments that I find more convincing are: plan is so vague, it is not clear if any arguments apply; the affirmative severs or changes part of their plan; the negative runs two positions that straight turn each other. 4. My default is the negative gets the status quo, a counterplan, and a kritik alternative. 5. My default is that non-permable counterplans are ones that are functionally opposite to part or all of what is advocated explicitly in the text of the plan. 6. I have leanings (though not super strong) against consult counterplans--I think plan is usually enacted normal means and if the cplan alters the normal means, then that is consistent with the plan since it did not endorse a specific normal means. 7. I strongly default to "its severance and that's a voter" when affirmatives use perms that jettison a "functional" part of their plan needed to make it topical. e.g. the topic is "the usfg should pressure china" the aff. plan submits a complaint to the wto; aff. says the complaint would lead to sanctions (so the plan is topical pressure); then aff says "perm--do plan without sanctions." that is severence as far as i am concerned and it is a voter (and yea, that plan as reconceive din the perm is probably also not t). 8. International Fiat: Fine; I'm not likely to drop a Japan or EU Counterplan. 9. Multiple Actor Fiat: More debatable but the Aff. will need to give good args why I shouldn't consider such cplans. 10. Object Fiat: I think it is debatable and might depend on the situation. Affirmatives should be ready to defend US action but there's a limit to how much the negative gets to counterplan out of harms. 11. Multiplank counterplan conditionality: I believe kicking out of parts of your counterplan in the MO but still advocating other parts is severance and creates a grossly unfair debate. DISADS Links, links, links. Explain to me why the plan causes the disad. KRITIKS Overall, I'm good on kritiks especially for the neg in parli debate where I find most gov answers not so compelling. I'm not a big fan of project/ignore the topic kritik arguments (as noted above in topicality) though I'll try to keep an open mind. That said, I have some key points that are important to winning/answering kritiks: • Negatives should have specific links, clearly stated implications/voters, and strong answers to perms. • I probably should either be able to envision an alternative or you should lay out a clear alternative—and it would be nice if it appeared in the LOC. If it isn’t, I give the PMR tons-o-latitude. • I'm not really big on kritiks of a word (eg “your evidence said the word ‘man’ so you lose”). Absent a team dropping the arg/making real weak responses, I avoid voting on such issues unless the word is so bad it prevents debate (e.g. using an epithet to attack another debater in the round). Now, if both sides agree that representations are key, then "word kritiks" matter. • Arguments about “pre-fiat” “post-fiat” “in-round is all that counts” and “fiat is illusory” aren’t real persuasive to me. Both sides made arguments in the round—so argue them. If the debate centers on representations, then show your representations--including the policy implications--are more important. K Teams: This means I almost always weigh the aff. advantage impacts against your K impacts. • “This kritik completely turns solvency” arguments are often not persuasive to me especially if the affirmative can depict one of their advantages as being independent, as being something specific and empirically proven, happens before kritik consideration, etc. • Ethical imperatives are fine but if you drop or lose badly nuclear wars/mass death/suffering--I have a hard time finding your argument persuasive. Put at least some defense against the consequences or you will have an uphill battle getting my ballot even if you have flaming "ignore the consequences" arguments. • Affirmatives should try to perm kritiks, show how the benefit of their case’s advocacy is more important than the harm of the kritik, and how the perm alters the aff in a way that makes it solve the kritik. • "Framework" arguments can help but in my opinion, they usually end up with one side just slightly winning and that usually isn't enough for me to throw out the kritik nor to throw out the aff. case advocacy. Wanna win a framework argument? Do like I suggest for theory/t arguments: show serious harm to your side; and frankly, most of the time the problem is the aff isn’t really topical—argue that. Otherwise, both side's arguments count. • Negatives that run performativity kritiks against affirmatives often leave me wondering how they answer the affirmative case especially as of the LOC (meaning, after you truly explain your K during the block, I let the PMR make new responses). Make sure you link your performance to the affirmative clearly; make it clear how the performance defeats the affirmative.

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.

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

Jon Sheldon - IUPUI

Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.) o  Parli debate 3 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 trichotomy argumentation if it is justified and run well. I am likely to accept resolutional analysis that takes a fact/value and turns it into a policy round, as long as there is propper agumentation.  Stock-issues and burdens by Government or Opposition can affect the outcome of the round (if the Gov. does not meet their burden, they lose). Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making o  Ability to speak will effect speaker points, but not the actual outcome unless the clarity of the argumentation is poor.  Attitude and behavior, specifically rude or un-sportsman like behavior, can affect the outcome of the round. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making o  Clash is very important.  On-Case and Off-Case argumentation is crucial to clash and a solid well run round. Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks o  I accept all theoretical argumentation as long as it is justified and well done.  Poorly ran theoretical and procedural arguments will not be voted on, but good ones will. 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.  This applies to "Point of Personal Privilege" as well.

Jordan Cohen - Utah

General information (Updated after 2015 Long Beach): I debated for 4 years of NPTE/NPDA at CU-Boulder from 2010-2014 and 1 incredibly valuable year of PF in high school and majored in political science and ecology & evolutionary biology in undergrad. Now I’m helping out coaching Boulder debate. Read whatever arguments you feel will give you the best shot at winning the round and read them in whatever manner you’d like. To be clear, I view debate as a game above all else, this informs my views on topicality and framework issues. As a debater I ran the gamut in terms of strategic choices; from straight case args, to theory, to rapping, I’m down for whatever. Regardless of the strategy you choose, I am committed to evaluating it in a rigorous and fair way. With that being said, here are some thoughts that might help with your strikes: Topicality: I love topicality; I think it’s the most underutilized strategy in debate. I think the interp/counter interp/ we meet debate is the most important part of a T debate and is complemented by nuanced, resolution specific standards. I default to T being apri ori and evaluating it on competing interps. After doing some judging and a lot of debating, I am finding that I prefer standards that have fairness impacts to abstract education impacts. This is because I think it’s easier to quantify ground loss than it is to quantify education loss. Also I don’t find “T is racist” type args to be particularly persuasive unless they are hugely mishandled or dropped in the MO. Disadvantages: Love ‘em, the status quo is usually a pretty chill place. Generics are generic for a reason. Bizcon, relations, and heg were our bread and butter. These are bolstered by nuanced case specific links that get out of common thumpers. Please don’t lie on politics. Your bill that no one in the room has ever heard is probably not actually on the top of the docket. Please slow down and explain the bill you’re talking about and who opposes/supports it. Your impacts should turn the aff in nearly every instance. Case: No off is a pretty raw strategy and one that is extremely difficult to answer as an MG. Turns and good defense is often a better time trade off than reading bad disads. I think that while defense doesn’t win championships, it can put you in a pretty darn good place in terms of impact framing in the rebuttals. On aff, use your case in the MG. Too often the aff gets put on bottom and isn’t used in the ensuing counterplan or K debate. You just read 7 minutes of free offense, use it! Counterplans: Read ‘em. I think condo is probably fine, but people are typically pretty bad at answering condo bad, so it seems like a valuable thing to read. I have no strong feelings on counterplan theory other than the most cheater-y counterplans should be the easiest to win on theory so make the argument. The K: I read the K a pretty good amount as a younger debater and I definitely see its strategic utility. I get frustrated in a lot of K rounds because I feel that the MG typically does not contain very much offense and instead goes for link D or framework args that are not typically relevant. I think the best way to engage the K is to impact turn it. Running to the right with heg good, cap good, state good type arguments was my preferred method for answering the K and I think it is the strategy that puts the MO in the toughest spot. In short, read some offense and leverage your aff. As far as critical affs go, feel free to read them, or rap them, or use sock puppets or whatever you do, just be ready to justify your method and explain how I should evaluate it. I am also very down for arguments about how nontopical critical affs are cheating. Rebuttals: Is there an argument that you would like me to consider while making my decisions? If yes then please include it in your PMR or LOR. The decisions that I am least comfortable with this year are in rounds where the PMR or LOR did not do a very good job extending and answering member arguments. Neither of us will be happy if I have to figure out the debate without this PMR or LOR analysis. Also please call points of order, I think that I keep a pretty comprehensive flow, and I’ll protect from new arguments, but if you think that a new argument is potentially round altering, please call it. Other Things: I will try to maintain an average of 28’s for speaks. I really appreciate intensity and debaters who have clearly put time into their craft. Some sort of impact prioritization claim is critical to giving meaningful rebuttals. I don’t care so much whether you use the words “timeframe” “probability” or “magnitude” but some discussion on these questions will help you immensely. Here is how I flow (in the interest of maximum transparency): I flow the K on one page. You don’t have to front line your arguments (because I’m doing that anyway) but it would behoove you not to have your MG order be “your framework, our framework, the links, ad1, impacts, ad2…etc” or do that and be sure to sign post and give me enough time to shuffle between the pages. Also I flow the LOR on a separate page and the PMR overview on the same page as the LOR and then the line by line of the PMR on the actual positions. A dropped argument is a true argument only insofar as it meets a threshold of having a clear claim and warrant. Have lots of fun and feel free to ask any questions you may have in round.

Joseph Evans - El Camino

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

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 Kammert - Azusa

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

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

Justin Perkins - Palomar

Kathryn Starkey - CSU

Judging Philosophy: Kathryn Starkey   Section 1: General Information I debated at the University of Wyoming from 2006-2011. I coached at Texas Tech University for the three years following UW. Now, I am the Director of forensics at CSU Pueblo in my 3rd year.  As a debater, I tended to read policy-oriented arguments with the occasional cap-bad or constructivism K thrown into the mix. Debate is a game; be strategic. This is one of the most incredible educational activities out there. Treat it as such.   Section 2: Specific Inquiries   1. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given. So far my range tends to fall in the 26-30 category. Things to help your speaker points: strategy, intelligence, and wit. Adjustments will occur when debaters are inappropriate in round. Please be civil! I know that debates can become intense, but your speaker points will also be a reflection of your ability to treat your opponents with respect.   1. 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?  I have voted k’s for them since I have stopped competing, but a word of caution: I am probably not as well versed in the literature as you. This being said, if you run a K in front of me, make sure to thoroughly explain your argument. Several unwarranted tags coupled with name-dropping authors isn’t going to be as persuasive as a thorough explanation of the thesis of the K. The alternative must be able to solve the mpx of the K, which make both the alt text and the solvency contention pretty important in my book. I’m not a fan of using the K to exclude the aff. It makes the discussion solely about the K, which I think takes away from the merit of parli. Despite this, it’s your debate. The aff can run critical arguments, but there is a way to do so and be topical at the same time. The resolution exists for a reason. Please be topical. I’m very persuaded by framework arguments. As for contradictory arguments, it probably depends on your ability to defend conditionality as a beneficial thing in parli. I’m down with conditional arguments, but demonstrating why you are not abusive to the other team can be difficult at times and is your burden to fulfill. This also probably means you need to have a coherent strategy going into the block to deter possible abuse if you are going to run critical arguments that contradict other facets of the negative strategy.   1. 3. Performance based arguments… Not a fan….. I’ll vote for whatever you tell me to vote for in a round, but I’m not going to enjoy listening to a performance if read in front of me. I’d like to enjoy what I listen to.   1. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?  For the aff, you should probably be topical. Aside from this, I love T debates as long as they aren’t the generic, stock T debate that gets rehashed every round. Nuanced and educational ways to interpret the resolution tend to spur interesting debates, at least in my opinion. I’d prefer to have in-round abuse, but it’s not necessary. Without a specific weighing mechanism, I’ll default to competing interpretations. To vote on T, it clearly needs an interp, standards and a voter. In a paradigm of competing interpretations, there must be a net-benefit to one interpretation that the other fails to capture. I don’t see T as a win-all for the Aff. I don’t think I’d vote for an RVI on T.   1. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? With a substantial net-benefit, PICS are great. I welcome the theoretical level of the counterplan debate as well. That being said, it would be difficult to persuade me that arguments like PICS bad or PICS good are more than a way for me to view the round. I.e. Voting for the arg: PICS are bad, which means they lose. If a solid abuse story is established, I can probably be persuaded otherwise. I also think the neg should state the status of the counterplan in the LOC. It forces the theory debate to begin later in the debate, making it difficult to evaluate the end of a debate in which the PMR goes for that theory. Why hide your status? If you’re going to read a counterplan, be ready to defend it. Counterplans need to be functionally competitive, or there seems to be no point in running one. It must have a NB that the aff cannot solve. As for textual competition, I’m impartial. It probably helps to prove the competition of your counterplan, but it doesn’t seem as necessary to me, though I can be persuaded otherwise. Perms are tests of competition; they are not advocacies. If a counterplan is non-competitive, then it goes away, leaving the rest of the debate.   1. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Impartial. It’s probably in your best interest to make sure you flowed an argument as the other team stated it, but it’s up to you. Sharing texts is probably a good idea as well. I also don’t care if you ask the other team something during a speech (this isn’t a POI – it’s the other communication that occurs) as long as I can still hear who’s speaking. It seems to be a trend that’s picking up. Doesn’t bother me.   1. 7. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? As a disclaimer: this is your job, not mine. Please do this for me. Procedurals come first, then usually other theoretical objections, impacts. It all still depends what kinds of arguments are in the round.   1. 8. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? I would honestly prefer to NEVER have to do this, so please don’t make me have to do so! A thought, though: Extinction>dehume   Other Random thoughts J <ul> <li>I LOVE disads.</li> <li>Please read texts and interpretations more than once. If you want it down word for word, please repeat it for me!</li> <li>POI’s: Seems like a good rule of thumb to take one per constructive speech. Clarification on texts, especially, is sometimes necessary for a coherent strategy.</li> <li>Spec positions are awful. I understand their utility to guarantee a strategy, but they’re not very convincing in front of me if you go for it.</li> <li>Overviews are good; you should use them.</li> <li>Please make sure to compare positions and give impact calculus throughout the rebuttals.</li> <li>I’ll protect against new arguments in rebuttals. You should still call points of order in the event I may have missed something.</li> <li>Any questions, please feel free to ask. I love this activity, and I love to talk about it.</li> </ul>

Katie Bergus - Oregon

Name: Katie Bergus School: University of Oregon   Section 1: General Information   *Important note: My debate partner/best friend took her life 16 months ago. Please be sensitive with the arguments that you choose to read in front of me and the words that you use during the debate. If you have questions about this, please do not hesitate to ask but it is safe to say that you should err on the side of caution.   General: The debating style that my partner and I had was, in my opinion, a mixed bag. We were just as likely to go for the K as the CP/DA as the DA alone as case turns and, as such, there is not a particular set of arguments that I greatly prefer or strongly dislike. While we very rarely went for theory args, I think they have their place and I am down for a good theory debate. On what seems to be an increasingly relevant side note, while I would have never asked another team to disclose their args, I would have had no problem disclosing anything they would have wanted to know.  I think that you should choose the arguments that are most strategic for you based on the team that you’re debating and your understanding of the resolution and that my argumentative preferences should be a low priority* in your game plan. If you think things that I explicitly disagree with below or that aren’t listed below, I am open to logical arguments about why your belief should be the case in general or in the debate that is occurring in front of me. I think that my understanding of debate is pretty consistent with a lot of the current thoughts about the activity but I will list some specific thoughts below. The following is in no way a comprehensive explanation of how I understand debate or how I will evaluate a round, but keep in mind that you probably wouldn't read something that long and that it would contain so many absurdly specific factoids that it wouldn't be a helpful tool in your pre-round kit. If there is anything that you have a question about, don't hesitate to ask. My email is <a href="mailto:katiebergus@gmail.com" target="_blank">katiebergus@gmail.com</a>.    Section 2: Specific Inquiries     Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 27-29.9; 28.3 = average overall I value kindness and courtesy. I think that there is almost never a reason for hostility or rudeness in a debate. While your demeanor will not make or break your chance at my ballot, it may influence your speaker points. I also appreciate jokes, especially puns; this is an easy avenue to potentially receiving a slight bump in speaker points. Other than these factors, I try to determine speaker points by a completely arbitrary balance of ethos and argument quality.    How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I am very open to critically framed arguments on both the aff and neg. I am not as deep in the literature as my debate partner was, but I have a reasonable debate understanding of most of the more common K type args. Cutting corners in your arg construction/explanation by name dropping doesn’t do it for me—just because your author isn’t Reuters 3-15 doesn’t mean that your author’s name becomes a warrant for your argument. This is especially true for me as a critic since I almost certainly have not read the book you are citing.  I don’t believe that framework is a voting issue; I think that it is a lens through which you evaluate the rest of the debate. I think that you can win a K without winning the alt (as an impact turn to the aff) and that you can win K impacts in a net bens framework. I don’t mind perfomative contradictions so long as you can justify your perf con and aren’t going for a contradictory strat in the block.    Performance based arguments… These are fine. I’m not as familiar as my debate partner was with this type of argument, but if you give me a mechanism by which to evaluate the debate, I will do my best to evaluate the debate by such a mechanism. I am typically not my most confident in rendering decisions in rounds involving performance based args, so be aware that you will need to put in some extra effort to make sure I'm understanding well how I ought to think about the debate and how I ought to use my ballot.   Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I think that you can win topicality on potential abuse but that these instances tend to require deeper, more analytic work. Topicality (or any of a number of other procedural debates) has to be an all-in strategy in the block for me to think seriously about it. I am not persuaded by RVIs. In all or nearly all instances, competing interpretations helps more than it hurts. T is just like any other arg, you need to win offense within your framing of the debate and weigh it against the offense your opponents have.   Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? I think that you should identify the status of your CP. I believe in conditionality personally but am not closed to arguments in favor of other statuses, though, to be honest, after almost a decade in debate, I still do not really understand what is meant by 'dispo.' I think you should give your opponents a legible copy of the CP (or K or plan) text when you read it and then ask them if they have a question before continuing. I think that a permutation needs an explicit net benefit if you are going to advocate for it. I think that functional competition and textual competition both have their merits depending on the type of debate you want to have. I think that the most legitimate permutations compete through both mechanisms. I personally think that PICs are okay in some instances, but I’m open to hear you justify yours/say why the instance of the neg’s PIC isn’t okay.   Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) I have no problem with sharing.   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?)? T > K > Adv(s) = DA(s) = CP(s)   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 the absence of this interaction made explicit by the debaters, I will likely look for a root cause impact or whatever impact seems to be furthest upstream in the impact pathway, ie. Economic collapse can prevent R&D necessary to solve warming, so I’d prefer to stop economic collapse than solve warming itself, since solving warming may be a consequence of avoiding economic collapse but is almost certainly impossible in a world post-collapse. Absent a direct comparison by the debaters, I am likely to believe that abstract impacts encompass/explain internal links to more concrete impacts.

Keith Green - Biola

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

Kelly Parliament - Cedarville U

I debated for two years at Cedarville University. 1. I try to be tab ras, but as with any human being, I will have biases I suggest you pay close attention to.  2. Although I ran the K quite often as a debater, I've never particularly liked it. Not only do I think solvency take-outs are particularly persuasive, I also have a lot of trouble evaluating frameworks. If you lose the framework debate as neg on the K, you've already lost. Make your framework arguments very, very clear.  3. In general, I've noticed going for the perm is an uphill battle in front of me. While I will try to evaluate it fairly, I think there are other, more valuable arguments you can be going for on the flow.  4. If the other team does not run an argument that a CP is abusive, I will not intervene to protect from abusive CPs. Run alt-actor, 50 states, whatever. I will listen to abuse arguments against the CPs and vote based on who won that argument, not what I think about the CP.  5. I can listen to speed and flow it pretty well, but if you know you're ridiculously fast please look at me and see if I appear to be following along. I tend to not look upon speed bad arguments favorably, but if you mishandle them I very well might vote on them. 6. Use topicality however you want. As a legitimate way out, as a time suck, as an anti-project argument, whatever. Just make sure the interpretation debate and its ties to the standards is clear for me. That's most likely where you'll win.  5. Condo good, condo bad, one conditional, two conditional, two unconditional, I'll listen to whatever. I had a habit of running multiple conditional advocacies in my LOC and running condo bad out of the MG. Whatever works. They're all game pieces.  6. Now to the good stuff: performances and projects. I am very, very biased in favor of framework or abuse arguments when faced with performances or projects. I am very, very unlikely to vote on a performance. Like, unless the opposite team concedes the ballot I will probably not vote on it. Projects I am more open minded about. I will mostly favor a topicality or framework argument, but if these are not structured well or not given the necessary attention, I will vote on the project. If you go all in on the block on topicality when hit with a project or performance, 99% of the time you have my ballot.  7. Warrants are like Ohio: you won't win without them. 8. Call POOs. I try to protect, but it will help me if you call them.

Kendra Thomas - Whitman

Kendra Thomas WWU   Background/General Info: I debated in parli for 3 years (2011-2014) at Western Washington University and in policy for one year in high school. I’m about to start my master’s in speech and hearing sciences and have a background working in local government.    I’m pretty okay with whatever you want run, barring morally reprehensible arguments. I’m fine with speed; be clear. I look mostly at what happens in the round and how you justify your arguments, so run whatever you know you’re best at. Terminalize your impacts or they’ll mean next to nothing. I was always a fan of the smaller, more specific debates and, true to who my coaches were, frequently ran small affs that solved one thing really well and didn’t link to a lot of DAs while still being topical, so I love strategic plans like that. If you blip out a tag or a link and try to rephrase it later, I’ll give you less leeway on it. However, that obviously doesn’t mean that the other team should drop it and assume I won’t vote on it.   Specific Arguments: Kritiks – I definitely ran my share of kritiks in debate, but that doesn’t mean I automatically vote for it. You better explain the causal solvency mechanism (think, Stephen Moncrief) and what the world of the alt looks like and what the ballot does. Otherwise you’re just running a non-UQ disad and I won’t vote for it. Kritiks need FW and I hate how much those are getting left out recently. Generic FWs are sometimes fine, but I have a soft spot for FWs that can be used strategically against other arguments. For performance Ks, make sure to tell me how to evaluate each side, otherwise I’ll have to intervene and without a given FW, I’ll default to net benefits.   K Affs – I’m fine with these, but I’m much more comfortable voting for a fiated plan text with K-esque impacts than I am for a plan that rejects the resolution. If you defend why you’re rejecting and why T is bad, then go for it, but I expect you to have some seriously good answers to topicality and fairness.   Topicality/Theory – I treat T like a DA: Have a clear interp, a clear standard that it links to, and a specific impact to that standard and why it’s important. I don’t require in-round abuse to vote. Don’t run a blipped out theory shell with non-contextualized standards and expect me to vote for it. Read your interps twice and if they’re long, give both the other team and myself a copy. I love hearing a good T debate, but if you’re going for it then you better collapse to it. If neither team tells me why your competing interps/reasonability FW is best, you’re going to have a hard time getting me to vote without intervening.   Counterplans – I love me a good counterplan. I’m just going to go ahead and copy Steve Farias’ entry on CPs for this: “CP’s are the best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team (or at least some alternative advocacy). It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with. I do not think that “We Bite Less” is a compelling argument, just do not link to your own disad. In terms of perms, I am okay with perms, but if you do not in the end prove that it is preferential to the plan or cp, then I will simply view it as an argument not used. This means if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the CP should be rejected as an offensive voting position. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the Alt. is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links.” If you want to run consult or conditions, you better be prepared to answer theory and you should justify from the get-go why it’s okay in this instance.   Conditionality – I’m fine with running CPs and Ks conditionally. I’ve never truly understood what dispo is, but if you give me a good definition if the debate comes down to it, I won’t have a problem evaluating it. I definitely ran multiple conditional advocacies as a debater and am fine with you doing so, but not if you’re just going to blip them out. I’d rather you explain one advocacy really well and reveal your hand out of the LOC than try to make me follow rushed, unwarranted tags that are re-explained in the MO. If this happens, I’ll give the PMR much more leeway than you’d probably like. If you run contradictory arguments, I’m not going to be super keen on voting for a K that specifically kritiks speech acts or performances. That being said, I understand that the CP and the K in any given round operate in different worlds. If an aff runs perf con, you better give me an impact to it and not just say that it’s bad.   Case – I’d love to see a straight case debate and I think it’s one of the most educational types of debate out there. I think well-informed K debates can also be incredibly educational, but so many of these are just old policy files that the debaters who are running don’t even truly understand themselves. This can certainly be said about straight-up debates, too.  Mostly, I just care that you’re debating the way that you debate best. I’ll adapt to your strategy as long as you explain what you’re doing. I won’t fill in gaps and I won’t intervene, but I am open to nearly any argument.

Kevin Kuswa - Whitman

HI all, I look forward to judging.  I value explanation and reasoning with an emphasis on argumentation as a form of education instead of trickery.  Ultimately, though, you should do what you want to do and I will follow your lead.  I have no inherent problems with very traditional legislative debate, very unorthodox performativity debate, or anything between the two.  Theory debate is always more appealing with examples and comparisons and I generally favor arguments with multiple warrants regardless of what genre those arguments occupy.  if you have reasons and analysis behind your arguments, you are in the right vicinity.  My background is in policy debate, but I am enjoying Parli debate and I do like the variety of topics and styles available.  The two most important concepts you should keep in mind for me are specificity and clash.  Please treat your opponents with generosity, respect, and kindness.   • Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year , etc . about 60 rounds judged this year, competed in policy. ) • Approach of the critic to decision - making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock - issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) • no Relative importance of presentation/communication skill s to the critic in decision - somewhat--argument comes first making • Relative importance of on - case argumentation to the critic in decision - making • depends on the neg. Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks • well-explained Preferences on calling Points of Order. no

Kevin Garner (Hired) - Jewell

Experience: 1 year of NDT at University of Kansas; 3 1/2 years of parli at William Jewell College; 2 year parli coach at Texas Tech University; 6 years parli coach at William Jewell College.  Note: I have been out of the activity since the fall of 2015. I judged at one tournament since and kept up with the pace. Section 1: General Information - I am a flow critic who evaluates the round through net benefits unless told otherwise. If a distinction does exist between pre/post fiat, you should tell me how to weigh all the arguments. I generally do not find arguments that seek to prevent the negative team from competing compelling (i.e. "you can't run DAs, etc). I am fine with discursive impacts, but make sure all can access the round. You don't get to win simply because you are aff. I also do not like fatr/value debate and have a low threshold for voting on "Fact/Value bad" arguments. - I am frustrated by the trend of parli to reward unclear, blippy debates that lack substance. I give preference to warranted arguments and clash as compared to a dropped blip that was not developed. An argument is not one line! The above is especially true concerning impacts; a quick blip on “Resource wars = extinction” does not mean anything nor will I just assume the number of people who die as a result of your impacts; YOU MUST DO THE WORK! - I can flow a pretty fast pace, but there is such a thing as too fast and really such a thing as unclear. If I do not flow your arguments due to excess speed/lack of clarity, your fault, not mine. - I will give you a few seconds to get a drink and order, but I am frustrated with stealing prep. I may begin time if I think you are taking too long (you will know I am irritated when I ask you for the order). - You cannot perm a DA….period! - I believe that you should take a question if your opponent wants one concerning a new advocacy (plan, CP, alt text, and if perm is more than “Do Both”). - Slow down and read your plan texts/interps/counter-interps twice unless you plan on giving me a copy - If you say “x argument is for cheaters,” you will probably lose my ballot. There is a difference between claiming an argument is bad/should not be ran and making an attack against a team. If a team has cheated, that is to be determined by the tournament, not in round. - I do not understand rudeness. Being rude does not help your arguments and only gets me irritated. Sarcasm and banter are fine, but there are limits. Section 2: Specific Inquiries How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions. The aff/neg can run critical arguments; make sure you have a framework and alternative and be clear as to how I evaluate critical arguments with non-critical arguments. Also, dropping authors’ names and using big words does not mean the K is good; make sure you know what you are talking about or there is a good chance, I won’t. The alt should be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions. - I do not vote on Speed Ks (Update: There is a potential I could find this argument compelling, if framed correctly, when it becomes apparent that the sole purpose of using speed in a round is to exclude another team....but this is a stretch in most instances). - I will let teams debate out the legitimacy of contradictions. Performance based arguments… I will not exclude any arguments. Just make sure you have a clear framework to evaluate the argument and have an alternative Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I require you to win the argument and have a voter…. I do not require a counter interpretation; I just highly doubt you will win T without one Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? The opp should identify the status and if not, should allow the gov to ask what it is (without counting it as a question). The CP should also be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions about the CP. I will let the debaters debate out CP theory for PICS, perms, etc. 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 costbenefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? I default to the weighing mechanism established (so if you say net ben and I am not told when to evaluate T, I will evaluate it as a decision of cost/benefit instead of as an a-priori issue). In a round with T and Ks, teams would be wise to debate out which one comes first. 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 love the buzz terms “time frame,” “magnitude,” and “probability.” Debaters should use these. One million deaths will always come before an unwarranted dehum claim. Debaters should also tell me which impact standard takes priority. I also do not consider internal links, impacts. Telling me “the economy goes down” does not mean anything. Also how do I evaluate quality of life?

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 Thompson - TTU

Question 1 : Philosophy History/Experience: In high school I debated 3 years in policy debate in Texas, 1 year in LD. I graduated from Texas Tech in August of 2014, having debated there for 3 years in NPTE and NPDA debate. During my last season, I placed 11th at NPTE and 3rd at NPDA.   Initial Things:   Debate is a game and at the end of the day, there is a loser and a winner. I view myself not as an individual to inhibit whatever you want to read, but view my position as an opportunity to listen to whatever you have to say. With this in mind, you should note that I will listen to anything that isn’t morally repugnant. Games are fun until they are spoiled by lies, rudeness, and vindication. To win my ballot, keep these things in mind. I learned parli debate from Kathryn Starkey, Lauran Schaefer, Jared Bressler, Rob Layne, Nick Larmer, Nick Robinson, Andrew Potter, Tyler Cashiola, Aly Fiebrantz, Adam Testerman, Robear Maxwell, JT Seymour, and probably most significantly, Joey Donaghy. Seeing their judge philosophies will help explain mine.   These references will get you better speaker points: Any jokes mentioning the folks I mentioned above, especially Joey and Larmer<a name="_GoBack3"></a> Pokemon NBA (I am a Nuggets fan) Video Games Big 12 football Pooping/farting My shitty speeches when I competed/being a backpack   Offense/Defense Defense wins championships in sports, offense wins championships in debate. However, a good mix of offense and defense is what I like seeing the most. To me, a good strategy includes a healthy mix of both of these things.   Condo (and Dispo) vs. Uncondo   Condo is okay with me. I think that in parli it is harder for you to win it because the offensive reasons for MG skew are more compelling to me, but that is not to say that the debate over condo in parli has skewed me either way. I still believe that testing the aff in different ways is good, so making offensive comparisons on the condo flow is super important for me. However, these debates can get pretty messy, so slowing down during these (and other theory debates) is appreciated.   Speed   If you are too fast, I will say “clear.” I don’t think speed is a problem in debate, but clarity is certainly an issue. Speed Ks and similar arguments are hard for me to vote on because of judge intervention. However, with all of this said, I will dock your speaker points if you do not make the debate accessible. If you know you are debating novices or folks that are hard of hearing, I humbly ask you to make the debate enjoyable by everyone. If so, you will be rewarded with better speaker points.  Also, the only time I ask you to slow down is during interps and plan/cp/alt texts. Either slow down or (preferably) read them twice.   Impacts Debaters do not put enough emphasis on impact comparison. In every debate I have seen this year, I have voted for the team that warranted impacts the best and used impact calc most effectively. It should also be noted that the team who won typically had really good impact defense coupled with one or two terminalized impacts.  Probability impact frameworks are cool, but make sure to include a bunch of impact defense.   DAs, CPs   Read em, enjoy em. Make sure warrants are clear. If  your cp does something weird, crazy, or specific, make sure to clarify what it does. Also, it should be noted that I am pretty dumb at the econ debate. Using a lot of economic jargon probably won’t work for you in your favor. For politics disads, make sure to explain what your bill does if that implicates your impacts and internals. CPs that I enjoy are alt actors, PICs, Advantage, and sometimes consult. CPs I dislike are delay, floating PICSs, multiple plank and process CPs.   Theory and Topicality   Slow down for this debate. Theory and T debates can get pretty intense with flowing because the honest truth is that I didn’t go for theory much when I debated. However, that isn’t to say that they are not strategic. I need you to slow down and/or read your interps twice. You need a definition of reasonability if you are going to read that, but I do not find it very persuasive. T should be as strategy, not as a timesuck. In fact, you should not be reading anything you think you cannot, won’t potentially go for. Of all things, topicality and theory are my least favorite things to vote on but nonetheless will and have voted there. This shouldn’t deter you from reading these things if they are part of your strategy. Also, I won’t vote on an RVI.   Kritiks   Read em, enjoy em. Alt text should be read slowly and/or twice. I loved reading these in high school and college, but now there seems to be a growing trend to just read a bunch of confusing kritik jargon as an argument. Please do not do this and assume I have read the same literature that you have. I understand that reading kritiks to catch folks off guard can be strategic, but keep in mind that you might be catching me off guard too. Explain what my ballot does by voting for you.   Projects   Cool if you wanna read these in front of me but that isn’t to say that these have not been a sight of frustration in my debating years. I used to debate projects in high school about rural inclusivity among other projects, but I feel like the best project debaters can also defend their project in theoretical ways. Saying “fuck the rules” can be compelling, but so is “you must defend a plan text by the USFG.” Just be prepared to defend your position on theoretical levels beyond no linking/no impacting theory.      Permutations   I feel like it is better to make one or two permutations that make sense that are net beneficial than a bunch of permutations with little explanation of what those permutations mean.  You need to say the permutation twice, preferably slow down when you do this too. I think the growing trend to have a perm text written down is silly, just say it twice, somewhat slowly, and move on.

Kiefer Storrer - UCMO

I default Policy Maker. I enjoy realistic impacts but if y’all want to get into competing terminal impact scenarios I wouldn’t be opposed to that. If you’re going to run theory or kritical positions (with the latter not being just a linear DA) impact out how I’m affected in the round as well as the debate community as a whole. On topicality abuse wise I’ll accept a healthy medium between proven and hypothetical abuse, so if you don’t want to waste two minutes of your speech running a non-unique DA to prove abuse you can just give me the flow of the argument. On the other hand, reasonability is a totally valid counter standard most of the time for me, so while T is definitely a debate to be had, again, there is a reason I default policy maker.   Speed is a non-issue, I can flow it fine, but I will say specifically for Parli (because there isn’t carded evidence) I’m not the biggest fan of levels that require double clutching and such…at that point I’m going to feel like you just canned out every word of your position and you’re reciting it instead of arguing it. Rapid delivery is cool, spreading is a legitimate strategy but I’d much rather have you go in depth on two DAs instead of running four or five that just aren’t as well articulated.   Experience wise, I competed in Kansas high school policy for four years, did four years of Parli in college, took a year off to judge parli/ld/forensics, and am now assistant coaching at UCM. I believe that debate is a pedagogical activity and that the most important parts of it will be the parts that bleed out into the real world. We are future politicians, lawyers, scholars, rhetoricians, and professors; so ideally all of us involved with this activity will take realistic, impactful ideas and bring them to fruition in the real world. And for those of us that are current or future coaches, I believe we should be striving to instill those real world changes in the future.   Have fun, be polite.

Kirsten McRae - NPDA Hired

<h2>Kirsten McRae - NPDA Hired Judges</h2> <h3>Saved Philosophy: n/a</h3> Question 1 : What is your judging philosophy? I competed in parli for four years (2006-2008 Solano College + 2008-2010 CSU Long Beach) and have been judging on a regular basis since 2011   Kritiks/Critical arguments: These are the arguments I’m most comfortable with as far as theory and literature. However, I have become increasingly disenchanted with them over the past few seasons.  Particularly with the way in which teams seem to conflate positions in order to cover more ground with them and “get the most rounds out of them”.  I was guilty of this as a competitor as well, and I think seeing it happen from a judge’s perspective has caused me to form an opinion on the practice.  So the following is meant to outline a few specific issues to consider when debating in front of me as a critic.   Topic specific criticisms: I am not completely opposed to non-topical criticism but particularly on the affirmative, a team better be ready to articulate how they offer ground to the negative team.  I generally prefer a criticism that is based on, or at least legitimately linked to the topic of the resolution, but I understand that sometimes you want to go outside the box.  I can respect that, but you should probably include warrants as to why you’re choosing to disregard a topic/resolution completely.    Framework: Framework is the lens by which I view the round and should clearly explain to me what my role as a critic is and how I should weigh impacts and/or alternatives.  I think a well-organized and clear f/w can save you a lot of work later on in the debate.  Particularly for dense positions, f/w is important in helping me understand what the position is attempting to address and what exactly my role in all of it is. (It may sound basic or simplistic to ask for a “roll of the ballot” explanation, but as far as I’m concerned, it can only help you).   Aff teams should explain why their f/w is best for the round as opposed to anything the neg would suggest.  Neg teams should specifically address why their f/w (if different from the aff) is the best lens for the round and also why it is unique from whatever the aff is proposing.  Don’t expect me to automatically recognize the unique differences and make the distinction for you.  If no explains why the competing f/w are unique and/or why they cannot exist together in the round….You’re letting me make that decision for you.  Trust me, you don’t want me doing that.  When it comes down to it, my ballot is based on how I see the round….so the easiest way to make sure I see it your way is to tell me.  However, f/w is not going to “win” you the round-its not a voting issue.  Its how I’m going to view the rest of the round, particularly w/ regard to impact calculus.    Multiple Worlds/Advocacies:  I understand this could be the best route for you in a competitive round, but I’m generally not a fan of it.  Particularly if your advocacies potentially contradict each other, you’re going to have an uphill battle in convincing me that 1) both are consistent with your f/w and 2) I should vote for either in light of that inconsistency.    Thesis/Content:  While I would love to indulge the presumption that critics are inherently brilliant and know every argument that every author has ever come up with….speaking for myself, I am not, and do not.   The best thing you can do to make sure I understand your core thesis is to include a clear and concise statement of your advocacy.  I respect that not all authors or theories can be confined to such parameters, but perhaps that is a clue that this particular argument isn’t suited for a 45 min debate.  If your thesis and/or alternative is long or fairly dense in it’s language….you should probably make sure to have at least two copies written down (one for your opponents and one for me).   If, either 1) the alternative diverges from the particular solvency you’re advocating for, or  2) the functionality of the alternative is not properly explained in terms of your solvency… I will most likely not vote for it.    Misc: Clarity is very important to me in a critical round.  Your arguments mean nothing if I cannot follow them. I believe that discursive implications CAN be real/relevant, but typically will only consider in-round solvency arguments if they are accompanied by an insightful explanation of how it can be weighed against the potential solvency of your opponent, and in some circumstances, why in-round solvency is equitable or preferable to any post-fiat solvency.   ** DO NOT assume that simple dropping words like  “oppression”, “genocide”, “patriarchy”, “dehumanization”, or any extension of those (including making “women” central to your advocacy just because you think that I want to hear about “women” or “feminism”) qualifies your argument as critical or that you will immediately get my ballot.  You don’t get any points from me merely by mentioning more buzzwords than your opponents and I tend to become a very cranky critic if I feel like either team is trying to win a game of tokenism. **   Topicality: Please make sure it’s absolutely necessary to run this. I will vote for T if its warranted and ran well, but if you're only running it to make the other team spend time answering it, that’s annoying to them and to me. If you answer T and spent time on it, I will potentially vote T as a reverse voting issue, but only if you explain why it should be one. I won't vote for the sentence "This is a reverse voting issue".  In my opinion, T is useful regarding the fairness of the round and the ground given to each team.  It can be become an interesting issue of rhetoric and education, but if you want to take it there, please be prepared to make the entire debate about that.  Additionally, the term “discursive genocide” is generally just annoying and offensive when it’s thrown out in a T debate.  If you’re going to argue it in front of me, you better be prepared to devote most (if not all) of the remainder of the round to the discussion.   Impact calculus: Impacts are great, and I think there are a lot of rounds in which big impacts are relevant to the discussion, but please keep in mind that just telling me that nuclear war will break out and a dust cloud will block out the sun and destroy life on earth...is not enough. I have started to really dislike how teams are presenting terminal impx, particularly when something like ‘nuclear war’ or ‘environmental degradation’ is explained with little more than a few sentences slapped together, attempting to serve as a warrant.  If you want my ballot….GIVE ME AN INTERNAL LINK SCENARIO! Also, if your impact has something to do with the government collapsing/breaking down/shutting down and/or all hell breaking loose…. you probably should have a damn good internal link scenario because we have all seen some crazy whack shit happening in Washington over the past few years, and so far it’s still kicking.  You also need to make sure to weigh your impacts.  This is especially important in the rebuttals. If no one tells me how I should weigh these impacts against each other, you’re leaving it open for my personal biases to be let in, and they are fantastically random and change frequently. DO NOT let me decide how I want to weigh the round….tell me the best way to weigh it.     CP Theory: I don’t have any specific objections to the way you want to play the CP game, but don’t assume that because pics/delay/consult/delay are good or bad for you, that I will automatically agree. If you want to mess with fiat especially, devote some time to explaining why I should accept it, and why it isn’t inherently abusive. The rebuttals should especially clarify the post round world of plan/perm vs. CP and lay out the advantages and disadvantages of both.  This is also where weighing is critical.   Speed: I can generally keep up with most teams on speed, but that does not give you free reign to blaze through your speeches w/ no regard for clarity (particularly the constructives).  YOU may understand every argument on your flow, but that doesn’t mean that I (or your opponents) will automatically understand it without some consideration on your part.  If your arguments aren’t intelligible to me, I won’t flow them and that will lead to some major problems for you.  If I stop typing and start glaring at you, that’s a bad sign and you should probably slow down, take a breath and start enunciating a little more.     Any specific questions or concerns, just ask me before the round starts… it can only help you :)

Kirstin McRae - UNR

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.

Krystal Fogle - ACU

I am a graduate student studying communication and rhetoric.  In debate rounds, I am looking for well developed, clear arguments with strong warrants.  I am new to the world of debate and am learning with every round.  As I learn, I appreciate speakers who adapt by speaking clearly, and not speaking so rapidly that I lose you.  I believe you should be free to run whatever you think is best for the round, however, I expect that you will clearly signpost.   Because critiques/criticisms are complex and my be difficult for me to follow, run them at your own risk and over-explain the theory and your arguments to me.

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.

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.

Lauran Schaefer - TTU

Question 1 : Philosophy Overall, I honestly want debaters to do what they do best in round. I do have a few caveats, however. First, I was never a theory debater and I can get lost in them very easily. I would suggest a few things, most importantly, slow down on the most relevant parts of the theory debate, specifically interpretations. So be advised, I need a clear story and proven abuse to feel comfortable with a decision on theory. I understand in some cases where the other team meets your interpretation, but you don’t have any good positions to go for, in that case be as clear as possible. Second, I prefer probability to magnitude and I will explain that in a later section. Section 2: Specific Inquiries Please describe your approach to the following. 1. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given. I’m probably too generous with speaker points. I generally give between a 27-29 and avoid 30’s unless the speech is close to perfect. If the round is full of speakers who are generally at the same level, I default to giving the best a 29, the second best a 28.5, etc. (Rob Layne is quickly making me change my point fairy-ness, so bear with me.) 1. 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I really like critical debates. Affirmatives can run critical arguments, but I think they need a clear framework with an interpretation and standards. Specifically, tell me why this particular critical aff is warranted. Your interpretation can’t be some “reject blah blah” that are somehow mutually exclusive and some bs solvency telling me how the world will all of a sudden change their mindsets from collapsing some “ism.” Although, I ran arguments like that, I now see that made me a bad debater. J Explain your solvency. What does the world look like after the action is taken? 1. 3. Performance based arguments… I’m fine with them, but I need to know how to evaluate them. 1. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? Like I said, I prefer proven abuse. Competing interpretations is probably your best bet. I’m not sure I would even know what to do with out one unless you’re critiquing T. 1. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? PICs are a good strategy. The opp should identify the status IF they are asked to, otherwise it’s fair game. Perms should be functional in my ideal debate world. If you’re going to go textual comp you’ll probably want to run more theory than you would with functional telling me why I should prefer it. 1. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) I think as a courtesy, you should always give a copy of any plan text or counterplan text, especially if asked. I don’t care if teams want to share anything other than that. 1. 7. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? Procedurals are obviously first. Next, I would go to framework, if necessary, to determine if the K comes first. Then the substance. I default to the impact debate. 1. 8. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? I look to probability, first. Then magnitude. Finally, timeframe. If you want me to vote on huge impacts that are incredibly unrealistic, you should warrant exactly how these impacts will occur. Not some x country is pissed, the US gets involved, boom, big explosion because some random action causes a war in which rational actors would absolutely have to use nuclear weapons and it would cause a dust cloud that covers the sun. Although I did this, it’s because I had no idea if what I was saying was actually true.

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.

Lindsay Van Luvanee - Concordia

Experience: 4 years debating at Bingham High School, 5 years debating at Idaho State University. 5 years coaching Pocatello High School, 1 year coaching Idaho State University. I try my damnedest to line up all the arguments on my flow. I am, however, open to alternate flowing styles. I really do prefer when debaters make specific reference of which argument(s) they are answering at a given time regardless of flowing style. I also flow the text of cards. Be prepared to defend all aspects of your argument. Everything is open to (re)interpretation. For example, some questions that may be relevant to my ballot include: What is the purpose of the debate space? How does this affect the way that impacts are evaluated? These kinds of top-level framing issues are the most important to me. General Information I am still pretty new to parli. I have judged three parli tournaments (Whitman and NPTE 2013, Mile High 2014) going into NPTE 2014. I did policy all throughout high school and college and currently coach policy at Idaho State University. So if the differences between the two formats are going to significantly affect whatever argument is being made please make that clear to me. I tend to evaluate things on a more holistic, meta scale. Top-level framing issues often have a significant impact on how I evaluate the micro-issues in a debate. I also think that my threshold for explanation of an argument can tend to be higher than most. To further emphasize this, I think I am more persuaded by fewer, better developed arguments than more, slightly less developed ones. Less is often more. Additionally, the more specific you can make your argument the better. The best thing to keep in mind with me is as long as you have well-warranted and thought out justification of your argument and/or the strategic moves you are making you should be fine. As a preface to the next section, please keep in mind that everything is debatable and dependent upon the specific context to what is happening in the given round. Theory: When it comes down to it, I am much more interested in the substance of the debate. From what I’ve been told and have seen in a limited fashion, the format of parli makes theory debates a little different than in policy debates (i.e. conditionality seems to be a much more controversial issue). Until I familiarize myself with the nuances of the activity a little bit more I am unsure where exactly I will fall on the theoretical legitimacy of certain arguments in the context of parli. However, I will be forward in saying I judged two rounds this year where the 1AR went strictly for conditionality and I was not persuaded either time. CPs: You’ll likely run into problems with me if the CP results in the action of the plan. Net benefits should typically stem from the difference between the plan and the CP (whether it be textual or functional or both). The affirmative should probably take advantage of those differences. Ks:Most of my knowledge on any given topic will most likely stem from the K literature. Framework debates (whether debating a K on the aff or the neg) often work best for me on a more substantive level as a question of methodology/ontology/epistemology/whatever and framing choices as opposed to just the theory debate that comes along with it. I’ll gladly evaluate the theory arguments though.

Logan Emlet - Puget Sound

I want to judge like the improbably torporous Jame Stevenson wants to judge, but in twice the time. This will be my seventh year in parliamentary debate, but this is my first year as a coach/judge, so you are encouraged to observe all of the usual hesitancies regarding first year critics. I have judged at every tournament attended by the Puge this year.    I appreciate well-warranted, nuanced, and creative strategies that are executed with class (not the socioeconomic sort). I have no strong predisposition against any structure of argument. To be clear, most of my career was spent reading plans, politics, Agamben-esque kritiks, and avoiding extinction, but you don’t have to read a plan. You just need offense.   Some possible idiosyncrasies:   <ul> <li>I quite like the politics DA, but please make sure that your scenario is at least marginally plausible. I am not a fan of lying about top of the docket or ultra generic links.</li> <li> </li> <li>Due to the structure of Parli debate I am inclined against MG theory and kritiks. This is not to say that I will not vote for these arguments - CPs should be textually competitive - but I find that I give the Neg extra-creedence on many theoretical questions (e.g. Condo) and late breaking kritiks.</li> <li> </li> <li>I think that framework in the 1NC of the kritik shell is often unnecessary and unhelpful at resolving the question of the how the judge should understand the interaction of the two teams in the round. I think that this discussion is often more fruitful in the context of the alternative, and that the object of the kritik in terms of what “level” it operates is easily established in the thesis.</li> <li> </li> <li>I flow the K straight down on one piece of paper. </li> <li> </li> <li>I appreciate well-researched critiques that are evidently understood by the team that is reading them. I am less than compelled by nonsense.</li> <li> </li> <li>I like neg flex. I am baffled by the current hate that conditionality receives in Parli debate. I tend to think that conditionality is a coward’s argument. That said, have the debate if you think that it is strategic. I also don’t think that some internal inconsistencies in the neg strat liquidate any possibility of fairness or education.</li> <li> </li> <li>If slowing down will help you add warrants to your speech, please do so.</li> <li> </li> <li>Case args are dope.</li> <li> </li> <li>Call Points of Order if you want.</li> </ul>   In my mind, a 30 means a perfect speech. Speeches are never perfect. I will start at a 27.5 and move from there. A 28 means that you should be in out rounds. A 29+ means you should be receiving a speaker award. I don't know how people standardize their allocation of tenths of points.   Let me know if you have any questions before the round starts.    ***SPECIAL NOTE FROM JAMES STEVENSON: I'm not Logan, but I'm willing to bet that well-placed references to "Yacht Rock" will get you bonus speaker points. For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkizL1oyYQc&list=PLBEB75B6A1F9C1D01&index=2

Lucas Barker - NPDA Hired

Background: In high school I participated in Public Forum all four years. In college, from 2010-2014 I debated in both Lincoln-Douglas and Parliamentary debate for McKendree University. (Some of my biases and opinions regarding the activity are most likely a result of having the opportunity to have such coaches as Joe Blasdel, Cory Freivogel, Jeff Jones, and Lewis Silver.) Additionally, this past year I judged at the tournaments held at Loyola and McKendree. Finally, I realize the importance of a judge's paradigm and background information and I will do my best to be as specific and comprehensive as possible in order for you to be able to maximize your prep time.   Specifically...   <ul> <li>Approach of the critic and to decision-making- My “default setting” for a debate round is a policy making one. I believe the Affirmative should defend a topical plan and that the Negative should defend the status quo or present a competitive counter-policy option. If you believe the round should be “debated” in another way you will have to give me compelling reasons as to why that is the case. I find impacts with large magnitudes compelling but I am also willing to vote for probability. Either way you should explain to me how your arguments interact with timeframe, probability, and magnitude. I am not particularly fond of “fact debates” since I dealt with more than enough of those in high school and you can always mention facts in a policy round.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making- I enjoy watching debates that are passionate and include confidence when one is speaking. Ideally, you should not only be winning the round but also appear and sound as if you are winning the round. Don't be hesitant about being creative with your arguments since that will most likely leave more of an impression. Additionally, you do not have to like your opponents in a debate round but you should at the very least be polite. Bullying and/or being a generally rude will be reflected in your speaker points and may even affect my perception of your arguments. I really enjoy when someone is funny while still being strategic in a debate round but I do not encourage it if you know that you are not funny.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making- I enjoy rounds where the negative has not only provided disads, kritik, or counterplan but also providing specific arguments on the Affirmatives advantages. I think that case arguments are generally lacking in most debate rounds so when they do occur I tend to enjoy those rounds more. Since I typically gave the MO I enjoy seeing rounds where the MO decides to make bold moves in the block and is willing to go for only arguments on-case. Finally, I am probably more persuaded by smart defensive arguments than the average judge and that is a result of having Cory Freivogel as a coach. Note: That does not mean you shouldn't be making offensive arguments!</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Preferences on procedural arguments, counter-plans, and kritiks- </li> </ul> Topicality: I will vote on topicality and if you find yourself facing an un-topical affirmative and you know how to go for topicality then you should. If there isn't in-round abuse and you read topicality out of the LO with no additional arguments I don't know why I should vote for you. Spec Arguments: I do not like spec arguments since most of the time teams only read them as a time trade-off. An adequate MG's response to spec argument for me is to just say “piss off” and move to the next sheet of paper. That being said... if an Affirmative refuses to grant you links to your disadvantage/argument because they are not specifying something you should call them on it. Counterplans: A counterplan must be competitive for me to vote for it. But, the Aff must also give me a reason why the CP is not competitive. Additionally, your CP should have some kind of net benefit. If there is no net benefit I do not know why I wouldn't just vote for the Aff. Kritiks: I am fine with Kritiks but I enjoy topic specific K's. You will have to explain the Kritik to me and provide logical reasons such as examples as to why the K matters, how it links to the Aff, and why it outweighs. You should also be able to answer a permutation to your K. If you want to run an untopical Kritcal Aff  I will listen but it will most likely be an uphill battle for you. Caution: If you are running multiple conditional strategies I have voted on performance contradictions when it comes to a K. Conditionality: I am fine with conditionality (I ran conditional arguments regularly.) but I do believe that it is a tradeoff. At a certain point if you are reading an obscene amount of strategies your arguments will not be as well developed and therefore not as persuasive as your opponents. With all that being said I encourage you to use your strengths when it comes to debate and to partake in this activity in a passionate way and debate the way you enjoy the most. I will do my best to be as open to your strategy as possible. At the end of the day I hope everyone is having fun! This is my first time writing out my judging philosophy so if you have any questions regarding it feel free to ask at the tournament.  GOOD LUCK!!!

Luke Landry - Oregon

I highly recommend that you peruse my judging philosophy, even if you have debated in front of me before. I am modifying the way I evaluate a few arguments, most notably topicality. Overall, I am a relatively standard critic. At the end of the debate, I will compare the benefits of the plan to its costs. It’s your job to articulate and compare those benefits and costs in a way that persuades me to vote for you. SOME IMPORTANT THINGS I am comfortable with speed in debate; however, it is very important to me that you are clear and articulate. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow your arguments, and there are no materials for me to consult or cross reference at the end of the debate. It is very important that you understand that I will always be trying my best to understand and flow all of your arguments, but it is always and ultimately your responsibility to ensure that I am receiving the information you are sending. To that end, I will try and provide you with verbal signals to indicate if you are being unclear. However, do not rely on them. I might forget. Always err on the side of always being perfectly intelligible. Also, bear in mind that I am trying to write down what you’re saying. Writing takes time, even in abbreviations. I definitely believe that not all arguments are equally good/valid/useful/whatever. Some arguments are better than others. Arguments with lots of awesome warrants that are relevant and well-developed are omg moar better than short, blippy arguments with few warrants that are only mentioned once in the debate. ***The easiest route to victory in front of me is to sink your teeth in and go deep on the small set of arguments that you believe win you the round.*** I expect all plan texts, counter-plan texts, topicality definitions/interpretations, counter-interpretations, spec interpretations, perm texts, and any other miscellaneous theory interpretations to be read slowly, clearly, and twice. Any theory argument you make in front of me should be as detailed as a topicality shell. It’s a kill-shot, so spend some time completing the argument (interp, violation, standards, voters) if you want me to vote on it. TOPICALITY AND PROCEDURALS I am modifying the way that I evaluate topicality. It is not the case that I will only vote on demonstrated abuse for topicality or any other theory argument. I am willing to entertain any standard by which you want to compare competing interpretations of the resolution. However, those standards still have to have some relevance to the debate if you want me to care. Speaking blithely about how this or that case list is really big/small and moving on isn’t particularly compelling to me. Standards are meant to measure and compare the ways in which various interpretations of the resolution impact both the quantity and quality of the arguments available to both sides. I have never heard a compelling reason to vote against any team for running and/or kicking any procedural or theoretical argument. Theory and procedural arguments are 100% conditional in my mind. Beyond that, I am pretty standard in my evaluation of topicality. If you have an interpretation of the resolution that is demonstrably superior to the affirmative interp, and if the affirmative plan doesn’t conform to that interp, then you win topicality. Good for you! This format applies equally to pretty much any “theory” argument you care to ask me about. COUNTER-PLANS 2012 NPTE Judge Philosophy Book Page 68 of 132 I think that the counterplan is purely a demonstration of an opportunity cost of the plan. Thus, the counterplan must only prove that it is a superior alternative to any combination of only the whole plan, plus part or all of the counterplan. Any other way of framing counterplan competition is, frankly, irrelevant to me. Likewise, The permutation must prove that only the whole plan, plus part or all of the counterplan, is superior to the counterplan alone. I expect permutations to have texts (“do both” is insufficient for me), and in front of me you should read them as you would a plan text (see “Important Things” above). I will vote for theory arguments leveled against the counterplan, but I will probably be unpersuaded by disorganized lists of things you don’t like about PICs without any attempt at defining a PIC or telling me why a particular counterplan is a PIC. For me, theory arguments must be as thorough and detailed as a topicality argument. I am not categorically opposed to conditional counterplans. That said, I don’t recommend it. I am likely to be more sympathetic to “condo bad” arguments than to “condo good.” I will also be highly receptive to all the new arguments the PMR will get to make after you shift your strategy in the block. All of these things apply equally to kritik alternatives. KRITIKS I like kritiks just fine. It’s just a counterplan debate. I am typically confused during performance debates (ironic, I know). I don’t have anything against them, but I would recommend against them in front of me. I might not connect the dots in the correct order or whatever.

MATTHEW LANE-SWANSON - SMC

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

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>

Mahkah Wu - Oregon

Most fundamentally, I think aff and neg strategies exist in dynamic equilibrium with one another. When equilibrium is disturbed in one direction or another, various factors strengthen the answers to the current trends, correcting the activity back to equilibrium. As a result, I am unsympathetic to outright banning particular strategies, and I greatly appreciate innovation and creative redeployment of old strategies.   Presumably, that is not particularly helpful to you, so for the remainder of this, I’ll attempt to differentiate myself from other critics. However, I will repeat a sentiment that appears in many philosophies: I hope that you debate the way that you want to debate, rather than a way that you think I might prefer. Please do not take anything here as an attempt to dictate the content of the rounds I watch or the trajectory of debate generally.   I debated for the University of Oregon for four years, and my most influential coaches were (in reverse chronological order) Ben Dodds, Tom Schally, Sarah Hamid, and Will Chamberlin. The further a discipline is from mathematics, the less I know about it. Some particulars:   Cross Application: I believe that all arguments, regardless of page, interact in a given debate. As a result, I likely have a comparatively low threshold for accepting intuitive cross application, including in rebuttals. Essentially, I treat arguments as if I was asked to flow every speech straight down.   Points of Order: I will obviously do my best to protect you from new arguments, but given my predisposition to cross application, you should feel comfortable opening a discussion of whether or not rebuttal arguments are legitimate. I also understand that POOs have strategic value beyond pointing out new arguments, so do what you will.   Impact Framing: I think impact framing should be done early, often, and without relying on the words timeframe, probability, magnitude, and dehumanization.   Backside Rebuttals: I think this game has a serious structural problem in that every debate could be won with 2AC add-ons, CP/alt disads (in the world of unconditionality), or 2AC theory.   Case: Who doesn’t like case? Zero off or a bunch of advantage counter plans and case are the coolest strategies.   Counter Plans: A novel counter plan or clever deployment of a permutation is beautiful in the same way that a particularly elegant theorem is. Bearing in mind that we have an in round mechanism to resolve these questions, I am broadly sympathetic to the neg’s ability to read as many conditional textually and functionally competition advocacies as they please.   Critiques: These arguments usually come from literature bases that are far away from mathematics, and thus I know little about them. Like any argument, I think the quality of a critique is often directly proportional to how germane it is to the topic. Similarly, I think critique responses generally are most effective when ideologically in line with the 1AC.   Projects/Performance/Personal Identity: Perhaps because these arguments are still relatively new, we may have a tendency to exaggerate the positives and negatives associated with them. A couple little things: Remember that one team gets the last word in debate, so when one team or debater is framed in a particularly negative light, that may simply be reflective of the structure of the activity. In a similar vein, some of these debates (especially project v. project) really blow up late in the debate, leaving the critic to resolve many questions they don’t want to. Finally, I will do as told if asked not to flow, but if I’m not flowing, I might forget stuff. See also paragraph 2 and disclaimers.   Framework: Framework will rise again.   Competing Interpretations/Reasonability: Competing interpretations seems to be the default evaluation framework, but I think holding a team to the standard of finding the best possible interpretation is unreasonable. That said, reasonability does have brightline issues. Also, please have an interpretation of reasonability since there seem to be a lack of consensus on what it means.   Texts: Please have a written copy of your plan texts, counter plan texts, and theory interpretations in existence somewhere in case wording becomes an issue. It’s up to you whether or not you want to show them to your opponent, but I think it’s the sportspersonlike thing to do.   Disclaimers: I’m not particularly expressive. I have an embarrassing predilection for gimmicky strategies, but please don’t trot them out because of this sentence. If I am tired, I can ramble incomprehensibly. I have literally no idea how speaker points work, but I’m learning.   Heavier Disclaimers: If you need a trigger/content warning, I think that you are responsible for communicating that to your opponent ahead of time. Although I will not necessarily do this, I reserve the right to decide debates with personal stories about suicide according to criteria that I decide at that moment (you are entitled to read such arguments).   Inclusivity: There is some tension in making an activity built around establishing a competitive hierarchy accessible and open to everyone. Because of this, I have trouble drawing a brightline between acceptable and unacceptable behavior where these two ends come into conflict with each other. Please bear with me as I learn how to navigate these areas from the perspective of a critic.   Please feel free to ask any additional questions.

Mariel Cruz - CLU

Mariel Cruz - Santa Clara

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

Mark Bentley - AppState

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

Marlin Bates - Pacific

ection 1 – General Information Dr. Marlin Bates University of the Pacific Years judging LD:  I judged your coaches. Years coaching:  I coached your parents. Decision calculus:  I will generally decide where and how I am instructed to decide by the debaters themselves.  I am generally open to any arguments.  However, in my old age, I have determined the following: <ol> <li>This is a communication event.  Communicate. Speed is discouraged.  I am fully capable of flowing any speed demon.  However, I choose not to. </li> <li>Cross-examination is binding & important.  You should address your questions and answers to the critic, not each other.</li> <li>Be polite and have fun.</li> </ol> Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters.  Please be specific and clear.  This may include your background, delivery preferences and general thoughts on paradigms (stock issues, policy maker, tabula rasa, etc). Section 1 – General Information Dr. Marlin Bates University of the Pacific Years judging LD:  I judged your coaches. Years coaching:  I coached your parents. Decision calculus:  I will generally decide where and how I am instructed to decide by the debaters themselves.  I am generally open to any arguments.  However, in my old age, I have determined the following: <ol> <li>This is a communication event.  Communicate. Speed is discouraged.  I am fully capable of flowing any speed demon.  However, I choose not to. </li> <li>Cross-examination is binding & important.  You should address your questions and answers to the critic, not each other.</li> <li>Be polite and have fun.</li> </ol> Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters.  Please be specific and clear.  This may include your background, delivery preferences and general thoughts on paradigms (stock issues, policy maker, tabula rasa, etc). If someone wants to run a procedural, I will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round.  As with ALL arguments, I have no pre-existing prejudices. In general, I think critiques discussed at high rates of speed are antithetical both to the event and to the subject matter under discussion, but, as I just said, I have no biases to vote for or against them. Stand up when speaking.

Marshall Thompson - Wheaton

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

Matt Gayetsky - UT-Tyler

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

Matt Reisener - NPDA Hired

Background: I spent four years debating for William Jewell College and competed at both NPDA and NPTE from 2010-2013. Coached Loyola during the 13/14 season, and judged at the WJC and Webster tournaments this year. General Information (TLDR Section):  As a rule, debaters should not feel that they need to substantially alter their strategies to fit my preferences. Just because I read Heg and PTX every round when I competed, doesn’t necessarily mean I expect you to do the same. Read whatever arguments you believe will best help you to win the debate round, and I will do my best to fairly evaluate them in making my decision. -I am a big fan of warrants. As a rule, if a team reads an argument against you that is not coherent or warranted when it is initially read, I will give you a certain degree of leeway in answering it in later speeches. For example if the LOC reads a disad or kritik that does not make any sense to me until the MO/LOR, I will give the PMR a longer leash in answering that argument than I would under normal circumstances. This won’t be a problem in 99% of debates, but if your strategy is to purposefully muddle the debate in the constructives, do so at your own risk. -I will clear you if I can’t understand you. I feel pretty confident in my ability to flow fast debaters, though I may ask you to increase your volume if you tend to speak quietly, particularly if I am relegated to the back of the room. -I believe each debater should have to take at least one questions during a constructive speech (if asked). -While I am not in the business of discounting particular arguments on face, I will warn you that I am not likely to vote for “fact/value debate good,” “perms are advocacies,” “Aff doesn’t get fiat,” anything dealing with attitudinal or existential inherency, or reverse voting issues unless the other team just drops these arguments completely. - I flow the LOR on a separate sheet of paper. It probably goes without saying, but I think splitting the block is extremely abusive, and will likely discount the LOR entirely if it is spent going for arguments not in the MO. -If you think an argument is new, call a point of order. I will do my best to protect you from new arguments, but it is to your advantage to alert me when the other team is making one just to be safe. -Please provide copies of all texts (if at all possible) and read all interpretations slowly and at least twice. -Numbering your arguments does wonders for my flowing. That being said, I promise I will still write down your arguments even if they are delivered stream-of-consciousness style and absent any tags. -An average speaker will receive 27 speaker points from me. If you receive 30 speaker points, it means that you have given one of the single best speeches I have ever seen in a debate round. Theory: -Unless specifically told otherwise, I evaluate all theory arguments as a priori. -I view all theory debates through the lens of competing interpretations. If you do not have a coherent interpretation on a theory position, I will find it very difficult to vote for you. -I do not necessarily need proven abuse on theory in order to vote for it, but being able to articulate a clear instance of in-round abuse will likely increase your chances of winning a theory debate. -SPEC debates are not my favorite. I understand the utility of reading these arguments to secure your links, but I generally think that normal means is a sufficient level of specification, so I anticipate that I will side with the Aff in most of these debates. I would advise only going for SPEC arguments in the block if you have a clean kill or no other viable options to win you the ballot. Kritiks: -I don’t hate the Kritik, I really don’t. But I honestly do not have a ton of background in most of the K lit, particularly more post-modern arguments. I feel fairly comfortable with the Cap, Biopower, and Militarism debates, but I do not delude myself into thinking that I have read all of the relevant literature on these topics. Therefore, if you want to debate the K in front of me, PLEASE give me a general thesis of the argument at some point during the shell, and try to define all of the obscure terms of art you use so that I can figure out what you’re talking about. -The best Kritiks are either topic-specific or include specific links that directly answer the affirmative. The worst Kritiks are those that are composed entirely of post-modern buzzwords, rely on links of omission to interact with the affirmative, and name-drop authors at the expense of reading warrants. If you believe you can debate the K without falling victim to the pitfalls listed above, then you will probably be safe reading it in front of me as long as you can explain the argument effectively. -I have no idea what judges mean when they tell LOCs/MGs to “engage the Kritik” when answering it. If they mean that you should answer its substantive claims as opposed to exclusively reading procedurals and permutation arguments, then I absolutely agree. But in my experience, certain critics use “engage the Kritik” as a euphemism for, “the only way to answer the Kritik is by trying to move father left than the Kritik.” I am not one of those critics. If you want to answer the K by out-lefting it, go right on ahead. But you should also feel free to impact turn, read framework offense, defend the merits of fiat, or just read 8 minutes of reasons why the alternative would collapse hegemony. In my mind, giving a list of reasons why the thesis of the Kritik is a terrible mindset to adopt is the definition of “engaging the K,” regardless of which side of the political spectrum you approach it from. -I am predisposed to think that the Aff should get access to the impacts of the PMC. -Alternatives should include a clear description of what the world looks like after their implementation. If you do not defend that anything physically changes in a world of the alt, you should include an explanation of what happens after the critic takes this action. -I’m not sure what I think about narratives and performance in debate, largely because I wasn’t exposed to many during my debate career. I’m inclined to believe that debate is a game, that policy-making is good, and that the affirmative should generally try to talk about the topic, but if you can justify not doing these things, then don’t let my predispositions stop you from debating the way that you’re best at. Just make sure that everyone is treated with respect when reading or answering these arguments, which can be very personal for competitors. Remember, this is supposed to be fun. Disadvantages: -These arguments are much more in my wheelhouse. Disads that outweigh and/or straight turn the affirmative tend to be the most strategic in my eyes. -It would take a Herculean effort on your part and/or a concession on the part of the other team to convince me that it is legitimate to perm a disad. Counterplans: -I assume that all counterplans are conditional unless specifically told otherwise. -All counterplans should strive to be textually and functionally competitive.  -For what it’s worth, I tend to think that PICs, Conditionality, and Topical Counterplans are all acceptable, while Delay, Veto/Cheato, and Object Fiat CPs tend to be pretty abusive. However, I will not allow my pre-dispositions to determine the outcome of the debate, and will allow these questions to be settled in the round. -Permutations should include some sort of text explaining how the affirmative can interact with the counterplan (example: perm-do both, perm- do the counterplan, etc). -I tend to think that severance and intrinsic perms are abusive, and that a well-warranted theoretical objection is a reason to reject these arguments, but I will let this question be decided in the context of the debate. Weighing Impacts: -You should do this. A lot. Kevin Garner taught me how to debate, so I am very partial to buzzwords like, “probability,” “timeframe,” and “magnitude,” being used to describe your impacts. -Absent arguments to the contrary, I will default to voting for impacts with the largest magnitude. -Offense wins championships in debate. Defense can be very useful insofar as it prevents the other team from accessing their offense, but defense alone cannot win you the debate round.

Matthew Hogan - UNR

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

Matthew Pinckard - Cedarville U

Experience: I competed for Cedarville University for the last two years (2012-2014). During my second year of debate I qualified to NPTE. I would consider myself a competent debater, so I'll know the vast majority of your debate jargon and be able to keep up with the arguments. I've judged at two tournaments this year and haven't had any problems getting back into things. Approach to decision-making: I evaluate impacts. Pretty simple, pretty standard, I know. But if you aren't giving me impacts, you're losing. The rebuttals should take the time to do impact calculus. Tell me which impacts matter more and why. You don't want me to make those decisions for you. Also, I like impact framing. I enjoy a good debate about whether high-magnitude impacts or high-probability impacts (or whatever other sort of weighing mechanism you wanna try). I can definitely be persuaded that we should care more about 2,000 people who will almost certainly die tomorrow than 2 billion who might maybe die in 2 years.   I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but just don't forget that no one is completely unbiased. But I will listen to anything, and I will vote for arguments that I think are absurd but aren't well responded to or than I personally dislike for whatever reason (there are a few noteworthy exceptions, which I will mention as they come up in my philosophy). The exception is that I will refuse to weigh claims that lack any warrant whatsoever. Assertions without warrants are not arguments. My default order of evaluation is procedurals, kritiks (more on that below), and then all on-case arguments. You can convince me otherwise, but just keep this in mind. NOTE FOR PROJECT TEAMS: I don't want to hear your project. I will listen to it, and if you clearly win it I will vote for it, BUT I will be HIGHLY sympathetic to arguments about why we should talk about the topic and why projects are a tool of exclusion and why projects are bad for education and all the other reasons projects are bad. So do us all a favor and talk about the freaking topic. Or strike me if you're that committed to running your project. Relative importance of presentation/communication skills: I mean, they sort of matter for speaks, but they aren't going to influence my decision in the round. Even speaks I primarily decide based off of who debates the best.  On-case argumentation: On-case defense is never as importance as offense (anywhere), but it still matters. Taking out the other team's offense is pretty much essential to outweighing them. Solvency arguments are pretty crucial for winning my ballot, unless the impacts on the negative just massively outweigh the aff.  Critical arguments: K's were never my strong point when I was a debater. I ran them. I won with them a few times. But I was never a great K-debater. However, I generally understand them pretty well, and I'll listen to just about anything . . . with the rare exception that if I find your K to be entirely morally repugnant I very well might vote it down on principle. My threshold here is pretty high though. The only K that I've heard of that would be an automatic downvote is one that essentially boils down to saying we should all commit suicide. (On that note... if you have to read a trigger warning for your K, DON'T READ THE K! Once you've read the trigger warning I will stop listening to you). That being said, if you're debating in front of me and wanna run the K, go for it. Just win your framework, links, impacts, alt/alt solvency and you're golden. But don't consider me a K-hack. I find perf-cons pretty persuasive reasons why the K won't solve, and some solid impact turns are enough to win the aff the debate even if they lose their case. Performance arguments: Eh... please don't. If you reeeeeaaaaally want to run it... fine. I'll listen. I won't vote you down just because you ran a performance. I just don't like them, and honestly, the performance itself is not an argument, so if you spend half of your PMC performing, the neg only has half a PMC to respond to in a full LOC. Counterplans:  I think the neg is entitled to one conditional advocacy. I can be persuaded otherwise for the purpose of a debate round, but that's my default. I have a pretty low threshold for mutual exclusivity (i.e. if the plans can be done at the same time but there's a big DA to doing both but not to the CP alone, then they're competitive via net benefits). I also consider any form of counterplan legitimate until the aff tells me why there's abuse. Aff, if you want to run a procedural against a CP, go for it, but make sure you tell me clearly why it's a voter and not just a reason to shoot down the argument. If you want to know my general bias, I think any CP is theoretically legitimate except for PICs in the case of a resolution that requires the aff to pass a specific piece of legislation. However, delay CPs and consult CPs are pretty easy to beat (can't predct the future, and can't predict other actors' response). Procedurals: On Topicality I don't need to see in-round abuse to vote neg. If the aff isn't topical, they aren't upholding the burden of the aff. Thus they lose. Pretty simple. Aff, you can persuade me otherwise, but it might be an uphill battle.  I do generally need to see in-round abuse for other procedural arguments. You can tell me why I shouldn't need it or just explain to me how you've been abused even without losing links to specific arguments (i.e. running a conditional advocacy has already skewed our strategy), but I do want it to be there.  Please don't run spec arguments. Vagueness and O-spec are fine, but A-spec, E-spec, F-spec, etc. are just not good arguments. If they go absolutely cold-conceded, then maybe I'll vote on them. Same goes with RVIs. All I need is a blip on my flow telling me that I shouldn't vote for it because it's ridiculous and the argument is gone. Points of Order: Go ahead and call them. I'll try to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but admittedly I sometimes get too caught up in the flow of arguments that I don't realize something is new. If the PMR is bringing up a crapload of new arguments, you can stop calling them after 2 or 3. At that point I'll be pretty aware that most of the speech is new.

Melissa Reynolds - Mizzou

<ul> <li>Coached high school policy for 25 years and did competed in high school and college.  I have never judged parli but have years of experience judging policy.</li> <li>Stock issues are important but I’m a policy maker.  I like weighing impacts and showing logical link stories.</li> <li>Presentation is important but is not going to be my RFD.  Speed is acceptable so long as you are speaking clearly, but I’m not much of a fan of spreading.</li> <li>On case argumentation is important- neg can’t just drop case.  Put arguments on the flow.</li> <li>I prefer an advantage/disad debate.  I will vote on a CP if it is well done but there has to be exclusivity and a proven net benefit.  I can follow a kritik if you chose to run one, but I am not highly inclined to vote for a K.</li> <li>Points of order will be taken under consideration but please exercise good judgment in whether it is truly necessary.</li> </ul>

Micah Waterlander - MHCC

<ul> <li>Background of the critic: I competed in high school policy as well as competing 2 years in NPDA in college. This is my 2nd Year coaching, I coach both IPDA and NPDA formats.</li> <li>Approach of the critic to decision-making: I consider myself to be pretty tabula rasa and will vote for whatever the debaters tell me is important for me to vote on. I think that the trichotomy argument is a worthwhile argument, as well as most procedural arguments. I will vote on T if there is clear abuse, but I don't think the team has to only go for Topicality to show abuse. While I will listen to any argument ran in front of me I don't particularly like kritiks, especially in NPDA style debate, since any real evidence need to back up the kritik can't be brought into round. Furthermore, I think the kritik needs to show real world impacts to outweigh. But with that being said, if the kritik is necessary for your strategy then by all means run it. Also, I tend to think that a lot of debate hinges on solvency so this could win or lose a round easily. </li> <li>Communication/presentation: I'm pretty comfortable with most aspects of speed, but feel like clarity and signposting should falter because of your speed. Also I am a pretty expressive judge so if you pay attention you will know if I am getting down what you are saying. </li> </ul> <ul> <li>Preferences on calling Points of Order: I have no issue with POI being called, I think that if it is warranted you should call your opponent out on it. </li> </ul>

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

Nick Matthews - Long Beach

Last updated: 2/18/15   1. Speed:   <ul> <li>- You must speak at a conversational speed in front of me because I have a significant hearing impairment. Any rate of speed that is faster than conversational destroys my ability to accurately understand your arguments and impedes my ability to do my job.</li> <li>- NEW: If you speak faster than the dialogue of “The West Wing” in a prelim, you will earn a maximum of 27 speaker points. I don’t care what your NPTE ranking is, you will not earn more than 27 speaker points. If you choose to go fast in an outround for strategic reasons, I will respect that choice, but don’t complain if my decision doesn’t make sense.</li> </ul>   2. Theory guidelines:   <ul> <li>- NEW: I will not vote for any theory argument where the violation did not occur in my physical presence. The other team didn’t disclose? Sorry, I can’t verify that.</li> <li>- You must take at least one question in each constructive. Clarifying the status of an advocacy requires all of three seconds and does not count as a question.</li> <li>- The affirmative team must read either a plan or an advocacy statement with a clearly defined text. (If it relates to the resolution somehow, fantastic!).</li> <li>- I will not revert to the status quo unless I am provided with a justification for doing so.</li> </ul>   3. Evaluation method:   <ul> <li>- My default stance is that I will compare a topical plan to the world of the status quo or a competitive policy option or alternative. Feel free to argue that I should approach the round through some alternate means of evaluation. I am open to most arguments you may wish to present, so long as they are sufficiently explained and warranted.</li> <li>- I reward big-picture storytelling, intuitive arguments, and strategic decision-making. I rarely vote for arguments I don’t understand.</li> </ul>   4. Argument preferences:   <ul> <li>- As a competitor, I specialized in straight-up strategies: disads, counterplans, procedurals, case. These are also the debates I am most competent at judging. Don’t let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a lot stronger than my understanding of critical debate. Pref me accordingly.</li> <li>- I am comfortable with structuralist critiques of economies or state relations. My post-structuralist comfort zone begins and ends with Foucault. Arguments like anthro or “give back the land” are also okay. Beyond that, if you have to rely on words that do not appear in any dictionary in order to explain your argument, save the argument for another round.</li> <li>- Generic process counterplans like delay and consultation are lazy arguments in parli. I greatly prefer PICs and other counterplans that indicate critical thinking and preparation.</li> <li>- Disads need an issue-specific link, especially politics disads. “Plan is unpopular, causes Republican backlash” is not an issue-specific link.</li> <li>- Impact calculus—yes. Do you want to cheat? Turn case or control the root cause debate.</li> </ul>

Norell Conroy - Boise State

I've been involved in forensics/parli for five years. I prefer real-world probability over magnitude in impact calculus, even when faced with systemic v. hypothetical if the arguments are well-warrented.  I think the k debate can be super interesting.  I will probably only vote on t if you demonstrate actual in-round abuse--most t debates are less interesting/important than others. Call points of order. Speed is fine, but to a point.  If I can't understand you, I will make it clear.  At that point, if you do not slow down so I can understand you, that is bad for you because I vote based on what is on my flow.  Also, if you don't say something, I won't write it for you--that is, I will (to the best of my ability) not intervene--however, I will hold you accountable if you make offensive claims for the sake of winning (i.e. anything advocating for things like genocide, rape, etc. because you think such an argument functions in a compelling way--in front of me, it doesn't)   Courtesy and civility are vital to this activity. You will lose if you are outwardly rude or uncivil.  Sass and humor are swell, being purposefully mean-spirited is not.

Paul Boudreaux - Lower Columbia

I try to approach rounds as Tabula rasa as possible. I think you should do what you specialize in to ensure the highest quality debates. I had a long policy background but spent my last few years running a lot of criticisms’ in college. I have three years of high school policy experience and four years of NPDA and Two year of NPTE Experience. I was an all American in college and have recently graduated from Washburn Law. My legal background probably makes me have a higher tolerance for well-articulated procedurals. I enjoy both substantive and theory debate. I just finished taking the bar so my current events knowledge is not as in depth as it was in college but I have a degree in Economics and have followed international relations since high school. I don’t have any real problems with speed, so long that it is not used exclusive for exclusionary reasons with proper substance. Run the debate your way and justify why your way is best and you’ll likely pick up my vote.

Rob Layne - Utah

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

Robear Maxwell - Oregon

I debated for El Camino College, Concordia University and Texas Technical University during a 5-year college debate career. This is my second year coaching, first at Oregon. Speaker Points: I believe speaker points to be largely arbitrary and completely subjective. I also consider the distribution of speaker points to be largely exclusive (given to more "known" debaters for example, or for inside jokes) Everyone assumes I always give 30s but in reality I give 30s to anyone who gives a speech like that they've devoted the hard work it takes to be competitive in debate. I was a successful national circuit debater IMO and during my first year out I found it hard to justify giving the people who I myself battled in NPTE or NPDA elims 29s or 28.5s. Speaker points became even MORE arbitrary to me when I saw judges that couldn't link turn a disad cleanly to save their life, give MG's who just executed a clean strat something like a 28.3. If you practice hard at debate and read smart arguments, I will most likely roll out a 30. TOURNAMENTS DON'T EVEN PREFERENCE JUDGE VARIANCE IN THE ACCUMULATION OF SPEAKER POINTS, Wack....   Critical/Performance Arguments: I find myself voting for the pomo-generator more often than not but the fact that I refer to it as the pomo-generator should tell you something. I went for a K in about half my rounds during my career and I've also actually read a lot of philosophical lit so I do think I have a good understand of these argz, I just think these debates end up being fairly vacuous in a 40 minute parli round and devolve in to K on K debates which are nasty and gross. But if that's what happens that's what happens. I think it's a bit silly when debaters use terms that rooted in the lit and don't explain what they actually mean because I feel like I'm intervening when Team A is spreading through a Derrida 1NC and Team B says in the 2AC this is made up bullshit that doesn't make sense and in the block Team A explains that it actually does and defines the overall thesis of each arg in the block. This used to be called "whoopsie debate" and is generally a sucker punch to me. It's not like it really matters if a team wins with shitty whoopsie debate they do, I guess I am just putting this part in my philosophy because I have to be honest.   DAs/CPs: Unlike hippies who don't care about politics or the real world I like politics Das. I read about that stuff for fun so I actually tix debates. I don't like liars so don't tell me someone like John Shimkus is key when he isn't, that's the fastest way to lose your 30 and I don't care if you're the second coming of Marten King. Popular to what people believe I don't vote against people that read CPs. I don't instantly vote on No Neg Fiat. Like any other issue in the debate round though if someone reads No Neg Fiat and you don't have a competitive counter interp (does one exist?) or some other arg against theory you will lose. I default to a plethora of process counterplans (consult, delay, veto cheat hoe etc) to be shitty but I won't hold that against you unless you lose theory.     Theory: I often find that teams don't go for theory at times when it's their only option. That's sad. I don't really like reasonability argz as they are articulated in the status quo so I think you best be ready to articulate a clean counter interp in debates in front of me. I think they should be read twice OR slowly once. I think all theory is up for debate seeing as how theory is a made up scholarship anyway.   Overall None of my personal opinions on debate matter, the round is up to you. I attempt to become a robot who votes on the most well warranted, significant en route to an impact that matters the most per the impact calculus of the debaters.

Robear Maxwell - NPDA Hired

Roger Copenhaver - Concordia

Background: I competed in debated for 7 years. Three years in high school (policy), 1 year at Oregon (CEDA/NDT & NPDA/NPTE) and 3 years at Idaho State University (CEDA/NDT). I have qualified to the NDT in policy and cleared at multiple national tournaments. I coached at Idaho State University for one year and now am fulfilling the role as director at Augustana College. I debated at Oregon with some combination of Liz Featherston, Megan Gaffney, and Cameron Thurber while being coached by Tom Schally, Sarah Hamid, Ben Dodds, and Will Chamberlin. These people all had an impact on how I understand NPDA/NPTE debate.    A few parli things:  1.) Conditionality is probably fine. Negatives should probably get the status quo or a competitive policy option or an alternative the tests the AFF for a variety of different philosophical reasons. It seems ludicrous that the negative would not get the status quo as an option. 2.) I flow the K on one piece of paper. It is one argument. Not 7.  3.) Point of orders are silly. I can flow and decide what is a new argument and what is not. I understand that they are part of the format, so you can make them, but I will probably just say it’s under consideration. If they are used excessively, I will be annoyed. 4.) I understand that certain theory arguments have been tailored towards parli (I.e. PICS on a particular topic [maybe treaties] are bad because for the format of the debate). However, coming from a policy background, I am still trying to decide how I feel about these debates. I will still try my best to line of arguments on my flow and evaluate the debate objectively. Just don’t assume I would have a preference for a certain side of these debates. As of right now, I am not persuaded by “because this is parli” arguments and much rather you make substantive arguments.   More about me: How I decide debates: I believe that a balance between tech and truth is important in debate. I tend to see and evaluate debates at a very meta level. You should frame the end of the debate around important central questions to get my ballot. Framework: I feel that it is important for me to clarify my views about framework debates that came up towards the end of last season. My problem with framework is when it is used as a tool to disregard and exclude alternative perspectives and views on the topic. I do not believe that the only response to people who use personal experiences to inform their advocacy is to negate that experience. I believe that the topic is a stasis point for discussion, but does not mean the same thing for everyone. Framework can be persuasive to me when it is utilized as a substantive argument that challenges the affirmatives methodological approach to political activism. The best framework debates engage in a substantive discussion about the affirmative. Counterplans/Disadvantages: What is theoretically legitimate is open for debate. I try to enter the debate without any biases for what debaters should be allowed to talk about. Obviously, more AFF specific is preferred and will lead to better and more interesting debates. K/Performance Debate: Controlling meta level questions for the debate is necessary. This is the type of debate that I have the most experience with. I have had a hard time voting on K’s in parli, only because a lot of people in parli compartmentalize the debate so much, that the argument holistically doesn’t make sense. I rather see a debate where people are willing to defend something specific and generate offensive arguments from it rather then saying they are everything and nothing. Just because this is the type of debate I have the most experience with, does not mean that I know the work of every critical thinker – so explanation is still key. Speaker points: My range is typically between a 27.5-29.5 - This means that the average debater who is still making major mistakes is going to get a 27.5. If you show skill and are only making small mistakes, you will be in 28 range. If you are exceeding expectations, you will be in the 29 range. If you give one of the best speeches I have ever seen in debate you might get a 30 or close to it.

Roger Copenhaver - PLNU

Rosemary Loehr - Jewell

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

Ryan Hang - PDB

Debate Experience: I debated for UC Irvine and UC Berkeley. I debate extensively on the national circuit, cleared 3rd times at the NPTE, and finished 4th at the 2014 NPTE. It is your debate round and I am open minded to whatever you want to run (including K's, narratives, and performances) I Just need a clear framework on how to evaluate these arguments within the context of the round. Speed: I'm comfortable with speed, I think the biggest issue is clarity. I will shout clear or speed if I cannot understand you. I think the best way to be clear is to start off slower and build up your speed. SIGN POST AND TELL ME WHERE YOU ARE Theory: Slow down for the interpretation. I probably will not look towards theory implicating out of round abuse (such as disclosure theory). I understand that debate is a game and I am okay with theory used as a strategic tool, but I prefer a substantive debate. I don't have a preference for competing interpretations or reason-ability, but at least tell me what reason-ability means. (Does it mean, if I win one offense standard you look away or gut check? What does it mean?) I prefer in round abuse, and I have a very high threshold for theory if there is no articulated in round abuse. I will vote on potential abuse if you flat out win it. *I am open to non-traditional responses to theory such as K's of T. Policy Arguments: Run your Plans, CPs, DAs, K, and more in front of me. Kritiks: I think these debates are fun and enjoy the K debate. However, PLEASE slow down when you are reading these arguments and provide summaries of the argument in your tag lines. You should understand these arguments well and be prepared to simply explain these arguments to your opponent or myself during the round. Again, the more complex the argument...the more explanation I need. You probably don't really need to dive too deeply into your explanation of your Agamben K, but you probably should put more work into explaining your Lacan K. Arguments: I find it difficult to "dismiss" an argument that was dropped, simply because it was not warranted enough. If the argument was that terrible a simple "no warrant/counter assertion/this does not make any godamn sense should be sufficient," but as a debater it is your responsibility to point these things out. Weighing: This makes me happy and will win you rounds. Do it. Speaks: I’ll probably try to average a 27.5 for most rounds. You will get a 28-28.5 if I think you are generally mistake-free. A 29-29.5 means you are phenonmenal. A 30 will be rewarded for people who remind me of debaters I loved watching. If you’re a douchebag in round I will give you an auto-25. *Being honest will net higher speaks in front of me. Give me an accurate depiction of the round. Tell me why you are winning even though your arguments may be pretty weak or you may be losing on a couple of places on the flow, instead of just claiming to be dominating. (You might be and I dont have a problem with that either). World-View: I will default comparative worlds unless there is a reason provided to prefer truth-testing. If you are running crazy philosophical arguments, but you probably need to be very good at explaining them. Clear explanations of these arguments in addition to, extentions which clarify their impact to the round will do much to reduce the confusion. Don’t forget, debate’s enjoyable, so have fun. Debate is also a game so be nice and don't let anything get to personal. If you have any other questions, ask me before the round.

Saige Smith - NPDA Hired

I debated the NPDA/NPTE circuit several years ago, and have since judged at tournaments every year and worked at camps as well as coaching high school policy. I am willing to vote on anything, as long as there is a reason for it. That being said, I prefer topic specific debates, but have and am willing to vote on K and theory or anything else you have. On the same topic though, performative contradictions are a very fast way to lose my ballot. Arguments should be weighed by the debaters, I don’t want to do that work for you. Speed is fine, but if I or the competitors have to ask for clarity or to slow down more than a few times, your speaker points will reflect that. If you are going to drop an argument, make sure you leave it clean and tell me it’s going away. I will protect the PMR, but feel free to call points of order without being obnoxious about it.

Scott Elliott - KCKCC

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

Sean Hansen - Biola

Philosophy as follows:    TLDR:  I will pursue objectivity as much as I can while admitting my own unique subjectivity. I will vote for whatever you tell me to vote for on the flow, and accept any framework or paradigm therein. <ul> <li> I have no problem with procedurals, Ks, performance, or whatever else you want to run, as long as you give me a solid way to interact that paradigm with the other arguments in the round. </li> <li> That also goes for good policy debate; I will always prefer well-warranted positions and I will be looking for good clash and impact calculus in both constructives and rebuttals. </li> <li> I dislike being forced to do my own impact calculus, so please do so at least in the rebuttals to make my decision easier.   </li> <li> My easy cheat philosophy is that turning case / advocacy and controlling root cause is probably the easiest way to my ballot. </li> <li> I despise fact debate and have similarly volatile feelings towards value, so please run either policy or critical argumentation. </li> </ul>   Otherwise, run what you want and give justification for it and I’ll have fun too! â&tilde;º For other preferences (admitting my own subjectivity), please see below:   Procedurals and Theory: I'm a bit of a theory nerd, so few things get me more excited than good procedural theory debate, but nothing can make me more bored than bad procedural debate. <ul> <li> I default to the belief that T should be examined under competing interpretations (as evaluated by the offense under the standards debate). </li> <li> Even if you run articulated abuse, I always look to the standards debate to prefer one team over another, and think that your standards should include substantial impact framing for offense. </li> <li> I would always prefer if NEG runs competing interp or even potential abuse and then ran case turns rather than articulated abuse, which then requires me to sit through an additional 7 min of arguments that don't link (see delivery notes on me being bored). </li> <li> That being said, if you just run apriori fairness and education as voters, I will default to articulated abuse and look for the requisite arguments. </li> <li> I also think good theory usually has a clear brightline for the interpretation that the other team can meet / violate. </li> <li> I admire creativity in running new responses to procedurals, but am familiar with traditional responses as well. </li> <li> I don't vote on RVIs for T, because I don't think being topical is inherently a reason to vote for the AFF. I may consider RVIs on other procedurals if they are well-warranted and impacted, but time skew arguments in general usually indicate that either you or your partner misappropriated time during your speech to allow for the skew.  </li> <li> Not a fan of spec arguments, but you could always change my mind by reading one that doesn’t sound unnecessary. Bear Saulet says it best: “Your Spec argument is presumably to protect your normal means-based link arguments, so just read those arguments on case.” </li> </ul>   Case debate: <ul> <li> LOC’s that allocate time and effort to the line-by-line on case make a happy Sean (although if you have awesome off-case that require more time, then you make the strategical choice – it won’t hurt ballot or speaks if you win on the flow). </li> <li> Especially great if it clashes over controlling uniqueness and link solvency. </li> <li> I think impact defense is a lost art and can grant you unique strategic ground in the round. </li> </ul>   CP: <ul> <li> I think PICs are a good strategy decision, while delays and 50 states tend to be lazy strategies unless specifically justified. </li> <li> I think topical CPs are not only theoretically legitimate, but also probably the only way to allow NEG reciprocal access to the round (though I’ve picked up AFFs who have argued otherwise). </li> <li> I am also open to conditional CPs, and even multiple conditional positions, but allow AFF theory responses equal weight. </li> <li> My openness to CPs generates a corresponding openness to good perm debates, although I tend towards the perspective that legitimate perms use all of AFF text and some or all of CP text (unless severance is somehow justified, which can certainly be done, but is a hard theory battle to win). </li> <li> Perms should have a net benefit, and should usually be run with solvency deficits / turns to the alt. </li> </ul>   K: I am a huge fan of good critical debate, and enjoy hearing new arguments. <ul> <li> Your framework should give clear indications of weighing arguments in round, as this is the first place I look to evaluate my decision. </li> <li> Since I think critical argumentation can be some of the most important argumentation to happen in our league, I also think your alt and alt solvency need to be solid. If you tell me to vote for you to uphold a certain ideology and win that I should do so, be assured that I will do whatever your alt asks, so make it worthwhile. </li> <li> Solvency needs to clearly articulate what it solves for and how. Blipping “Solvency 1: the personal becomes the political. Solvency 2: radical change is the only solution” are lazy arguments and can be answered with an equal lack of verve. </li> <li> I am most familiar with the literature base for rhetoric and media studies, post-structuralism, post-modernism, persuasion, and liberal education studies, but I love to learn new perspectives and ideas, so by all means run a project in front of me. </li> <li> In the last year, I think my ballots in K rounds (either given from AFF or NEF) tended to be split evenly for and against, so I’m just as open to any type of answers to K. </li> <li> You should probably explain how perms of methodological advocacies with policy plan texts function (and as always, provide a net benefit) </li> <li> I like clear Role of the Ballots that are read twice so I can be sure what my interaction is with the critique. </li> <li> As per procedurals, I do enjoy creative responses to Ks that provide depth of thought and clash. </li> </ul>   Performance debate: Quite honestly, I have similar judging paradigms and habits when judging performance / project / narrative positions as I do judging critical positions, so you can mostly see above for my preferences. I do find that the framework and theoretical debate becomes significantly more important in these rounds. I am open to hearing theory blocks or alternative advocacies from the opposing team in response.   Impact Calculus: <ul> <li> Good impact comparison MUST happen in order for me to resolve debate, including prioritization (with standards) of magnitude over probability, timeframe over reversibility, etc. </li> <li> Must happen at least in the rebuttals, is probably also a good idea in the constructives. </li> <li> I tend to prefer impacts of probability and timeframe over magnitude and reversibility, and have found myself voting more and more for the most proximal impacts (which are usually systemic in my mind) if no clash happens to tell me which I should prefer. </li> <li> If no calculus happens, I will prefer the “worst” impact, but at that point I think your rebuttals aren't doing a very good job because I have to assert more of my own assumptions into the round.  </li> </ul>   Delivery / Speaker Points: <ul> <li> I don't mind speed, as long you are articulate enough for me to understand you. </li> <li> I will call clear if you are inarticulate, but that has happened exactly once, because I had a sinus infection and couldn’t hear out of one ear. </li> <li> Speaker points tend to be focused on your argumentation, with considerations of your delivery proper a secondary concern. </li> <li> I generally reward between 23-30 <ul> <li> A 23 usually looks like: weak argumentation, poor strategy, inconsistent articulation / trying to speed when you can’t, and bad time allocation. </li> <li> A 30 usually looks like: exceptional refutation that combines great defense and offense, top-notch time efficiency, clarity, and outstanding strategy / round awareness. </li> </ul> </li> <li> I rarely protect against new arguments unless it’s an outround; I will be flowing, it’s your job to call arguments to my attention (plus I think that points of order can be of significant strategical value as well). </li> <li> I think partner communication is not only desirable but vital in this sport, so by all means communicate in-round with your partner. I will only flow what comes from the designated speaker’s mouth. </li> <li> I am trying to work on my nonverbal expressions in round so that you can keep track of how much I like / dislike your arguments before I release my RFD. <ul> <li> If I think you are going for the wrong argument I will be frowning at you a lot, with lots of furrowed eyebrows and extended eye contact (unusual since I’m usually looking at my flow). </li> <li> If I drop my pen, it’s usually because I think you’re repeating an argument and hope that you’ll move on, otherwise I’ll get bored. </li> <li> If I’m really Really REALLY bored, you will see lots of dropping of my pen and looking around the room. </li> <li> If I look at the team who isn’t speaking during the rebuttals, I probably think the speaker is making a new argument and I’m waiting to see if someone will call it. </li> <li> A quick head nod means I like your argument; a continuous head nod means I understand and you should move on. </li> </ul> </li> <li> I don’t care whether you sit or stand; I will (usually) be looking at my flow. </li> </ul>   Things that I don’t enjoy / make my decision harder / lose you speaker points: <ol> <li> Being rude / racist / patriarchal / homophobic / etc. in your rhetoric. </li> <li> Neglecting impact calculus in the rebuttals (AUGH). </li> <li> Politics DAs that assume your bill is “top of the docket” without any reason it should be. I’m going to quote K. Calderwood’s philosophy on this: “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 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”. </li> </ol>   Again, a caveat to all the preceding observations and a return to the overview: I will vote for you if you win on the flow with well-warranted offense and good impact / framework calculus.

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!

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..

Sohail Jouya - KCKCC

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

Spencer Shanks - NPDA Hired

Spencer Shanks| Judging Philosophy| NPTE/NPDA 2015   About me: In my undergrad, debated at William Jewell College (4 years, Parli Debate). I am currently at the University of Kansas studying East Asian Languages & Cultures—Chinese and Chinese Politics, getting my MA. I like America.   OVERALL PREFERENCES: <ul> <li>IMPACT WEIGHT: I default to Net-benefits (weighing the largest impact versus the probability/time frame of other impacts in the round). All topics are policy topics (yes, I will listen to fact/value, but I don’t like it as much and will likely not vote for it absent clear reasoning other than ‘the resolution says so’).Warranted impacts beat big impacts every-time with me. Ex: “Russia gets pissed and nukes the US blotting out the sun equaling extinction” will not outweigh a thorough explanation of why killing a specific species of waterfowl would cause an indigenous plant species to overwhelm, stagnate, and deplete oxygen levels in a regional lake water supply, causing “xyz” problems. That is, unless it is an egregious lie... *Note, I hate global warming impacts….but will vote on them if I have to* If you don’t want me to intervene, weigh out the impacts yourself.</li> <li>SPEAKER POINTS: High speaker points are earned not by reading an elongated text that you spent the entirety of prep writing out, but instead by taking the time to explain how arguments function, why they matter, and actually looking at me. 26 is my lowest; 28-29 are common; 30 is exceptionally rare.</li> <li>MY FLOW: If something isn’t on my flow due to: you going too fast, you interrupting someone, or you not listening to my “clears,” I’m not going to vote on it. I’d like to think I can comprehend most speeds, which will tell you something if I don’t have your argument written down.</li> <li>TEXTS: Read interpretations/plan texts twice or more and slowly, please. Better yet, give me a copy. Please! I think you are required to give a copy of plan texts/cp texts/alternative texts to your opponent if they ask.</li> <li>FACTS(?): I use my past experiences, debate and educational, to inform my decisions. Take that how you will… I’m not going to “punish” you for saying something that is a little bit of a spin, but if you start talking about how “President Merkel of China is going to use his nuclear weapons to wipe out Tahiti,” I’m probably not going to lean in your direction. Debate should be educational, not an exercise in overwhelming tongue flapping of false information.</li> <li>SAFE SPACE: Don’t call names, of any sort. If you want to state something said by someone is racially-tinged, has sexist undertones, etc. that is fine (I’d like to think out community is fairly inclusive, but I’m sure outliers exist). If you start yelling about how someone is a huge racist because they are white or a patriarchal bastard because they are male, I’m not going to vote for you. Period. Your job is to be inclusive too. [Unless the perpetrator actually does fit this (use your very gifted brains to figure out if this is the case), then by all means…] Debate should be fun, inviting, and safe.</li> <li>QUESTIONS: All constructive speeches should take a question.</li> <li>POINT OF ORDER: Call them, but I’ll protect you from new arguments. You should call them just in case my perfection decides to take a vacation ;).</li> <li>EXPRESSION: I reflect how I’m thinking in my very poor poker face. If I’m rolling my eyes or covering my face, I’m betting I’m not liking what I’m hearing. If I’m grinning? Keep up what you are doing. People say I perpetually look very serious/mad—I’m thinking, not angry.</li> </ul> ADV/DA/CP DEBATE: <ul> <li>DEFENSE: I don’t vote on “there is still a risk of ‘x’, so you have to vote here because I said inevitable.” While I think inevitability claims are useful, they need to both be warranted and interact with the opposing claim, or you are just saying a 5-syllable word. Defensive arguments, to me, can “win” a sheet of paper. For example, if you win an argument on an ADV as the NEG that says “there is not a risk of nuclear war because of ‘x’ thing,” that doesn’t mean you win something that wins you the round (offense), it means the sheet of paper is irrelevant in terms of the offense that the AFF could have.</li> <li>NEED A CP?: The Status-quo can solve, you don’t need a counter-plan. Also, I never understood what “judge kicking a counterplan” was, I still don’t, so I won’t do it.</li> <li>PROCESS DA’s: I like these and I think that they are smart (others will disagree). What they are: Disad’s that say, “if plan happens, ‘x’ thing is stopped, unenforceable, or replaces a given action.” This should be warranted and not just an assertion. Ex: it is not acceptable to just say, “Republicans will ignore ‘x’ bill during/because the plan passes(passage).” You must explain why a specific bill will be ignored within the context of the plan.</li> </ul> THEORY DEBATE & T: <ul> <li>STRUCTURE: I think you need 4 things: an interpretation, explaining what should have happened/word definition; 2) a violation, or what did happen that you disagree with; 3) standards that explain within the context of the round why the violation is a bad thing to have happened compared to your interpretation; 4) voting criteria, like where this is evaluated compared to other items in the round and why.</li> <li>ABUSE v. NOT: I will vote on theory that doesn’t have proven abuse, however, I’m much more likely to vote for it with clear abuse. Why? It is a warrant. I understand why a more limiting interpretation is “good,” but I don’t usually understand why that means you should win just because you used a dictionary before the round (It is like a DA without an impact).</li> <li>CP THEORY: Counter plans are conditional unless otherwise specified. Conditional=can kick for any reason. Yes, I will vote on reasons why Condo/Multiple/etc. CP’s are bad.</li> <li>REJECT ARG OR TEAM?: Topicality is a reason to vote for the negative at the end of the round. I don’t necessarily think the same is true for Counter plan Theory/other theory. You have to explain why this is true. Instead, it would be more effective (in my mind) to explain “if they don’t have the CP/other thing, that means they lose for “yz” reasons.”</li> <li>PERMUTATIONS: A permutation is an assessment of competition between the counterplan/k and Plan—can they both happen at the same time? There are two steps to this evaluation for me: 1) when I think about it, can the two things happen simultaneously? 2) If they both happen, is there a disadvantage to both happening at the same time (or advantage)? Answer both of these questions when explaining the function of a permutation. It would be helpful for you to read a permutation text out-loud, unless it is a “do both” and it just makes sense. Don’t say “Butler Perm” or some other name-drop. I don’t know what these mean for you, they certainly mean nothing to me.</li> <li> PMR THEORY: Don’t. That is, unless it is something actually egregious. I will listen to “you should have taken a question” in the PMR in response to the NEG not giving a question in the MO, but it should be beautiful.</li> </ul> K DEBATE: <ul> <li>ME: You should not assume I am a super K-friendly judge. I tend to dislike the strategies employed, often the arguments said, among other factors. If you really want to get my ballot on a K, the most important thing you should do is to make your K Topic-specific. Chiefly, I very-much dislike that K’s are often a gnarled mess of gunk until the final speeches. THAT BEING SAID:</li> <li>INTRODUCTION: You need to, for my sake and the sake of the other team, have a clear statement of: what you are critiquing, what your thesis is, and how you will resolve it (IN THE BEGINNING).  If you don’t have this, and I look lost, you probably will have the same status next to your name at the end of the round.</li> <li>ALTERNATIVE: Your alternative’s solvency should be clear to me. Give me a clear world of what the world looks like post-alternative and you will be ahead (both on my ballot and in the debate). All K’s, in my mind, should have an alternative. Non-unique Disads don’t usually win; they also won’t usually win with 6-syllable words and Derrida attached to them.</li> <li>PERFORMANCE K’s: I don’t like these, but I will listen to them. See the second bullet in this section.</li> <li>AFFIRMATIVE CASE: I think the AFF should get to use their case and weigh it against the K in most instances. To what level that happens should be determined by the debaters. I think crafty AFF teams will tell my how, even if their plan doesn’t happen, there is some unique value that the AFF had to combat a K.</li> </ul> FINAL NOTES: <ul> <li>Please ask me any questions you might have as a result of something not being mentioned in this, or clarification on how I see a given “thing”. You can email me at: spencer.shanks@me.com</li> </ul>

Stephanie Dunn - MWSU

I did HS policy for 4 years and competed in forensics through college. I have coached parli at the University of Oklahoma (2 years) and have recently become associated with the Missouri Western team...in addition to coaching HS teams. I like well warranted and clearly explained arguments. Beyond that, I’ll listen to almost anything so long as you show me how it applies to the topic at hand. Point of orders are fine. Speed is fine so long as you do it well - I've coached CEDA style debate as well and will let you know if/when you become unclear. 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. Performance affirmatives are not my style - I have more thoughts on them, but those thoughts are not polite. Topicality, if there is actually abuse, is fine. Aside from these, I like well developed arguments. Don't randomly drop arguments - kicking arguments is fine so long as you tell me why.

Steve Farias - Pacific

Steven Kalani Farias – University of the Pacific PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY   Updates: My threshold to vote on theory has decreased. Proven abuse is not a necessity on T, though it is preferred. Also, my thoughts on role of the ballot has changed under my section for K's.   TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round; however, theory I generally have a high threshold for voting on except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.   Section 1: General Information-   While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY IF PROBABILITY MEANS ANYTHING BESIDES A DROPPED, BLIPPED INTERNAL LINK—which I think it does.   I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips don’t ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say “I didn’t get that”. So please do your best to use words like “because” followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.   Section 2: Specific Arguments   “The K”- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that K’s without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves. NEW: In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provied a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how should perform that role will be ahead on Framework. For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Also, please do not make myself or your competitors uncomfortable. If they ask you to stop your position because it emotionally disturbs them, please listen. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not. I believe you should be able to run your argument, but not at the expense of others’ engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.   Topicality/Theory-  I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competeing definitions and a question of abuse in my book. Not either or. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an aff who was not abusive, if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T. To win, I also think you must either pick theory OR the case debate. If you go for both your topicality and your K/DA/CP I will probably not vote on either. Caveat-  I think that negative teams should remember that a contextual definition IS A DEFINITION and I consider multiple, contradictory definitions from an affirmative abusive (so make Aff doesn’t meet its own interp arguments).   In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized interpretations to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win my ballot on theory.   Counterplans- CP’s are the best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team (or at least some alternative advocacy). It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with. I do not think that “We Bite Less” is a compelling argument, just do not link to your own disad. In terms of perms, if you do not in the end prove that the Perm is preferential to the plan or cp, then I will simply view it as an argument not used. This means if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the CP should be rejected as an offensive voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the Alt. is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links.   Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.   LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY   Section 1 – General Information   Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 6 years coaching experience (3 years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale)    General Info: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round; however, theory I generally have a high threshold for voting on except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.    Section 2 – Specific Inquiries 1. How do you adjudicate speed?  What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?   I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debater’s lack of clarity you will say “clear” (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debater’s excessive speed, I expect you to say “speed.” In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to “report” me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.    2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you don’t find yourself voting for very often?   I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.    3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:   Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achieveable at the end of the debate.    4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue   Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons i should ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all therory arguments are voting issues.    5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?    Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.    6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months   Yes   7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?   I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.    8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?   No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.   9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?   You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way you tell me too. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.    10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?   My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.   Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!

Steve 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 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 Clemmons - Oregon

Steve Clemmons University of Oregon Rounds Judged in 2013-14 30ish   Experience: HS policy and LD, 4 years CEDA and NDT (before the merger) one year NPDA Coaching Experience College: First year at Oregon, 12 years at Santa Clara, 4 years at Macalester I have coached NDT LD, Mock Trial and parliamentary Coaching Experience DOF HS: Skyline, the Harker School, St. Vincent, Presentation HS Coaching Experience HS: Leland (CA) New Trier (IL), Hopkins (MN) Logan (CA) Richmond-Kennedy (CA) If you are reading this, I am really wondering why you are not doing NDT/CEDA.  You have just prepped in a prep room with your coaches and teammates, looking at your backfiles.  This is not a criticism, it is just an observation.  Chances are you want me to judge this like it was a policy round, but you are not in a policy round.  You are not reading evidence that I can evaluate, you are not arguing the quality of sources, you are asserting claims and hoping that I have knowledge about your kritik or your politics scenario.  The rounds that I have judged have reminded me of tagline debate.  Here are things I am not down for <ol> <li>Tag line debate where you read five words and expect that to resemble an argument</li> <li>Any of the isms.</li> <li>You claiming something that we both know is not true, like saying someone dropped something that has a bunch of ink next to it.</li> <li>Ignoring the topic.  Make me believe that you took the topic into account before you take us on some fanciful critical debate, or your CP or Affirmative advantage that is not realistic.</li> </ol> Things to know about how I evaluate rounds <ol> <li>I use the full range of speaker points.  I am totally empowered to give you a 5.  I haven’t given anything lower than about a 22 this year, but I use the whole scale. </li> <li>I prefer arguments that are about the topic, both Aff and Neg.</li> <li>I believe in some level of checking claims in the debate.  If you have some article that you read in prep time, refer to it.  I will evaluate the truth of the claims in cases of conflicting statements by looking at the referenced materials.  Do you have to read a card?  No, but let’s be honest…you probably should, which refers us back to why are you not doing policy or LD?</li> </ol> 1) I have a crippling case of SPS, or slow pen syndrome. I have seen too many debates were I feel excluded from the discussion at hand. Debaters ask for the shells and then they are passed back and forth between the debaters, but not through the judge. My pen speed is fine for most rounds, but the rounds where debaters try to push their limits are too fast for me now, mindlessly blipping through topicality or PIC answers and I just have blips I have to recreate into an argument. Now that I flow on my computer, things are better, but not entirely perfect. Your speed (or better yet, your stunning lack of clarity) still can be an issue.. which brings me to... 2) Most arguments presented are incomplete thoughts. One of the problems where SPS creeps up in on procedural issues. The phenomenon usually is started by the negative with short, underdeveloped theory arguments. The affirmative is usually just as guilty with a variety of brief “We Meet” blips that turn out to be 5-7 word sentences. I just don’t evaluate those arguments anymore. It is not my job to piece together the round by calling for the shells, evaluating the definitions and re-interpreting what the argument morphs to in the last rebuttals. I FIND THIS IS VIOLATED THE MOST!! If going for theory arguments like ISPEC and ASPEC are your bag, then you need to do the work in explaining the argument, not just assume that because I come into the round with native knowledge on the subject, that I am going to apply it for you. My teams run these arguments as well, and if they don’t explain it, then you should vote against them as well. When I tell you how I voted, you only have yourself to get upset with. 3) I SEARCH FOR THE EASY RATIONAL WAY OUT. I am not a lazy judge, but I think that clever teams find ways to win my ballot with easy to grip on, reasonable sounding stories in the last rebuttal. If that means that a reverse voter on something is it, then by all means take it. Remember, it still should meet the test above. It should be well thought out, developed rationale on where and what the abuse is and have an explained voting issue. Policy and Parliamentary debaters should steal something for Lincoln Douglas and use criterion/criteria and describe why your arguments filter though some framework and why your opponent’s arguments don’t. This should be topped off with why this means I should vote for you. 1)Topicality. Refer to incomplete arguments. I find that I rarely vote on topicality because the debate on this issue is usually pretty shallow and underdeveloped. Most teams just exchange blocks on the issue and it is dumped into the 1NR’s lap to deal with. If you plan to utilize topicality as a strategy in front of me, it should have a little heft to it. The reason why the case is non topical should be easy to understand. I am going to want to have a reconfiguration of what the topic area looks like after your interp of the resolution. Potential for abuse is usually not persuasive to me, because in the rounds that I normally judge, people rarely look to what happened in them, and I am not a debate guru that others look towards when evaluating the resolution. What could happen and what did happen are two different things. A word to the Aff : Shallow argumentation applies to you as well in the criticism of debate and topicality. 2) Kritiks. I am a big fan of consistency with your kritik and the rest of your argumentation. I think that I get typecast as a kritik hack, mainly because when I was a debater, we had a critical lens when looking at the resolution and debate as a whole. That view would slowly be growing incorrect. I really like discussions about the topic. My problem evaluating them is that most debaters assume that I come with an understanding of the argument, then they hope that I will apply my knowledge to complete the puzzle. I won’t do that, as I feel it interjects me into the debate too much. Your critical arguments should be easy to digest and have a theme that ties into whatever the Aff might be doing. The argument that the Aff uses the state, for example is not an explanation of the link to the Aff project. I am looking for a justification/link to the kritik from the Neg. Some other questions that should be answered is the question of the role of the judge in the round when faced with a kritik. This gets back to the question of criteria. Is the kritik post or pre fiat? What happens to the world of fiat when looking at the kritik? Is this criteria question a means based or a teleological/consequentialist question?  This obviously applies to critical Affirmatives as well.  I like debate about the topic at hand. I think that debate has gone too far from its roots. I have sympathy for a team that came to debate about the resolution and are prevented from doing so, because of a myriad of other issues that are not really germane to the topic. It has gotten to the point where I feel kritiks almost have to be resolutional in nature, or at least there should be a clearly defined link to something the Affirmative has said or do to trigger the impact. To ask a debater to defend the inherent racism that exists in society or the activity is counterproductive, and I give latitude for a team pointing that out. I am all for the intellectual exercise, but can we all just agree that is what it is? I am not one to believe that change can really be started from a debate round at some random tournament. 3)Political DA’s. I like them, but I think that they are not argued well enough. Everybody has lexis cards that talk about what the current climate is with TPA or the midterm elections, that is not the true problem with Politics debates. My problem comes with the internal link part of the debate. Nobody really ever talks about what causes the different policies to pass or not to pass. What are some of the reasons that the political process works the way it does? Why when President Obama passes some policy does he get either political capital or loses some capital. Take it father than winners-win or winners-lose. Develop the reasons why that is the case, and read some evidence about that issue as well. 4)CP’s. I prefer that the text be written out, both by the Negative and any permutations by the Negative. The little extra work by both sides makes it easy to judge textual competition on the CP. I can be persuaded to listen to functional competition justifications on the CP as well. Similar to topicality, I think that most theory in the CP comes out too fast for adequate adjudication on the issues. The team that usually wins on the theory is the team that takes the time out to explain their arguments. I fall on the side that CP’s are a form of advocacy by the Negative and that they should stick with them. They are part of the negative policy rationale. That is not a hard and fast rule, but it is one that I default to, without justification otherwise. 5)Overviews. I rarely flow them because they are usually generic pre-written out by the coach drivel that comes out too fast to truly be persuasive. An overview should set out the framework that I will be using to evaluate the round and it might refer to some evidence that makes that point. If you chose to read evidence in the overview and plan to refer to it again during the speech sometime, you might want to warn me about that. 6) Speaker Points I reward debaters who do some of the following things A) Dare to have a case debate on the Neg B) Clear, understandable speed, with extra love for debaters who pause a sec to allow page turning, and who don’t have wasteful overviews that really do not set up the actual framework C) Include the judge in the debate. Assume my participation in the round. Give me reasons why I should vote your way. Have a criteria D) 2AC’s that just don’t blip through the theory debate and actually explain their arguments. I prefer Depth in argumentation. Be right and have a few justifications, instead of throwing a lot of excrement on the wall and seeing what sticks. Speed mostly seems a reason for covering up a weakness, instead of building up a strength. My base starts at 24 and doing the things explained above will get you higher points. I find that I average about 26.5 as a base for my points. The scale usually extends from a top of 29 ( I have given out a few 29.5’s) to 25 ( I have given out some well deserved 23’s this year) Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? This is answered above.  I use the whole range and high of 29 low of 22 this year. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Again, this is answered above.   Performance based arguments… Above.  Should have a resolutional based link, or even better a link to the happenings in the round. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? The usual things I think people would do on a T debate.  Have some basic standard, clear violation of what the Affirmative did, prove how you were abused by this interpretation in the round and why I should vote on it.  The rest is up for debate. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? This is mostly for the debaters to haggle over.  I think that PICs should have clarity on what the net benefit is that would distinguish the CP from the case.  No, the OPP should not identify the status of the CP, because the Government should have done that during the speech. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) I have no problem with sharing.  But, the issue becomes the teams not sharing with the judge.  If you can come to an agreement on the arguments and it differs on my flow, what you think might not be relevant to how I decide the round. 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?)? Again, this is what you would call being a good debater.  This is what should be in the final rebuttals.  I am open to persuasion on the ordering of the voting issues, but will default to the procedurals being handled first. 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")? However I feel on that particular day.  Debaters who do not do the previous two questions during their speech will usually be the debaters that will get 22-25 speaker points.

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.

Todd Graham - SIU

Judging Philosophy Todd Graham                                                  SIU 2015   Hello.  I’m back.    I last judged in 2011 (I think).  You can find my older philosophy adapted, cut. and pasted below.  It’s long, but helpful if you’ll actually read it and adjust.  I haven’t changed much since then.  I’ll list the things below that are new. I now flow on a computer.  I’ve got a mouse, and an ergonomic keyboard that splits in two.  Plus, I can put everything in a large font size.  It’s great.   These days, I enjoy giving debating and strategy advice beyond who won and lost (post-rounds) more than I used to.  The irony, of course, is that as I get older, people want to hear my opinions of debate less and less.     In general, I think of myself as a guardian of parliamentary debate.  If I perceive what you are doing as bad for the long-term health of this activity, then I’m probably against it.  Doesn’t mean I’m right.  Doesn’t mean I’m not also against some stuff that might be good.  Doesn’t mean I’m not for some stuff that might be bad.  It’s just how I feel.  EG: Against pre-round disclosure. Against advocacies as conditional.  Against topic areas or topics in advance. Against MPJ. For the notion of parli as distinct from policy. For smart students with a well-rounded base of knowledge on a variety of topics. For different topics every round. For limited prep. For debating the topic.                           MY OLD PHILOSOPHY (ADAPTED) FROM 2011   I have a policy debate background.  I like rounds that are policy debate rounds.  Plans, advantages, disads, counterplans, etc…all make for better debates.  Think of me as a policy maker.  My role is to vote for or against the government plan.  Generally, arguments filter through that role…with a few exceptions noted below.   Performances:  While I have voted for hand puppets (sock puppets actually require socks), I wouldn’t bank on any repeats soon.  A performance is not more persuasive to me than any other single warranted argument.  Usually it is less persuasive.       You must make arguments to win a debate.  Those arguments should be clear enough to allow the other team a fair chance to respond.  (Eg, critiques, metaphors, irony, narratives, personal advocacy, what your alt to your k is, etc...)    If the tournament in question has topic areas, I think it would be swell if you did your work, cut some files, and debated those topic areas.  Running generics when we have topic areas should be avoided since it causes your credibility to be diminished.      Critiques:  Again, I prefer policy debate.  However, when on the government, your plan advantages can be critical, just as a net benefit to a counterplan can be critical.  Either way, you still had a policy.  I have voted for many critiques, but I am not a hack.  I think critiques should have realistic alternatives.  Some critiques make little sense to me.  Maybe this helps.  If there is equal talent from your opponents, these are your chances to win your critique:    Capitalism and militarism type debates, normal:  3 to 2 against. Capitlaism and militarism type debates, fancy kritique trickery, obfuscating language, etc…:  2/1 against. Kato and nuclearism and threat construction type debates:  2.5 to 1 against. Other non-gooey kritiques:  2.5-3.5 to 1 against. Give back the land:  3.5 to 1 against. Foucault type debates:  4 to 1 against. Nietzche type debates:  5 to 1 against. Baudrillard type debates:  10 to 1 against.   (Note—that means if you want to win the debate, your opponents must be anywhere from slightly bad to absolutely atrocious at answering a k.  Often, however, I find the talent is not equal, and the k debater is much more skilled than her/his opponent, which throws the percentages way off)   Fiat for critiques: Both teams can argue that their advocacy is a good thing.  That essentially means the government defends their plan as U.S. government action (if USFG is in the res).  Arguing a critique and saying that fiat is illusory doesn’t change the fact that government teams should still get the chance to access their impacts.  Let’s skip most of the framework (keep it to a minimum that you need in order for me to evaluate your arguments) and just get on with the debate please.       Fiat for politics: I think that fiat means the government gets their plan passed now.  This “debate” about politics should begin after the passage of the plan.  So politics links that argue about who voted for what and by what margin make little sense to me.  Note: that also means that most “political capital” or “horse trading” links seem either out of place or incorrectly argued in many debates.  EG., Why would the president spend political capital to pass a plan that he never liked in the first place?  Why would it be seen as an olive branch?  He NEVER would have done the plan (that’s inherency).  I think most opposition teams are asserting (actually fiating) these links, and they seem ridiculous to me.  Fiat doesn’t mean you get a link to politics automatically because legislation was passed.  Make some arguments about the specific government plan and the political ramifications of it being passed.  I think fiat means the plan was passed.  The government gets to fiat it into existence.  So debate the political process that happens AFTER the passage of the plan.  That still leaves plenty of political process disads like: plan perceived as win or loss, plan popular or unpopular, plan angers x party or the base, plan is liberal/conservative which has “x” results, winners win/losers lose etc… I think these are all arguments that are included by my interpretation of fiat while not allowing unreasonable debates about supermajority, who voted for what, 9-0 s.c. counterplans, cheat-o-veto, as well as the examples above of capital or horse trading or olive branches.  The easy test:  does your interpretation of fiat give you a link (and sometimes uniqueness)?  If so, then I disagree with your outlook on fiat.  Counterplans: I think you should stick with mutual exclusivity and net beneficial as your standards.   Venture into other standards at your own risk.  I think most teams are misapplying both textual and functional competition, but especially textual competition. The consistency of advocacy and arguments is crucial for parliamentary debate. The counterplan should be consistent with the disads/case turns/kritiques you are running.  For parliamentary debate, counterplans must be unconditional.  I don’t need you to tell me that when making them.   The same is true with criticisms.  Your advocacy is your alternative, and it needs to be unconditional and consistent with all other arguments you forward in your speeches.      In case you don’t understand the meaning of “unconditional,” let me explain.  “Unconditional” is a very specific term that only refers to advocacy.  That means your advocacy (plan, counterplan, alternative on the k) is unconditional.  You will never advocate (as in plan/cp/k) something that is different/opposite.  Unconditional does not mean that you cannot kick parts of your case.  Unconditional does not mean that you cannot go for a procedural.  Unconditional means your advocacy is unconditional, but there can still be other ways to win the debate (such as procedurals, critical arguments that you win/get turned—such as language kritiques, etc…)  You don’t need to extend your plan or your counterplan to win.  Unconditional simply means you cannot change your advocacy (which is only a plan or counterplan or kritique alternative) by reversing it, or making it something else.  Unconditional does not mean that you must win the debate by extending your original plan/counterplan/kritique alternative.  It just means you cannot change it.    Perms are tests of competition.  That’s all they are.  I don’t require you to tell me that when making them.    All debaters should take at least one poi (other than “could you repeat your plan/cp text”) during their speeches.  It’s part of parli.  In general, I think ALL questions similar to “what is the link?” should be answered.  Don’t yell at somebody that they’ve already had their question and use that as an excuse to be unclear or win because they didn’t catch/understand your links/impacts.   But I am also okay with one team using their own speech time to clarify issues with more questions. For example:  You are Opp and you shelled out a disad and the other team did not catch the links.  I think if the Gov team wants to use their own speech time to ask about the links to the disad, you should be helpful and answer them.   New arguments:  Points of order are part of parliamentary debate.  They allow both sides to explain why arguments are new or why they are legitimate extensions.  Without these explanations that follow points of order, I cannot know for certain if an argument is new.  Therefore, without a point of order, I will assume all arguments originated in a previous speech.  If I end up voting on an argument that might be new in the rebuttal, it is not my fault for not noticing it, but the opposing team’s fault for not pointing it out.  Don’t expect me to do the work for you.  I judge this way when on panels also, so don’t quit making points of order just because you have several judges.   Similar topic:  Add-on advantages and/or new frameworks are unacceptable in parli.  Government teams would never lose since the PMR gets to answer/turn anything the opposition said.   Plans should be topical.  You should be topical.  Seriously.  And “competing interpretations” is a meaningless tag line.  Every argument in debate is a competing interpretation.  Topicality has definitions and violations and standards.  Those are arguments.  Do that.   Spec debates are becoming even more stupid.  And they are hard to win in parliamentary debate given the limited amount of prep time the government team has to write their plan.  It would be nice if the plan specified whatever it can, (especially which branch of govt) and I do believe that some level of specificity is needed for the opp to have clear ground.  However, opposition debaters need to show some actual abuse in order to win the argument, and burdens are higher for spec debates.  On a similar note, I’d like to talk about funding spec, or troop spec, or other similar arguments.  I am more persuaded by the opp running an argument that says what normal means is and then running a disad that links to normal means.  (along with the spec)  Then if the gov says that their funding or troops or whatever do not come from the normal means (but the plan never specified), then the opp has an easy debate on the spec and abuse and voting issue.  But for me, the gov can defend normal means and the opp’s job is to run a disad to it.   I’m a bit disappointed by the trend of telling the judge you will be debating the “case” but then putting arguments on the case that are 1. Not case arguments (little mini-disads and kritiques) or 2.  Not answers to the case.  It’s just a dump of arguments that in no way conflict with the case.  Please keep off-case off case and try to be organized if you do have things to say about the case.  Thanks.     I think arguments should have warrants.  The trend toward running a bunch of case arguments or off case arguments as mini-disads, etc…with very little reasoning and little explanation is a poor one.  Yes, you will get out more arguments that way, but I’m going to give the gov team lots of leeway, and probably let them answer your argument as if it is new in the block if you decided to blow it up.  This is true with unexplained links, etc..   Reverse Voting Issues are for people who cannot debate.  And they are for judges who cannot think.  RVIs include, but are not limited to anything that is a 10 second-type argument, even if there is no “reverse” to the vi.  EG:  “perms illegit, vote them down.”  Good test:  Does it take long to beat the abusive argument that you are putting your voting issue against, whatever it is?  If not, then it doesn’t need an rvi (or vi).  Another test:  If it seems like a cheap shot, (underdeveloped, etc…) then I won’t give you much credibility on it.   Other examples of rvi type args are:  “They didn’t specify the status of their counterplan” or “They didn’t specify the status of their perm.”  Since I think counterplans in parli should be unconditional, and all perms are tests of competition, I’m not taking any cheap shots on these type of arguments.   Other, similar cheap shots that don’t go far with me are usually arguments on a framework debate somewhere or on a criticism.  “Makes life not worth living” is typically about 8 seconds max of speech time, and then it is an independent reason to vote for you that outweighs everything else according to your next speech.  I disagree.  And framework arguments that lead to you saying, “the other team dropped one, therefore we win” are usually less than ten seconds in your original speech.   That is a cheap shot.  Develop your arguments.   The Leader of Opposition should go to each page.  You don’t have to extend every small mini-argument, but you need to go to all the major pages in the debate if you want me to extend the position for you.  Here’s why:  If you cherry pick only one page/position, and don’t extend anything on a different one (even though the M.O. did), then you ought to be able to persuade me on the first argument, having spend so much time on it.  So it would be unfair to then give you credit as if you were also extending the page you spent no time on.  If it’s important enough to vote on, then the LOR needs to go to it.     I try not to intervene in rounds.  I’m also a critic of argument.  Those two concepts conflict quite often.  I wish I could tell you the bright line of which arguments are so terrible that they don’t really need much of an answer, and which arguments, while counterintuitive, still require solid counterarguments.  My suggestions:  First, try to make good arguments that have solid foundations.  Then you won’t have to worry.  Second, don’t count on me to debate for you.  In most cases, I will not intervene.  But I think parliamentary debate should not encourage judges to be 100% tabula rasa.  I find debaters just make stuff up way too often, both about world events and about debate theory.  So, while I try to give the debaters the benefit of the doubt, it is possible that I could intervene based on false facts or just bad arguments.  Perhaps you will be able to tell by my nonverbal and verbal communication if your argument won’t be getting my ballot.

Tom Schally - Puget Sound

Tom Schally, by James Stevenson:   “First, the highlights. Tom’s generally interested in all types of arguments – policy, K, whatever. He’s got a fairly technical mind and a clean flow, but tends to vote for arguments which demonstrate superior nuance and contextual specificity. Explanation is a big deal to Tom, and he won’t necessarily consider an argument dropped if it’s blippy and undeveloped. He understands debate as both a game that is fun (sometimes even when it stretches what is ‘true’) and as an educational endeavor that should probably teach us something valuable.  He also considers the communicative aspect to be a central component of debate, so rhetorical skill, drawing connections in CX and late rebuttals, and humor/self-awareness will take you far. Clash and argumentative comparison, as with most judges, are key.   I’m not sure the stuff I below will actually be helpful, but here’s the bottom line. Tom’s a smart person with a lot of debate experience and know-how who takes judging very seriously. He doesn’t decide debates lightly, and will take his time to give a clear, sound explanation and good feedback. --- As a background, Tom just started a job at a political communications firm or something, and studied public policy in grad school. He has like six years of experience coaching college debate, mostly in NPTE/NPDA parliamentary, but has been at least partially involved in policy for the last few. He did a year of college policy at Macalester before transferring to Western Kentucky University where he was ridiculously successful in parli and NFA-LD. I hesitate to mention this because NPDA/NPTE folks can be super elitist about their style of debate, but debate is debate, and Tom’s good at it. He can also speak much faster than I ever could, so as long as you retain clarity, speed is probably not an issue.   In his personal life, Tom is probably a pragmatist more than anything else, but in a very broad sense. What he sees as the ‘pragmatic’ move is largely context-dependent, particularly in debate – I think he likes to see teams draw direct linkages between where we are, what we should do, and why we should do it, especially in a reflexive and self-aware manner. This is, once again, largely a function of good explanation and strategic/argumentative nuance, rather than ideological location – he picks between “trying or dying” or “reflecting/resisting” based on who better outlines the relevance of their method, the validity of their knowledge claims, and the implications of their arguments. He’s pretty knowledgeable about public policy subjects, and also is pretty well-read on K stuff like Marxism, postcolonialism, and critical IR, but is fairly detached from what the debate argument flavor of the month is, so don’t assume he’s familiar your specific jargon or ideology.   In “policy” debates, Tom is willing and able to defer to traditional debate risk analysis tools like “try or die” or “uniqueness outweighs the link,” but I think he gives more credibility to good defense (even if it’s uncarded) than other judges do. Card quality matters to him, and he’ll definitely read evidence after a round and consider it significant if its quality is put into question during the debate. In particular, evidentiary specificity is probably a big deal on aff and CP solvency debates. Additionally, he prefers counterplans that compete with the substance of the plan over those premised off “normal means” or process.    Tom will vote on T. As with other kinds of debates, I think he values comparison of offense over an enumeration of many possible lines of offense. Keep in mind, Tom does some topic research but isn’t stalking the caselist 24/7, so throwaway references to particular schools or affs might not make sense to him. As for theory, he’ll probably reject the argument instead of the team without some substantial work. Conditionality could be a voting issue, but not necessarily. As with T, comparison and argumentative interaction are paramount.   Tom likes the K and other nontraditional argument styles, and this has been more and more of what he’s coached over the last few years. That said, he still expects clarity and rigor on the basics – what the ballot does, how decisions should be made, what kinds of stuff should be prioritized, and so on. If you are defending alternate styles of argument competition or analysis, this kind of explanation would be especially important. Buzzwords and mystification will not impress him. I think that on framework/clash of civs debates, smart and well-placed defense (on either side) would go a long way.   Clever references to Twin Peaks would probably make him laugh.”

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.

2015 NPDA Championship Tournament

Judge Philosophies

zz-bye

zz-bye

zz-bye

zz-bye

zz-bye

Adam Testerman - Lewis &amp; Clark

Adam Krell - WWU

Al Primack - Long Beach

Alexis Litzky - USF

Alley Agee - OKCU

Alyssa Sambor - TTU

Andrew Potter - NPDA Hired

Arlene Galarza - Azusa

Bear Saulet - Concordia

Ben Dodds - Oregon

Ben Campbell - NPDA Hired

Ben Norberg - Northwest

Bill Neesen - Long Beach

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brandon Rivera - Palomar

Brendan Silk - UWash

Brent Nicholson - McKendree

Brian Horton - NPDA Hired

Brian Lain - UNT

Catherine Eisenhauer - UWash

Chris Pierini - UWash

Christopher Bond - MWSU

Cory Freivogel - McKendree

Dana Harper Krementz - NPDA Hired

Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia

Danny Iberri-Shea - Palomar

David Worth - Rice

David Dingess - CU

David Bowers - SMC

Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell

Dylan Brugman - ACU

Emily Leber - AppState

Emily Sheldon - UNR

Emily Halter - NPDA Hired

Geoffrey BrodakSilva - CSULA

Hilary Boerger - Biola

Isaac Mayeux - Cedarville U

Jacob Stutzman - OKCU

James Luce - NPDA Hired

Jared Bressler - TTU

Jeannie Hunt - Northwest

Jeff Jones - UT-Tyler

Jeremy Weaver - CSU

Jeremy Christensen - Washburn

Jess Rezak - NPDA Hired

Jim Hanson - NPDA Hired

Joe Allen - Concordia

Joe Provencher - Lewis &amp; Clark

Jon Agnew - Boise State

Jon Sheldon - IUPUI

Jordan Cohen - Utah

Joseph Evans - El Camino

Joseph Hykan - Whitman

Josh Kammert - Azusa

Joshua Harzman - Pacific

Justin Perkins - Palomar

Kathryn Starkey - CSU

Katie Bergus - Oregon

Keith Green - Biola

Kelly Parliament - Cedarville U

Kendra Thomas - Whitman

Kevin Kuswa - Whitman

Kevin Garner (Hired) - Jewell

Kevin Calderwood - Concordia

Kevin Thompson - TTU

Kiefer Storrer - UCMO

Kirsten McRae - NPDA Hired

Kirstin McRae - UNR

Korry Harvey - WWU

Kristen Stevens - WWU

Krystal Fogle - ACU

Kyle Cheesewright - IDAHO

Kyle Dennis - Jewell

Adam Testerman - Lewis & Clark

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark