Abel Addleman - NPDA

You may know me previously as Caitlin Smith or Caitlin Addleman. She/her pronouns.

Experience:

I coach with the University of Minnesota (fall 2017 - present). I debated 4 years (2013-2017) of NPDA/NPTE parli for Wheaton College and 4 years of LD in high school. I have also coached policy at the UMN and LD at Apple Valley High School.

Ethics:

I care deeply about debate, about equity in it, access to it, and very much believe in the power it has to change lives. I take my role as an educator seriously, which means I am always happy to chat about or answer any questions related to debate, from theory to substantive arguments. Additionally, I consider the moral/ethical questions of debate to be a constitutive feature of the activity. As such, I refuse to check my status as a moral agent at the door. I will, and have (albeit rarely), voted down arguments that I consider to be seriously morally problematic, regardless of whats on the flow. While my standard for doing so is high, I take as axiomatic that every person has intrinsic and immutable worth - if I feel that your advocacy or representations seriously impinge on the worth of someone in the room, that will affect my decision. This does not mean that I wont vote for arguments I dont like or ethically agree with (I do that all the time); rather,I simply will not hold myself to voting on the flow if I feel someone in the room is being done violence. If you have any questions about my standards or threshold, please ask me.

A Note on Tech:

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

Speed:

Im fine with speed and will clear you if you pass my threshold (which is unlikely). Please be aware of how the online nature of debate constrains speed by paying attention to whatever chat feature we have available for people saying speed or clear - and please make accommodations as necessary. Please say all plans/CPs/T-interps/alts/etc. slowly and twice.

Weighing:

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

AD/DA/CP Debate:

I have broad knowledge of economic and policy issues (my knowledge skews more heavily towards the K). Thus, I will be largely limited to my understanding of what you put out in a given round. If youre clear, there shouldnt be a problem, just dont expect me to know what various terms or abbreviations mean off the bat or grant you internal warrants without clear explanations.

Theory:

Win the debate on whatever layer you would like. My threshold to vote on theory is determined by the extent to which a clear impact on the shell is articulated and weighed. I also believe that standards should be contextualized to your opponents position. I find great problems in reading generic reasons why policy is good against non-T affs because I very much believe that theory should be about bringing questions of how debate ought function into the conversation, rather than forcing certain ideas out. This doesnt mean dont read theory in those situations, but that, if youre going to, I will hold you to a high standard. Finally, I have a lower threshold than most parli judges for we-meets: if they meet the text of your interpretation, I do not consider a remaining violation to be a priori offense (as in, its still offense, but without an interpretation it does not function a priori, absent additional arguments that it should). If you have questions about what this means, let me know.

Kritiks:

I debated lots of Ks and write lots of them with my team. I love them. I particularly love when they are clear on what the alt does and what a world of the alternative looks like. I really hate chicken-and-egg style root cause debates and would much prefer to hear substantive debate about the issues in the K. Please dont assume I know your literature (just because I read Ks doesnt mean I will understand your K) . I will vote on what is said in the round, not my prior knowledge of your particular author.

Performance:

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

Speaker Points:

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

---

Adam Testerman - Jewell

TLDR

-If I show preference for a genre of arguments, its not known to me. I wish for folks to read the arguments they find strategic/interesting and try not to worry about my feelings. This could mean, however, that non-topical approaches to debate are more good with me than you'd prefer. Im not begging for framework in response to those positions, but I also feel like I will absolutely vote on framework if you win the position.

-I enjoy quick, technical debates over debates where public presentation is prioritized. Im also open to being persuaded that quick, technical debates are bad/wrong/misguided for any number of reasons. I rarely find arguments suggesting speed is a tool of exclusion compelling, however, I also think speed as a means to avoid substantive engagement is weak in the paint.

-I like procedural arguments, in general. However, I like arguments with clear links and reasonable standards, so too much theory, too fast bums me out. I'm often disappointed when folks go for things like condo in the last speech (an out is an out, I'd just rather see other strats, all things being equal). I often think MG theory makes debates less good.

-Fast rounds are fun, but too fast rounds are a smidge miserable. I wish I could give a clear idea of what too fast means, but thats tough. I feel like if itd be difficult for you to flow your speech, youre too fast. If it sounds like youre reading cards, thats too fast.

-Arguments that rely on subtle tricks and logic games are not necessarily intuitive, for me. I was bad at logic in college and would not describe myself as mathematically inclined. I feel more comfortable with arguments that demonstrate narrative cohesion and substantive engagement.

Background

Hi there!

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

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

General Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory/Procedurals

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

DAs/Advantages

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

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

Critiques

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

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

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

Performance/Non-Topical Affirmatives/Alternative Approaches to Debate

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

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

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

CPs

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

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

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

---

Adeja Powell - SDSU

If you're reading this, that's already a good start. You should continue to do so until there are no words left. I debated in parli for ~5 years at McKendree University, and did 4 years of high school LD before that. My partner and I won the 2020 NPDA. All of these things mostly tell you nothing about my thoughts on debate, but they should tell you that I have quite a lot of them. I'll do my best to keep it brief here.

Before I get into any specifics, I want to avoid what I assume most of your coaches or veteran debaters on your team will tell you about my time as a debater. Was I fond of the K? Yes. More accurately, I was fond of winning and a good chunk of the time, I found the K to be the best way to do so. With that being said, I would by no means describe my career as being a "K debater." I won just as many debates reading a topical policy aff as I did reading a K aff. In the same vein, our neg strat was a one off K just as often as it was a DA/CP combo or sometimes just straight up case turns against the aff. I did it all, and I consider myself to be a judge that can evaluate any kind of debate you put in front of me because, well, I used every tool at my disposable to win debates. I think you should as well. I pride myself on having been an incredibly versatile debater so please, for the love of god, do not high pref me for your "k teams" and low pref me for your "non-K teams" because you think that's the kind of debate I wanna hear/am best positioned to evaluate. I will get tired of hearing Ks every round very quickly, then I'll get annoyed, and then I won't be a good judge for anyone because I'll want to go home. Do not make me want to go home (chances are I already want to by no fault of yours so like, don't pile it on).

Max Groznik recommended I add these quotes from a conversation between the two of us. I dont know why I am, but Im not sure any of this means anything anyway:

Ah, my life is a series of baubles that I must sort. Both real and fabricated for me to have something to do. Cest la vie. - Me, 2020

I think everyone is stupid except for me. It actually makes me care more. Ill steer them in the right direction. - also Me, 2020

In general, I think debate is a technical game and I evaluate it as such. I'm not easily swayed by positions that rely on some other metric that's not a net-benefits paradigm where my role is to weigh impacts and evaluate the arguments on the flow. That being said, I did dabble in this kind of non-traditional debate during my career. I think it's interesting, and I'm all for arguments that lightly poke and push at the limits of parli debate, I'm just not at all sure how I evaluate these arguments as a judge. If that's your thing, my advice is to proceed with caution and keep in mind that at my core, I'm a technical debater and that's where I'm comfortable. If you want me to throw tech out the window in favor of something else, you'll have to be fairly convincing and exceptionally clear on what exactly this means. This in no way means I'm unwilling to listen to a less technical argument. I definitely will, I just don't have a concrete framework for how I evaluate these arguments, so I think it's important that you make this clear for me so that I don't end up making a decision that misses the point entirely.

I also think I should address MG theory here. If you've read Alyson Escalante's philosophy, I pretty much agree 100% with her about the direction this activity is going and what's causing it. The proliferation of nonsense MG theory is definitely up there for me in terms of something that's threatening this activity, and you will be hard pressed to get me to vote on it. The only legitimate MG theory in my mind is CP theory (PiCs bad, multiple actor CPs bad, floating PiCs bad, Delay bad, for the most part) and Condo bad. These are debates that I will listen to, and that for the most part, I don't have a huge bias for voting one way or the other (maybe Condo, but read my later section on that). Any other silly MG theory about passing texts or reading the plan text in 30 seconds or whatever is becoming increasingly annoying to me. I don't even want to listen to these debates, so your speaker points will reflect my annoyance if these are even apart of the MG order. Beyond that, you likely will not get a ballot out of me that even references the MG theory as a part of my decision. My threshold for abuse on these sheets is very high, and absent an incredibly legitimate abuse claim, I will find any small defensive argument possible to make this sheet of paper go away, and your speaker points will suffer the more you press the issue. Please keep this in mind if you have me as a judge.

Read whatever you want on the aff. I truly don't care, and I'll evaluate the debate that happens in front of me. Just a few specifics though:

1. I need texts read twice and slowly.

2. Don't try to be faster than you are. It's probably my biggest pet peeve in this activity. Clarity is just as important as speed, and I won't be nice with your speaker points if your inability to be honest with yourself about your own skills means we all have to suffer through a speech that's unclear.

3. I love a non-topical aff - in theory. In practice, I find myself begging for just one or two arguments that clearly explain why you ought to be non-topical. If I get those, I'll be far more enthusiastic about whatever your k aff is. Also, referencing the topic on your link page and giving a lackluster warrant as to its connection to whatever your k aff is about does not make you "topical" and I will vote on framework 99% of the time in these cases.

As far as negative strats go, I also pretty much think you should do whatever you want, but as for specific thoughts:

1. I assume all negative advocacies are conditional unless specified otherwise. As a person, I think you should say most things with your chest, which would naturally mean I think condo is bad. BUT, as someone that understands how the activity works and would like it to keep working that way, I think condo is good and I don't think there are many scenarios where I would vote for condo bad unless it's an egregious abuse of condo.

2. I love a T debate - in theory. I don't think many judges or debaters really agree on how a T debate ought to be evaluated, which is why most of the time every judge in the room ends up sighing, groaning, and shaking their heads through a T debate and then punishing debaters for committing any number of "sins" that are entirely based on their personal views on T and not some agreed upon community norm. So, here are my thoughts: I think of interps similarly to counterplans. It's a specific text (that defines a certain word in the resolution), with "net-benefits" (or standards) that resolve or cause certain negative or positive impacts (that discuss an effect on debate as an activity). Although the interp usually defines a singular word, it's defining that word in the context of the resolution, not in a vacuum. The violation describes this context. That's typically how words work, alongside other words or groups of words. I evaluate topicality in this way. If you don't win a standard on your interp, then there's not reason for me to vote for it instead defaulting to the PMC (just like there's no reason for me to vote for a counter-plan if it doesn't have a net benefit. I would just vote for the aff). If both interps win a standard, then I need impact weighing to compare offense and determine which interp solves the most. We-meets can be terminal defense, if they sufficiently resolve the offense gone for in the context of the violation. Just like in any other debate, if the defense isn't enough to outweigh the offense gone for in the MO, I can still vote on the offense. For example, if you read defense against one link on the disad but not the other, I can still vote on the offense triggered by the second link. This goes for T as well. These are just my thoughts, but if you keep them in mind, I will not groan through your MO/PMR on T. I think T is fun and more people should go for it.

3. Please...collapse...in the block...

4. Whatever your nonsense k is, please explain it to me as if I did not pay attention in my intro ethics class (I did not). This threshold is much higher for D&G (I just don't get it. I'm sorry).

Finally, I was pretty deep in the anti-blackness literature as a debater, I mostly debated pess, but I also dipped into futurism/nihilism/etc. I mean like, 5 years and lots of books and research and readings by lots of different authors deep. This is a topic area that I have a lot of knowledge on because I did a lot of work to accumulate this knowledge. I like these arguments, and I don't think parli has even scratched the surface of this lit base and the type of arguments that can come from it. That being said, I have zero respect for debaters that think they don't need to do any of this work and that they can formulate an argument based entirely on their own (albeit real and highly valuable) cultural knowledge. This isn't twitter, (although if you're funny and often talk about your cultural experiences as a Black there, I might follow you) but there's a reason tweets have a character limit, this activity does not. Luckily, there are a ton of Black authors that have just as much cultural knowledge, paired with years of academic research and writing that contains well thought out and explained theories regarding the Black experience and anti-Blackness generally. Please give them their clout, read their books/essays, and use them as at least the basis for your argument. Otherwise, you're not engaging in this activity in the way that it's designed to be engaged in and I won't be the judge that rewards you for it.

Also, I have opinions about speaker points. Mainly, that a 30 ought to be virtually unattainable and given only to those that are truly exceptional - not just in a given round, but compared to the rest of the field. I will almost never give one, and my average range is somewhere between a 27.7 and a 29.7. If youre on either side of that range it means you were particularly impressive (either negatively or positively). Judges that give these out like candy or debaters that explicitly ask for them when theyve not given a speech that constitutes a 30 generally tend to make speaker awards not reflective of the actual ranking of debaters at the tournament. Im pretty committed to not contributing to that, so if you receive a 30 from me just know it was well deserved. If you ask for a 30, I probably will not respond nicely with how many speaker points I end up giving you. 30s ought to be earned; and, if the 2020 NPDA is any indication, when people explicitly ask for them and judges give them, people who actually earned their 30s end up not getting rewarded for it.

TLDR; say whatever you want, I'm a good judge for any of it. Condo is good. Books are fun and you should read them. There's someone out there that has spent years researching whatever thought you think you came up with all on your own, I promise.

---

Alan Fishman - NPDA

TL:DR: Tech over truth. I don't believe in the trichotomy, please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have.

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. In general, if I am going to vote on an argument against speed, you need to prove that you asked your opponents to slow down and they did not. While I do prefer you not use speed to exclude the other team, I won't drop you for it unless they convince me I should. I do not intervene against you if you exclude lay/traditional judges from the round with speed - they have their own ballots and I can't speak for them. I'm unlikely to vote on the idea that one way of speaking is inherently "better" than another, and I actively HATE the argument that debate should be held to IE/speech-style standards of communication. However, I still think there are some debates where speed theory is necessary to prevent one team from being excluded.

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I will even vote on PMRtheory if there is an egregious violation in the MO that did not happen in the LOC. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them, and I will not intervene against an RVI if you win it on the flow. I do not need reasons why fairness and education matter unless you are comparing them to something else or to one another.

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves, and I rarely read the rules of events that I judge. If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. I think that condo is good but I try to be neutral if I evaluate a condo bad shell. I hate dispo and I think all CP's should be either condo or uncondo. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. Timeframe is more of a tiebreaker to me - unless you show how the timeframe of your impact prevents the other impact from mattering. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: Im fine with kritiks of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

FAIRNESS VS K: In order to win this argument you need to have preclusive weighing explaining why the theory comes before the K - losing a debate round isn't going to outweigh the impact of the K. I also find this argument a little more effective when read by the neg than when read by the AFF, because the AFF does get the perm when answering a K

IDENTITY/PERFORMANCE: I think that these arguments are important and should be taken seriously, and while I want to let you read them and talk about the things that you are passionate about, but at the same time debate is a competitive activity with the burden of rejoinder, so if you set up the debate in such a way that the other team can't negate your argument without negating your identity, I will be more willing to vote on theory. I am willing to listen to both sides of the T vs Identity K debate, but please do not attack your opponents' marginalized identities to deliberately trigger them.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I do not mind voting for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group.

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

OTHER PARLI ISSUES:

If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument I will take away a speaker point. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

---

Alexandra Perez - UOP

This is my first year in intercollegiate forensics and although I have judged rounds in IPDA, LD, and NPDA, much of the debate jargon that folks rely on is not always clear. Please be explanatory and speak at a conversational rate if you want me to follow along with your arguments. I will do my best to understand your position but speed and esoteric language will not help you win my ballot. I care about issues and people in the world so focus your impact story on the people affected.

---

Alyson Escalante - El Camino

---

Annie Chen - NPDA

Background: I debated for four years on the NPDA/NPTE circuit with Rice University (2017-2021). If I had to quantify my debate career, I would say 70% Ks, 20% theory, and 10% straight up. Open to listen to most arguments though, as long as theyre not Joe Rogan and co. She/her/hers.

Key Points:

I believe debate is fundamentally an educational space with room for whatever else the debaters want it to be about. If you just want to run jokes, also fine.

Please dont be rude, malicious, and/or problematic your speaks will reflect that and Iwillvote against you on presumption if its egregious

Explain your warrants andpleasedo impact calc. Overviews appreciated.

Not the best straight up debater if thats your thing, please slow down/explain a bit more on the crucial parts than you normally would, especially for any econ scenarios

I do my best to protect on the flow - please still call Point of Orders if you want, but I prefer max 3

Texts/Interpretations: Please read them slowly and read them twice. Have copies ready for everyone (judges, opponents) ASAP after theyre read.

Theory:Started doing this more in the last year I debated. I default to theory as the apriori question in the round, competing interps > reasonability, and proven > potential abuse unless otherwise argued.

Please have clearly demarcated interps, violations, standards, and voters.

Please pick clear impact(s) to sheet that youre going for

Please collapse to just one sheet.My sanity will thank you for it.

MG theory is fine, but if youre gonna go for it in the PMR, it better be the only thing you're going for

Ks: My favorite kind of argument. Run whatever you want. That being said, since I really like Ks, I also have a higher threshold on what makes a K well-run, so just keep that in mind if you want to run them in front of me.

K links should be specific to the aff - otherwise I buy no link arguments fairly easily

I look to framework first to evaluate impacts, so winning there (or at least not losing) is good for you in front of me

All Ks should have an alternative with some explanation of solvency, though youre not obligated to go for it

CPs:Admittedly not my strong suit, though Ill still listen to them.

Condo good/bad/dispo all fine just define your terms clearly

All CPs should have competition, net benefits, and solvency

Please make sure your CP does not link to your other sheets and if they do, you better win that condo debate lol

DAs: Tix and IR scenarios are the ones Im most familiar with. Im not well versed in econ scenarios. Well warranted and specific DA debates are rare nowadays, so if youre running one, good for you.

No preference on what type of DA you run, though please be aware of my familiarity/lack thereof

Overviews on Das especially appreciated if collapsing to them

Perms: I default to perms as tests of competition and not advocacies. Please have a copy for me if its long.

Permutations should have at least two solid net benefits to be leveraged as proper offense against the K

If the perm text doesn't make sense, Ill have a much harder time voting for you

---

Ashley Nuckels Cuevas - SDSU

---

Beau Larsen - Macalester

Hello,

I am fairly new to NDPA parliamentary debate. I have a little bit of experience coaching NPDA/BP at the University of Puget Sound during the school year 2018-2019. Otherwise, I've been over in the realm of policy debate since 2010 with a little bit of Lincoln-Douglas coaching as well. I competed in NDT/CEDA at the University of Southern California from 2014-2018.

I do my best to be a fair judge evaluating arguments on the flow. There shouldn't be a need to adjust your preparation to adapt to me as a judge. Like other judges, I like warranted arguments with comparison & impact calculus. 

Please do not misgender me in/out of round -- I use they/them/theirs pronouns. 

---

Benjamin Lange - CUI

TL;DR: Do what you want, but I have a high threshold for theoretical defenses in favor of rejecting the topic (although I'm very in favor of creative ways to endorse the topic), and I tend to hold proximal impact framing/proximal solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard as well. 

While I'm open to arguments about debate being a "training ground" for personal advocacy and political change, I view debate itself as a game. This means that I view arguments very impersonally, and I care more for the strategic aspect of the game than the emotional or truth-based appeals. Those things are obviously still important, but that just means I will very likely vote for arguments that are "winning" even if I don't necessarily like them (just because of how I understand the utility of debate). For impact weighing, I probably default to magnitude>probability>timeframe unless told otherwise, so do in-depth impact comparison that includes weighing of the different metrics. I tend to hold proximal impact framing and solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard, and while I'm down to vote on proximity you should just keep in mind that I think of all of these arguments as pieces to a game, so I'm not more persuaded by proximal impacts than magnitude-based impacts absent a clear reason.

I'm fine if you want to reject the topic on the Aff, but I'll be very sympathetic to the Neg's theoretical objection to that. You can win the theory debate, but I'll have a pretty high threshold for your theory answers so just be aware of that. Impact turning theory out of the aff is fine as well, but I've found that if the Neg team wins that you shouldn't get to leverage the Aff against theory if truth-testing the aff is impossible, I'll usually evaluate the theory prior to the PMCs reasons that fairness and education are bad or impossible to access. I'm pretty indifferent about conditionality also, but will vote on theory saying it shouldn't be allowed if you win that sheet.

Also on theory, this has only mattered a couple of times, but if I'm not given a paradigm by either team I have a tendency to default to reasonability instead of competing interpretations. This is largely because (absent being told otherwise/as a default) I tend to evaluate theory as a check against abuse (i.e., should I penalize a team for doing something unfair), rather than evaluating it as the endorsement of the "ideal model" of debate, which tends to make a difference regarding how I evaluate the impact framing on the theory, but this has only ever mattered when neither team makes any of the arguments that would give me a cohesive story on theory and I'm left pretty much evaluating a non-functional/unclear interp with no voters.

I love policy debate, but I was also super into reading Ks and I dig janky stuff from obscure philosophical sources. In my opinion, I'm able to understand and follow pretty much whatever you want to throw at your opponent. On the flip-side though, that also means that you probably won't get very far with super ambiguous solvency. You need to have some kind of solvency that is (at the very least) a clearly explained mechanism that is preferably drawn from the literature that the K is based on. As a Neg, I think your best bet is to read a diverse strategy, but if you have a baller K that you want to go all in on then go for it.

Finally, and I've realized that this is probably a very important thing to make clear, I am willing to vote on terminal defense if you are able to explain what it means for the round. That means that if you win the "we meet" on theory, then the rest of the sheet is irrelevant - even under a paradigm of competing interpretations, their rule is irrelevant if you followed it.

 

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me in person! Good luck :)

---

Blake Faulkner - HC

General: I don't believe in "tabula rasa" because it is a choice to be so, and the choice isn't neutral or "blank." Technically, if I were tabula rasa, I wouldn't need to write a philosophy (so maybe I should claim such out of laziness?). That being said, I try to always defer to how debaters argue in-round, as long as you don't violate the official written rules of NPDA. I don't get to decide how the various conventions work (critiques, topicality, counterplans, disadvantages, etc.), you do, especially since they change gradually over time. Debate is about form, style, or structure of argumentation and the interrelationships of claims and evidence. It is not about content, and I don't give a damn about whether you argue something I agree or disagree with, whether it has a scary label, or a particuarly gnarly party affiliation. Anything goes in terms of content as far as I'm concerned.

I will intervene to keep the official NPDA rules should that be necessary for me to enforce, but short of that I try to give you free reign to tell me a story and define the debate. You'd best give me a standard/counter-standard by which to judge the round, else I will have to supply my own.

Speed: I can usually keep up as long as you aren't doing CEDA or NDT kind of speed. I will let you know if I need you to slow down, and you should expect me to vote elsewhere if you ignore me. Likewise, if you ignore requests to slow down from your opponent, that will not help me vote for you, though I'm open to persuasion either way at that level.

Pet peeve: NPDA is not about research primarily, so please don't make/allow the round to come down to who's "telling the truth," "correct," or "factual" unless you genuinely want the round to come down to a coin toss on my part, to say nothing of unavoidable eye-rolls. I cannot judge the round based upon something that is outside the round. More importantly, I refuse to do so.

bfaulkner@hillsdale.edu

---

Brent Nicholson - McK

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

Email: banicholsonATmckendreeDOTedu

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

TLDR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPDA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Brigitte Tripp - UTTyler

n/a

---

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

TLDR:

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

BG:

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

Impacts:

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

Case Debate:

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

Disadvantages:

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

Counterplans:

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

Conditionality:

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

Kritiks:

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

Identity Arguments:

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

Theory:

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

Speed

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

Defending the Topic:

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

Speaker Points:

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

Miscellaneous:

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

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

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

---

Dalton Richardson - NPDA

General

I competed in policy, NDPA parli, and NFA LD reading virtually every type of argument. Have the debate you want to have, and I'll adjudicate as best I can. I'm not the best judge for complex theory (or theory tricks) outside of topicality/CP theory/spec. Your rebuttals should construct a story detailing how arguments interact with one another - I want to do as little work as possible deciding the round. Engage your opponents in good faith. Explicit clash > embedded clash. Include me on the email chain -dalton.r.richardson@gmail.com- or start a Speechdrop.

***I am hard of hearing and will lose args if you are unclear - don't go top speed from the start of the speech and slow down on taglines, analytics, and overviews. I'm not afraid to tell you I didn't vote on something because I didn't hear it or wasn't able to get it on my flow, so you should prioritize clarity over speed.***

Format Specifics

Parli- Repeat all texts/advocacies/theory interps twice (or put them in the chat for online debate) and slower than you read your other args. Organization is necessary, and perhaps more important in parli than any other format, so make sure to number your tags and subpoint your warrants or they will likely get misplaced.

NFA LD- I don't have any personal opinions on disclosure theory.

PF- I'm not sure how the norms regarding evidence sharing and prep time have been established in PF, but they are atrocious. You should be sharing the evidence you plan to read before your speech. I'll track prep time on my own timer to limit the chance to steal prep, only pausing if cards that were read were not sent.

Content Specifics

Affs- Don't be condo. I would prefer if you have a stable advocacy of some kind; despite this preference, I think performance affs are cool and important so long as I'm told how I ought evaluate them.

DAs- Love them, read them, tell me how they complicate/short circuit the aff especially during impact weighing. The aff should read offense against them. Not a fan of one card disads because link level analysis is often shoddy or even non-existent.

CPs- I assume CPs are conditional. No solid opinion on multi-plank CPs at this point in time; could be persuaded that they're good/bad. Big fan of PICs and advantage CPs. Perms are just a test of competition, but I've not seen a compelling perm debate in a long time. Abusive CPs could justify abusive perms.

Ks- I spent most of my career reading the one off K; more knowledgeable on social justice oriented Ks compared to modernist & postmodernist Ks, but don't assume I'll backfill warrants you don't read. Links are necessary (and pointing out links from the content of the aff is poggers), alternatives/advocacies are necessary. Framework should be established sooner rather than later. No opinion on floating PIKs. Your K should be longer than one card.

Theory- Proven abuse > potential abuse. I default to competing interps. Fairness and education are voters, and standards should be internal links to them. Not a fan of paragraph theory/nail bomb affs, but read them if you like them. Tell me explicitly why the aff is extra topical or effectually topical to ensure that I understand the arguments.

---

David Hansen - Whitman

n/a

---

David Worth - RIce

David Worth – Rice

D.O.F., Rice University

Parli Judging Philosophy

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

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

I prefer debates that are related to the topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

David Vasquez - NPDA

It has become increasingly apparent that there are misconceptions of what I like in debate and what I will vote on, so rather than making this page a portfolio about what I love in debate, I'm just going to tell you what you will lose on if I am your judge. Plan and adapt accordingly.

1. Racial Slurs-Autodrop.

2. K's that have pointless alts that don't do anything/I am not told what they do and are not explained. I'm not going to weigh your unending extinction of the self if you ask me to vote for an alt that magically shifts ontological hierarchies or epistemic heuristics in the span of 44 minutes.

3. Policies that are exceedingly outrageous with their uniqueness to impacts. Will the collapse of this 5 billion dollar industry really lead to the collapse of the entire economic sector, the US economy, the global economy, and end life as we know it? What do you think.

4. Theory that lacks a competitive interpretation.

5. Interps/Counter-Interps and We-Meets that are not explicitly extended.

6. Claiming proven abuse when your strategy calls are bad and you did not adapt. If they can no-link your disad, perhaps they argued it better than you and it is not an instance of an aff/neg being overly abusive.

7. Failure to slow/clear for opponents. This is an autodrop for Varsity competitors against novices. You won't be able to read me any theory that will change my mind on this. Novices, this does not mean you should abuse this. I know abuse when I see it, and that goes for either side.

8. Tech over truth-not an auto-drop, but I am in no way sympathetic to tech over truth at this point in my judging career.

---

Denise Sprimont-Vasquez - NPDA

History: My partner and I finished first in the nation overall on NPTE year long rankings 2019-2020. I am now studying the Middle East at the University of Chicago.

Arguments I like: True arguments.

Arguments I dont like: Ridiculous ones (if you have to ask in prep will Denise buy this? dont run it).

Auto-drop: I will autodrop you if you use a racial slur.

Parli Specific:

For K's: I will take your alternative literally, unless you tell me otherwise. I will not imply metaphors or do work on your behalf to explain how doing your alt leads to your solvency. As such, your solvency must explain how it resolves your impacts-- literally. If it is a metaphor or imaginary or something, you must explain to me how *exactly* your alt resolves your impacts. I will not grant you solvency.

In the words of Paul Villa, "I think you introducing a performance into the round and straying away from traditional debate invites me to make my decision on the basis of whether that performance was particularly compelling..."

I do not support frivolous theory, and will grant your opponent a lot of leniency in responding to frivolous theory. I do not require proven abuse; to me, frivolous theory is theory that requires your opponent to do something that is not explicitly outlined in the rules. Refer to "arguments I don't like" if you're unsure what I mean. I am a fan of reasonability on theory, and do not default to competing interps unless you tell me to/tell me why.

LD specific:

Although I competed in Parli exclusively at CUI, I competed in LD in high school and did fairly well. I'm familiar with the event and most of my comments about parli structurally apply as well.

I realize this does not cover every conceivable argument. Please feel free to contact me directly on facebook if you have particular questions. I'm more than happy to answer them.

---

Donald Warden - Mercer

TL;DR: Make my job easy.

- Run T when needed. I hate T debate, so please do not spend the whole neg block on it.

- I don't time, and I don't care if you want to respond to the question or finish your sentence after the timer; being pedantic about times ruins education.

- Please signpost. You can jump around the flow as much as you want as long as I know where to jump.

- Explain perms clearly.

- Spreading your opponents out of the round. Whatever. But I also recommend not spreading your judge (me) out of the round either.

- K and performative debate is just as valid as straight debate. Make the arguments clear.

---

Emma Fletcher - NPDA

Background - Spent roughly 7 years in forensics, competing from 2010-2015 (Palomar College & California State University Long Beach), and coaching NPDA(among other events) from 2015-2017. Judged sporadically before and during the pandemic, it have been out of the activity since leaving my MA program.

TLDR - Deploy the most compelling strategy you have, and explain why it wins my ballot. By default, I will evaluate the material consequences of the affirmative happening versus not happening, and will need explicit framing and impact analysis to deviate from that judging calculus.

Conventional strategies - I dont have any preference for or against particular DAs or CPs or case strategies. Run whatever you want, but make it fit and link to the actions of the affirmative.

Theory - By default I evaluate all theory through the lens of competing interpretations, and compare the standards stemming from each interpretation when judging theory centric debates. I dont care what you read theoretically, but I do believe most things are up for negotiation via a theory debate.

Kritiks - The only kritiks I dont like are ones imbedded with personalized evidence and warrants, and those that structurally disrupt debate itself (i.e. saying rules bad, therefore I dont have speech time limits). Outside of that, pretty much everything is fair game. Just make sure you setup your argument because Im not going to fill in the gaps for you, whether Im familiar with it or not.

---

Ethan Hawn - Whitman

n/a

---

Fiker Tesfaye - UTTyler

n/a

---

Haley Hawn - Whitman

n/a

---

Jackson De Vight - CUI

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

 

General:

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

 

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

 

- I don’t time speeches myself.

 

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

 

- Topical debates are by far my preferred mode.

 

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

 

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

 

- For the K:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

---

James Laky - NPDA

have a policy background, I default to consequentialism in the absence of any other framing arguments.

Generally, I will evaluate the round however you tell me to evaluate it, but I lean towards tech over truth in most instances.

Theory: I am a theory hack. I default to competing interpretations and think the substance of the theory debate takes place at the standard level. I will evaluate an RVI but I have a fairly high threshold to vote on them.

K debate: Making the ROB actually offensive is a largely underused strategy and absent doing that, I will normally evaluate the K and case at an equal level. Alt solvency is the most important and also most undercovered portion of a K; if you want me to vote for your alt, you have to tell me how your K isn't just a non-unique DA.

Bottom line: I will evaluate arguments however you ask me to evaluate them, so long as they're not morally reprehensible. As long as you give clear reasons to prefer your framing, and there's a clear extension of the path you ask me to trigger my ballot on.

---

Jason Barton - RIce

---

Joel Abraham - RIce

---

Joey Barrows - UOP

I competed in LD for two years, and did Parli for one. I don't have much of a bias towards any particular strategy. I am willing to vote on pretty much anything if it's winning on the flow. If I'm having a problem with speed I will let you know.

---

Josh Vannoy - GCU

Joshua Vannoy - Grand Canyon University

 

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

 

General:

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

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

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

- Be friendly

 

Theory:

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

 

Case:

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

 

Performance:

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

 

The K:

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

 

Non-topical Affirmatives:

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

 

CP Theory:

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

 

Never run delay.

 

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

 

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

 

Permutations:

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

 

Speaker Points:

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

---

Kaitlyn Gleeson - CUI

Background: I did debate for like 11 years, I debated at Concordia for 4 years, and I was a tech debater for most of those years.

TLDR: I am willing to vote for anything, if you can justify it. I will not do the work for you, I will not fill in personal knowledge to make an argument work. I prefer you go in depth to articulate an argument rather than drop a one-liner and expect me to give it a lot of weight in the debate.

Speed - I was a tech debater and could keep up fairly well, however, I am not as fast as I once was, so I doubt I can keep up with top speed. That being said, I am not afraid to say "slow" if I can't keep up, so don't be afraid to go as fast as you need to.

Policy - I love policy debates. Military policy and economics were some of my favorite topics. If you are "cross-applying" something, actually tell me the warrant and how that warrant applies in the cross application. I am willing to vote for any type of counterplan and in the same way am willing to vote for theory saying those counterplans are bad. See the theory paragraph to know how I weigh theory.

The Kritik - Overall I don't care what kritiks you run. On the neg, make sure they link. On the aff, it is important to note that I view the debate in a series of layers. When it comes to a kritical aff that is topical, I know very well and am willing to listen to both sides of whether policy or kritical is more important on the aff. However, when a non-topical kritical aff and theory are in contention with each other, I see theory as a layer above kriticisms. What this means is that you cannot weigh the "content" of a k aff against a theory until you have won the right to run that aff. This means that for me, substantive impact turns to topicality or other theory must have a theoretical justification to be run in the first place. In K on K debates, those usually get convoluted, but if you are clear and warrant out why your framing and impacts are a prerequisite to the other teams, or perhaps are just more important, then it will make my job easier.

Theory - I think that theory should be warranted. I have run the short-shelled arguments and will listen, but the minimal amount of effort that is put into a short theory will be what I expect your opponent to respond with. Interps should be competitive. Violations should be explained. Standards should have impacts and if the debate becomes a theory debate, explain how they interact with each other and which one matters most and why. On voters, simply saying "fairness and education" is not a terminalized impact and you should explain more. If there are multiple theories on the flow, and you are choosing one theory, explanation and framing arguments that layer the debate for me show higher levels of engagement with the content of debate.

I am open to any questions if there are other inquiries.

---

Kevin Ozomaro - UOP

I’ve debated for 5 years, I’ve coached hs LD, parli, and pf. I have about 5 years of coaching between high school and college. I have a years worth of middle school debate coaching.

The Basics:

• In NFA-LD Post AFFs you have run on the case list or I get grumpy (https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/)

• Use speechdrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy Debate rounds

• NOTE: If you are paper only you should have a copy for me and your opponent. Otherwise you will need to debate at a slower conversational pace so I can flow all your edv. arguments. (I'm fine with faster evidence reading if I have a copy or you share it digitally)

• I’m fine with the a little bit of speed in NFA-LD and Parli but keep it reasonable or I might miss something.

• Procedurals / theory are fine but articulate the abuse

• I prefer policy-making to K debate. You should probably not run most Ks in front of me.

• I default to net-benefits criteria unless you tell me otherwise

• Tell me why you win.

General Approach to Judging:

I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments I'm going to be disappointed.

Organization is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around—if necessary—but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.

I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it.

If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some other time during the tournament.

Kritiques: I'm probably not the judge you want to run most K's in front of. In most formats of debate I don't think you can unpack the lit and discussion to do it well. If you wish to run Kritical arguments I'll attempt to evaluate them as fairly as I would any other argument in the round.I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you debate. You should probably go slower with these types of positions as they may be new to me, and i'm very unlikely to comprehend a fast kritik.

I will also mention that I’m not a fan of this memorizing evidence / cards thing in parli. If you don’t understand a critical / philosophical standpoint enough to explain it in your own words, then you might not want to run it in front of me.

Weighing: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like overviews and clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I’m in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Do some impact calculus and show me why you won.

Speed: Keep it reasonable. In parli speed tends to be a mistake, but you can go a bit faster than conversational with me if you want. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can’t do that and go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear…please do so. If someone asks you to slow down please do so. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I'm pretty good if I'm on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.

Speed in NFA-LD: I get that there is the speed is “antithetical” to nfa-ld debate line in the bylaws. I also know that almost everyone ignores it. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call “clear” or "slow." That said if you use "clear" or "slow" to be abusive and then go fast and unclear I might punish you in speaks. I'll also listen and vote on theory in regards to speed, but I will NEVER stop a round for speed reasons in any form of debate. If you think the other team should lose for going fast you will have to make that argument.

If you do not flash me the evidence or give me a printed copy, then you need to speak at a slow conversational rate, so I can confirm you are reading what is in the cards. If you want to read evidence a bit faster...send me you stuff. I'm happy to return it OR delete it at the end of the round, but I need it while you are debating.

Safety: I believe that debate is an important educational activity. I think it teaches folks to speak truth to power and trains folks to be good citizens and advocates for change. As a judge I never want to be a limiting factor on your speech. That said the classroom and state / federal laws put some requirements on us in terms of making sure that the educational space is safe. If I ever feel the physical well-being of the people in the round are being threatened, I am inclined to stop the round and bring it to the tournament director.

stolen from Ryan guy of Mjc

---

Kevin Krouse - NPDA

TL;DR:
Havent seen parli in years, been coaching high school policy. Do your thing. Speed is fine but be clear (be aware of the online format anditslimitations). DA/CP strats are fun. Ks are fun. Theory can be fun. Policy affs are fun.Kriticalaffs are fun. Stock issues debate can be fun. Basically, Im going to have fun regardless and Im excited to see yall do your thing.

Background:
I competed in Policy and LD for 4 years in high school and Parli for 3 years at Washburn in college. I was mediocre at best as a competitor. I havent been involved with parli in almost 7 years, so some of the more nuanced theory arguments specific to the format might need a little more explanation than other judges who have been in the parli game for a while. During that time away, Ive been judging frequently and coaching on a pretty technical and fast high school Policy debate circuit. I dont think speed will be a problem but Im going to take a little bit to adjust to not having pen time for cards, so maybe dont start out guns blazing.

Arg preference:
As a debater, I read mostly policy arguments and way too much cap towards the end (because I was lazy). As a coach, Ive had success working with both policy oriented teams as well as heavily K teams. It would be a mistake to assume Im familiar with your Klit, because this assumption usually is followed up by the implication that you dont have to explain your argument as well which is not accurate. That being said, Im mainly familiar with Levinas, Nietzsche and Marx but have judged a decent amount of security, neolib, EcoMan, orientalism, queer theory, ablism and PoMo (d&g, Baudrillard, SemioCap/Bifo).

As a judge, Id prefer you do what you do best. Id rather watch a good debate over my least favorite arguments than a bad debate of debaters trying too hard to adapt.

Random thoughts:

• Offense wins debates, but defense can be helpful to frame the round.
• Using allthe k buzzwords without warranted explanation or contextualization to the round is gonna be a bad time for everyone.
• Affirmatives don't necessarily need to to defend the resolution if they can justify their advocacy/methodology appropriately. However, I think being in the direction of the resolution makes the debate considerably easier for you.
• Ks on the neg dont need alts or need to go for their alt if they are doing the work on Framework to contextualize what it means to be voting neg.
• Impact turns are fun. Ive gone for dedev a good bit and have coached more teams to read wipeout than Im proud of. Win the argument, win the round.
• Winning the argument means presenting AND extending a claim AND warrant. Too often debaters are convinced they are so far ahead on an argument that they will extend the surface level CLAIMS but ignore the WARRANTS that make their position winnable. Dont do this.
• Dont be racist/sexist/homophobic or otherwise exclusionary/toxic. Ive been a part of a terribly toxic program and have little tolerance for it. Ive voted on performative toxic masculinity args and race args when Debate Bros get appropriately called out for being garbage in round. Dont be afraid to go for this, just explain a link, impact and explanation of why the ballot can help.

Hit me with any questions:Krousekevin1@gmail.com

---

Li-Ren Chang - El Camino

                                                                         Important stuff:

---

Lila Lavender - NPDA

Hey yall!!! I'm lila (she, her and they, them) and I have been involved with debate for around 9 years at this point (with 7 years of HS + collegiate competition). During that time I had the pleasure/honor to debate with the wonderful Jessica Jung, and among many other accomplishments of ours that I hold dear, we won NPDA nationals once upon a time; that was pretty swell <333 Have been coaching CX, LD, and Parli for the 5 years off and on, am currently coaching LD & HS Parli at EVHS.

Email Chain:For both LD and Policy I would like to be on an email chain, email is "lilalavender454@gmail.com." If you have any other specific questions about my paradigm you can message me on facebook at "Chris Coles (lila lavender)" or email me.

Tldr of my competitive debate experience:

HS LD - 4 years (qual'ed and competed at TOC my senior year)

College NPDA - 3 years (won NPDA nationals with Jessica Jung during our final year of competing)

Tldr of my paradigm:Go as fast as you want, ill be able to flow it. That said, for online NPDA rounds, if you could make sure to give pen time between positions + slow/repeat texts; that would be awesome!!! ^^ Most people would probably label me as a K hack, so do what you will with that information. Although, what this information probably actually means is that I just detest bad/opportunistic Ks even more. That being said though, I don't really care what you do, unless it is explicitly reactionary, if you win whatever position you are reading I will vote for it. I have no inherent predilections to what debate should be, or how specific 'rules' of debate ought function (barring the necessary antagonism against colonial and thus reactionary violence). It's your job to tell me how to evaluate that, so please do it. I will still evaluate a debate that comes down to competing capitalist-imperialist projects (be that liberalism or otherwise), as I would not really have a choice at that moment and there would be no way to resolve the debate in a revolutionary manner, but I won't be happy about it and strongly don't think thats how we should be re-appropriating the space of debate. Oh also I won't kick arguments for you.

Updated Notes (as of September 10th 2021):

1. I don't judge NFA-LD any differently then any other format, so if I am judging you in NFA-LD, then make sure to read the entirety of my paradigm; don't hesitate to ask me any specific questions, about my paradigm or otherwise, pre-round though!! ^^

2. I willNOTvote for any team comprised of entirely non-Black debaters (either those of us colonizers, or non-Black colonized people) reading Afropessimism, in fact I will drop you for it (if you do so). Read:https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/Black militant debaters have been articulating, since Afropessimism was first forged within debate as a Black revolutionary weapon, that non-Black debaters should not read/endorse Afropessimism as a position within debate; so we ought not. If we cannot materially defer to the Black vanguard (within debate or elsewhere), then we cannot principally read arguments about/fall under Black national/class liberation. This also should not have to be said, but unfortunately because of debate's (and thus the World's) constitutive antiBlackness it does: any argument/position about antiBlackness does not = Afropessimism. To assume such would not only be the definition of revisionism, and thus antiBlack abstraction, but in fact is a direct result of antiBlack opportunism within the context of debate's material conditions; a recovery of debate's, as a piece of Amerikkka's, principle contradiction in the face of struggle being intensified by Black militancy within debate itself. So if you are another colonizer reading my paradigm, or a non-Black Indigenous and/or colonized person, do not take this as "don't read arguments/positions about antiBlackness." Because not only should you, but you must; if your analysis/theory/praxis is lacking a material line in reference to the principle contradiction of anti-African imperialism, and thus the vanguard necessity of Black proletarian leadership, then your already behind/lacking material (and thus revolutionary) correctness. If your a team/debater comprised of only other colonizers, and/or non-Black Indigenous and/or colonized people, then just don't read/defend Afropessimism-as-position (or any other piece of the Black radical tradition that requires Blackness-as-advocate to defend).

3. The revolutionary praxis/theory that I align with has shifted fairly drastically since my time competing within NPDA; for the most part (although not entirely or totally of course) away from the theory/'praxis' that I often defended/advanced during my time within NPDA (and for what many of you likely know me for). I say this not because it will likely shift my judging a whole lot, but rather just to be transparent, and to give a clearer picture as to what I will be more politically persuaded by; and thus on the flip side, that which I won't be as politically persuaded by, or rather not as much as I perhaps used to be. That change being, that I now struggle under the line of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. If anyone is curious, I most specifically struggle under the line advanced by the Revolutionary Intercommunal Black Panther Party (RIBPP) and the Communist Party of India (Maoist). In relation to debate, and thus the content that I am more politically aligned with/happy to see, this means that (for the most part) I materially understand 'postmodernism' (although of course this does not mean I won't vote on it, or I have lost any of my previously knowledge on this work) to be a). materially irrelevant and/or b). actively counterrevolutionary. If anyone wants to struggle with/under the line of the incredible pieces of anti-colonial revolutionary socialist labor that have aided me (been introduced to me, etc) in arriving here:

The Central Committee of the CPI (Maoist)'s"Long live Internationalist May Day! Let us work for more unity and organization of World revolutionary workers, toilers and their organisations!"

Kevin "Rashid" Johnson's"What Is Revolutionary Intercommunalism And Why We Embrace It"

Akili's"Capitalism as a System of Social Formations: Notes Toward an Anti-Eurocentric Historical Materialism"

Leila Khaled's"My People Shall Live"

Jose Maria Sison's"On the Philosophy of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism"

Erica Caines's"Unpacking The Super Exploitation of Black Women"

4. If you misgender me, your competitors, or anyone else within the space during the time at which i am judging and don't correct yourself, or continue to do so, I will auto drop you. This extends to any sort of transphobic and/or transmisogynistic violence; I am done with having to put up with that and ill use my temporary power as a judge to create an incentive for students to stop doing so. I say this not because trans antagonism is an exceptional form of violence among other colonial and thus reactionary violence, because I will certainly drop you for engaging within ANY sort of proximal reactionary violence. Rather, I just specifically highlight this because TERF nonsense and transmisogyny is bad within debate, and a lot of yall think about trans fems as 'men.'

5. While it is true that I was quite a fast debater, this does not mean that if you are slower and/or more lay that I don't want to judge you, because i certainly do!!! Most importantly though, if you slow and/or clear your opponents (if they are going too fast or are being needlessly unclear) and they do not adapt to meet those demands, then I absolutely will tank their speaks and give you a lot of leeway in answering their arguments even if they are technically conceded.

Parli Overview:

Obviously everything below applies to Parli as well, so please read it. If you ask my what my paradigm is in the round instead of reading it on tabroom, I am going to be a little grumpy. That said, please do not hesitate to ask any specific questions or confusions about something in my paradigm, because I am always more then happy to answer those!!!!

Specific stuff:

1AC's:

Policy Affs:Despite my love for the K, I think a strategic and well written policy aff make for some of the best debates possible. I have no preferences on how policy affs should be formatted but I think it is always a good idea, especially since having me as a judge means the neg will probs run a K, to have a framework on the top, or bottom, of the 1AC that justifies policymaking in some manner. Please make sure your ADV's have uniqueness, links, and impacts, but other than that do what you want. To be clear though, liberalism is colonial-imperial violence that must be combatted. Which is not to say that all 'policy action' takes place within the materiality of liberalism, but rather, that the specific framework for which policy is generally deployed (situated) within LARP 1AC's is just that; liberalism, and it's bare minimum, by way of submission to the politics of settler society. So just know if you do decide to read a policy aff in front of me, while I will always judge it on the flow, I am not going to be sympathetic to the politics of the 1AC.

K Affs:K Affs, 'performative' or not, are amazing. I put 'performative' in scare quotes not because I don't like the positions that have been signified as performances within debate, in fact quite the opposite. Instead, I do so to indicate that all of debate is a performance, and to parse out radical mircopolitical practice within debate as exclusively 'performative' seems silly to me. That said, if you want to read these types of arguments in front of me, please please please do. Once again I do not really care about the content of K affs but I am most familiar with; DnG, antiBlackness, (neo)colonalism and settler-colonalism, trans and queer theory, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and other anti-capitalist practice, and decolonial feminisms. If your feminism is not, or not informed by: Black, Indigenous, and trans feminisms, dont read it. I hate Lacanian psychoanalysis. That being said, just because that is true does not mean I won't vote on it, just wont be judging it. Mentioning those areas of revolutionary theory that I am most familiar with is not to say that, those are the only ones I will listen to/vote for. Rather, I mention them (which is also not an exhaustive list by any means) to be transparent in where my knowledge bases come from/have been taught through. The tldr here is that I ALWAYS love to judge principled positions from these, or any, bases of revolutionary theory!!!! If you are going to reject the res, which is totally cool with me, you should make sure to have justifications as to why the res is bad, and why rejecting it on the affirmative is key. To give you an example of what K Aff's I tended to go for, Jessica and I most often went for: Gender Death, Sex Workers, Juche, Medicalization, and Han.

Framework Affs (LD):As a quick preface, if you are doing LD and reading this you can run whatever type of aff you want, I have merely labeled this under LD because its most relevant to LD. Framework affs are dope, I love them and used to run them all the time when I was debating in LD. I am pretty well versed in most of the frameworks that are common on the circuit and especially with, as much as I hate it, Kantianism and Deontology. What makes framework affs strategic is their ability to have a framework that when won, wins the debate for the aff. Due to that fact, if you are running a framework heavy aff then you should make sure you have a framework that is strategic in that vein, not just a framework that seems fun to run.

1NC's/Off cases:

Note:Again, if you are in LD you can run whatever off positions are the most strategic, do whatever you think will best win you the round. That being said though, while I am cool with it and will be able to flow you, if you are hitting an opponent who does not want you to spread, don't be an ass. That does not preclude you from running K's or DA's or T, just don't spread them if you opponent does not want you to.

DA/CP:DAs and CPs are great, but I have noticed this trend lately in which people label every piece of case specific offense as "Disads." This is slightly annoying because it greatly reduces and distorts the reasons that DAs are strategic. DAs need to have uniqueness, case specific links, and external impacts that the Aff cannot resolve; all other case offense are just case turns. Even if you have a CP that solves for your DA(s), make sure you have status quo uniqueness on the top of the DA that way you are not forced to go for the CP if you want to go for the DA. If you are running a counterplan make sure it has clearly defined sections of "text," "competitiveness," and "solvency." Also I think that conditionality is great, not that I wont vote on condo bad, so if you wanna read 5 contradictory condo offs I am very cool with that.

Ks:I love Ks, they are what I ran most in highschool and what I ran most in college. If you want to see the types of Ks that I am most familiar with, and what that means for you, look to the K aff section of my paradigm. If you are in policy, during the 1NC make sure you have either labeled or unlabeled thesis, links, impacts, and alt sections. If you are going for the K in the block it is always a good idea to read a framework for the K in the 2NC. On the other hand, if you are in LD and reading a K in the 1NC you need to make sure to have a framework, thesis, links, impacts, and alt. Something that I have noticed in hs LD and Policy is that K alts never explains why the alt is key in resolving the K, but rather just describes what the alt is, so make sure your alt actually has descriptive solvency. In terms of the K's I went for most, Jessica and I often collapsed to Bataille, Barad, Semiocap, Maoism, and Trans Spatiality.

T/Theory:I love good topicality and theory debates, they are some of the most technical types of debate and I love good technical debate. While theory and topicality are not exactly the same thing, they do share a similar structure of how they should be formatted. Both should have a clear interpretation, violation, standards and voters. While I know the general trend is to collapse the standards and voters into the same section, it would easier for me if you would make sure that those are two distinct sections wherein the standards explain why violating the interp is bad, and how losing that standard links into what ever voters you are going for. Then in the voters section terminalize why those voters are the biggest impact in the round. I have a pretty low threshold for frivolous theory in that I think if a theory position really is that bad, then you should not lose to it. I think most people would probably in fact label me as a debater who reads and goes for frivolous theory quite frequently, so if thats your jam, go for it. That said, if you use frivolous theory as a form of disrespect, i.e. reading 40 spec shells against a project, that is not going to fly for me. Read it when its strategic, not when its repugnant.

---

Marc Ouimet - NPDA

Marc Ouimet (he/they) Philosophy for NPDA 2022

Its hard to determine what feels necessary to qualify. I tried to include the things I would want to know about a judge knowing nothing about them if I were still debating. If you have other questions that are more specific, feel free to ask before the round.

Background in the activity: My competitive experience was largely in NPDA, and NFA-LD. My coaching experience was largely in NPDA, but Ive also coached NFA-LD, policy, and IPDA ranging from middle school through college. Im presently affiliated with Palomar College and Cal State San Marcos, but have also been involved as a coach at Cal State Long Beach, and San Diego State. This stretches from 2007 to present, which is now just under half my life.

the TL;DR as a judge

Do what you want, and feel most confident in defending.

I like rigor and arguments with depth through the second lines.

You can get weird and obscure.

You can double down against people getting weird and obscure, because weirdness and obscurity are not auto-wins.

My default is largely looking at how the debaters parse the link and solvency differentials relative to one another in an offense/defense paradigm - this is true for plan vs counterplan, resolving theory level legitimacy, weighing the Ks/ performances/ AFFs general viability, and so on.

Telling me the debate comes down to a root cause knife fight on the internal link level is boring, and also typically never that linear in actuality.

I have no desire to police anyones tone, or limit your affect and agency as a speaker, but please dont be a jerk. I really dislike when rounds get unnecessarily heated, and really regret that it has been so stylistically normal and the small part I have played in participating in that way in the past. I understand the difficulty in balancing ones passion in a competitive forum (and definitely dont be cloyingly nice as running in the opposite direction) but Im definitely gonna get bummed out if everyone gets angry at each other for no good reason.

Im consistently advising people to do more work on solvency claims, and I find many of my RFDs will return back to that even after giving forewarning.

I also have been sparingly involved in NPDA the past two years, and by extension, I have no idea what the cool kids are running. I was still reading philosophy and think tank white papers for leisure when this wasnt my job, because Im a big nerd. So please meet me halfway if you have something new and exciting to share in terms of argument rather than assuming I already know it.

Im a sucker for a clean collapse.

Im imperfect, but will try really hard to not make a mistake with regards to my decision on a round. I often vote against teams that impress me, so please feel free to ask questions about how to win my ballot next time. Please dont come at judges with open resentment for not giving you the ballot, it is counterproductive and not a healthy approach. If you remotely have that impulse, that is the only instance where I would ask you consider me as a strike.

Speed

I prefer whatever clip you feel most comfortable with.

I have only in two or three instances in my whole time doing this not been able to keep up at warp speed. Im also most impressed by debaters who have a good sense of how and when to slow down in their speeches.

I am not shy about asking you to speak clearer, for pen time, or asking you to slow down if I find any of those matters become relevant. Probably not, but well see.

If someone asks for you to slow down or speak more clearly, I will really hope you do that. Debates are best when both teams can substantively engage, and I would hope you value that more than spreading out another team as the crux of your strategy.

Please keep in mind that (1) the online format dramatically cuts my ability to flow you if you are not clear by virtue of either your enunciation or mic quality, and (2) I still flow on paper because I feel it lets me best understand the round strategically, which means concise sub-points with little warrant analysis increase the likelihood I will ask for pen time.

Advocacy Statements

Please repeat them at least once and post them in the chat for everyone to see.

Theory

I will vote on theory at any level, even enthusiastically, but if it is just competing counter-claims without thorough scrutiny and working examples relevant to the round, I will likely find it really boring.

I suppose I prefer theory more top-down than bottom-up, so I need more of a substantive approach to theory as a voting issue than I sometimes get, rather than sticking to pre-conceived preferences about debate norms and rules.

Keep it well-structured and consistent. Please tell me why reasonability, articulated abuse, competing interpretations, or the like is the preferred lens by which I decide the whole round.

I have decided a few rounds where the more rigorous team in the standards debate just assumed a baseline understanding of how the theory ought be evaluated, and woefully missing a substantive response to why I am supposed to prefer those claims.

Performance

Performance is great.

That said, I think the most frameworks for performance I have seen are very underdeveloped, and dont give me much more than a competing methods debate which I find very unfulfilling in dealing with. While I love performance, if I dont see a throughline of how it fits into the debate, AND something specific about your use of the performative medium allowing for unique offense beyond just performing being kind of fun and cool in itself, I will not be stoked to see your performance most likely.

Kritiks

Ks are great.

That said, if you are mushing a bunch of disparate theory together without a thorough explanation, or dont have clear second lines for your framework, links, and alt solvency sheets, I will probably be underwhelmed.

I tend to think a separate framework and theory sheet are good in providing separate general epistemic insights and theory-specific insights, that also provide a lot of strategic utility, but I realize Im a dork who is probably in the minority on this.

You should probably hold all of your links to a high level of scrutiny, but especially so for links of omission or links just to the topic, rather than some component of the Affirmative case.

Im pretty well-read, but I dont know every author, and even the authors Im very familiar with, Im not sure how theyre presently being interpreted in the community so dont skip over the connective tissue in your K.

Protecting in the Rebuttals

I typically try to, but if theres something you think Im missing, feel free to call objections.

That said, excessive points of order and extending an argument rather than making a concise objection and response are pretty annoying, so be careful and pick your spots.

Identity Arguments

Dont consider this a comprehensive checklist for running such arguments but more so a yellow light from me.

I generally advise against these as a coach because (1) claiming your social locations as a major component of your argument abstracts those pieces of yourself as a game piece in the debate, and (2) debaters will inevitably lose by the nature of it being a game. I have seen the emotional stakes consistently devastate friends over the course of many years and in many important rounds. That said, I have done it myself, and seen a tournament screech to a halt for it more than a few times. I also stopped arguing for the ballot in many of those circumstances which was perhaps healthier for me, but it still broke the tournament down the line. While I definitely want you to feel empowered rather than marginalized I would suggest considering all of that and how it impacts the emotional labor of yourself, your coaches, and your opponents before reading an argument that is very personal to you.

Speaker points

I believe in point normalization, dont know if community standard is still 27.5 but I will start there.

Unsurprisingly, a lot of it will be based on my mood a technical appreciation of the debate, so a good team wont automatically see something near 30, but I also dont think Im too hard to please if you are both rigorous and having a good time.

Defending the Topic

I like the topic as a springboard for discussion. Ive also critiqued the topic from the Aff, and totally rejected the topic as a point of discussion and have coached teams in doing so as well, but honestly, one of the few things I really prefer about Parli is getting to debate a wide variety of issues.

Impact Calc

No predispositions, but I generally prep on structural impacts if the topic isnt geopolitical. Even then, I think the threshold for most flashpoint scenarios should generally be slightly higher than an average argument.

I tend to think most people dont consider sequencing enough when discussing timeframe. I make too many decisions there.

I think more robust descriptions of your impact modules generally help me weigh them more easily in terms of both magnitude and probability.

Generalized extinction claims are lame, thorough explanations of ecological collapse are not. Please consider that when framing your impacts in the shell, and not just backfilling them in the rebuttals.

Positionality

While I tended to read singular unconditional advocacies, I actually really like condo and think juking teams is part of the fun.

I have also seen numerous teams (sometimes very excellent teams) fumble conditionality and not understand the strategic utility of their arguments relating to one another beyond a time trade off and pay for it through bad collapse or opening up room for golden turns in the PMR.

As with most things, I suspect my feelings will adjust with your execution. It wont be an auto-loss, though.

---

Maria DeMarco - UTTyler

n/a

---

Meghan Gleeson - CUI

I view debate as a game and I will reward the teams who play the game better based solely on the round and arguments that are made. To help clarify there are some other thoughts teams might want to know about my views on certain arguments. 

---

Michael Starzynksi - NPDA

tabula rasa

no spreading please

roadmaps/signposting a plus

---

Mikay Parsons - SDSU

EMAIL: mikayiparsons@gmail.com

I use they/them pronouns! Please respect that! For example: "Mikay is drinking coffee right now. Caffeine is the only thing that gives them the will to keep flowing."

Full disclosure: I use the same philosophy for judging high school and college so these may seem like simple things but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do them If you have more specific questions feel free to come ask me.

Background: I competed in high school Policy for two years on a not very good Idaho circuit, with a few LD/Pf tournaments thrown in the mix. Additionally, I competed for Lewis & Clark College in Parliamentary Debate for four years. The majority of the literature I have read involves critical feminism and queer theory and phenomenology, which makes me pretty decent at understanding the majority of critical debates. In debate, however, I probably read policy/straight up arguments at least 70% of the time, and thus can understand those debates just as well.

The way to get my ballot: I appreciate well warranted debates that involve warrant and impact comparison. Please make the debate smaller in the rebuttals and give a clear story for why you have won the debate. This limits the amount of intervention that is required of me/all judges and will make all of our lives much easier. I will auto-drop teams that yell over their competitors' speeches, use violent/triggering language without some type of warning, or belittle/make fun of the other team/me. I value debate as an accessible, educational space, and so if you prevent it from being either of those two things, I will let you know.

Speed: I was a decently fast debater and can typically keep up in the majority of rounds. If you are reading cards, slow down for tag lines, author affiliations, advocacies, and interpretations, because those are pretty important to get down word for word, but feel free to go fast through the rest of the card/warrant. If you are cleared/slowed by the other team and do not slow down/become more clear, I will give you low speaks (again, debate is good only insofar as it is educational and accessible - spreading people out of the debate is boring and a silly way to win).

Theory: I love theory and believe it is currently underutilized in high school debate. I appreciate well thought out interpretations and counter-interpretations that are competitive and line-up well with their standards/counter-standards, as well as impacted standards that tie in with your voters. Theory is a lot of moving parts that require you fit them together into a coherent story.

Condo: I think conditionality is very good for debate, but also love hearing a good theory debate about condo. I have a pretty level threshold for voting either way, so have the debate and I will decide from there.

Critical affs/negs: I love hearing K's that are run well, both on the aff and neg!

---

Nadya Steck - NPDA

Hey yall, Nadya here, Im glad that Im getting the opportunity to judge you in this round! For the sake of a pre-round TL:DR-

I want my opinion to come into play as little as possible during the round. I would like to be told how to vote and why, by the end of the rebuttals I will almost always pick the easiest simplest route to ballot possible. You can do this through Impact Calc, Framing debates, link directionality claims, etc. I dont particularly care what the debate ends up being about, topical or in total rejection of the resolution Ill be fine either way. I am fairly familiar with Policy, Kritik, and theory debate, do what you want. I will give you the best possible feed back I am capable of at the end of the round. I am most familiar with NPDA and NFA-LD.

Some more specific things for when you have time to read more -

General Things -

- I find that people have gotten less interesting clear in their impact calculus as of late, I would like more explicit and clear articulations as to why I should care about what impact. Absent being given this context in a round I will default to probable over high magnitude impacts.

- I have no problem voting on terminal defense if the round comes down to it, but I am always much more excited to get to actual vote offense in a round.

- Im fine with you going fast if you want, its not really a huge problem so long as you arent weaponizing speed to exclude other people in the round go wild. I have a pretty low threshold needed to be met to vote on speed theory

- I dont vote on disclosure, dont take this as a challenge, I DO NOT VOTE ON DISCLOSURE, I do not care if its conceded, I do not care if you think youve got the version of the argument to get me to finally change, I will not vote for it under any circumstances.

- Please please please, read analytics, be smart, just saying an argument isnt an argument because it doesnt have a piece of evidence immediately attached to it doesnt mean that an argument wasnt made, as long as its explained an analytic is a perfectly valid argument and needs to treated as such.

- I like creative extensions of the aff, I like well structured overviews, and in general am always excited to see what weird new things you all come up with, so please show me what youve got, I love seeing the limits of what debate is capable of being.

Theory Specifics

- I will vote on theory read in basically any speech within reason, I think that if abuse happens in the 1NR than the 2AR has a right to read arguments about it happening, it doesnt mean I will automatically vote on it, but I will at least flow and eval it.

- Some jurisdictional issues regarding theory. Theory is by default Apriori, you can always make the argument that it isnt or that I should evaluate something else first. This is an NFA-LD rule is not a voter its a statement, the action of them breaking a rule has a result, that is your voter. Fairness and Education are bad voters, please contextualize them, what kind of fairness, education about what? Please make sure you have a clear interpretation, please please please make sure its clear, I will hold you to the interp you read out of the first speech it is read out of. I will default to competing interpretations as an eval mechanism unless told explicitly not too.

- lighting round, Yes Ill vote on 1AR theory, Condo is fine until it isnt, Dispo is okay until it isnt, Pics are good until they arent, Floating pics are great until they arent, CP theory is always a good option, Ill vote on spec but I wont be happy about it, Potential abuse is fine but proven abuse last forever.

Kritik Specifics

- I am familiar with most common critical authorship that has been popular in the last decade or so. This includes; Cap of all flavours, Queerness stuff, Blackness lit, Decol and Set Col stuff, PoMo stuff like D&G, Ableism stuff, and a few fringe things. Feel free to read whatever kind of kritik you want to in front of me and I will evaluate it to the absolute best of my ability.

- Im not super picky about how you read a kritik, but I do think that every kritik needs to functionally make three claims in order to function. First, a Kritik must make some kind of evaluative claim, what should my ballot focus on and what impacts should be prioritized. Second, a Kritik must have a link to the specific actions either advanced explicitly or methodologically endorsed by the aff plan. Third, there needs to be a clear and explicit alternative that has a clear solvency claim.

- If you want to read a K Aff go wild, I did it a lot when I was a debater, I am usually sympathetic to them and enjoy a good K Aff, that being said, I do still expect you to fill your time and be strategic. If youre rejecting the topic wholesale fine, but tell me why, give me a reason why the topic should be abandoned. Make sure that you are advancing a clear methodology in your 1AC as well, I dont so much care what that method is just make sure you stick to it, I find that I am exceptionally compelled by a a good contextualization or warranted analysis of the 1AC vs theory etc. out of the 1NC. A sneaky 1Ar/2AC restart will almost always net you high speaks in my book, its a hard thing to do well but if you can manage a tricky restart to the debate in the second aff speech I wont shut up about it.

- Rapid Fire, Links of omission are bad and warrant link turns of omission please be specific on your link sheet, you can read a K and theory at the same time I find that I not super compelled by you read theory which is a form of X violent practice so it links to your K like if you want to go for the double turn go for it but like its not a strong arg, K and theory operate on different levels which I evaluate comes first is up to you and your opponent, floating pics are fun please read them strategically but make sure you can answer the theory sheet first.

Policy Specifics

- I am fine evaluating a good Case vs CP and DA combo. In fact a good DA/PIC combo is one of perhaps the most fun strategies that exists in the negative tool box. I am fine with any sort of case argument. I will vote on terminal defense, the sqo is neg ground and if the aff cant solve than the aff doesnt change the sqo, so I vote negative. I am not happy to vote on terminal defense, but as they say, the status quo is always an option I guess.

- I find that too often people read uniqueness args at each other but never think about the way those arguments actually interact with each other. I think that the best way to win a policy debate is to win the uniqueness level. Who cares if the aff solves an impact if the sqo already solved it right? I think that too often we focus on impact debate and link debate and forgo some of the fundamentally important arguments that are needed to win these claims. If youre reading this now, take it as a reminder, when was the last time you updated your 1AC uniqueness? Cutting updates should happen before every tournament, dont let yourself lose because you didnt stay on top of your research.

- Straight Case is perhaps the best thing a 1NC can read, if you read straight case in front of me you will almost certainly net 30 speaks no questions asked. Ive almost never not voted on this strategy, just case defense and impact turns or link turns is such a compelling strategy and as youll find out, a lot of people are a lot less ready to actually defend their case than you may think.

Some last minute fun things -

- Try to have fun, I love voting on goofy stuff and am fine to have a good time. The only argument that has a 100% win rate in front of me is Wipe Out so like who cares what I think anyway right?

---

Nora (Justin) Fausz - NPDA

I prefer to go by Nora now, though I will not be upset if you use my birth name. It is not traumatic for me personally, more of a comfort thing for me (I use any pronouns, feel free to ask)

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

--Do not use ableist slurs. It is offensive and personally traumatic for me. This is a potential vote down on the spot issue, if warrented out. (I'd prefer if you didn't use the terms p*ranoid/p*ranoia or d*lusional/d*lusion unless talking about the conditions, just a personal preference).

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

--Misgendering someone on purpose, (including being corrected on pronouns, but refusing to use the correct ones) will result in me voting you down on the spot. I have no tolerance for transphobia in debate.Also a heads up I tend to ask pronouns before rounds start to insure I do not misgender.

--Please do not lie or be unethical in round. (You can make guesses and extrapolate, and even be wrong. Just don't tell me the sky is green without contextualizeing it)

--Please do not Lie about being a particular identity. I do not police identities (I will not force an outing or demand to know your identity), but do not lie about it. Being honest is the best policy with me I promise you.

--Do Impact Calculus please. It makes my job easier and increases the likelihood I vote your way. If no calculus is done, I default to magnitude then timeframe then probability

Overall/Background:

I have competed in Debate for 3 years. 1 year of Parliamentary Debate and 2 years of Lincoln Debate. I have also done Policy Debate at a tournament. Since then, I have been judging and helping out with McKendree Debate for 2 years judging both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary Debate for them. I now judge for any team that hires me. I also have judged Policy Debate for the Saint Louis Urban Debate League for 4 years.
TLDR: I've been involved in debate since about 2015.

On Kritiks/Critical Affs:

I can vibe with the Kritik. But Please explain your kritik (Underview or overview). Dont say buzzwords and taglines and expect me to understand it. Im not really up to date with the literature. I will be honest, I have read for fun, since dropping out of my masters, at this point and what interests me (often history). So odds are I have not read the literature on the K. So don't expect me to know it and do work for you. I also have comprehension issues when it comes to this. Please Know your Kritik. Also, I am open to kritiks on the language used in the round (Ableism for example). You can be non topical in front of me. But you must be able to defend it.

On T/theory:

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

Cross-X:

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

Perms (Mostly For LD):

I like some warrants or explanation on why Perms will work. I need an explanation on stuff such as Perm do the CP on why I should allow that.

Procedurals:

I am willing to hear out procedurals outside of T. My favs include Disclosure Theory and Conditionality. Now I will hear ouit frivilous procedures, however I will warn you it will be an uphill battle. Like my threshold for this is you absolutely have to be winning everywhere to win a frivilous/joke procedural. So do with this what you will. I however will not hear out racist, ableist, transphobic, or bigoted procedurals.

Misc.:

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

You can reach me at the following with any questions, I will try my best to answer!

justin.fausz860@topper.wku.edu

Facebook: Justin Fausz

---

Paul Villa - Oregon

Updated for NPDA 2022:

Top 8 things to keep in mind if I am judging you.

1. I have chronic wrist conditions on both sides, you are fine to spread but if something gets lost as a result of excessive speed I am not going to pretend I have it written down.

2. I find it hard to imagine a world where the negative deploys a well-developed Topicality/Framework shell with a clear violation or the affirmative deploys a well-developed condo shell and I dont vote for it.

3. My threshold for response to vacuous/bad arguments is exceedingly low.

4. I generally default to reasonability on theory by default, I think that the offense-defense paradigm breaks down on a lot of theory positions (IE, there is probably always some marginal benefit to further specification but I dont really see why that means the aff should lose). Condo is a notable exception since I dont really understand how someone can be reasonably unconditional.

5. I am more predisposed to defense than most judges and absolutely believe it can be terminal.

6. I wont vote on any kritik that I dont understand the solvency mechanism of or feel I couldnt otherwise explain as part of my RFD. This applies to all advocacies but kritiks tend to be where this comes up most frequently. I dont dislike the K, I read the K in at least 50% of my neg rounds as a competitor, my students read the K all the time, plenty of debaters have won on Ks in front of me, I just need you to actually explain your argument as opposed to obfuscating.

7. I dislike the trend of backfilling or massively recontextualizing positions. Chances are, if your argument feels largely new I am going to give the rebuttals a lot of leeway in their ability to answer.

8. Almost without exception, the team that does the best world resolving arguments and winning thesis level claims will win my ballot, I don't find debates particularly difficult to resolve but if you don't do that work for me I am almost certainly going to default to making the simplest decision possible.

Background: I am the director of debate at Diablo Valley College, I competed in LD and NPDA at the University of the Pacific for 3 years and then was an assistant coach for the team during grad school. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.

---

Rebecca Postula - McK

Hello! I am Rebecca! I graduated from McKendree University (2017-2021) and debated all four years, mostly in Parliamentary Debate however I also did NFA-LD for two years on and off and have some limited speech experience (mostly extemp). As a debater I solely ran policy based arguments on the affirmative however I was more varied on the negative in terms of critical arguments however my experience is limited to mostly Marx, Nietzsche, Biopower, and some Thacker.

Advantages/Disadvantages:I love case debate, this was my bread and butter as a debater and am more than comfortable judging policy based rounds. I prefer these arguments to be set up as uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact however you do you in terms of how you want to set these arguments up. I am totally down for politics disads and love hyperspecific advantages and disadvantages to the topic.

Ks:I will be upfront and say I am not as comfortable in a critical debate as a policy debate, however I do not want to use this to discourage your teams from running these arguments, however I do need some top level thesis explanation of what the world of the K looks like versus the world of the affirmative (or if it is a K AFF what the world post-aff looks like) these will help me to better contextualize your arguments and how they interact with the rest of the debate. I am very comfortable with Marx or any critiques of capitalism but beyond this I am not aware of the literature.

Theory:In terms of topicality please run it, I need a clear interpretation, a violation, standards, and voters at the end of the debate in order to vote for it. Beyond that I am not a huge fan of spec but run it if you must, however be warned that I will not be happy if you go for it.

Framework:As it is my first year out I am not 100% sure on how I vote on framework vs K AFFs, however as I debater this is an argument I ran frequently and am familiar with the argument broadly. However the direction I vote in these debates varies debating on the strategy teams deploy and comes to a question of what the world looks like depending on if I vote for Framework or the AFF.

Speaker Points:27-30, obviously don't be mean and do not say anything offensive.

Overall do you have fun, again this is slowly evolving and will likely change as the season goes on and I gain more experience judging.

---

Sam Jones - GCU

---

Sarah Wilson - NPDA

- I think an argument consists of a claim, data, and warrant. If an argument doesn't have data (an example or evidence from the real world) and a warrant (an explanation of how the data satisfies the claim) then it's not really an argument but an assertion. For parli, I generally have a high threshold for what constitutes a sufficient argument in the 1AC and 1NC as compared to any other speech.

- You should slow down on theory analytics or for more esoteric criticisms. Theory tends to be too blippy for me to write down and often just sounds like a long chain of claims. For most critical literature, I'm a slow reader, it takes a fairly long time for me to process stuff. It takes an even long time if I have a fragmented flow of the argument. The point is, for criticisms, you should explain your argument and contextualize it to our interpretations of the world with data and warrants.

Things you should not do in front of me:

There limits to what I'll vote for seems to be put to the test every year... I've decided that I refuse to vote for a theory argument which states that any text must be passed before flex time. I think that passing text should be expected before the next speech and any arguments about competitive equity or accessibility should be contextualized in a form of offense that is not the above interpretation. Additionally, if there is an issue of competitive equity and accessibility (for whatever reason), please make it clear before the round.

You should not assume I am familiar with whatever the hot new theory arguments are. I wouldn't say that I have any particular pre-disposition to any of these arguments, but you really want to explain these to me like I'm five years old. This doesn't only apply to interpretations. For example, I still dont know what skews evaluation is.

I have a much higher threshold for voting on 2AC theory, even if these are introduced in the pmc. I also don't think the 1NC should read multiple theory positions. I guess my point is that I think theory proliferation is bad.

Things you should do in front of me:

Obligatory, do a lot of weighing in the back half of the debate, read a lot of warrants, be nice to each other.

Although I read a wide array of arguments while I competed, I prefer topical affirmatives with specific advantages. The only substantive arguments I don't really feel qualified to evaluate would probably be politics and arguments rooted in affect.

Even though I'd prefer more technical rounds, it'd be lying to say that persuasion doesn't undergird my decision-making. This can manifest in a few ways. Just cause it was a golden turn in the pmr doesn't mean it's true. If I don't understand the argument I probably won't vote for it, I may feel guilty that I don't, but I won't feel like I should be so guilty I should vote for it.

Things for online debate:

I really need everyone to slow down. I type with four fingers on a good day.

If words from your speech cut out or I can't understand you I'll first type it in the chat. I'll keep note of what the last argument I heard was.

Typically, I don't read the interps or plans or whatever is passed through the chat. I just have whatever is written down. If y'all wanna spread through your interp once and move on that's cool, I'll evaluate it based on my flow.

---

Steven Farias - UOP

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

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

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

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

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

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

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

Section 1: General Information-

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

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

Section 2: Specific Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

Section 1 General Information

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

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

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

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

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

Section 2 Specific Inquiries

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

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

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

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

3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?

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

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

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

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

---

Trevor Greenan - Parli at Berkeley

Background

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

 

General Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Framework

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

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

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

 

Theory/Procedurals

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

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

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

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

 

Advantage/DA

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

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

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

• I default to fiat being durable.

 

CP

• Please give me specific texts.

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

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

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

 

K

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Will White - NPDA

They/He

For email chains:

williamewhite275@gmail.com

Background:I did NPDA for 4 years and wrapped up my last year with Parliamentary Debate @ Berkeley. I got 5th place at NPTE with 9th top Speaker and Sems at NPDA as 2nd top speaker. I did NFA-LD as a side hobby lol. Current DoF for EVHS and LD Coach for DebateDrills!

TL/DR:I treat debate like a game and will vote on almost anything. Explain how the link story reaches your impacts and give me a framing to what impacts I should look to first. I will keep my decision focused on arguments made on the flow.I can hang with speed go as fast as you want.Also, I'mcool with frivoloustheory.Tech>truth.Love K aff and neg strats.

Quick pref sheet guide based on what I'm most comfortable with judging. However, y'all should probably just stick to what you're the most comfy with.

K - 1

Theory - 1

Tricks - 1/2

LARP - 2/3

Phil - 4

EDIT 10/11/21:

*Carded debate updates

- I try not to read cards unless told to and you should make it loud and clear what you're asking me to evaluate when you're doing evidence comparison other wise I either won't grant it to you or I'll read the evidence maybe but I can't guarantee I'll interpret the ev in your favor

- I can still hang with speed but go slower and give me pen time if you're going on to analytics that aren't in the doc and try to number your responses if the analytics you're reading are like a page long *I honestly think just having analytics in the doc is the easiest way to fix this problem though in which case you can go top speed and idc still

- If you want me to look at the other teams card bc the card is in the opposite direction than the team claims to be then you should re-highlight the card and read it aloud

*General theory/K updates

- I don't think you HAVE to have a stable interp for theory but I think I'm like really really receptive to claims about how the other team meets and you don't solve your offense

- I default to Theory coming before the K but am pretty receptive to the K coming first/ out weighing

EDIT 9/28/21:

- I am down for terminal defense but think I find myself pretty persuaded by risk of offense/try or die framing

- In uncarded events I think a warrant + empirical example tends to hold more weight to me than just a warrant that justifies something in the abstract

- Ive found that I have a lot of fun judging tricks like truth testing paradigms + paradoxes but that being said I think you can go fast on them but going 500 wpm might hurt you unless you do slower 2N explanation for me

Ks:Super down! I love reading Ks. My go to Ks were Bifo, Bataille, Edelman, Queer Pess, DnG, Nietzsche, Buddhism, Ableism, and Maoism.

- I'm down for ROB first claims to frame out offense but I need implications to why that matters otherwise I default to assuming its a sort of thesis claim for your framing

- Absent any sort of layering or specific indicts to fiat and policy-making I think I currently default to the aff getting to weigh the plan vs the alt

- Spikes to perms need to be warranted. For example, I don't know what no perm in a methods debate means or why everything isn't a methods debate, why the perm or 1AC is not performance, or why links are DAs to the perm

- I am p down for severance perms for alts but I don't really find myself voting on meta claims on these perms being bad in a K debate -- I think a better story for my ballot would be a substantive reason why it's bad ie., representations are binding type stuff.

- I am down to vote on presumption triggers embedded within the framework of the criticism HOWEVER absent any contestation from either team I default to presumption flowing affirmative because you read an alt.

- I think links of omission are a bit of an uphill battle for my ballot but I will not just ignore the K if only links of omission are read.

- I default to perms being tests of competition not an advocacy unless told otherwise

- Don't need a link to the topic assuming you have framing on why we ought to focus on something else

T/Theory:Love it

- Absent a voting paradigm I default to competing interps. Need a bright line for reasonability otherwise, I will err towards competing interps.

- I also default to text of the interp over the spirit of the interp absent any reason to evaluate one of the other.

- Absent framing claims out of the MG/1AR/2AC I default to T coming before MG/1AR/2AC theory

- I default to drop the debater until told otherwise

- I have a lower threshold on disclosure theory for evidence debate but can be convinced otherwise but I have a high threshold for it in parli given it would be non-verifiable.

- I view we meets as a link take outs but think that folks can go for a risk of a violation depending on the arguments made

- I probably have a higher threshold for framework. Would prefer a strict collapse to either fairness skews evaluation of the aff or learning about the state being the i/l to aff solvency.

RVIs:I understand RVIs as framing claims for theory i.e., if you lose the standards level debate or the we meet you should lose because of reciprocal consequences. That being said I need the warrants for fairness and/or education to justify an RVI not just "oh no they were a time suck"

- I default to no RVIs unless told other wise

IVIs:they need sequencing and impacts

Speed:I can hang, for NPDA I usually cap at around 360+ wpm so like unless you're not clear I'll catch your args. If it's a carded event you can go like 500 wpm+ idc really. For parli specifically, I would appreciate the interp read twice or a copy of the text.

Partner Communication:Go for it! It's a partner activity.

CP:

- I'm pretty down for everything including delay but I do not judge kick counter plans unless told to

- I assume presumption flips aff for case debate when you read a CP

- I am cool with kicking planks

- I think things like intrinsic perms are not voters unless told otherwise

- Don't care one way or another for condo or dispo

AD/DA:

- I would prefer the conventional format of these args ie., uniqueness, links, and impacts with the exception of carded debate though I think the tags of the cards should indicate that they function implicitly on this level in this format.

- I am gravitating towards warrants being explanations of how things work and an example rather than just (x) author says (y)

- I default to fiat being durable

- Also, absent any weighing I default to strength of link>magnitude>timeframe>probability

Rebuttals:

- I tend to think in the PMR/LOR you can do weighing against the positions even if it was not done in the MG/MO but I think reasons why it would function as a link take out would not do it for me

- I tend to think shadow extensions are new arguments that should have been in the MG but you can try to convince me other wise

POI:Please do not use these to make did you know? type arguments.

Try to save it for the next constructive.

PoO:I will do my best to protect the flow but I personally prefer the team to call it

---