FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

zz-bye

n/a

zz-bye

n/a

zz-bye

n/a

zz-bye

n/a

zz-bye

n/a

zz-bye

n/a

zz-bye

n/a

AJ Jenkins - NPDA Hired

n/a

Aaron Trembath - Purdue

Adam Krell - WWU

n/a

Alec Baker - Lewis & Clark

n/a

Amanda Taylor - Carroll

n/a

Amanda Feller - PacificLutheran

n/a

Amir Goodarzi - UCLA

Ammon Simon - Wheaton

Annie Berry - Azusa

n/a

Anthony Putnicki - Puget Sound

Antonio De La Garza - NAU

n/a

Aparna Bhaduri - Rice

n/a

Ben Dodds - Oregon

Name: Ben Dodds School: Oregon Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. 2014 NPTE 100% rewrite -- read me even if you know me I think honesty in philosophies is one of the best ways to advance the activiy. Let me be perfectly clear what I am trying to accomplish by writing this: I want to be the top preferred judge at every tournament that I go to. I have judged every NPTE since 2009, and attended each since 2006. Seriously, I want to judge all the debates, all the types of debaters, and I want to judge seniors one last time before they go save the earth. I enjoy nothing more than seeing people at nationals when they are at the top of their game. I will stay in the pool until the tournament ends, Oregon debaters left in or not. That is a promise that may be relevant to you filling out your form, I'll stay till the end like a hired judge.  While, there are people that I don’t think I am an ideal ordinal #1 for, I work really hard to make sure that I get better at whatever flaws are the reason for that, so give me a shot to be your #1. I will proceed to explain why I think I am a good judge in most all debates, and why you may want to consider me for your ordinal #1. The exact question: what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you – I did policy debate for the majority of my career. I ended with a few years of parli at Oregon. I think flowing is a very important judging job that I try very hard at. I will use my flow as the official scorebook. I think letting the debaters use their arguments to win is important, so I try very hard to keep my own thoughts out of the debate. However, where there are thoughts that I think are better served by the debaters knowing them, I will let them know them. In my opinion, the number one reason I should be your number one judge is that you will know how I feel about your arguments far earlier than other judges will let on. I will try my absolute hardest to make sure I have communicated to you what I am thinking about your arguments as you make them. I will use verbal and non verbal communication to get this information communicated. This season I have:  Asked for things to be repeated, asked for acronyms to be broken down, asked for things to be written, asked for people to be clearer, asked for people to be louder, asked for people to have more distinct tags, given people obvious signs to move on or told them to move on, and used other obvious nonverbal to verbal communication like: laughter and smiles, head shaking, exaggerated nodding and knocking, and even flat out telling folks that “I don’t get this, explain it better”. Do not be astonished if I ask you a question like that mid speech. I do all of this because I love you all and love good debates. I want to you be in my head with me the whole debate. I don’t think it is valuable for you to invest 25 min in something that I can’t vote on because I couldn’t hear. Similarly, I don’t want anyone spinning their wheels for 20 min when I got it in two. So, I really want to be your top judge, and should be because you will not have a question about where I am at during a debate, but if you would rather debate in blissful ignorance, I’m not your person. Also, there are things that I will not pretend to know about the world. I took the classes I took. Learned whatever I learned, I remember whatever I remember, but not more than that. There are issues that you, as undergraduates, know more about than I do. If there is a confused look on my face or I seem to asking for more explanation a lot, you have hit on something that I don’t understand. You should not just read this argument to me, it should be clear to you that you have to teach it to me. These two things are not the same. Your ability to know the difference is the greatest skill of all. Reading the audience and dialing your message to their knowledge base. If you have not educated me well enough on your magic fission technology, don’t get mad at me for voting on the argument that it won’t work. Still sound like magic to me, that’s on you. Any judge not willing to admit that there are things that they do not know about the world is lying to themselves, and to you. Strike them, pref me, and teach me your argument. I flow things in columns. I prefer to flow from the top of one page to the bottom of it. I'll be on the laptop, so '4 pages or 1 page' is up to you. Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Please describe your approach to the following. 1.         Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 27-30 I have given 10-20 30s in competitive debates of consequence in my career. Most of them are at NPDA/NPTE. Every year there are one or two people spitting pure fire that weekend, so no, I am not the "never seen perfect" type. Debate is subjective, while there might not have been a perfect speech yet; I have seen people debate without a flaw that was relevant to the debate many times. If that is you: 30. Beyond that, I will say that reward good choices higher than pretty choices. I’d rather watch you explain the double turn for 3 min and sit than explain it for two and then go for your DA for two. I don’t like contradicting arguments being advanced in rebuttals, unless there is some explicit reason for it. I won’t floor people at 27 or lower unless they are repugnant, and as articulated above, you’ll get to know from me verbally before I let you just bury yourself in bad. It is very unlikely that you will get poor speaker points from me, because I will let you know what you are doing that I like mid debate. I am like the bowling bumpers of non-verbal communication. You should be able to score pretty well here. 2.         How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Anyone can do whatever they want. I think this is the right forum for debating about things with claims, warrants, and impacts. I am not scared of arguments based on the titles or format that they are delivered in. No on can make any argument without a claim, warrant and impact. If you have those three things, I don not care what you title it, how you structure it, or really anything more about it. You do you. As I stated above, I don’t like hearing contradictory arguments advanced in rebuttals, as by that time, I prefer to hear one strategy that is consistent being advanced, but I will hold out for a well-explained reason that contradictions are ok. Not my favorite, but certainly a winnable argument, just like all arguments are and should be. If you claim that contradictions are ok, and have a warrant and impact, you have made an argument. If you win the debate over that argument, you will win that argument. If you win an argument, I will filter the debate through that won point. 3.         Performance based arguments… Do whatever you want. I think I would be a good judge to try new things with. I have voted for all manor of performance debate as it has come into parli. I have seen parli evolve from the K being a fringe argument to performance being acceptable. I understand the theory that is in play in this debate as well. I am down to vote for either side of every issue on this discussion I am your judge for a new performance that Ks debate, but you’d better be ready to answer debate is good, because I am your judge for that argument too. I reject the notion that the argument framework: Ks cheat, or the argument framework: fiat is bad, are all that different. Just two sides of a coin, I am totally into watching a debate about those two things against each other. I’ll also entertain Ks vs performances, performance affs vs. performance negs, or whatever other arbitrary dichotomy you have to make between schools of thought. They are all just claims, warrants and impacts to me. 4.         Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I require a full shell to vote on T. The neg needs to prove they have an interp that should be preferred, that the aff does not meet that, and that I should vote on T. I will default to that interp until there is a counter interp and/or an argument that says that I should not evaluate interps against one another (reasonability). I will default that T is a voting issue until the aff convinces me otherwise. However, no, I do not require “in round abuse”, because that is arbitrary. Competing interpretations debate resolves this entirely, if that is how T is evaluated, then the interp is good or bad in theory, not practice, ergo, in-round abuse is irrelevant. If the aff wins reasonability, and has an interpretation of their own, that is usually a good enough out. Now, don’t get confused, the reasoning for arguments about in round vs out of round have a place, its just in the reasonability debate, not just drifting in the ether of T is not a voter. Competing interps might be bad because they don’t force the judge to evaluate in round abuse over potential abuse. See, just a claim, warrant, and impact, placed somewhere relevant. I think case lists make good topicality standards. That encapsulates your ground and limits claims well. This works for the AFF and NEG. 5.         Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? This question is silly. You all determine all of these things for me. Do I have opinions on these issue, yes, and I will list them here, but they are hardly relevant to the debate, because theory is not a hard issue for me to just listen to you debate about and vote on. This is totally up to you in the debate, I promise I have voted on the exact opposite of everything I am about to say about how I feel about theory. PICS – Arbitrary distinction. Can’t be good or bad if it is actually impossible to define. This argument usually boils down to complaints like you should not get that CP, or you should not get that many CPs, both are ok arguments to me, just not likely a reason why PICs are good or bad. There is likely another, better theory argument that your claim, warrant, and impact would fit under more intuitively. Perhaps the problem is that the CP is only a minor repair (CP - treaty without one penny)? Perhaps the problem is that the CP is competing through an artificial net benefit that only exists because of the CP (CP - aff in 3 days)? All arguments are conditional unless otherwise specified. While the neg should state this, and I could vote on the claim (with good warrant and impact :P); "vote AFF, they did not specify the status". Or better maybe, "err AFF on condo bad, they didn’t even specify." This form does not ask my opinion on the actual statuses of CPs, but you are getting them anyway. I don’t believe that conditional advocacies are bad. This is the status I think is best: an advocacy that is competitive should have to be advanced. If there is a perm, the NEG should be able to concede it to make their CP go away. A non-intrinsic, non-severance perm to an advocacy is 100% the same argument as no link. If the AFF and NEG advocacies can exist together without repercussion, the NEG advocacy is testing no part of the aff, and is irrelevant. However, this is just my opinion, you do whatever you want. I have, and will vote on condo bad. If it has a claim, warrant, impact, it’s a winnable argument. If the impact to the voter is reject the team, so be it. A legitimate permutation has all of the aff and part or all of the neg advocacy. I will not insert my opinion on that meaning that the function or text of the CP in your debate, again, that is for you. My opinion is that text comp is an arbitrary tool made up to limit otherwise unfair feeling CPs that debaters have not been able to defeat with the appropriate theory arguments. Text comp and PICS bad are actually basically the exact same argument. They both arbitrarily eliminate a bunch of CPs to try to rid debate of a few. Artificial net benefits are bad is the argument that both of these poorly conceived arguments are trying to get at. You should not get the save a penny CP, but that is not a reason that we must use text comp or that we must reject CPs that include the plan in them. That is a reason to reject save a penny CPs, they are just hard to define. There is the rub on all theory, interpret the rules to restrict the exact set of argument that you intend to. 6.         Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Yes. 7.         In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? This question is just sad. It should read, if the debaters you are watching fail to debate, how will you choose? Well, here goes. I will order things: some Ks, some theory, other Ks, some AFFs, other theory, DAs and other AFFs. Don’t do this to me. Either make it clear that you all think the debate should be ordered the same, or debate about the order of these thoughts. If you let me choose, you have not completed the debate, and the decision will be based on something arbitrary, like me ordering issues on my own. 8.         How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? I won’t. I also don’t think the things listed are as abstract and concrete as the question leads on, nor are they necessarily diametrically opposed. In any case, this question, as phrased, is another example of something you should not do to me. Either, make it clear that you all think the debate should be ordered the same, or debate about the order of these thoughts. If you let me choose, you have not completed the debate, and the decision will be based on something arbitrary, like me ordering issues on my own. I think both of the things listed in the question, death and value of life, are important. I could be compelled to separate them based on number of people affected. I could be compelled to separate them on the time the impact occurs. I could be compelled to separate them based on the likelihood of each occurring. I could be compelled that one of these impacts is reversible while the other is not. I could be compelled that one affects other policy choices while one does not. If there was none of that for me to sort it, I would say death is bad, because that is what I think. If you let the debate get down to what I think, rather than something you said, you failed.

Ben White - NPDA Hired

n/a

Bethany Grubbs - NPDA Hired

n/a

Bjorn Stillion Southard - Lewis & Clark

n/a

Bob Keating - Carleton

n/a

Brad Krupicka - Lewis & Clark

Brent Northup - Carroll

n/a

Brian Horton - Rice

n/a

Brian Boyle - Notre Dame

n/a

Brian DeLong - IU

n/a

Caitlyn Burford - PLNU

n/a

Chris Gutierrez - PLNU

Chris Hinshaw - Sterling

Chuck Walts - UT-Tyler

Colin Patrick - NPDA Hired

n/a

Cory Freivogel - McKendree

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

Daniel Schabot - Cameron

n/a

Darren Elliott - KCKCC

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

David Worth - Rice

n/a

David Dirgo - Creighton

n/a

David Erenwein - NPDA Hired

n/a

Eric Garcia - IVC

Esther Minell - Bethel

Geoffrey BrodakSilva - CSULA

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

Gina Lane - Jewell

Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.  I try to be open to a variety of debate arguments, but I default to a policy analysis in a net-benefits paradigm.  I think the critical element of any debate is for debaters to compare argument impacts in the round and tell me what my decision calculus should be.  The most common mistake I see is debaters who run several arguments and leave them all in play to see what sticks.  This nearly always creates shallow debate that invites judge intervention.  The second most common mistake I see is debates that are both too fast and lack warrants.  I have worn hearing aids for a decade, and I just invested in new ones.  It is your responsibility to do what you can to make sure that all of the participants hear your arguments accurately.   If I can’t understand you, I promise you I will not see the round the same way you do.  Please slow down for plan texts, counterplan texts, t interpretations, k alternatives, perm texts.          Other issues you want to know –  1) I’m not a fan of fact debate; I think it is difficult to weigh arguments on a preponderance of evidence standard.  I will listen to this approach, but I will also listen to arguments that argue that policy advocacy is superior.  2) Topicality: I vote on topicality when there are clear counter-interpretations that prove abuse of ground.  I prefer not to vote on RVIs, but I have when they are mishandled.  I am open to a variety of interpretations on T – both the ground abuse and the competing interpretations approach are ok with me (but if you use the latter, you have to debate out the standards).     3) Counterplans: I will vote on topical counterplans – they must be competitive via net benefits.  I prefer not to hear a lot of theory arguments in counterplans, but I will listen.  4) Kritiks: I always like kritiks on an abstract level, but to win a kritik in front of me I need to hear you conceptualize the alternative debate.  You have to win that the alternative is more compelling that a net benefits approach.   5) Narratives, projects, performance, alternative debate, etc.: These are creative approaches, but I prefer a clear explanation of how to weigh such arguments versus traditional debate arguments. I also prefer a link to the resolution.  I’m sorry, but I have a difficult time understanding the oppressive nature of fiat.  I have voted for this argument, but I don’t find it particularly persuasive.   6) Speed.  I flow at a pretty fast level, but you need to articulate well.  Unlike other forms of debate, I can’t ask for cards at the end of the round to reconstruct arguments, so I have to get your arguments on the first hearing.  You have the responsibility to communicate. Again, a lot of debates are too fast and lack warrants.  Please stop assuming that I will vote for this kind of behavior.           7) Points of Order and new arguments – I don’t flow new arguments, but if you believe it is critical, you should call it.  8) Impact calculus: I am hearing a lot of arguments in which the warrants and internal links between a relatively small plan action and human extinction in some form are glossed over or non-existent.  Whose idea was this?  It is a bad one.  Although magnitude is attractive, I will listen closely to probability analysis as a means for determining whether to vote for a particular argument.   9) Post-round behavior: Feel free to ask me a question or two about my decision.  If you disagree with my decision and you feel like verbally assaulting me, please refrain.  And if I am on the panel and you feel like verbally assaulting my judging colleagues, please refrain.  10) Sitting, standing, cussing, etc.  I don’t care if you sit or stand.  I personally think you have better air control while standing, but it is your call.  If you talk during your partner’s speech I will not pay attention to what you are saying, so your partner better repeat it if you want me to flow it.  I know cussing in debate rounds happens, but I don’t see why you would use empty, emotion-laden language that is often offensive when a word with content and substance is more strategic.      Finally, if you know me at all, you know that I love the debate community.  I believe we should respect and care for each other even as we compete against each other.  I will do my best to treat you with respect and give you the best judging experience I can offer.  Please give me and all the participants in the room the best debate experience you can offer.  Have a wonderful tournament!

Gina Iberri-Shea - USAFA

Glenn Prince - Rice

n/a

Grant Tovmasian - CSULA

Hoda Ilias - Lewis & Clark

Jacki Evans - Utah

Jacob Stutzman - OKCU

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

James Stanescu - Mercer

Background: I have a PhD in philosophy, focusing on critical philosophy. I have published on figures like Judith Butler, Michel Foucault, Giorgio Agamben, Jacques Derrida, etc.  I have been involved in competitive debate for 18 years. I was the assistant policy debate coach at Binghamton University from 2005-2009. I won the 2008 CEDA Northeast Critic of the Year Award. I coached NPDA debate from 2010-2013. Like most judges, I strive to vote on what happens in the debate round. Take whatever I say as guidelines, instead of hard rules. I tend to default to judging all rounds as comparative net benefits (but, of course, that does not mean all benefits are body counts). I also tend to view everything in terms of offense and defense, so, terminal defense tends to be difficult to pick up my ballot. Case arguments: Are fine, they are not necessary. T/trichot/theory arguments: I am okay with strategic theory arguments for winning the round. If you win your theory objection, and win the impact for it, I will weigh it in the round. Important note specific for parli debate: I have a slight bias gov cases be reasonably topical. This is not a hard rule, but it will be easier for the opp to win T is a voter for me in parli debate, than in policy debate. Counterplans: Should be competitive. I am predisposed to think of consult, delay, and study counterplans as being abusive. Which doesn’t mean you can’t run them, but you will start behind on the theory debate. Conditionality: Important for parli debate: Due to the structure of the round, I lean against multiple contradictory worlds. This doesn’t mean you can’t run them, and I am not predisposed against limited conditionality. Kritiks: I have a background in critical philosophy. I try not to let that influence me in critical debates, but of course, there is a limit to that. Feel free to run kritiks.   Disads: Generic disads with specific links are fine. Terminalize out impacts. Performance debates: While I have judged a lot of performance rounds in policy, I have seen very few in parli. I am open to them. But you should know I do not know much about the parli community outside the Southeast of the US. That means performance rounds about the way parli constitutes itself in areas I am unfamiliar with will be hard for me to evaluate.

Jared Bressler - NPDA Hired

n/a

Jeannie Hunt - Northwest

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

Jeff Fife - Boulder

n/a

Jess Jensen-Ryan - Wyoming

n/a

Jessica Samens - Bethel

Jessica Samens  - Bethel University<o:p></o:p> Debate Judging Philosophy<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Years judging Debate – 4<o:p></o:p> Number of Rounds judged – 50 +<o:p></o:p> Tournaments judged – 25<o:p></o:p> Average Speaker points - 27<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> While I am a relatively new Parli judge, I have a strong grasp on what I like and dislike in a debate round.  I have worked hard to become a respected judge on the circuit and have proven myself to be such. Overall, I want this to be a good learning experience for all involved, which translates into what I like and dislike. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I like a round that is civil, well set up, and easy to understand. While I expect students to stand firm in their arguments, I do not tolerate being rude to the other team. Sarcasm, being disrespectful, and bullying do not make me happy. I also like  a debate that is well presented and follows an organized fashion set out by the Gov. This way I don’t have to make the decision if you dropped arguments or not, plus it makes it easier for everyone to follow (especially the judge who will be making the ultimate decision).  A messy debate forces all involved to make a lot of assumptions. I also like a round that is easy to understand – I fully admit to not always following the news as well as I should.  Please explain arguments for the sake of the judge and the other team.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Speaking of Topicality, I am fine with you running this as long as it is justified.  However, don’t spend precious time arguing it hurts the education system and is abusive.  I know what the grounds are and do not want you to waste time you could be spending on the case.  I am accepting of counter plans as long as they are not just the gov plan modified – I also need to see they are justified by the opp.  I feel the same out K’s, etc – impress me with our debate skills. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> In order to win my round,  I want to see that you have learned something about debate and fought a clean round. When teams are equally paired, I am fine with a little humor and sarcasm to each other (while this may seem to go against my earlier claim, I do appreciate the spirit of debate when done fairly),  but not when you are the stronger team – you take away from the other teams ability to learn. Also,  be sure to tell me why you win – I appreciate voters in the rebuttals to tell me why you are the winning team. Never leave the debate in the judge’s hand, there is a lot of information going back and forth and you don’t want me to miss the main arguments you have provided. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Happy Debating!<o:p></o:p>

Joey Mavity - Azusa

Notes collected over the 2012-2013 season most up-to-date version at http://bit.ly/myrfd   I fundamentally approach debate from a principle of charity: I assume the best arguments that can be made are the arguments you make. This makes it fairly easy for me to make my decision based on what you argue rather than what I think about an issue. Thus, while I speak at length on my biases and preferences, I’ll vote on an argument even if I think its bonkers. When I say something like, “the negative shouldn’t,” it’s not an absolute rule. I probably over-value clever and snarky. I don’t value taking it too far. Argument Quality Increasingly I’m reaching the point where too many unwarranted arguments mean I simply don’t flow them. I understand one or two or even 10 over the course of the debate. But 10 in a row, I’m just going to peace out and probably start flipping my pen. This has not happened in the ‘11-’12 year, but it did twice in ‘10-’11. If you don’t respect co-participants enough to make an argument, I have a hard time feeling compelled to push buttons on my laptop. I think I have a much higher threshold here than some people. Competition/Plan text My default perspective is that the affirmative has broad access to parametric limits on the advocacy they present. This means if the resolution is, ‘Pass X piece of legislation,” you must pass all or part of that legislation. I tend to think passing something not in that legislation is probably going beyond the scope of the resolution. As a result of your choice, I think you’re responsible for the consequences of your plan text. More plainly: I tend to think “textual competition” is a silly standard. If you didn’t want to defend the extent of your actions, you should have written a different plan. “But the resolution made me do it!” is probably one of the most asinine claims ever. CP text Don’t read CP/alt text and not take questions. CP/alt in the last minute is absurd and has often been a voting issue in years past (though this practice is less common today). Neutral concerns I don’t flow points of information unless you tell me to. POIs are binding. It’s difficult for me to vote on RVI’s. Points of Order I expect you to call points of order if an argument is new in a way that will affect my decision. For the one objecting, this consists of a clear articulation of what argument you think is new and why you think it is new. For the respondent, this consists of a clear articulation of why the violation identified by the opposing team is incorrect. For instance: “Their argument that death trumps ethics is a new argument that radically alters the impact calculus of the round by mooting our critique,” is a good point of order. “This argument is new,” on the other hand, is not. When responding, “We answered this in the MG,” is a fairly vague answer. I’m not willing to look through every word of the MG and guess which line you think was a response. Instead, “Our #2 on the alternative is that ethical obligations find their ultimate expression in the preservation of human life. That’s a wordy way of saying ‘life trumps ethics’ and hence is not new.” Impact analysis Arguments about how to evaluate and weigh issues in the debate are themselves arguments and should be presented early and often. Past RFDs I’ve made every single RFD since Fall 2010 available at <a href="http://bit.ly/myrfd">http://bit.ly/myrfd</a>. I think that gives you a much more detailed feel for my judging philosophy than this will because you can see what my recurring complaints are. Time use Don’t feel compelled to fill time. If you’ve won, end it. If you need the time, use it. Effective time management, though, can only help you. Saying “let me review all our arguments” and then spending 3 minutes repeating what you’ve already said can only hurt you.     <hr />   <h2>Coloring Book Edition</h2> Special thanks to Mike Allen <hr />

John Boyer - McKendree

John Schultz - Purdue

Jon Williamson - Whitman

Jordan Innerarity - UT-Tyler

n/a

Josh House - NPDA Hired

n/a

Kaitlin Bundock - USAFA

Kasey Gardner - NPDA Hired

n/a

Katie Lucas - PLNU

n/a

Ken Troyer - Sterling

Kevin Garner (Hired) - Jewell

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

Kevin Calderwood - SIU

Kevin Cummings - Mercer

Section 1: General Information Background:  I debated policy in high school and CEDA from 1990 to 1993.  I coached programs with policy and parli at Regis University (1999-2003) and Mercer University (2003-2009).   Framework –   I am willing to listen to debates about how I should judge and how I evaluate specific issues.  Be clear about what criteria I should use and if you want to transform our activity be sure to explain how a vote for you will be meaningful. If you want me to be a policymaker, then offer reasons for why that approach is best.  I am pretty open to considering widely differing judging paradigms and I’ll try to adjust my approach to judging to whichever criteria or framework wins.   Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 27-30   How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Aff can be a project or can run critical arguments.  Whether or not critical arguments can contradict has to be resolved in the round.  I evaluate the K based on development in the round. If the K is really just a solvency mitigator or linear disad then I would obviously not weigh it as a framework question. If you explain how the kritik functions prior to or independent of policy questions, then I will consider it prior to substantive issues such as solvency and disads. Framework arguments (as criticism) can be especially devastating. I usually take gov perms to a K as advocacy unless they are flagged as tests of competition.     Performance based arguments…  Yes.  Especially when they are smart and well-crafted.  It does matter to me that the performance is an argument and that I am given compelling reasons why to vote on it. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? On T, good explanations are substantially better than a dozen blips.  Gov, offer a counter-interpretation or be sure you are meeting their definition.  Opp, I’m kind of old school and I like a violation and standards and voters.  I have a pretty high threshold for voting on non-T procedurals such as A spec. I generally only vote there if there is really serious in round abuse happening or if it is grossly mishandled by the gov. I’d rather you run the c/plan to prove the abuse than say how hypothetically they might have tried to avoid it. That noted, I do think running non-T procedurals is a fantastic way to leverage link ground.  They also work quite well as a time suck. Independent voting issues are a sore spot for me. I don’t like rounds where there are six or eight ivis on both sides and none have been explained beyond a tag or unpacked in any way.  If you go for an ivi, you should be spending a good chunk of time explaining in the final rebuttal why the ivi should decide the round. Does debate become more fair, educational etc. as an activity in a universe where you win the ivi?  I tend to prefer throwing out the argument over punishing the team so keep that in mind before you go all in on a multiple perms are evil strategy that is not conceded.    Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? I lean toward pics being fine but I suppose I could be convinced the other way by a really good set of arguments.  Gov should ask status if they care about it.  I expect that by the LOR the negative strategy is cohesive. I am not particularly fond of having to do evaluation work when both sides extend theory blocks without ever engaging the other teams arguments. I have judged too many rounds when both sides are extending dropped arguments by the other side on PICs, Conditionality,etc. I am left in the position of comparing drops by both teams and that sucks for me. Engage the arguments made by the other team and if you expect me to pull the trigger on theory you better be ahead. I think cplan + disad is tried and true. If you capture most of case and avoid the disad you are probably going to win. Gov teams – generate some offense – explain solvency deficits – and if your gov is critical I’d spend a lot of time explaining if the cplan does not get the K part very well.   Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) I have no problem with sharing.   In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? Procedurals, k, substantive issues   How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?  Please do not leave it to me to weigh impacts.  Do that intellectual labor for me.  Give a rebuttal that I can use as my rfd.    Speed/Style - I really dislike teams that string together eight or ten blips without any explanation after them. It makes it impossible for me to get everything.  Speed is fine, but give me a little pen time.  As long as each tag has a sentence after, it should be fine.  But if you spew out ten tags with zero analysis don’t expect fantastic speaks.

Kirby Brooke - U of M

4 years of parli at Carroll, so you should probably strike me.  1. Be nice. Debate is competitive enough without making it personal. I say this realizing that I wasn't always the kindest debater and that I should have been. Malice in a debate won't make you lose, but it will be reflected in your speaker points. Jokes are also encouraged and will reflect in speaker points. 2. Debate is a communication event, and communication only happens slowly. But seriously. I'm fine with speed. BUT, it seems like parli has gotten faster than I remember, so I will qualify that statement. Speed is fine for my comprehension of arguments; I can understand what you are arguing and I remember the argument when a rebuttal speaker covers it. However, in very fast rounds, I find myself struggling to keep up on the flow. I worry about this, because it could result in a decision that would make one or both teams very angry with me. So, while I am usually fine with fast debate, I will let you know when it is too fast. 3. I like warrants, or reasons why your argument is true. Even if an argument is dropped, I really like it to have some reasoning behind it. I will not vote on "condo bad" simply because one side said it and the other side said nothing, but I will vote on "condo bad because...". That being said, any warrant will do. I try not to inject my reasoning in evaluating warrants, instead I try to rely only on the reasoning that the debaters express. Even if I feel that a warrant is blatantly untrue or misinterpreted, I will not weigh that feeling in my decision.  4. All arguments are acceptable. I promise to not be offended by any statement made in a round.

Korry Harvey - WWU

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

Kristine Clancy - Pepperdine

Kyle Dennis - Jewell

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

Lewis Silver - Whitman

n/a

Luther Landry - Willamette

n/a

Marcus Schultz Bergin - Washburn

Mark Bentley - Cedarville

Name: Mark Bentley School: Cedarville University   Section 1: General Information   4 years high school policy, 2 years college policy and 2 years parli (at Cedarville), 8 years judging policy/parli, currently the Director/Coach at Cedarville.     I typically evaluate arguments in a net benefits / comparative advantage framework. I usually do not vote on solvency defense alone, and prefer offensive arguments on positions rather than defensive. When weighing net benefits/comparative advantage, I weigh probability over magnitude and timeframe.   I have a rather high threshold for spec arguments and need to see clearly articulated in-round abuse, or I will not vote on them. This usually manifests itself as obvious underspecified, groundshift-ready plan situations. Spec arguments generally function best for me as link insurance for other positions. Asking questions are a must when running spec arguments (also, as a general rule, don’t be a dork, answer some questions).   I do not like splitting the block. I consider any LOR responses to MG arguments dropped by the MO to be new, and I rarely (if ever) vote on MO arguments not extended in the LOR. I tend to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but like POO’s called when the whoever’s giving the rebuttal thinks they’re getting away with sneaking new arguments in.  I tend to protect the PMR against arguments suddenly blown up in the MO, and the opposition from arguments suddenly blown up in the PMR.     Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.   1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 25-30. 27-30 is my typical range, 26 and below is for really bad/abusive people.   2.  How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I definitely prefer kritiks that are “grounded in the specificity” of the resolution, over overused, overly generic kritiks usually run. I will vote on permutations and theoretical objections (I also like performative contradiction arguments..maybe b/c I find them a little funny..maybe b/c I get bored with highly generic kritiks). I will also vote on topicality for nontopical aff k’s. That said, I really like kritiks when they’re not generic and the ideas are clearly articulated (that’s not a speed commentary, just be able to explain your ideas)   3.   Performance based arguments… ...are lame...especially with topic areas.   4.   Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I tend to weigh topicality through competing interpretations (make them clear what they are), but a clear “we meet” by the Aff can also be sufficient..if it’s obvious. I prefer specific ground abuse stories when voting on topicality, though they don’t have to be “articulated in-round” abuse.   5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? I tend to view most counterplans as theoretically legitimate and like to leave it up to the debaters to determine what is or is not legitimate in the given round. I don’t like delay counterplans, and will not be likely to vote on a PIC when the resolution calls for a specific plan action on the part of the affirmative. Neg should also give CP status.   6.   Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Yeah, I don’t really care what you share...but that also doesn’t mean you don’t have to flow and just bum the other team’s flows.   7.   In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? First off, you should definitely tell me which order I should evaluate and why. If you haven’t, this usually tells me you haven’t done your job. I usually evaluate K’s and T’s, then impact calculus. As stated above, I weigh probability over magnitude or timeframe.     8.   How do you weigh arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? Again, if it gets to this point, you haven’t done your job and I won’t be real happy, and you probably won’t be happy with my decision. I don’t automatically weigh death more than dehumanization, but can go either way based on the context. Yeah, that’s vague, so just do your job...well warranted impacts are always prefered over poorly warranted ones.

Martin Harris - Washburn

Frankly, if you or your coaches don't know me, I don't really think a philosophy, much less this one, will be of any help. I have been doing this for too long and too little to know better. I haven't held many ballots in the last three years, so my best advice is don't assume. Don't assume you know me. Don't assume you know what I am thinking, and most important, don't assume your truncated argument that represents what most people think is currently the hip theory of the moment is going to have any much less powerful salience with me. In a nutshell, make an argument, I will evaluate that argument. The more you make, especially smart ones, the better you should fare.

Matt Strawbridge - UCLA

I competed in high school LD for 2 years, and I did 4 years of college parli, competing for Moorpark then UCLA. I also did some NFA LD. I now coach at UCLA while attending law school. I am open to any type of argument you want to make, in any way you want to make it. I don’t want you to feel at all limited in what you can do. As much as possible, I’ll try to remove myself from the round and adopt whatever paradigm the debaters tell me to. With only a few exceptions, the following should be interpreted merely as suggestions and explanations of my default decision-making process, rather than rigid rules you must follow to win or get high speaker points. Speed and Delivery I’m fine with speed, although I don’t especially like it and often doubt its usefulness. I don’t really care about your delivery style, so do whatever is most comfortable to you, just make sure that everyone can hear you well. In the event that you’re too fast or unclear for me, I’ll let you know. If your opponent asks you to slow down or speak clearer, I expect you to accommodate that request. Procedurals For procedural arguments, I don’t have any default thresholds or requirements like “I won’t vote unless there is in-round abuse.” Feel free to make arguments one way or another, but I don’t have an inherent aversion to voting on T/specs/etc without articulated ground loss, or even without any ground loss at all, if you want to give some other justification for voting on procedurals. If you tell me to vote on it, I’ll vote on it, simple as that. It’s probably fair to say that I enjoy T more than most judges, so don’t be shy to run it (and go for it) in front of me. Trichotomy Unlike a lot of people, I don’t hate the trichotomy. If you want to interpret the resolution as a value, or even fact, feel free to do so in front of me. Likewise, if you want to run “this should be a value debate” on the opp, go ahead. I say this as only a notification that the trichot debate is not an uphill battle when I’m judging, in contrast to a lot of judges on the circuit. But you still need to win the argument, of course, and I certainly wouldn’t say you have an uphill battle if you want to argue against interpreting the resolution as value/fact either. As with topicality, don’t feel like your arguments need to be tied to ground, abuse, predictability, or the like. There are plenty of other interesting arguments out there on both sides and I’ll entertain any of them. Counterplans and Permutations Similarly, I don’t have any preconceived rules about which counterplans and permutations are “legitimate” and which aren’t. I’m fine voting on a PIC if it’s well defended, and equally fine voting against it if it’s not. By default, I interpret a perm merely as a test of competition, not as an advocacy. Kritiks and Critical Arguments I’m open to any type of kritik or critical affirmative. I ran a few K’s when I competed, and I was a philosophy major. But before you pull out your Zizek or Heidegger, keep reading: UCLA’s major is exclusively analytic philosophy, and it was off of that type of literature that I based my positions. I know nothing about continental philosophy or critical theory. This doesn’t mean you should be discouraged from running those arguments, just be sure to explain them clearly--as you should anyway, of course. Again, I don’t have any automatic requirements for kritiks (like that they have an alt other than “reject”). Performance Performance-based arguments are okay, but you might have a harder time winning those in front of me. I’ll probably be sympathetic to the other team if your framework is unexplained or unclear. I’m not sure this is entirely fair on my part, as I’m preferring more “traditional” arguments over performance, but I don’t know how to be fair in this regard. At least everyone is familiar with frameworks, and although it’s not ideal to force you at least to partially engage in that system in order to argue against it, that’s the best solution I have, especially since debate is adversarial and voting for your performance also means voting againstyour opponent. But that said, I don’t have any objections to performance per se, and if that’s what you run normally you should run it in front of me too. Criteria and Impact Calculus Most rounds have a blipped out “net benefits” criterion which goes conceded. I find that this can lead to problems in rounds when the teams are claiming different types of benefits, e.g. increased utility versus lives saved. The best ways to avoid this problem, I think, are to do a little bit more work on the criteria level by explaining precisely what you mean by the vague, ubiquitous “net benefits,” and to give really specific impact analysis about why your impacts are weightier than the other team’s (where “weight” = magnitude x probability). Absent a definition, I interpret “net benefits” to be a crude form of consequentialism, and will prefer utility over other desiderata. This means, e.g., that by default I would vote for a nuclear war impact over an equally probable dehumanization impact. But this won’t matter, obviously, if you tell me to look at the round another way. Feel free to run any criterion you wish, and I’m (more than) happy to listen to a discussion of non-consequentialist ethics as well. Along those lines, I’m not of the opinion that all disadvantages need to end with nuclear war, or even any people dying. Systemic impacts, linear disadvantages, and moral arguments are fine with me. I prefer depth of analysis over blippy high magnitude assertions. You can of course make your risk of magnitude arguments, just don’t expect me to make them for you. If you can go from the passage of a bill to the end of all life on Earth in 15 seconds, I don’t think your opponent needs to spend more than 15 (well-used) seconds to refute that. Contradictory Arguments I can’t really give you my concrete opinion about “contradictory” arguments in a vacuum. Certainly I think teams can argue contingencies and dilemmas (“Plan will have no effect, but even if it does, that will be bad because...”). This can, at times, cross into the “critical” aspects of debate too (I can imagine a team consistently running a certain type of statism K and then an “even if” state-actor CP). Other times, a critical position pretty clearly prohibits you from doing certain things (here I’m thinking linguistic K’s). It really depends on the specific arguments in question. But, all these are still up to the debaters in the round. I won’t vote down a team for being inconsistent, even with a language K, if the other team doesn’t bring it up. Offensiveness and Unpopular Arguments If you are rude or intentionally exclusionary, I will dock your speaker points, but it won’t affect the round outcome unless the other team wins that it should. The same goes for comments that are blatantly racist/sexist/etc. However, I don’t want you to interpret this as excluding any legitimate policy proposals, and don’t be afraid to run “unpopular” arguments in front of me. I know the circuit is pretty liberal, but that doesn’t mean every round needs to be a race to the left--if you’re given the “conservative” side of a topic feel free to argue it straight up. I don’t find it inherently offensive, for example, if you want to defend a libertarian position that would allow employers to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual preference, and so on. It’s a real position, after all, held by several members of Congress, and I think discussing the merits and disadvantages of it is useful and educational, regardless of what one might personally believe. The same applies for arguments about abortion, gay marriage, immigration, a flat tax, whatever. I wouldn’t be involved in switch-side debating if I didn’t think exploring all sides of an issue was valuable. I think I’m pretty good at leaving my personal political biases completely out of the debate, so don’t feel limited to “popular” positions. Just take care to present the arguments in a respectful, sensitive manner. RVI’s As with anything else, I’ll listen to them with an open mind. However, I think these should be well-warranted when used. If the MG simply blips one out in two seconds at the bottom of a very average T debate, I don’t feel required to vote there. I’m not saying it has to be persuasive for me to vote on it, just that you need to provide some reason, and explain that reason. Even then, as long as the other team addresses it, it’s probably not going to win you the round. I’ve only seen a couple rounds in parli where I personally thought an RVI was justified, and those were unusual circumstances. Order of Evaluation I’m wary of giving a specific order in which I’ll evaluate positions if left on my own to do so. I don’t think I can say, irrespective of content, that T comes before K, or the other way round. Frankly, it depends on what T and what K they are, as well as the on-case arguments. I guess I’d say that in most rounds the critical arguments would come before the procedural, which come before the case? But don’t hold me to that. I hope, though, that none of my bias matters, and debaters will explain the order in which I should evaluate the different positions (and, I hope that explanation is warranted). Labels and Unusual Arguments As the above might indicate, I think that forcing common labels onto positions can be bad for the round. I don’t believe that all the standard labels exhaustively cover all the types of arguments you could make in a round; I used to run a position that was sort of like topicality but also sort of a kritik, and just calling it one or the other was misleading and caused confusion. I also think that this type of pigeonholing is regrettable because it often leads to very shallow, uninteresting theory debates. Instead of saying your opponent’s argument is a spec, and then reading generic theory about why specs are bad, I’d prefer to see you engage the specific position and tell me why it is bad. More generally, I really appreciate creativity, and enjoy seeing the common assumptions of debate challenged. If you have a new, unusual case or argument that you’re hesitant to run in competition just because it’s very different, I’m probably a good critic to try it out on. Misc. You should call points of order: normally I won’t strike new arguments on my own. I don’t mind if your extensions are “blippy,” as I see no need to reiterate every single subpoint that was dropped. Prompting your partner is fine, so long as they actually say the argument.  I’m missing school, work, and my wife to be at this tournament. I remain involved in the activity because I believe it’s incredibly valuable and I want to see it flourish. I enjoy judging, but I don’t think I’m entitled to have you entertain me. Instead, in a very real sense, I’m working for you: I’ve been charged with adjudicating the round, and I take that role very seriously. I aspire to be an excellent critic, the kind that I loved having in the back of the room as a competitor. You have my undivided attention in the round, and I will do my very best to decide it in a way that is fair and pursuant to the principles described above. Please feel welcome to ask me about my RFD, and push me on it if you disagree. I’m totally open to being wrong (and I hope you are too). I think it’s much more productive and in line with the educational nature of this activity if we talk about our differing views rather than just walk away and dismiss the other as incorrect. Have fun. Be yourself. It’s your round, not mine.

Matt Reedy - Notre Dame

n/a

Matthew Swanson - Palomar

1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? A+ 30, A 29.5, A- 29, B+ 28.5, B 28, B- 27.5, C+ 27, C 26.5, C- 26, D+ 25.5, D-/F 25, piss me off 20, do something really offensive 1.   2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?  K's are cool.  Every aff is critical of the status quo.  "The neg just has to say the aff is wrong" is probably copout, but it seems to work for me.   3. Performance based arguments… All debae (and everything in general) is a performance.   4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I require articulated abuse most of the time.  However, with topic areas such as the NPTE I may be persuaded to think potential abuse should be enough.  I do not require competing interpretations but I think they are probably a good idea.   5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? All CPs are a pic; probably means they are good.  Opp does not need to identify the status of the CP but should answer if prompted by the Aff (this should not count as their "1 question").  On Perms make your arguments.   6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) ...yes.  You can share whatever you want.  Key word is want.   7. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? Procedurals, K, Case/DA & CP strats.   8. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? Death probably outweighs dehumanization absent a framework/impact prioritization.  However, one death vs one kajillion instances of dehume (think effects of war minus death) probably means I should vote for the dehume impact.   Dodd's doctrine:   Opening comments about self: I like debate.  I was not good at it.  I am probably a worse coach than a competitor somehow. Background knowledge on: USDA: Nukes: Latin America: Science/Tech: Topic areas for students to do research not me.  So, I know a lot of "debate-ready" stuff on the USDA and Nukes topics, a good deal on L/A, and next to nothing about science. Judging Philosophy on: Topicality: i like T more than you think I do. The Aff should be topical. Counter-plan theory: Is fun, I love me some theory.  However, I don't like boring theory debates that have been rehashed.  Try something new. Other theory: Defense and offense: offense wins championships.  You should explain the implications of defense on the round.   Counter-plans and competition: see above Critiques and their alternatives: see above Performance AFFs and topic avoiding critiques of debate: see above Wrong forum and other frameworks: Framework is fun.  wrong forum makes my soul cry. What would your ideal debate on the following topics consist of? Not the ideal strategy you’ll send your teams in with, what do you want to listen to? i want to listen to your best argument.  I don't care what it is.  If you are going for T and Framework that is as viable to me as a k or cp/da debate.  Politics is probably a lie but so are the ks we run.

Melissa Franke - PacificLutheran

n/a

Michael Middleton - Utah

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

Mike Artime - McKendree

Nicholas Russell - Utah

n/a

Nick Robinson - Whitman

Nicole Brown - Texas Tech

n/a

Patrick Muenks - Washburn

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

Paul Bingham - WWU

n/a

Phil Sharp - UNR

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

Rachelle Harris - Puget Sound

n/a

Rob Layne - NPDA Hired

n/a

Sam Timinsky - UWash

Sara Burst - NPDA Hired

n/a

Sarah Toews - Carleton

n/a

Sarah Collins - Cameron

n/a

Sarah Crachiolo - Long Beach

Sarah Hamid - Oregon

History/BG 1         Academic: I completed my undergraduate degree with a double major in Literature (focus on Gender Criticism and Theory) and Post-Colonial Studies, minor in Art History, Gender Studies, History, and Film Studies. I am currently an MA candidate in Media Studies at the University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communication. My research interests include nation branding, anthropology of the state, and “globalization”. 2         Debate: I am in my third year of coaching at the U of O’s Parliamentary Debate/Policy Debate program. I also direct our fledgling IE program. As a competitor, I spent 3 years in the NPTE/NPDA circuit, 2 of which were spent debating for the University of the Pacific in Parliamentary Debate and NFA-LD. 3         Judging: This will be my third NPTE/NPDA, and the conclusion of my third season of judging. 4         Topic Areas: I was heavily involved in the research of all 3 topic-areas, though am most versed in science/technology and the Latin America resolutions. I am comfortable evaluating deep, well-researched debates on all resolutions.   Global I believe hard, educational debate is good debate. I like to see strong research ethics, clash, and a willingness to engage a variety of methods and arguments. I do not like to see blips, claims, lies, and attitudes that seek to exclude. I recognize the participatory disparities in this activity – the diminishing voice of representation from 2-year institutions and the ever present absence of debaters of color – and tend to approach rounds with the kind of ferocious open-mindedness that will allow as many people to participate as possible.   Local 1         I have no hang-ups about voting for any ‘type’ of argument, regardless of manner of delivery or genre of argument. I have voted for and against all arguments. 2         Rate of delivery is rarely a problem; I keep a neat flow and will audible for clarity with little hesitation if needed. IMO, ideal rate of delivery is determined by what is most conducive to the pedagogic value of the round. 3         Order of operations (unless convinced otherwise): (1) framework/theoretical legitimacy, (2) solvency or “solvency”, depending on nature of advocacy and (3) impact comparison. 4         I will not vote for an argument I do not understand. I am perfectly comfortable disregarding arguments that fail to meet a basic threshold of sense and explanation. 5         Theory is rarely a reason to reject the team, rejecting the argument should solve your impact. 6         Permutations are a demonstration of non-competitiveness, not an advocacy. 7         Framework is not a voting issue – that does not make sense to me. 8         “No warrant” is an observation, not an argument. Gee wiz, I can flow too. 9         More often then not, link controls the direction of the link. I am not compelled by uniqueness ‘dumps; with no cohesion of comparative claims. 10      I do not ‘believe’ in any theory argument. I enjoy watching multiple conditional negative advocacies, and do not consider counterplans that rely on normal means for competition to be ‘cheating’. That’s silly. 11      I don’t really understand what the distinction most teams draw between ‘potential’ or ‘articulated’ abuse on procedurals, and rarely see a demonstration of abuse at all, so don’t care about how ‘articulated’ your abuse is. This ought to be resolved via impact calculus. 12      I don’t believe fairness takes primacy. I don’t believe being topical entitles you to anything. I believe that should be debated and resolved in round. 13      Terminal defense exists and I will evaluate it. 14      I will not vote on an argument as “dropped” if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech. 15      I don’t care if you call points of order, but will only allow 1 response before I deliberate. 16      Don’t split the block.   Flowing I flow Kritiks on one sheet of paper, flow the LOR on its own sheet of paper, and tend to flow answers/MG/MOC arguments next to where I am directed to do so. I am a flow-centric critic as I find this helps me check subjective bias, so will not disregard the flow unless you provide a compelling reason to do so.   RFDs This is NPTE, so I believe you can all flow and find explaining the nature and weight of every single argument that was conceived of during the debate to be a waste of time. I will do my best to clearly explain why I evaluated key arguments that helped resolve the debate for me the way that it did. If you would like to me reflect on how I felt about a certain argument, or why certain arguments did not weigh into my decision, the onus is on you to ask.   Theory You should strive to create as much of a distinction as possible between your opponents’ and your interpretation; case lists that demonstrate the nature and depth of the ground at stake are helpful. I err on competing interpretations absent being told otherwise, and will vote on the interpretation that provides the most offensive justification in its defense. I don’t care how little your interpretation/violation relates to the topic, and have no gut-checks on fairness and theft of ground. I don’t enjoy watching asinine debates, so just ask questions for clarification and avoid the spec debate entirely.   Disads Fine, no qualms.   Kritiks Fine, no qualms. Although, don’t assume I’ve read, agree with, or care about your authors.   Counterplans Fine, no qualms.   Speaker Points I am ambivalent to the practice of allocating speaker points. I have no problem with giving straight 28s. I usually range from 28-29, and will hand out a 30 every couple of tournaments if I see a particularly clever deployment of strategy.   I reserve the right to: 1         Ask for any and all texts after the round. 2         Audible when something is unclear. 3         Deliberate on all points of order, even on a panel. 4         Deduct from speaker points if your language is offensive. 5         Deduct from speaker points if you have nothing interesting to say besides generics on a given topic area; this is nationals, do research.

Sarah Hinkle - CC

Savannah Sanberg - NPDA Hired

n/a

Scott Ross - McKendree

Scott Weaver - Boulder

n/a

Shelby Jo Long - Rocky

n/a

Sherris Minor - Palomar

I would consider myself a flow critic I will listen to any round you would prefer to have.  Unless told otherwise I will default to a net benefits paradigm.  I tend to not vote for fact or value debate and overall I prefer policy because I think the former encourage judge intervention.  I also do not find the “trichotomy” of debate particularly compelling unless it is used to justify policy debate.<o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "></o:p> <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Rate of delivery doesn’t really matter, most of the time I can keep up with the arguments coming from the speaker. I will yell slow down if it does become to much for me to handle. I haven’t had to do that yet this year. Clarity is a separate issue for me. This goes for both speaking and what is said. If I cant hear you because you are mumbling and I am missing things on my flow I will say clear.  If you are saying a ton of tag lines without warrants you will not win my ballot. The use of speed should not preclude you from making an actual argument. I shouldn’t have to wait until the LOR/ PMR to know how your arguments function. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Procedurals are fine to run in front of me, but I do not vote on potential abuse. I don’t tend to vote on RVI’s especially if the justification for it on T is “time suck they abused us.”   <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Condo, Overall, I believe all arguments in debate are conditional you choose to go for the ones you are winning and not go for the ones you are losing. If you want to run condo bad and impact out why their conditional cp/ alt is detrimental to the round go for it. I think it is all part of strategy. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> I think critical discussions are great within the context of debate and I will always listen to them. That being said you need to justify your framework for evaluating the round, and tell me how I vote using this framework. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> CP/perm theory is anything goes until someone tells me why it is not ok. You need to explain your theory to me don’t just expect me to know what your perm means. Multiple perms are ok. I believe both perms and CPs should have a text. You should also explain how your perm functions in the context of the round. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Overall, if you do the work you should be able to win my ballot. I don’t care what you run (for the most part).  I expect that your k, ad, disad has impacts and I want you to tell me how I weight them at the end of the round. Don’t be afraid to collapse to arguments you are winning, and be clear in what your case is and how it functions in the round.   <div> </div>

Sim Butler - CC

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

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

Stephen Moncrief - WWU

n/a

Steve Farias - Pacific

n/a

Steve Woods - WWU

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

Steve Mitchell - NPDA Hired

n/a

Thomas McCloskey - Long Beach

n/a

Tiffany Dykstra - Texas Tech

n/a

Tom Schally - Oregon

Schally Doctrine TL;DR Version (NPTE '13) I've been told this is my year to be most preferred critic, so I'll keep this brief. Coach at Oregon 4 years parli/policy. I make an effort to thoughtfully evaluate and reward good debate, and help you improve it. I expect a lot but if you want your hard work rewarded then I am a probably a good critic to prefer. Thanks for reading. Since no one is tabula rasa, here are some of the things that are on my tabula: • In front of me you are almost always better off doing what you do well rather than attempting to cater to my partiality. You want to read two counterplans? Make it rain. Read a poem? Frost me. • I will not vote on an argument as “dropped” if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech. • I am perfectly comfortable passing judgment. If an argument does not rise to a minimum threshold of sense and/or explanation, I will disregard it. • Debate is a communication activity and good debaters recognize that fact – time pressures and all – they can afford to explain, be funny, and identify failures and correct them. • Rule 1 of winning debates is control the frame: is conditionality good/bad to be decided on education or fairness, is timeframe or magnitude more important, is social welfare or maximizing liberty more important? . . . These meta-level comparisons, or arguments that resolve arguments, are more important than smaller line-by-line issues in 11 out of 10 debates. • I like jokes. Even mean jokes, but not cruel jokes. Actually, even most cruel jokes. But only if everyone can agree with that they are jokes. How do you know? Social skills. It's a matter of risk/reward. I enjoy competitive debates that illustrate that this is a collegial activity. This activity is very intense, but recognize that everyone present feels the same pressures. Enjoy what you do. I suppose that honor is a bourgeoisie value, but I am a supporter.  STOP HERE! You're better off spending your time researching, but if you'd like to proceed, here's last year's NPTE philosophy. 2012 NPTE: <a href="http://www.net-benefits.net/showpost.php?p=233088&postcount=3" target="_blank">http://www.net-benefits.net/showpost...88&postcount=3</a>   Schally Doctrine NPTE 2012 Director’s Cut   Even the best classic works occasionally require modernization to match the times, yet other observations simply grow finer with time. So, here’s the new update everyone, thanks for reading.   E-harmony Blurb: This is not a game that someone wins, but rather a form of play that is successful the more people get to play, and the longer the game is kept going. I approach judging as a constant challenge for personal betterment and make a genuine effort to thoughtfully evaluate and reward good debate and help you improve it. I want to be preferred at tournaments and see the very best debates. I think that debate is unquestionably one of the best games ever crafted and embrace its eccentricities with a fair amount of jest; yet recognize its value is determined by our collective expectations and willingness to be challenged. If you demand a lot from yourself and want your hard work and practice rewarded, then I am a probably a good critic for your to prefer. Debate/Academic Pedigree: I am in my third year of coaching and judging both policy and parliamentary debate for Oregon. I have judged at approximately 12 parli and 5 policy tournaments this season and rarely get a break. I competed for three years at Western Kentucky University (don’t read into it) in both NPTE/NPDA Parliamentary and NFA Lincoln-Douglas debate (strike two, I know). I also competed in CEDA/NDT as a freshman with Macalester College. As an undergraduate I studied political science (mostly comparative and international relations) and gender studies/philosophy. Now as a graduate student at the University of Oregon, I study public policy and my major research areas include ethical philosophy, security studies, and environmental issues. About This Philosophy: Proceeding with the adage, “the only bad judging philosophy is a dishonest one,” I have made a noteworthy effort to reveal my known predispositions. Of course, (requisite judge philosophy qualifier ahead) these are purely my opinions and I can be dissuaded from them unless explicitly noted. Since no one is tabula rasa, here are some of the things that are on my tabula. Read and then get back to researching. GLOBAL THOUGHTS: • In front of me you are almost always better off doing what you do well rather than attempting to cater to my partiality. You want to read two counterplans? Make it rain. Read a poem? Frost me. • I will not vote on an argument as “dropped” if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech. • I am perfectly comfortable passing judgment. If an argument does not rise to a minimum threshold of sense and/or explanation, I will disregard it. • Debate is a communication activity and good debaters recognize that fact – time pressures and all – they can afford to explain, be funny, and identify communication failures and correct them. The Schally Doctrine addresses my musings and jest on substantive argument categories first and then matters of debate practice follow. Substantive Debate Issues: Rule number 1 of winning debates is control the frame: is conditionality good/bad to be decided on education or fairness, is timeframe or magnitude more important, is social welfare or maximizing liberty more important? . . . These meta-level comparisons, or arguments that resolve arguments, are more important than smaller line-by-line issues in 11 out of 10 debates. If you control the frame, you will almost invariably win. CRITIQUES: Providing a clear and persuasive explanation of your argument is vastly more important than advertising your mastery of a cultural studies vocab list. People seem to often lose sight of the fact that critiques are just arguments, so don’t strive to mystify your argument on either side. Don’t assume that I have read and/or understand your author(s)—this is generally a problem in K debates—where people assume that terms are packed with implicit meaning. Teams are usually better off attempting to engage the kritik than spewing down a list of “pomo ain’t good.” I would rather listen to smart analytical arguments than the standard curriculum of “not fair” and “ policy/realism good”. -Tips for Neg – Kritiks should typically provide an explanatory framework for evaluating the world or advocacy in a manner that deviates from the framework assumed by the other team. I am unimpressed by frameworks that seek to inflate the relevance of the Kritik by excluding the Aff. Kritiks should not literally exclude other impacts, but rather provide a specific mechanism for evaluating and prioritizing different types of impact claims and/or contains implications that logically make other impacts non-existent or irrelevant. Framework – Framework debates are much like theory debates to me. The explanation of your position on what debate should be, and the consequences to debate of a particular practice or position are just as important as winning specific claims. If you want to debate about debate, then you need to articulate an impact statement about what debate should be. That being said, I’ve voted both ways on most framework debates, so you should defend the debate practices that you feel most comfortable defending, and not worry about my views of debate practices. -Critical Affirmatives - I am inclined to believe that affirmatives should be tied to a topical advocacy statement. Beyond that I have no evident presumptions about critical arguments that are not equally true of the negative. -Contradictory/Conditional K’s – Although there are obvious exceptions, critiquing the thinking or representations of an advocacy do not seem exclusive with also questioning its political consequences (to me). An idea can be wrong for relying on faulty assumptions, making wrongful conclusions, or both. Similarly, it is possible to have both ethical and pragmatic objections to particular action. I can be convinced that conditional K’s are bad, but do not begin thinking they are any worse than a counterplan. -Performance – I don’t see a lot of performance in parli and when I have it was done haphazardly and mostly uninspired. I am happy to judge performance debates, but would like for the performance to be purposeful; that makes or enhances a merited argument. If you deploy an argument and debate it then you can definitely pref me, but if your intention is to be ambiguous and unhelpful with the hope that I will conjure an explanation of your argument and reason it beats the other team, you may want to stick to getting Cheesewright’s ballot. TOPICALITY: Obviously topicality is a question of competing interpretations, but it seems just as apparent to me that if the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact to topicality i.e. fairness or education, then there is no compelling reason to vote negative. So, if you win that your interpretation is marginally better in a relatively unimportant way, then you must justify why it is that I should reward you with the ballot. Within this framework if you do not “meet” any interpretation in the round then it is difficult to vote for you because you have not provided a justification for how you affirm the topic, so offer a counter-interpretation. Too often debaters neglect the “impact” of your interpretation and what their world of debate looks like, so get with it. -Topicality intuitively precedes consideration of the merits of the affirmative advocacy assuming no effort is made to change the conventional framing of these arguments (if T isn’t first, it’s last, right?). This principle does not apply to non-topicality arguments such as specification relative to theory, etc. -T is not genocide—however, “exclusion” and similar impacts can be good reasons to prefer one interpretation over another. COUNTERPLANS: I think that the “gold standard” for counterplan legitimacy is specific solvency. Obviously, the necessary degree of specificity is a matter of interpretation, but, like good art, you know it when you see it. I tend to believe that counterplans that focus the debate on substantial elements of the plan are good for debate and counterplans that rely on ‘normal means’ for competition are not. Many of the assumptions about aff bias in choosing their case and having full/infinite prep are almost always untrue in parli’s current topic area => resolution procedure, so make theory forum-specific. I rarely see teams creatively counterplan away affirmative advantages or generate uniqueness and wish this happened more often. LOC Theory – I think that negative teams benefit greatly by including a theoretical defense of their counterplan in the LOC, otherwise the debate starts in the MG and I often have a difficult time figuring out how to reconcile new’ish PMR impact comparisons on these theory debates.                                                 Legitimacy – As a general guideline, I think CP’s shouldn’t contain a world where the entire plan could happen.     I am skeptical of delay, consult, small exclusion PICs of things unqualified by the plan.             Competition – I do not think that anything is “implied” by the plan. I prefer that counterplans compete both textually and functionally, however I can easily be made to favor solely functional competition. BTW, textual competition means a counterplan is competitive based off of something explicitly in the text of the plan. It does not mean what most debaters say it does in rounds…..(IE excluding a word counts) DISADVANTAGES: In assessing risk I tend belong to the ‘link first’ school of thought regarding disadvantages. To clarify, I find that if a disad is extremely unique then it obviously requires a high magnitude of a link to trigger the impact, but on the converse, if a disad is brink’ish then the neg has to win a high magnitude of a link to distinguish the plan from the conditions that created the brink. In either case, the question is the degree to which the aff causes the link. Uniqueness is, of course, very important however I find “we control uniqueness” to be code for “our link is terrible.” I do not believe in “1% of a link” and I am comfortable saying that there is not one, you should win your link and then you may assess risk of an impact. I think that if you “link turn” a disad and control the net-direction of the link but have no uniqueness answers that the risk of the disad is probably still zero. I think that intelligent defensive answers are under-utilized in most debates that I watch. THEORY: Does topic education outweigh analytic/process driven education? Does ‘judge intervention’ have a unique impact in relation to other theory impacts? You should answer these questions. I am likely to assume that rejecting the argument solves your impact, unless persuaded otherwise. I try my best to check my biases at the door, just recognize that some theoretical arguments make more sense (to me) than do others. Arbitrary interpretations are one of the stupidest trends in debate right now. If your interpretation of debate theory is wholly arbitrary and made up it doesn’t seem very useful for me to uphold it as some new norm and reject the other team. I am likely to believe that plans that fiat a number of actors (especially private) are abusive. The argument that “the aff will be vetoed/rolled back by the Pres or Congress” is laughable. By this I mean that, on occasion, when I am depressed, I think about this argument, and I laugh out loud. Specification arguments may be dismissed with maximum flippancy. IMPACTS: Lately, I think that impact comparison is one of the least sophisticated levels of analysis in most debates that I watch, which is very unfortunate. I welcome creative ways of framing the importance of differing impacts and would like to see rebuttals employ more “tiebreaker” arguments. Defense – Smart defensive arguments are an invaluable part of any good impact debate. Impact defense is severely underrated, especially against particularly silly impacts.                                                      Silly Impact Turns – Arguments deemed “counterintuitive” are welcome, but before unloading your early 90’s backfiles you should recognize that most of these arguments are intellectually weak and require some finesse to pull off.                                                                                                                  Buzzwords – Recent judging has made me irritated with the way any impact other than nuclear war is typically characterized. “That’s dehumanization, which is the internal-link to all violence,” has become a vacuous and lazy stand-in for every non-mass death or systemic impact framing. There are compelling reasons to value/prioritize actions that address racism or poverty, so argue this some integrity. This observation has also led me to make public my following inclinations. Things that probably do not negate personhood and/or erase life of meaning: • making difficult choices • lacking universal healthcare • Americans living in conditions that people elsewhere in the world already live in • abiding by laws or conventions Things that probably do negate personhood: • death • points of order • Soulja Boy                                                     Debate Practices HUMOR: I like jokes. Even mean jokes, but not cruel jokes. Actually, even most cruel jokes. But only if everyone can agree with that they are jokes. How do you know? Social skills. I know, not high on debaters’ list of talents, but it's a matter of risk/reward. It is refreshing to see debates that illustrate that this is a collegial activity in which all participants dedicate a significant amount of time and effort. In particular: StarCraft jokes are good. Star Wars are better. Pokemon jokes (except Dewgongs) Franz Kafka College sports Hipsters and PUNS PARLI ODDITIES: Prep – All materials should have been written in prep time; apparently this is a necessary clarification. Questions – The “protected time” rule is outdated and irrelevant to me; you are welcome to accept/decline questions within your speech as you choose. Points Of Order – I do not require points of order to be made in order to exclude new arguments, however I understand the strategic utility of them and am unlikely to punish you for using something that is put at your disposal by the rules. Texts – I prefer that textual advocacies be written down in a legible and shareable format if you are not going to repeat them in your speech, so that I have a definite form somewhere. I will not however contribute to the proliferation of arbitrary procedurals concerning the “right” to a written copy of plan or counterplan; it’s a courtesy. Demand a copy of “perm: do both, perm: do cp” or any of the like and receive 26 speakers points. Ask me why and I will write you a text. Opposition Block – The LOR does not need to make explicit extensions from the MOC. However, expounding upon certain arguments can affect the relative strength of that argument when I evaluate it. I will also defer to the nuance of argument explanation and comparison offered by the rebuttals. I think that “splitting” the block is particularly unfair and probably heavily bias. If you want me to “box in” your opponents, then you should provide a good explanation of what you could not argue and why that was critical. That being said, I do not like sandbagging and I will exert close scrutiny on the rebuttals. Make better arguments and you wont have to be sneaky. New MG Args – I’m not really one to give the PMR “golden answers,” especially on the positions that came out new in the MG.  I’m perfectly willing to evaluate your arguments.  Going for something stupid in the PMR on the basis that the negative doesn’t get second lines is a bad strategy in front of me. FLOWING: I keep an excellent and detailed flow. However, winning for me is more about establishing a coherent and well-reasoned explanation of the world rather than extending a specific argument. An argument is not “true” because it is extended on one sheet of paper if it is logically answered by arguments on another sheet of paper or later on the line by line. In a close debate, I will evaluate the final rebuttal of the team I am voting against on a separate sheet of paper, to make sure I have sufficiently evaluated each argument. I also flow the LOR on a separate sheet.  I do a lot of comparisons between the PMR and the LOR.  I flow every distinct case contention and off-case argument on a single sheet of paper spaced out appropriate to what I expect to need for answers. I typically flow responses to those arguments from top-to-bottom unless explicitly told to do otherwise (and maybe even still because I likely know better). Any attempt to alter this should be purposeful. I will not move back up the page, I will write your next argument in the order it was delivered. For example, if your mg says, “framework, perm, aff outweighs” I will not move down to the alt to flow your perm and then move back and end up cramming things together. So you should reference arguments by their tag/content and respond to them in a logical order that follows the previous speech. p.s. I sometimes flow permutations on a separate page if I expect that debate to get big (i.e. if it’s “one-off”), but that shouldn’t affect anything. DECORUM: I recognize that this activity is very intense, but try to understand that everyone present feels the same pressures. If you are decisively beating a team (particularly a younger or less successful team), then there’s no need to be rude. I suppose that honor is a bourgeoisie value, but I am a supporter. DISCLOSURE: I welcome post-round discussion—even if it is confrontational—it lets me debate again.

Will Chamberlain - UC.Irvine

n/a

2011 2011 NPDA National Tournament

Judge Philosophies

zz-bye

zz-bye

zz-bye

zz-bye

zz-bye

zz-bye

zz-bye

AJ Jenkins - NPDA Hired

Aaron Trembath - Purdue

Adam Krell - WWU

Alec Baker - Lewis &amp; Clark

Amanda Taylor - Carroll

Amanda Feller - PacificLutheran

Amir Goodarzi - UCLA

Ammon Simon - Wheaton

Annie Berry - Azusa

Anthony Putnicki - Puget Sound

Antonio De La Garza - NAU

Aparna Bhaduri - Rice

Ben Dodds - Oregon

Ben White - NPDA Hired

Bethany Grubbs - NPDA Hired

Bjorn Stillion Southard - Lewis &amp; Clark

Bob Keating - Carleton

Brad Krupicka - Lewis &amp; Clark

Brent Northup - Carroll

Brian Horton - Rice

Brian Boyle - Notre Dame

Brian DeLong - IU

Caitlyn Burford - PLNU

Chris Gutierrez - PLNU

Chris Hinshaw - Sterling

Chuck Walts - UT-Tyler

Colin Patrick - NPDA Hired

Cory Freivogel - McKendree

Daniel Schabot - Cameron

Darren Elliott - KCKCC

David Worth - Rice

David Dirgo - Creighton

David Erenwein - NPDA Hired

Eric Garcia - IVC

Esther Minell - Bethel

Geoffrey BrodakSilva - CSULA

Gina Lane - Jewell

Gina Iberri-Shea - USAFA

Glenn Prince - Rice

Grant Tovmasian - CSULA

Hoda Ilias - Lewis &amp; Clark

Jacki Evans - Utah

Jacob Stutzman - OKCU

James Stanescu - Mercer

Jared Bressler - NPDA Hired

Jeannie Hunt - Northwest

Jeff Fife - Boulder

Jess Jensen-Ryan - Wyoming

Jessica Samens - Bethel

Joey Mavity - Azusa

John Boyer - McKendree

John Schultz - Purdue

Jon Williamson - Whitman

Jordan Innerarity - UT-Tyler

Josh House - NPDA Hired

Kaitlin Bundock - USAFA

Kasey Gardner - NPDA Hired

Katie Lucas - PLNU

Ken Troyer - Sterling

Kevin Garner (Hired) - Jewell

Kevin Calderwood - SIU

Kevin Cummings - Mercer

Kirby Brooke - U of M

Korry Harvey - WWU

Kristine Clancy - Pepperdine

Kyle Dennis - Jewell

Lewis Silver - Whitman

Luther Landry - Willamette

Marcus Schultz Bergin - Washburn

Mark Bentley - Cedarville

Martin Harris - Washburn

Alec Baker - Lewis & Clark

Bjorn Stillion Southard - Lewis & Clark

Brad Krupicka - Lewis & Clark

Hoda Ilias - Lewis & Clark