FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Testerman - Lewis & Clark

Background   Hi there!  I have competed in debate and forensics for over 10 years.  I participated in parliamentary debate during college, with two years at Southern Illinois University and two years at Texas Tech University.  I feel comfortable judging any “genre” of argument and have no real argument preference beyond the desire to see clash.  This is my second year coaching for Lewis & Clark College.    General Issues   It is my goal to involve myself in the debate round as little as possible.  I have no preference for any particular kind of argument and generally feel that almost every debate issue can be resolved in the round.  I will vote for arguments with warrants. I will try my best to synthesize your arguments, but I also believe that to be a central skill of effective debaters.  The only thing that I hate is awkwardness.  Please don’t be rude or overly confrontational with your opponents, because it makes me feel awkward and I will probably try to reassure myself with your excess speaker points.  I will vote for arguments I think are stupid 10 out of 10 times if they are won in the round.    Etiquette   Emphasize explanation early… don’t let your argument make sense for the first time in the LOR or PMR etc.  All constructive speeches should take a question if asked, and it’s strategic to ask questions.  Theory interpretations and advocacy statements should be read slowly and read twice.  It will be difficult to explain why fact or value debates aren’t horrible, so roll that way at your own risk.  Points of Order should be called, but I will also do my best to protect new arguments… don’t be excessive with them though [I’ll be vague about what that means, but see above for awkwardness.]  RVI’s have never been good arguments, read them at your own risk.  <a name="_GoBack"></a>I am not the best judge when it comes to speaker points.  I tend to average a 28-point something, but I don’t vary outside of that range much.  I am trying to adjust my scale, but fair warning that I’m not the judge giving everyone 30s.    Theory/Procedurals   I cut my teeth on procedural arguments in college, so I understand why they can be useful.  It is probably true that debates are less substance-driven when they become about procedurals, but that won’t impact my decision at all.  To vote on a procedural, I require an interpretation explaining how the debate should be evaluated, a violation detailing specifically why the other team does not fit within that interpretation, standards that explain why the interpretation is good, and a voter that outlines why I should vote on the argument.  PLEASE read your interpretation/definition slowly and probably repeat it.  I think bad T arguments are REALLY bad, but good T arguments are some of my favorite debates to watch, so… have an interpretation that makes some sense.    DAs/Advantages   DAs and Advs. Require uniqueness arguments that explain why the situation the affirmative causes is not happening in the status quo.  If you plan on running linear DAs, please spend time explaining how the affirmative triggers a new impact that is not present in the status quo [or makes a current impact worse.]  Defensive arguments are useful, but they often serve to make offensive arguments more impactful or serve as risk mitigation, as opposed to terminal takeouts.    I ran politics in a majority of my negative rounds and I coach my teams to read the position often as well.  So, I will totally vote on politics every time when it’s won.  That being said, I’m finding the position to be one my least favorite and least compelling these days.  The obscene nature of congress these days makes the position even more laughable than it was in the past [and it’s always been sketchy at best, without cards].  Read the DA if you’re a politics team, but there are almost always better arguments out there.    Critiques   Critique debates can be fun to watch, but only when the position is clear at the thesis level. If your shell argues that the K is a prior question or something like that, spend some meaningful time explaining why that’s the case instead of “shadow” extending an argument from the shell.  I am familiar with a lot of the literature, but you should argue the position as if I am not.  I really hate when critiques prove the “people who hate critiques crowd” right, by being excessively confusing and blippy.  Critiques are totally dope, but only because they have the potential to make compelling arguments… not because they are obtuse.    Framework debates are a waste of time a vast majority of the time.  I don’t understand why teams spend any substantive amount of time on framework.  The question of whether the affirmative methodology/epistemology/whatever vague term you want to use, is good or bad should be determined in the links and impacts of the criticism.  I see almost no world where framework matters independent of the rest of the shell.  So… the only K framework questions that tend to make sense to me are arguments about why it’s a prior question.  It makes sense that if the critique wins that the affirmative impacts are threat constructions that I’m not going to weigh the affirmative impacts against the position.  That’s not a framework debate though, that’s a question determined by winning the thesis of the position.    Critical affirmatives can be cool, but they also put me in a weird position as a judge sometimes.  If your affirmative is positioned to critique DAs, then I still want to see specific applications of those arguments to the DAs.  I need to see how the DA demonstrates your argument to be true in some specific way.  By that I mean, if the negative outright wins a DA, I would need to see why that would mean the affirmative shouldn’t lose early, often, and specifically.  The same is true of any set/genre of negative positions.    CPs   There are probably enough arguments on both sides to justify different interpretations of how permutation or CP theory in general should go down, that I don’t have strong opinions about many CP related issues.  In general, the CP/DA debate is probably what I feel most comfortable judging accurately and I think CPs that solve the aff are very strategic.  Multiple CPs in the round is probably bad for education and not strategic.

Alley Agee - OKCU

I competed in Parli at Oklahoma City University for four years, and this is my first year judging, but I’ve been with the team for most of the season. I flow on my laptop so I don’t anticipate having any problems with speed if you are clear, but I will let you know if you’re going too fast for me. I ran pretty much everything when I debated, and I will vote on almost anything of substance if you give me good reason to. I love a good K debate, but I also find them hard to judge if they get messy. This usually happens when the links are not clear, the team does not understand their lit, or the alt and alt solvency aren’t clearly explained. Avoid that and you should be fine. I also really dig straight up debates with lots of offense and clear impact weighing, especially if it involves unique positions I did not expect or critical impacts. My favorite rounds are those that combine both policy and critical positions. I will vote on T, but you need to win the entire page for me to vote there, meaning you should probably spend the majority of your rebuttal on it. This is also pretty much how it goes for all theory positions. CP’s are cool, non-topical plan texts are cool, performance arguments are cool, anything can be cool if you tell me why. I don’t particularly enjoy the strategy of “let’s dump everything we can into the round and grab on to what the other team drops,” especially if what they drop is a blippy, poorly warranted or explained argument. On the other hand, I think debates should end smaller and deeper than where they began. Find that balance and you will do well in front of me. If you have any specific questions you can certainly ask them before the round begins, but just know that there really aren’t any positions or strategies that I won’t vote for if given smart, solid arguments as to why I should. I do have a small bone to pick with personal advocacy positions. Don’t ask me to personally advocate for a position I do not believe in, especially if it requires me to vote that debate, making change in the world, feminism, etc. are not important. Additionally, if you’re going to put your name on your plan text or alt text, as in “Alley Agee believes that,” you need to give me some good solvency arguments as to why that’s better than just a regular plan text. I usually give speaker points ranging from 24-28 points. 29s and 30s are not impossible, but the speech better be pretty damn good. I reward smart arguments, in round thinking, and offense. Have fun and be smart!

Alyssa Sambor - TTU

Question 1 : Philosophy Short Version: Do what you want as long as you can justify it. I am open to almost all kinds of arguments and debate positions, but I am really not the judge you want to go for arguments like sexism good, racism good, etc. in front of (and if your instincts are to go for arguments like that, you probably shouldn’t pref me). Other than that, I am good with speed and am not interested in forcing you to conform to what I think debate should be about. Long Version/Specifics: Case: Cases can be policy oriented or critical or policy oriented with critical impacts/advantages or any combination of the above/new ways of affirming. I do not hold affirmatives to being topical if they can win that they don’t have to be. T/Theory: I have no predispositions against theory. Your interpretation should be specific and contextualized to the round. Counter interps are always a good idea, and you should provide reasons to prefer your counter interp. Standards should interact with the violation and interp you’re using. Your voters should clearly articulate why your piece of theory comes first. I am open to critical responses to questions of theory. CPs: I have no strong dispositions on most kinds of counterplan theory, including conditionality (though I am somewhat persuaded that multiple conditional counterplans are probably not awesome for debate) and would prefer that these questions be settled in round. I really enjoy smart PICs. DA’s: I prefer specific disads to generics. If you’re running an econ disad, make sure you explain your warrants and don’t just throw a bunch of acronyms or uncommonly used economic terminology at me and assume I will understand what you’re referring to, because realistically speaking I might not. I’m not a major fan of most politics da’s in terms of personal preferences, but would certainly vote on one. Kritiks: These are my favorite kind of arguments and the ones I am most familiar with. Most of my background in critical literature focused on intersections of race and gender, though I have also read a wide variety of other kinds of critical literature. I am fine with performance and narrative debates, but always remember to justify your critical method/approach. I think most of the best criticisms are well explained, <a name="_GoBack2"></a>example heavy, and are rooted in addressing some form of material oppression. I would probably be a good judge to try something creative or new in front of. Make sure you clearly explain how you are framing the round and the impacts being discussed. Other: I am fine with speed unless it’s used as a deliberate tool of exclusion (when it’s used unnecessarily against novices, people with issues hearing, etc). The more warrants you have for your arguments, the happier you are likely to be with the outcome of the round. Impact prioritization of all kinds (whether specified in the framework or developed in the rebuttals) is very important to me. When not instructed to weigh things otherwise, I probably prioritize probability over magnitude. Offense wins debates, but true, terminal defense is underrated. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.

Andrew Potter - NPTE Hired 2015

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

Andy Larson - Whitman

I think it will be most instructive to list my preferred 2NR strategies (these also tend to be strategies that I am most qualified to judge): 1) DA + Case 2) Adv CP + DA + Case 3) CP + DA 4) Ks with links to the plan + Case 5) Anything that requires zero topic research   K Affs: I think you should have a topical advocacy even if it is not a “plan” in the traditional sense.  I tend to lean neg on framework issues, but I will judge these kinds of debates as fairly as possible.   Kritiks: Buzzwords do not help me, especially if your preferred philosopher has made up this word (this includes words not used in their dictionary sense, and words that are an amalgamation of several other words).  K overviews help me only insofar as they provide me with a thesis and some impact calculus, assuming that I will understand your "embedded clash" from the overview is a risk. I would prefer that you debate the K like a DA, doing good line by line.  I will NOT turn a 2NR or 2AR that does not refute the other team’s major offense directly, into a slayer impact turn for you in the post round.    CP Theory: I lean neg on most CP theory questions with the major exception of competition.  I think that CPs should be both textually and functionally competitive.  Conditionality should be limited to around 2 or maybe 3 advocacies.  I will judge kick counterplans assuming that SQ is a logical option is an argument made.   T: I usually lean toward reasonability when evaluating T; this has become less true for me every year I have remained in the activity.  Spec is not a winner in front of me unless it is nuanced and supported by the literature, if you think this might not be the case, I suggest you read a real strategy instead.    Other Things: Personal attacks are not cool, in any context (this applies to both sides in K debates and will be enforced with substantial deductions of speaker points).  I like jokes and points of connection, they are important for high speaks.

Bear Saulet - Concordia

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

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 Norberg - Northwest

I competed in collegiate parliamentary debate for two years which included two trips to NPDA. Over the past four years since, I've judged several local and a handful of regional tournaments. I'll start on style and presentation – it's important, but not the end-all-be-all of the round. I see it more as personal enrichment for the debaters rather than a ballot guarantee. However, if you're like me and appreciate debate community just as much as competition, practice civility and be cordial to me and your fellow competitors. On speed – it's excessive if you hyperventilate. I'll flow the whole round to the best of my ability. If I miss a warrant (for example), I'll write a question mark next to the argument where it belongs, and it will have less weight at the end of the round. On the meat of the debate – Framework! I'm most familiar with net benefits. I'm open to a variety of arguments – T, fine. Ks, great. CPs, definitely – but I need you to direct me on how they function in the round. T specifically does not necessarily require proven abuse, but if it's an independent, a-priori voting issue it does. Kritiks require detailed framework more than any other position. I'm open to all CP metadebate. On Disads – strong link scenarios with modest impact stories trump sensationalized impacts left in the wind (also applies to case advantages). I heavily value analysis over emotional appeal. I enjoy probability-timeframe-magnitude impact analysis. One pet peeve, please do not run major new positions in the MO – it's too late for them to be convincing. Otherwise, I enjoy hearing new and unfamiliar positions, unique strategies/styles, etc. This is what national competition is all about!

Ben Campbell - NPTE Hired 2015

Name: Benjamin Campbell School: Abilene Christian University and Southern Illinois University   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.   ***NPTE/NPDA Relevant Notes*** *So, for the sake of transparency and open communication, I am willing to do the following before the round for you: (1) If you ask, I will give you my frank opinion of how you should rank/pref me.  I may or may not know your “style”, but upon a ~2-3 minute conversation I can accurately answer this question for you.  (2) Answer any impromptu questions during prep-time about how I feel about certain arguments – a response will only come if at least one representative from the other team is also included on the e-mail, text message, or Facebook message.    *I do not think that teams have the obligation to disclose whether or not they will be reading a critical affirmative or a defense of the topic.  I’ve thought about this 4-5 years on a fairly regular basis and will likely be unsympathetic to any procedural arguments asking for me to punish a team that refuses to disclose.  If you want to talk/think you can convince me otherwise – I have no problem being pulled aside and having a discussion – I’m assuming Marten will take me up on this as soon as I get off the plane.    *I will hold myself to observing the rules that have been set forward to me by the NPTE or NPDA – this also includes rules regarding lateness.  I’m being hired on the expectation that I enforce those rules, and I can no longer arbitrarily determine whether or not I will or will not enforce those rules.    ***So, you can just read the next few sections and you’ll be fine – the rest here is to really delve into the details of how I view debate.   My ideal debate is a debate over the topic.  The affirmative reads a plan text implemented by a policymaking body via fiat with two advantages stemming from the implementation of that policy in a fiated world.  The negative would read an unconditional counterplan with two disadvantages and case arguments.    Don’t use this to assume I cannot or will not evaluate alternative styles, but to know what my preference is.  Preferences manifest themselves in inflated speaker points and a happier Ben.      Generally held views relevant to Parli: -Conditionality is acceptable if the arguments are logically consistent (although, I still prefer unconditional positions for the reason of depth). -Functional competition is better for evaluating competition than textual competition.  If you must read theory against consult or conditions, read consult or conditions bad. -That being said – I generally think consult and conditions are theoretically legitimate if the links to the disad(s) are generated by the action of the plan. -A theoretically legitimate permuation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan/alternative implemented simultaneously. -Negative gets fiat -Google researching by the judge is intervention – it assumes that I am making a decision about what the “literature” says, and that I read the same articles you did.  That being said, I err on the side of caution about if I think you’re lying or not.      While I will generally try not to enforce my ideology through the ballot, I find that the following significantly harm my ability to do so: -Making people feel unwelcome in debate, either through violent rhetoric, actions, or general rude behavior.  This includes, but is not limited to, “Vote against X-school because their DoF is a facist”, name calling, yelling, or asinine impact turns (genocide good, patriarchy good).  This does not include De-Dev, Rights Malthus, or Wipeout.  I just think those are stupid arguments to begin with. -Clearly lying or misrepresenting facts (i.e. WW2 didn’t happen, Napoleon was a lizard, etc). -Going for “blippy” arguments with the expectation of winning on a “cheap-shot”.  For me an argument includes a claim and data. -Making causal assumptions that are not clear.   Pedagogical Moment: None of us our policymakers – we are not actors of the USFG and like such I do not believe we role play as them as automatic.  When I discuss fiat, or think it exists in debate, I don’t think we actually believe it is what we say it is.  No one believes that it exists outside of a vacuum of our language.  In fact, when we discuss fiat and role playing, we are discussing a broader way in which we try to employ language to change the world or our perceptions of it.  In a traditional policy debate, a fiat-based approach to political change is just assumed, so it is not worthy of making argument to such a point.  Remember, the plan text as I consider it is a suggestion that you propose to change the policy of the subject of the resolution.   I say that as a way to have you consider how I view framework, affirmatives, and the criticism.  I consider the language of the affirmative’s (fiat/role play based framework) v. some critical-theory based approach of the criticism – framework is a weighing of the best way to solve those implications in the real world.   If that doesn’t make sense, let me know.     Section 2: Specific Inquiries Please describe your approach to the following.   <ol> <li>Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?</li> </ol>                                   27.5-29.5; average 28.5   <ol> <li>How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?</li> </ol>   Critiques: They’re fine, but anyone who knows me knows that I do not prefer to evaluate this debate. The only problems I could possibly have with a criticism are a result of a lack of clarity.  A clearly articulated framework and an explanation of the alternative following it would be awesome.  I will evaluate the criticism is a world absent fiat – but that may mean you don’t get links to your criticism and may mean alternative solvency is rough.   <ol> <li>Performance based arguments…</li> </ol>   Fine.   Framework & Performance: I generally think that you should defend a plan text enacted by the government via fiat. However that doesn't mean that I'm not open to performance debate or any alternative frameworks. I'll vote for your movement.  Framework is a way to evaluate impacts.   <ol> <li>Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?</li> </ol>               Topicality/Theory/Procedurals: Generally I find limits to be the essential standard for evaluating T. I find "predictability" and "grounded in the literature" to be important as well. I also don't feel like there has to be articulated abuse to win. Other than that, spec, and condo I don't know why winning a theory argument means you win the round. Conditionality is generally good, but the more advocacies there are, the lower my threshold becomes for voting on condo is bad. If you go for it in the PMR, make sure the MG was large enough on it.   <ol> <li>Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?</li> </ol> Competition and the Permutation: A theoretically legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan/alternative implemented simultaneously.  If you go for the perm (which I think is generally a good strategy choice), I think it needs to be the cornerstone of the PMR strategy and an articulation of why it makes the alternative or CP uncompetitive.   Remember – winning a permutation does not mean you win the debate, it just means that the alternative or the CP is uncompetitive.  This means that it is the disad v. the aff – make arguments assuming that difference. PICS: Love them, a well thought out and well researched PIC is damning. I think theory can be convincing if they pic out of a non-mandate of the plan. An example: If the plan was to go to space, and the counterplan was to go to space but to use the Windows 7 OS as opposed to the Mac OSX, I think that the aff will probably win that the perm is justifiable.   Counterplans: Do whatever you want here, just make sure it's competitive. The negative has fiat. I don't think that's unfair, sorry. Perms: They're checks of competition. If you think you're tricky, and it comes out in the 2AR that you're advocating the perm, I will be sad. If it is, articulate that in the 2AC. If this is done, and the negative doesn't read theory against this in the block, I may slam my head on the table. A theoretically legitimate permutation in my book is all of the plan and all or parts of the alternative.     <ol> <li>Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)</li> </ol>   I’ve never understood this question.  Sure.   <ol> <li>In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?</li> </ol>               Proceedurals (Absent some criticism), then all else in accordance with some impact mechanism solvency weighing.  See “Pedagogical Moment” above     <ol> <li>How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?</li> </ol>   I generally prefer concrete impacts in the absence of any impact weighing concerns.

Bill Neesen - Long Beach

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

Brandon Rivera - Palomar

Section 1: General Information I competed for Northern Arizona University and am now coaching at San Diego State University. This is my second year judging collegiate debate and my first year coaching. My background is in Political Science, Women’s and Gender Studies, and Ethnic Studies. I was a “kritik” debater in my undergrad, but I would appreciate if you did what you know best. The biggest thing for me in debate was to have a critic with an open mind and the ability to listen. I hope to facilitate this role for debaters in the community and give people the opportunity.     Quick Notes:   DO WHAT YOU DO. Just because I know critical arguments more does not mean that I want to see those debates all the time. This is especially true if a team deviates from what they are good at in order to try and please me. Whether its “first strike” or “reject white civil society”, I will vote if I think you win the round.   I vote on examples within the debate more than a certain style of argument. By example I mean a historical, social, popular culture, or another type of event that helps to describe how your argument functions. “Dehum leads to otherization and is the logic of genocide” is not an example.   “Perm do both” is a borderline acceptable perm text. If you read these perms you roll the dice, especially if the other team points out that the alt/cp says vote neg. I know it takes time to read out both plan text, but I think it makes for the most stable perm debate.   Just because its dropped doesn’t mean I have to vote. I vote for well articulated and impacted arguments. Usually when something is dropped this means the other time gets to impact out their argument and prove why that argument is the most important in the round. Simply extending a drop does not guarantee “game over”.      Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Please describe your approach to the following.   1.       Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 25-30   2.       How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   I think that this is the type of argument that I know the most. I like critical arguments, but think that they require a few levels of analysis. I require a stable interpretation on the framework in order to give me something to evaluate the round. I do not believe that you “win framework = winning the round”, but do think that the framework gives you access to the impacts of your critical argument. I also prefer to have some explanation of your method, especially when the case is much more performative. I think that the affirmative can run a critical argument. The affirmative can both affirm the topic in a critical way, as well as read an affirmative that deals with larger social issues. Regardless of the route you take as the affirmative, the framework must justify the method and the viewpoint that you want me to evaluate the round based on.   I know there is a growing trend towards arguments that “function in multiple worlds” and often contradict each other. My personal disposition on the issue is that I think “contradictory” arguments make the debate confusing and I do not get why severing rhetoric is “ok”, even it is key to competitive flex. That being said, this is debate and if you have good reasons why being contradictory is good, I will vote.   3.       Performance based arguments…   This is another type of argument that I ran as a competitor and am generally familiar with. You need to justify your position and explain how your performance functions. I generally see all debate as a performance, and therefore it is the responsibility of the team to tell me why I should prefer one performance over another.   4.       Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?   I really like theory and think that it is one of the more under utilized positions in parli. I need in round proven abuse to vote, but will also listen to arguments about potential abuse as a voter. I generally think that competing interpretations is the best way to evaluate a procedural, but am open to different weighing mechanisms. I think the most important part to theory is making sure that teams have impacts built into the standards debate, and weigh those impacts against other claims made in the debate. I do not do work for you on procedurals. If you do not provide a counter interpretation, or just “cross apply case” I will not infer what you mean by that strategically.   5.       Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?   I think that the “PIC” debate is one of those things that debaters need to resolve in round and is largely contingent on the interpretations of the theory debate. I think that the opposition should give the status of the CP regardless. I think that most perms are best when they are functionally competitive. I have a very limited understanding of what text comp is and why it is important. If this is one of your go to arguments, please clearly explain what you mean and how you think that functions.   I did not read to many counterplans in my day. This means that if I hear something like consult, delay, “cheeto-veto”, I am less prone to know why so many people in the community do not like these positions. In other words, please be clear on your theory if you think these types of counter plans are “cheating”.    On the perm I require a perm text. This is not a written copy of the perm, but the aff should read the entirety of the aff followed by the parts of the negative that they want to perm. This helps me evaluate how the perm functions and increases the likelihood I vote. If a team says perm “Do both”, and does not explain what do both means, I am less likely to vote for those types of perms.   6.       Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)   I can see this being useful, especially if a more experienced team is willing to let a less experienced team have a look. I don’t have a predisposition but don’t waste time and get me in trouble for making the tournament late.   7.       In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?   I will look at the framework level of the debate in order to see what lenses and prioritizations I should put on the impacts. From there I will usually default to impact comparison made in the debate round. I do not necessarily think that procedurals come before a kriticism, but if no one collapses or weighs impacts, I would probably look at the procedural first. Sorry this section is not more helpful.   8.       How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?   If this is the situation that happens, no one will be happy. I do not have a general rule on these issues, but would probably weigh large-scale flash point impacts over theoretical concepts like “dehumanization”. I think debaters should avoid this situation at all cost, and can do so by making internal link claims in the implications. For example, if one team says that dehumanization is the root cause of all violence and the other says “nuke war”, I would vote for the “dehumanization” impact it comes before all violence.

Brent Nicholson - McKendree

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

Calvin Coker - Washburn

Experience: 4 years NPTE/NPDA Debate @ Washburn University Rounds Judged this year: 18 Link to my paradigm on Tabroom: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=calvin&search_last=coker Debate is a game So, debates about the topic are good. If you agree, we are probably friends. I don’t mean debates that offer homage to the topic. I don’t mean debates that involve a dance, or a Lilliputian gesture, or an ironic representation to or of the topic. I mean debates that invoke an assessment of the impacts wrought from the passage of a topical plan text.  There. All the cheaters* stopped reading and struck me  I don’t actually have a static view of debate, but I do have predispositions, which inform the way I tend to evaluate rounds. So, here are those, in no particular order. Theory:  All procedurals, to me, come down to ground. Education is an impact, sort of. Predictability and limits are internal links to ground, which is an internal link to education. This should only really impact you in two ways. First, proven abuse on a procedural is very compelling. I certainly don’t require it, but a smart procedural that shields the link to an LOC position can become a game winner in the MOC if the MG is either sloppy, or abusive. Second, the notion that ground is the deciding factor should impact the framing of the debate on procedurals in the rebuttals. Which interp is best for aff ground, for neg ground? Is the MG more important than the LOC in the context of CP theory? These questions should be resolved in the debate. CPs Outside of artificial competition (like jacking the aff’s funding), they are all up for debate. I have a pretty high expectation of what an MG theory shell should look like if the PMR is to go for the argument as a reason to reject the team; clear interp, violation, well explained standards, and complete voters to say the least. Overall I think CP theory should be intrinsic to the debate itself. There are some resolutions that would allow for a Delay CP, or a super small PIC. There are others that discourage those strategies. Debaters should isolate these distinctions, and debate them. Ks I only really have two predispositions on the K/Performance. I think that, absent a fairly compelling argument to the contrary, the affirmative advocacy should be a defense of the implementation of a topical policy option. Second, I think the negative should not get a floating PIC. Seems reasonable, as floating PICs are cheating. Other than that, read the K when it is strategically valuable. By the way, there is virtually no risk I have read your author. Just saying. Obligatory Condi section:  Multiple Conditional advocacies make some amount of sense in a world of backside rebuttals. They make much less sense in parli. SOOOO, I think a reasonable bright line is that the LOC should get a K, a CP, and the SQ. That being said, the collapse should resolve outstanding issues on a sheet of paper. You can’t just say “not going for the dedev impact turn, going for the econ disad.” You need to read strategies that at least appear to be consistent with each other. Similarly, there should be one worldview in the block. Also, smart MGs should point out arguments that present substantive inconsistencies in the LOC strategy. Did they read a representational framework on the K and then link to the K with a DA? Well, their own framework indicts the notion that representations are conditional, so you should point that out. I guess, what I am really saying boils down to two things. 1.     Condi is okay within reason and when done well 2.     MGs can beat condi with many different tools, but many don’t deploy them effectively. Other things that may or not inform your decision to strike me: If you balance speed with clarity, it will be very difficult for you to lose me on the flow. Blindly and unintelligibly spreading is good for no one, as I will almost certainly miss, and misinterpret, arguments. For this reason, please repeat meaningful texts in the debate. Plans, CP texts, interpretations, alternatives, complicated permutations, the like.  I think the aff should have a stable plan text. Normally that should manifest itself as a policy. This, I feel, should make everyone happy. I really don’t want to vote on “take a question in the MG/MO.” These arguments are stupid. Take a question in the LOC and the PMC. I will under no circumstances vote on an independent voting issue. Reverse voting issues are in a similar boat. If you are incredibly rude or disrespectful to the other team, I reserve the right to tank your speaks. Average speaks will range from about 26-28. Above a 28 means you done talk real good. 30s are rare. LOC offense should solve or turn the case. Only a silly negative team gets to let the MG weigh the totality of their aff. *Critical debates are not cheating, really by any stretch of the imagination. They are just often done in a way that makes me want to punch small children. The debates, and debaters, can be intentionally obtuse. I hate obtuse debates. Why don’t you just explain what you are doing and debate instead of juking and jiving all over the round?

Chris Pierini - UWash

Background: I debated 4 years in high school, 2 years LD, 2 years Cross X. I debated Parli at UW for 2 years. I'm now head coach at UW and been coaching the team for 5 years. This will be my 15th year involved with debate. In General: ·         My flow is strict and speed is fine. ·         I default “net benefits” if no other framework is engaged. ·        Read any textual advocacy twice (PMC plan, perm, K alt, CP, T violation, ect) or have your partner give me and your opponents a copy of the text during your speech. The last thing I want to judge is a theoretical argument predicated off of text I don’t have word for word. ·         I’m willing to do a “gut check” on absurd arguments to protect the academic value of the activity. If Gov makes an argument that a country does not exist to no link a relations DA that argument is not going to fly. I want to vote for intelligent and strategic arguments. ·         Terminal defense: Sigh…..at some point I guess defense can win you the argument/round. A “we meet” on T or 0 solvency because of a plan flaw, come to mind. 0 risk of a link is just hard to prove. Defense combined with offense is a much easier way to win my ballot. In fact I think defense is undervalued in most debates. ·        If you and the other team have agreed to specific terms before the round like say “we will provide a written copy of CP text if they provide a written copy of plan text”. I must know about it before hand, those ethical debates are nearly impossible resolve. ·        I think debate is fun. Don’t put me in a position where it’s not fun.  ·         POO's: Call them but I'll probably just take them "under consideration".  ·         POI’s: You should probably answer a question or two. If a team can not engage your argument because it’s unclear (usually I’m thinking of a T violation or wtf the K alt means) and you refuse to answer a question….I'm probably going to give a lot a weight to any theory coming your way.  ·         If you have a question please ask, I’m more than happy to answer it. chris.pierini@gmail.com Section 2: Specific Inquiries  1.      Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? ·         26-29.5 standard range. ·         Points are awarded on the basis of strategic decisions made in round. ·         I will only go outside of this range if you are horrifically rude to me, your partner, or your opponents. 2.      How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? ·         The “level” at which the K operates is dependent on the framework. ·         Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? That’s for the debaters to engage or not. ·         Kritiks are like any other argument, they can be run poorly and they can be run well. ·         If you start throwing out hyper specific buzz words (especially in your alt text) OR a melding of 16 different authors it would be prudent to define/terms and explain your argument more than going for laundry list links and impacts. 3.      Performance based arguments… ·         I will evaluate every argument made in round.  Isn’t all debate a type of performance? ·         I will vote for performance based arguments…if you win the performance should win you the ballot.   4.      Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? ·         My threshold for pulling the trigger on a theoretical argument, I would not consider high or low. However, you must have all of the right components to warrant the trigger being pulled. Winning your interp and standards without winning a voting issue pretty much means I’m not voting for the argument. ·         Make sure you’re going for and impacting to the correct voting issues. You should probably have reasons why education/ fairness/ abuse/ jurisdiction/whatever is an impact-able argument. ·         I don’t require competing interpretations to vote for T but it’s probably helpful. ·         I don’t require in-round abuse but it’s probably helpful.   5.      Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? ·         CP’s they are an argument. ·         I have zero bias for CP theory. What arguments are run is purely a question of strategy. ·         I think solvency isn’t necessarily binary. You can solve better or worse in a lot of instances. This means CP vs Case solvency is really important for weighing impacts.   6.      Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) ·         Absolutely   7.      In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? ·         Theory (either throw out the argument or reject the team) then I do straight net benefits: K or/and CP or SQ impacts vs Case impacts….in general. ·         If your losing a K framework without articulating how your K operates in the Gov framework I’m probably going to reject the argument as it no longer functions in a decision making calculus. ·         If you have specific scenarios, I’ll do my best to answer them but with the variety of how arguments interact I can’t reasonably explain every permutation possible.   8.      How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? ·         Without argument interaction, PMs and LOs will be punished in speaker points ·         I have absolutely voted for positions like DeDev which went for value to life outweighing the nuclear war deaths and voted against when the warrants were not present. ·         If things are so diametrically opposed with ZERO argument interaction then my gut tells me I would default Gov as the Opp hasn’t presented a compelling argument to reject the Gov case. This has NEVER happened to me. Someone makes an argument which demonstrates impact interaction which I will evaluate because at this point judge intervention has become necessary to resolve the debate. I will intervene using arguments on the flow not my own personal bias. Basically, the better warranted or more logical argument will win out. ·          I give a lot of weight to specific scenarios vs generic impacts for reasons of probability.

Clayton Champagne - Loyol Chicago

Cory Freivogel - NPTE Hired 2015

Cory Freivogel Judging Philosophy   <ul> <li>Hi! My old philosophy was too long and mostly filled with fluff and because I am an old man and haven’t traveled outside the Midwest this year there are a lot of folks who probably aren’t familiar with me as a judge so I thought it was time to update things a bit.</li> <li>I try to judge like a kind of robot that is programmed to write down everything you say and then calculate a decision. I keep a good flow and I think you should too. Coverage matters a lot. So, don’t concede arguments.</li> <li>This should not be interpreted as an invitation to read cartoonishly stupid arguments or theory cheap shots. I’ll vote for them, but your speaker points will reflect how much I wish I didn’t.</li> <li>I prefer listening to policy debates about the hypothetical enactment of a topical plan. I love deep research, clever strategies, and think that specificity is the benchmark of argument quality.</li> <li>THAT BEING SAID, I recognize that many disagree. As a judge, I am more than willing to listen to and fairly evaluate arguments which challenge traditional approaches to debate for replicating social inequities, excluding folks, etc. In fact, I’ve generally been really impressed by the quality of so-called “project” teams and underwhelmed by the quality of answers to their arguments.</li> <li>When reading regular old-fashioned kritiks, the negative should reference the claims and language of the LOC in order to craft their link arguments. “THEY SPEND MONEY JUDGE THAT MEANS CAPITALISM” while true, rarely makes for a good debate. Also, topic-specific kritiks are always preferred and usually reap the greatest rewards in front of me.</li> <li>Whether you decide to defend a “straight-up” affirmative with a terrorism advantage, go for the capitalism kritik, or reject debate altogether is totally up to you. The only thing I really care about is that your argument is smart, well-researched, strategic, etc. I would so much rather listen to an excellent debate about Wilderson than a terrible debate about business confidence.</li> <li>Bad disads are bad disads. Don’t be afraid to eviscerate terrible arguments with a heavy dose of truth and say the case outweighs. The belief that link and impact turns, even if they are terrible, are the only way to win represents a distorted, limited understanding of offense and defense that routinely creates awful debates. I vote aff all the time because a lot of folks are starting to figure this out.</li> <li>I think people who argue that conditionality is uniquely unfair in parli are on the wrong side of the argument. Topic rotation and broad resolutions give the affirmative tons of flexibility, so the negative should be able to read a lot of arguments to compensate for the lack of predictability.</li> <li>I think textual competition is silly, but I also think there are a lot of cheater PICs and process CPs that lead to bad debates (excluding Reg Neg, of course). I think this point demonstrates my thoughts on counterplan theory in general. I err negative, but I can be persuaded otherwise.</li> <li>I think disclosing to the other team if you don’t plan to defend the resolution is a good thing. Lots of people disagree, that’s fine. I’ll gladly listen to your objections. Theory arguments or kritiks related to disclosure will be evaluated like anything else.</li> <li>Impact calculus matters more than just about everything else. Unfortunately, pretty much no one does it and when one team does the other team ignores it. I really don’t like that and I hate assessing which impacts are larger on my own. I think the LOR should be nothing but impact calculus – I don’t think it serves any other purpose.</li> <li>My average speaker points are probably somewhere between 27.4 and 28.6. Below that means you done goofed, above that means your combination of strategic decision-making and eloquence was dope.</li> <li>I love intense debates. I think it is okay to make fun of bad arguments. In fact, I encourage. BUT, there is a line that you definitely shouldn’t cross. Be nice and courteous and don’t make things personal (unless that is your argument in which case make things personal without resorting to ad hom attacks against your opponents).</li> <li>Now, some general thoughts. If more teams read advantage counterplans the affirmative would lose a ton of debates. Impact turning the case is my favorite negative strategy. I study right-wing extremism in Europe and I love debates about animals, but I know very little about wealth inequality stuff.</li> </ul>

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 Romanelli - Loyol Chicago

David Romanelli School: Loyola Chicago   Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. I have been judging for 22yrs (Old CEDA, NDT, CEDA/NDT and now Parli). I think the resolution is the focus of debate. If the government team does not support the resolution I have a very low threshold for voting opp.  I like a well-organized flow. I prefer line-by-line debate. I prefer well developed arguments to warrantless tag line debate. I am not a fan of K debates unless the wording of the resolution demands it (the resolution is the focus of the debate).  I do not think performance debates make sense in this forum. Speed up to a point is fine (slow down on plan text, theory dumps etc.). Debaters should adhere to the guidelines of their institution and that of the host.       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)?                                 There is no specific answer for this. I go to a variety of tournaments. At better tournaments I see better debaters who often get higher points.   2.       How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?                                 Contradictions can cost you the debate if the other team knows why. K affs are generally not welcome unless the resolution demands it. That does not mean that the impacts have to be war etc.…. You can and should make arguments about how impacts should be evaluated. 3.       Performance based arguments… No thank you.     4.       Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I have no problem with T. There are a variety of ways you could win it. That being said, most will not. You need to explain how it works and answer their arguments. A well explained definition and violation with clear standards is the key to my ballot on T.   5.       Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? C/P status is conditional unless explained or asked about (I would ask). Net benefits are my default for competition.   6.       Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) I really don’t care, just don’t waste time.   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?)?                                 If we get to this neither team has done a very good job and you get what you get. T and K’s would most likely come before ads/das.   8.       How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? If this happens neither team has “won” the debate and I am now forced to intervene. No one is going to be happy including me. I have no set way to decide these issues. Lots of dead bodies normally = victory. I promise nothing here though. It’s your fault if you don’t weigh things out. As noted above, the debate doesn’t have to be about a body count.

David Bowers - KCKCC

Last changed Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:23 AM UTC David Bowers KCKCC Experience 4 years coaching NFA-LD (Competed 4), 4 years coaching NPDA (Competed 5), 2 years coaching HS CX, Competed in 2 years of CEDA/NDT Overall -- I am not here to tell you what you should read in rounds or ignore arguments based on preference (with a few exceptions obviously, I won't listen to racism/sexism/ableism good type arguments), I will try and be as objective as possible in debates.  What that means for you is that I need clear framing on the impact debate to help me understand what to do with you argument.  Sans that I would default to a utilitarian framework. I have listened to/voted for/read just about every "type" of argument in debate, as a result I don't have a preference about how you go about debating.  If there are questions about specific arguments I'm happy to answer them prior to the round, feel free to ask. I wish my philosophy was more useful.  Please, feel free to approach me at the tournament and as question prior to prep.  As long as there is a justification for an argument I'd be more than happy to vote for it.

David Worth - Rice

David Worth, Ph.D.   D.O.F., Rice University   Judging Philosophy   My decision is based mostly on how the debaters argue I should decide the round; I try to avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible but will when the round demands it.  There are many cases where this might be necessary: If asked to use my ballot politically for example, or if both sides fail to give me a clear mechanism for voting, or if I know something to factually incorrect (if you are lying).  In these cases I try to stay out of the decision as much as I can but I don’t believe in the idea that any living person is really a blank slate or a sort of argument calculator.    Decision-making Approach: I’ll judge based on given criteria. I can think in more than one way.  This means that the mechanisms for deciding the round are up for debate as far as I’m concerned.    Warrants: I will not vote for assertions that don’t at least have some warrant behind them. You can’t say “algae blooms,” and assume I will fill in the internals and the subsequent impacts for you. You don’t get to just say that some counter-intuitive thing will happen. You need a reason that that lovely regionally based sustainable market will just magically appear after the conveniently bloodless collapse of capitalism. I’m not saying I won’t vote for that. I’m just saying you have to make an argument for why it would happen. NOTE: I need a good warrant for an "Independent Voting Issue" that isn't an implication of a longer argument or procedural. Just throwing something in as a voter will not get the ballot. I reserve the right to gut-check these. If there is not warrant or if the warrant makes no sense to me, I won't vote on it.    Offense/Defense: Defense can win, too. That doesn’t mean that a weaker offensive argument with risk can’t outweigh defense, it just means that just saying, “oh that’s just defense,” won’t make the argument go away for me. Debate is not football. There’s no presumption in the NFL, so that analogy is wrong.   Assessing Arguments: An argument’s weight depends on how strong it is.  I think line-by-line vs. "big picture" is an artificial divide anyway.  This can vary by round.  I would say you need to deal with all the line-by-line stuff but should not fail to frame things (do the big picture work) for me as well.  It’s pretty rare that I vote on one response but it’s equally rare that I will vote on the most general level of the ideas.   Presentation: All good as long as you are clear. I’ll tell you if you are not, but not more than a couple of times. After that, I will try, but I make no guarantees.   Strong Viewpoints: As I’ve said before, I probably won t vote to kill everyone to save the planet/galaxy/universe. Otherwise I haven t found "the" issue yet that I can t try to see all sides of.   I vote on procedurals a bit less than other arguments but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t run them. I am getting kind of tired of purely strategic procedurals. However, even though they aren’t favorites they are sometimes necessary.   Points of Order: Call them, or don’t call them; I’ll probably know whether the argument is new and not calling them does not change their status as new.  Also, if you’re clearly winning bigtime don’t call a ridiculous number of them in your opponents’ rebuttal. Just let them get out of the round with some dignity (if you don’t, speaker points will suffer). It’ll be obvious when I think you are calling too many.   Other Items to Note:   If the round is obviously lopsided and you are obliterating the other team (e.g. if they are novices), then be nice. I will obliterate your speaker points if you aren’t nice or if you simply pile it on for the heck of it.   You don’t need to repeat yourself just to fill time. If you’re finished, then sit down and get us all to lunch, the end of the day, or the next round early.   I’m not going to weigh in on the great theoretical controversies of the game. Those are up to you to demonstrate in the round. T can be more than one thing depending on the round. Counterplans can function in more than one way. Critical debates can have many forms. I’m not going to tell you what to do. I am familiar with pretty much all of it, and have been around for a long time. I don’t pretend to think any of the issues are settled.  Actually, I’ve learned or at least been forced to think about theory issues from debaters in rounds far more often than from anyone else. If I had pontificated about The Truth As I Knew It before those rounds, the debaters would have simply argued what I said I liked and I wouldn’t have learned, so it’s in my interest as well as yours for me not to hand you a sushi menu with the items I’d like to see checked off. PICS, Framework, Competing Interp, in-round abuse, etc. These are all interpretable in the debate. I will say that I probably most naturally think in terms of competing interpretations on T, but, as I mention above, I can think in more than one way.   I will also say that I dislike the post/pre-fiat issue. I am kind of over it.  Find a way to compare the impacts/implications and the plan/alt, etc. for me. It really annoys me to have compare things after the round that I was told throughout the round were “not comparable.” If you don’t find a way, don’t get mad at me for comparing them however I choose to compare them.   My “Debate Background:” I did CEDA/NDT in college. I coached policy for years, and also coached parli from the days of metaphor and holding-the-wig-on-as-you-stand all the way into the NPTE/NPDA modern era. I have also coached NFA-LD.   Finally, everyone in the room has sacrificed something to be there. A lot of resources, time, and effort went in to bringing us all there. Be sure to show some basic respect for that.

Dena Counts - ACU

I am the DOF at ACU.  I have been coaching Parli for the last 7 years.  For those last 7 years, I have judged on average 65 rounds per year.  This year I have been judging less but still should be able to keep up with you.   I vote with the better quality of argument. When I say better quality, I am looking for depth of arguments and warrants behind your claim. I attempt to remove my individual biases from the round and make debaters tell me where and why to vote. I understand that biases do seep into my judgments, but I do feel that I should make decisions based upon your argumentation – not my worldview. Probably, I’m more of a game player when it comes to a decision maker.  Love new and unique strategies. I really think almost anything goes in this thing called debate. I say "anything" as I don't like cursing, nakedness, or slurs, but strategy wise, you can do what you need to do to win. Know that I’m very expressive in my nonverbals. If I am getting your argument, you’ll know. If you’ve lost me, you should know from my nonverbals. I have only been coaching for five years, so there are times that super speed (not typically speed) can lose me. Again watch my nonverbals, and I’ll let you know. I flow, judge on the flow, and don’t do the work for you.  Use your rebuttal to tell me why you win and where on the flow your arguments overwhelm the teams.     Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.   1.     Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?  25 to 30 25 to 27 means you need work 28 to 30 means you are pretty awesome   2.     How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   Kritiks are great from both Aff and Neg. Explain your framework, impacts and give me a realistic alternative.  I do think you need an alternative and it shouldn't bite your story.  No I don’t think when you run other negative arguments they should contradict other neg positions unless through the running of those positions you are trying to make a point.     3.     Performance based arguments…  Great.  Just tell me how I should interpret them, how they function in the round.     4.     Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?   I will vote on T but would rather vote elsewhere. To pull that trigger in -round abuse is typically necessary. Also, competing interp is necessary.     5.     Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?  CP’s are fine. PICS are fine. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t run argumentation of why PICS are bad though. Yes, ID the status of the CP. PERM the CP every which way you can. If you can think of a new way to PERM that would be super fun.   6.     Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)  Yes that’s fine.     7.     In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?  Topicality is first.  Then I look to Criteria or Framework to tell me where to go.  Usually it is impacts or turns on case.  I REALLY like rebuttals that tell me where to vote and WHY to vote.     8.     How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? If you don’t tell me WHY your impact outweighs their impacts on timeline, magnitude or probability, you are gambling on my choice or priority.  I would probably go with concrete impacts over abstract ones.

Dylan Brugman - ACU

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

Emily Halter - McKendree

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

Emily Leber - AppState

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

Hal Sanford - SRJC

Hal Sanford, Santa Rosa Junior College Short Version:  I'm a stock issues judge.  I'm not fond of Ks, although a summer at debate camp has made me receptive to them if run well.  Thank you Joe Allen.  Be nice to each other.   I'll vote for the team who displays the preponderance of persuasion Long Version:  Some debaters may want more.  Here's more.  Remember, being electronic, it's length  does not link to damaging environmental impacts - no trees were killed in the creation of the philosophy.                                                                                                                                                               What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I look to stock issues, as argued on my flow.                                                                                                                                            AFFIRMATIVE:  Make sure you are topical. Reasonable definitions are accepted; they do not have to be the "best."  Be sure your interpretation of the resolution gives ground to the negative. In policy rounds, show me that a post-plan world is better than one defended by the negative.  Weigh impacts.  Show your solution is workable and links to a better outcome than the negative option(s).  In value rounds, show me how your value criteria are supported and illustrated through your examples. Provide reasons to prefer your values or criteria to those offered by the negative, if they dispute them. NEGATIVE:  In policy, raise topicality only if it is a genuine issue.  Too often negatives think they are being clever with "time suck" topicality arguments that fizzle in rebuttals and the negative loses because they did not devote 15 seconds more to weighing impacts or developing a disadvantage.  Also, give me reasons why disadvantages actually make the plan net-detrimental; show me how your counter plan alone is better than plan or the plan plus C/P.  Explain how plan does not solve the problem or is not workable. In value rounds, if you present counter values, explain how your criteria are superior to the affirmative's when in relation to the actual resolution.  Weigh how the impacts to society (or part of it)are greater when supporting your arguments and value(s). Finally, if the resolution places one value over another, tell me equal status means a negative ballot: the affirmative must prove primacy of one over the other.  What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters?  Be nice.  Don't belittle your opponents by calling them, or their arguments, stupid, lame, or dumb.  Remember, there is always somebody smarter and meaner than you.  Do you want to generate the karma that comes with being a jerk?  Really? What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote?  Stock Issues: In policy debate, these are key for me.  Affirmative has to win all four to win; negative can win one to win.  Remember, stock issues answer the questions needed overcome the uncertainty and the risk of change to justify adopting the resolution.  Affirmative must win all four to win round.  Stock issues are: 1. Motive/Harm, 2.Blame/Inherency, 3.Plan, and 4. Solvency/Advantage(s) justify an affirmative ballot.  Topicality:  Be sure terms are reasonably defined, metaphors are accurately applied, and mere time-suck topicality arguments aren't argued by negatives.  You've got better things to do. Still, affirmatives, me buying a reverse voting issue on topicality is very unlikely. Even with a opp. drop, I'll really resist.  Counter plans:  It should be non-topical; otherwise, there are two affirmatives in the round and I'll just sign the ballot for the one actually listed as affirmative.  They also should be competitive, meaning there is a genuine choice between the plan and counter plan.  Show competition with mutual exclusivity or a reason doing both is bad. Critiques:  Given equal teams, the critique most likely will lose. I have voted for critiques, but that is when a weaker team does not adequately deal with the critique.  I dislike generic critiques that don't relate to the resolution, the opponent's arguments, or reality.  Good luck selling me that K whose central premise is that  "we should all hurry up and die because life's greatest gift is death."  Really?  I vote on the flow, but I won't turn off my brain.   Still, if your names are Robert or  Sterling, I might buy it.  They're eloquentus-maximus.  Weighing:  Explain why you win.  Weigh impacts.  Apply your examples to concepts like magnitude, probability, timeframe and show how the opponent loses, how opposing arguments are less compelling. How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements?     SPEED - NFA-LD:  This is not supposed to be an audition for a speed-freak auctioneer.  Rules state spread debate is antithetical to the event.  That said, I heard about 30 rounds last year, including some top 4-year debaters.  Only one has been "too fast" for the event, but an eloquently argued and rightly applied speed challenge by an opponent might find me a receptive audience.  After all, "speed is antithetical to the event", right?   If I or the opponent call "clear," heed that request. SPEED - PARLI:  Be sure you really have quality arguments that necessitate speed to get them all in during the allotted time. Be clear, organized, and persuasive.  I'll stop you if you're going too fast and I'll be receptive to an opposing team demanding you slow down also. JARGON:  Don't just sling jargon around and assume I'll do all the analysis and explanation to fully impact the concept.  For example, if an affirmative thinks he or she can simply say "perm" and destroy the counter plan as a reason to vote negative, he or she is mistaken.  Say something like:  "Perm.  Do both the plan and the counter plan.  If there is a permutation where both the plan and the counter plan can co-exist without disadvantage, the counter plan is not a reason to reject the affirmative plan.  Vote affirmative unless the counter plan alone is net beneficial when compared with both the affirmative plan alone or the plan and counter plan together." TECHNICAL ELEMENTS:  Please be organized.  I won't time roadmaps, but they are appreciated.  I do permit some conversation between partners during the round, but issues must be vocalized by the recognized speaker to count.  I will not consider arguments made after time elapses.  If you really need to sit while speaking, I'm fine with that.

Isaac Mayeux - Cedarville U

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

Jackie Becks - FIU

Judging Philosophy -- Jackie Backs I competed for three years and have judged off and on since graduating. General -- I consider myself a blank slate as a judge, and so  I feel that it is your job to define the round for me. Specifics Speed : I don't have a problem with speed so long as I can understand you. If  I cannot understand you, your arguments will not make it onto my flow and will not be considered. Speaker points: 25 - 26 Average; 27-28 Above Average; 29-30 Excellent. Critical arguments:  As a general rule I don't care for critical arguments.  If however, the argument is germane to the topic, if it clearly explained then I will consider it.   Performance:  See the above comment about critical arguments Topicality:  I will vote on topicality.   Counterplans:  Fine.  Just make sure that your counterplan competes.

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.

Jared Bressler - TTU

Question 1 : Philosophy Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. Read what you are most comfortable with, teams who never read the K trying to impress me by reading one typically don’t. You just need some offence at the end of the round I like copies of texts when possible. I can be very harsh with speaker points if you step over certain lines. Don’t say racist, sexist homophopic ect things if you do you will lose points. Don’t shame your opponent or nock excessively or you will lose points. Also a few years ago there was a habit of asking for speak points (ie. Giving a short privew saying that all debaters should get 30s) if you do this you will lose a lot of speaker points. If you don’t do any of these things you will get 25 or above. If not I have given debaters 1 (mostly for shaming, or being real offensive when I thought they should know better) and more 15s (if they said something real offensive without thinking about it) so if seeding matters to you be nice. I have a reputation of being a K hack and historically I have voted more for Ks than against them, though this year that pattern is reversed. I think the reason I tend to vote for Ks is because teams are not responsive too key (often stupid) arguments such as questions of root cause, in round solvency, nuances of how the framework functions, and K turns solvency. I try to judge as much as possible as a robot evaluating the flow (I don’t know how good I am at it). If an argument is dropped it is true no matter how underdeveloped. That being said if there are opposing arguments with no analysis on which one prefer I will vote for the one that is the truest/ best warranted.  I also think comparing warrants is the best way to decide debates. Other things the NPDA wants I don’t look at presentation to make decisions as long as as long as I can understand you. I like POIs. I try to protect, but I’m not all that smart. Section 2: Specific Inquiries Please describe your approach to the following. <ol> <li>Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 25 for a bad speech that is inoffensive (if you are offensive I will destroy your points). 27 for an average speech.</li> <li>How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Run what you can defend.</li> <li>Performance based arguments… I’ve voted for them numerous times, but they are not my favorite.</li> <li>Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?  I like competing interpations and will defult to that unless told otherwise.</li> <li>Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?  All counterplans are ok unless the aff argues that they are not, then I will look at the teory debate</li> <li>Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans). Sure</li> <li>In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?</li> <li>Proceduals first as for Ks I will evaluate them however I’m told or how they make since. I don’t like Ks that claim to come first but the rest of the K doesn’t justify that claim.</li> <li>How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?</li> </ol> I defult to death being the biggest impact. However I do weight how teams tell me, I have voted on dehumanization outweighs death before.

Jared Bressler - NPTE Hired 2015

Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. Read what you are most comfortable with, teams who never read the K trying to impress me by reading one typically don’t. You just need some offence at the end of the round I like copies of texts when possible. I can be very harsh with speaker points if you step over certain lines. Don’t say racist, sexist homophopic ect things if you do you will lose points. Don’t shame your opponent or nock excessively or you will lose points. Also a few years ago there was a habit of asking for speak points (ie. Giving a short privew saying that all debaters should get 30s) if you do this you will lose a lot of speaker points. If you don’t do any of these things you will get 25 or above. If not I have given debaters 1 (mostly for shaming, or being real offensive when I thought they should know better) and more 15s (if they said something real offensive without thinking about it) so if seeding matters to you be nice. I have a reputation of being a K hack and historically I have voted more for Ks than against them, though this year that pattern is reversed. I think the reason I tend to vote for Ks is because teams are not responsive too key (often stupid) arguments such as questions of root cause, in round solvency, nuances of how the framework functions, and K turns solvency. I try to judge as much as possible as a robot evaluating the flow (I don’t know how good I am at it). If an argument is dropped it is true no matter how underdeveloped. That being said if there are opposing arguments with no analysis on which one prefer I will vote for the one that is the truest/ best warranted.  I also think comparing warrants is the best way to decide debates. Other things the NPDA wants I don’t look at presentation to make decisions as long as as long as I can understand you. I like POIs. I try to protect, but I’m not all that smart. Section 2: Specific Inquiries Please describe your approach to the following. <ol> <li>Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 25 for a bad speech that is inoffensive (if you are offensive I will destroy your points). 27 for an average speech.</li> <li>How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Run what you can defend.</li> <li>Performance based arguments… I’ve voted for them numerous times, but they are not my favorite.</li> <li>Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?  I like competing interpations and will defult to that unless told otherwise.</li> <li>Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?  All counterplans are ok unless the aff argues that they are not, then I will look at the teory debate</li> <li>Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans). Sure</li> <li>In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?</li> <li>Proceduals first as for Ks I will evaluate them however I’m told or how they make since. I don’t like Ks that claim to come first but the rest of the K doesn’t justify that claim.</li> <li>How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?</li> </ol> I defult to death being the biggest impact. However I do weight how teams tell me, I have voted on dehumanization outweighs death before.

Jeannie Hunt - Northwest

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

Jeremy Christensen - Washburn

Name: Jeremy Christensen School: Washburn University (Hired) Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. My approach to judging relies upon the round I will judge; or, in short, I try not to decide a round before I enter it. In the follow pages, I explain some things I lean against or am less likely to vote for, that does not mean they are excluded; it means you will have to do more work to win them. With that said, as much as I try to let the round be yours and the arguments be yours, if I am given the choice between sensible and less sensible, I will likely default to the sensible. My sensible may be different than yours. I could be wrong. In nearly thirty years coaching debaters, judging debaters, and competing in debate in every format (excepting Public Forum), I can say I have made a few mistakes. I am honest (I do not rep out); I listen impartially (as long as you don’t attack me or members of the other team); and I want you to have the best educational and competitive experience possible while debating in front of me.  Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Please describe your approach to the following. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 2.  My typical speaker point range is between 25 and 30, although particularly boorish behavior – swearing at a competitor, insulting me, insulting the other team’s college or the college with which I am affiliated, using racist or sexist slurs – will  minimally earn zero speaker points and the latter two issues will result in a report to the tournament director. Frankly, I really don’t expect any of that to happen, but there is the worst case scenario.  3. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Critiques are great when they are developed as more than non-unique disadvantages. With that said, I should point out a couple of things. First, I believe you need some alternative. That alternative may emerge as a framework, at which point you expect me to interpret the round through another lens that points beyond dead bodies, but that constitutes an alternative framework. For me that means you are advocating a different view. Second, I can be sold on something as simple as “reject the Affirmative,” but ultimately you need to tell me what that rejection gets me and what it is I embrace. Unless the framework is a Heddigerian nothingness or a Derridian deconstructivist mode, then I’m unclear where rejection leaves me. (Both of those frameworks would need to be fully explained.) Therefore, with your capitalism K, for instance, I would rather see some advocacy from Judith Butler or (gasp) even something from Marx, that suggests a new worldview or course of individual action gets me outside the mental or physical box of the Affirmative advocacy. Perming critiques is absolutely acceptable, although I think one needs to move beyond “I can can think and act,” permutations. To boil it down, I understand critiques as something along the lines of advocating a proposition of personal policy; e.g. “You should reject capitalism.”  The criticism requires no mechanism of coercion as would an agent of systemic policy, but does require a problem (implication) cause (link) and solution (alternative). With that in mind, the alternative becomes the plan and solvency for such a proposition, which means that the Affirmative can perm the critique just as they perm any other counterplan. That also means that I’m very sympathetic to arguments that say the absence of an alternative skews ground, so specification arguments on the criticism would come prior to the criticisms implication, unless, of course, the framework for the criticism can anticipate the objection and in some way mute the specification.  4. Performance based arguments… Strike me if this is your strategy. I do not understand them. That is not to say I find them invalid, it is just that I don’t see how the performance can engage straight refutation without some serious intervention on my part. You don’t want my intervention, as I will likely defer to an aesthetic standard driven by my background in critical theory and literary studies. Based on many of the performances I’ve seen, they would not fair well under the scope of those lenses. In the end, I appreciate your effort, but I am not the person to give the argument fair assessment. 5. Topicality and other procedurals. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? With the exception of topicality, I see procedurals as being viable only when a team can show in-round (meaning during the exchange of arguments), articulated abuse, especially with spec arguments. (See more on this in the flowsheet section.) Topicality, on the other hand, can be won on jurisdiction. I don’t necessarily have to see abuse, although I’m open to whatever on that discussion. Competing interpretations wins topicality debates, so the standards debate controls the internal link to the violation. This does not mean the Affirmative needs to generate counter-standards, if their interpretation meets the given standards better (what is the standard for that?) than the Negative. Also, counter-definitions may be unnecessary. As hard as this may be to believe, on occasion, Negative teams run crummy topicality arguments that the Affirmative actually meets. So, in those cases, a good “we meet” pretty well takes out the link to the violation, which means topicality goes away. This goes for spec as well. Win the standards, and you should be good to go. 6. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? Counterplans can be run as unconditional or dispositional without any challenges from me, although I strongly urge the Affirmative to clarify what the Negative means by dispositionality; e.g. what are the conditions they understand as being valid ground upon which to kick the position. Without that clarification, I’ll assume dispositionality means Negative can only go for one CP or the Status Quo or a procedural; however, I do not understand dispositionality as “whenever I feel like it, even with a perm on it” (that, I would understand as conditionality). A perm on the CP means, just like a turn on DA (which is functionally a Status Quo CP) means offense and the Negative needs out of that before they kick it.  Feel free, however, to make any arguments that dispo is bad; I’ll listen to them and keep my prejudices in check. Conditionality is not totally out of the realm of possibility, but the Negative needs to win the theory in a big way. As far as permutations are concerned, perms test competition, but do not constitute an advocacy. With that said, if the Affirmative keeps telling me they get “double solvency,” I will happily vote for double solvency unless the Negative points out that this perm constitutes an intrinsicness or severance permuation. Often I find teams kick out of part of plan to delink the DA, which would make for a severance perm, as well.  Perms are controlled by the negative at the level of uniqueness on the net-benefit. That means if the Negative can demonstrate how post-plan the impact from the DA exists even if the counterplan could be done later, first, in parts, etc., then the Negative wins the net-benefit and unhinges the perm. In short, I default to net-benefits to determine whether or not the perm is legit, but the negative and Affirmative teams need to do the work here. Finally on this point, develop a more articulated perm than “do both.” Run multiple permutations if you can and make them as clear as possible. Textual competition and functional competition – Given the nature of the format – limited preparation – my prejudices would move me toward a textual competition, (in almost any prepared format I would consider this bogus); however, there are a few exceptions. For instance, if plan does not specify Congress or Executive Order, then one would understand that the function of the plan would through normal means use only one option. (Clearly a bill passed by Congress and signed by the President would not also need an executive order.) Consequently, the Affirmative, like the Negative, gets one advocacy either Congress or XO. Whatever world they do not pick becomes competitive Negative ground insofar as the net-benefit to the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the Affirmative advocacy. As for consultation, which would include an other country or other countries, regulatory negotiation (doubtless a strategy for the environmental topic), mediation, etc., the fundamental structure remains the same. To keep the problems from amassing, clarify the plan in a question or ask for a copy of the plan and then clarify. You already know your CP option based on the disad shell or, hopefully you will prior to standing up, so ask a question or two that will narrow down the Affirmative advocacy and open the space for the CP. 7. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)?  I could care less about this. Share if everyone agrees. By definition, however, if a team coerces another team into surrendering their flowsheet, then it is no longer sharing. For example, one would not see this use of the term “sharing” as viable:  Iraq shared Kuwait’s oil in 1990; the United States Federal Government shared the Black Hills with the Lakota, etc. For the round, if someone declines to share a flowsheet, then the matter is over and I will not be inclined to vote on a tattle-tale procedure (TT spec.):  “Uh…the Negative didn’t give me a copy of their CP text, DA text, procedurals texts” etc. so that was unfair. Too bad. I will not participate in the co-option of the Negative or Affirmative’s physical and intellectual property. With that said, given the importance of the plan text for the debate, I will expect the Affirmative and the Negative to yield to questions that both repeat the plan text and allow for further clarification of the plan text.  Without CX (hopefully that will change some day), there has to be some mechanism for explaining the central concerns of the plan. If the Affirmative and Negative find it more time beneficial to hand the other team a copy of plan text than to repeat it, then great. That should leave more time for clarifying questions and the Affirmative or Negative to generate the position. If either team should refuse to slow down and provide the plan text orally or give a copy, then I would be most interested in a criticism. 8. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? In the absence of a clean debate, I will defer to the frameworks for each position – the criticism against the procedural – and then make my decision. If that doesn’t work, then I will consider the procedurals first, particularly topicality, and make may way through the rest. If my answer seems confused now, imagine how confused it would be during the round. Just avoid confusing me. 9. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? I intervene when debaters do not explain things or weigh them out. Dehumanization sounds pretty awful to me, so depending upon the way people die in the scenario, I might be inclined to vote for dehumanization; e.g. nuclear conflict kills a million versus dehumanization of three million. Of course, it could go the other way, I might feel at that moment nuclear war is worse. It would be exactly how a normal person (not a debate judge) would operate on any given day. Is this bad given what I know and the present circumstances? Is this bad? Hmmm. Avoid putting me in the position. If no one impacts the arguments, tells a story, etc., then I cannot see how they could object to virtually any impact calculus I bring to the table.

Joe Allen - Concordia

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

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark

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

Joe Ozaki - Concordia

" I debated for five years, 2 for Moorpark College and 3 for CUI. I part time coach parli for CUI. I am a fairly straight up critic. A few points though;   - The K Despite my reputation during competition, I do not discourage it and towards the end, Will and I ran it fairly often. I am familiar with most generic kritiks (cap, whiteness, militarism, Virilio, borders, coercion, the gift, etc...) and have no problem voting on it. However my threshhold for defense on the k is likely lower than most judges, though not extremely so. You can't win on defense as much as I might sympathize with your struggle to do so. For me the vast majority of frameworks are poorly written and debates exclusively about this are fairly boring. Debates on the alt solvency/alt offense/perm solvency/perm NBs are far more interesting and will help you win more often.  For those who are really into the K, please be topical. Most Ks on the aff can easily be topical. Please be relevant. I don't mind a generic cap k for some godawful debate about the minutiae of financial regulation or something. But try to make it slightly connected to the topic beyond, "You reify the state by using the USFG as an actor. Next off, 8 minutes of state bad." Also understand I do not spend even 1/25th the time you have spent reading the literature for your K (unless its cap or coercion). Be gentle with it.* Lastly I see debate largely as a game we do largely for fun with the side benefits of being smarter/well rounded. I do not see it primarily as a catalyst for revolutionary social change.   *Language Ks I am not super sympathetic on and I will usually buy an apology unless its particularly egregious. Obviously thats up for debate but whatever.    - The Performance No clue what is going on with it. Honestly. In 5 years, I saw it twice. Once was in practice and the other was in a prelim my first year. The prelim we got ourselves waxed and most of the practice round I spent my time rolling my eyes and yelling at Bear.   -DAs. Obviously I'm a fan. I'm a huge fan of good uniqueness debates. Bad uniqueness debates (oh here's 5 reasons why the econ is up, naw dawg here's 6 reasons why its down. 6> 5 duh.) make me sad. Personally how I decide on this will go a long way in how I decide the direction of the DA and its likelihood since it is a debate on what world the plan takes part in to begin with.  Major points: Internal link/impact defense. Does not happen enough. Please do that.   - Counter plans. Competition is good. Personally I prefer NB competition as I think its the most educational. Mutual exclusivity is usually just a form of NB competition though I am open to arguments as to why it is not. Shockingly, unlike Robear, I am not a fan of philosophical competition.    Impact Calc: If no one tells me how to judge straight up impact debates then I revert to magnitude and then probability. So if you just tell me your impact is bigger and they tell me that theirs is more probable, I will probably revert to the bigger magnitude impact (especially if its extinction vs. some one feels bad about themselves). Give me reasons why prob > mag or vice versa.  I'm also a big fan of the "Big mag impacts bad v. Big mag impacts good" debate. But if it doesn't happen, unfortunately I'm a hack for the mag x prob (extinction x .000001 still pretty big risk) impact calc. Not totally against "key to value to life" args if they are decent internal links into what gives human life value. But baseless claims of, "And now there's no value to life!" claims are pretty easily beaten in front of me.   Theory Most theory debates are fairly boring to me but that won't stop me from voting on it. I am not likely to vote on specs. Topicality: I enjoy good T debates and by good I mean the debate focused on the field contextual nature of the word in contention. Critical Ts I am less sympathetic to.  Condo: I am pretty sympathetic to someone arguing against conditionality however I am not a stickler for it, despite Kevin's best attempts.    -House keeping Speed: Don't care one way or another. I will clear you if I can't understand. I can hang, though slightly less than when I was competing since my ego isn't in the round anymore. POOs: Call them. I can't guarantee me catching them cheating every time. So unless you want me letting it slide and someone throws a fit, call it. But if you're some senior team on the national circuit pummeling some freshman babies from a CC and you really feel the need to POO this poor child's PMR, you should feel bad.

Jordan Cohen - Utah

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

Joseph Hykan - Whitman

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

Joseph Evans - El Camino

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

Josh Ramsey - Washburn

~~Name:   Josh Ramsey School: Formerly Washburn KR Section 1: General Information 1. I appreciate respect for each other.  Debates get heated and that is good, but be nice. 2. At the end of the day I want you to do whatever you do best.  I am open to whatever and just want to see good debate. 3. Points of Information: They are good- take at least 1 in all constructives.  I don’t think that a PMC being asked to repeat the plan or the LOC being asked the status of an argument counts as the one question you should take. 4. I love case debate and think it is the most underutilized strategy. 5.  Impacts: I want internal links and warrants-I don’t like when I hear: “China, United States, Resources aaaaaaaand…nuc war, extinction…next…” 6. Feel free to ask any specific questions. Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Critical Affs: 1.  I think that you need to clearly define what you are criticizing in the solvency.  I really don’t want your advocacy to be floating.  Make it clear through your framework as well as throughout solvency. 2.  I also prefer that the MG do a lot of extensions on the aff and use it to answer LOC offense.  I experience dissonance when an MG doesn’t really extend the aff at all and then the PMR goes all in on one argument that short circuits everything, but it wasn’t discussed at all in MG. Critical Negative: 1.  The way the alternative text is framed is very important, make sure your alternative solvency is premised off the exact framing of the alt.  The more specific of an interaction between these two things, the better off you are.  I don’t want to hear a generic reject solves, be better than that. 2. Using links of the K as offense to the perm is a good idea as well, however I want it to be developed in the MO, not just cross applied without any explanation. Multiple Worlds:  Not the best strategy in front of me.  I am fine with conditionality, however I appreciate argument consistency.  In the context of a kritik and counterplan being in the debate, if the kritik links to the counterplan, I think it is pretty persuasive that the aff gets the perm since the negative was able to sever out of their reps/language/etc (if the negative makes an argument that there is a unique link differential between the plan and CP I could be compelled).  Kritiks with counterplan alternatives are fine.  I am also ok with a team reading two counterplans.  Performance: You can read them if you want, just know I think they are incredibly difficult to judge.  You need to have a very clear framework for how the debate should be evaluated.  I think the debates often become very big, the more focused the better. Counter Plans: I am more concerned with functional competition rather than textual competition.  However, if you have an issue with a counterplan being unfair, you are more than welcome to read theory.  I am not the biggest fan of this strategy, but have voted on it.  In regards to answering counterplans, I think the best strategy is to turn the net-benefit in some capacity.  It is really hard to vote on defense when there is a high risk of the counterplan solving the aff.  I think solvency deficit arguments to the cp are great, but offense alongside makes things easier.  Another issue worth nothing; I am a big fan of strategic advantage counterplans. Topicality: I think topicality is necessary to ensure fairness in the debate. I view topicality through the perspective of competing interpretations. That being said I still do like proven abuse; this is the easiest way for me to pull the trigger on topicality. If you cannot prove abuse because you didn't read the position I could still be compelled to vote for T, but just know that it is harder.

Joshua Harzman - Pacific

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

Justin Morgan-Parmett - WWU

Justin Morgan Parmett Western Washington University Judging philosophy I have been involved in Policy debate at many levels (high school, college, regional, national, novice, JV and varsity) since the mid 1990’s and have now been involved in parli debate since the beginning of this year (2014-2015). Thus far, I have enjoyed the transition and found that argument and stylistic tendencies have many cross overs.  I am still a bit new to parli so you, as debaters, may know more about procedural/ rule issues than I do at times. If this becomes critical to the debate, please explain yourself well. You will find me very open minded and above all I want people to have fun, be nice to each other and develop your arguments thoughtfully. I am competent flowing at high speed and will do my best to deliver a fair decision. Please do not hesitate to ask any questions you have prior to the round. Here is a bit more detail: My judging philosophy seems to be contextual to the round that I am judging. You can run whatever type of argument that you want to in front of me, however, I do have my preferences and they tend to be more towards the critical side of debate. I am not so likely to vote on topicality or FW arguments that are based in the assumption that this is the wrong place for the argument unless you not only win that there is some ground abuse, but also demonstrate that this ground loss is important. Do not just say that you can’t run your agent CP or your politics DA without saying why that ground is important. Likewise, I am not so likely to vote on theory arguments that say that I should reject a team for running a particular argument, usually the K. Theory arguments can operate effectively as defense, but rarely as offense for you. I prefer for debaters to be nice to each other in rounds as meanness will hurt your speaker points and your credibility. This does not mean that you will loose the debate, but if I have to do work at the end of the debate to figure out what is going on, this will come into play as to which side I do work for. Also, I am not likely to be persuaded if you tell me that I am a policy maker so I should not look at arguments that are philosophically based. This does not meant that I should not consider myself a policy maker, but that this role includes me questioning assumptions behind our actions. Basically, this means that I do not believe in the pre/post fiat distinction. I think that affirmatives have a right to frame the debate in a reasonable manner. You do not have to uphold some standard as to what the resolution is supposed to mean for everyone and I don’t see why it is productive for us all to be stuck to thinking exactly the same way about the topic. This being said, if you are going to talk about things that have nothing to do with the topic at all (I don’t know, maybe you want to talk about sports or music or something) you should have good reasons as to why you should do that. To be clear, proving that debate is structurally flawed is a good reason, but you should still ask me to vote on the argument you are making rather than the fact that debate is exclusionary. That is a start to your argument, but not the end. I could otherwise be persuaded to vote on a topicality arg in these cases. I think that this is enough to get an idea of where I stand. The debate is for you, but I also am going to be a part of it if I am watching the round. If there are any questions that you have, you should ask me at any time. Justin

Katie Bergus - Oregon

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

Kehl Van Winkle - Lewis & Clark

“The radical questionings announced by philosophy are in fact circumscribed by the interests linked to membership in the philosophical field, that is, to the very existence of this field and the corresponding censorships.”  - Bourdieu   I understand that it can appear to be a competitive advantage to read the arguments you think I want to hear, i.e. the arguments I read as a debater. This saddens me. I'm not here for me so that I can listen to all of you just bolster my beliefs. I'm here because people before me showed up and let me say what I wanted to say to them, so now it's my turn to listen to what you have to say. Whatever that may be.   What this means - don't perform just because that's what I did. Don't read my arg book back to me just because I wrote it and must think everything in it is God's gift to debate. Of course, I'm not saying don't read it (that would defeat the purpose of making it available) just use it only if you need it. This also means that I'm not particularly persuaded by positions that say "you aren't allowed to read that in debate." While its not impossible that I would vote on such a position, if a team is able to successfully defend why they are choosing to debate whatever way they do, I will allow it.   I like to think I am at least competent enough to evaluate 98% of debates that happen. I debated for Oregon for 4 years, debated at the NPTE for 3, have coached high school policy, and am currently a coach for Lewis and Clark. I have no trouble with speed, I read very lefty performative arguments my senior year, more traditional (i.e. Marx) Ks my junior year, and I was a straight up, CP & DA debater before that.    I stipulate to the 2% because there are just some knowledge bases I do not possess and a very technical debate about those issues could fly over my head a bit. I am quite ill equipped to talk about the economy outside of marxist terminology, I don't understand stocks, bonds, the Fed, etc. at a very high level at all. I pretty much just said whatever Will Chamberlain told me to and assumed that it was correct. I have a fairly broad familiarity with critical literature with the biggest glaring hole being Psychoanalysis.    Being as objective as I can about myself, it may not be a bad idea to call POIs in front of me. I was a rebuttalist my entire debate existence, and as such, I recognize that I perhaps am a little more lenient than some when it comes to "adding nuance" in the rebuttals. I will do my best to protect, but don't assume your definition of new and mine match up. If you think it could really be a round decider, point it out. That being said, the vast majority of times I see new args in the rebuttals, it is someone grasping at straws in a round they've already lost, and excessive POIs in that instance are very unnecessary and quite annoying.   Any more specific Qs, holla at me.

Kendra Thomas - NPTE Hired 2015

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

Kevin Calderwood - Concordia

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

Kevin Kuswa - Whitman

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

Kevin 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.

Kevin Thompson - TTU

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

Kyle Dennis - Jewell

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

Kyle Cheesewright - IDAHO

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

Lauran Schaefer - TTU

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

Lauren Knoth - Washburn

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

Liz Van Winkle - Lewis & Clark

Liz Van Winkle The debater formerly known as Liz Fetherston.  I am the same person as Liz Fetherston.   I debated for the University of Oregon for 4 years, and now I coach for Lewis & Clark College.  If it’s relevant to you or if you’re curious, I’m in a M.A.T. program at L&C where I attend classes and student teach in a 6th grade classroom.     I read a lot of kritiks and performance-based arguments my senior year, but I spent my sophomore and junior years almost exclusively going for DA/CP strategies, so I have quite a bit of experience with straight-up debate and enjoy those arguments as well.   I understand that given the kinds of arguments that I read my senior year, there might be a temptation or perhaps competitive incentive to want to read similar things purely because I’m in the back of the room.  Please understand that I said the arguments I said because I believe in them.     I truly believe that debate is for debaters, and my goal is to strive as a judge to create safer spaces for the kinds of arguments that I read by being open to listening to and evaluating them fairly, but I’m not biased against you wanting to defend or do something else.  I did what I did because I believed in our arguments and our methods.  I wouldn’t want to foreclose on that possibility for you as a debater.   I gave the MG and MO, so I am usually quite protective in rebuttal speeches.  Thus, you don’t really need to call a point of order unless you’re dying to.   Specifics:   Theory - You can read whatever theory you think is relevant and know how to construct.  You need to structure theory with an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters for me to vote on it.  On T, I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.  I don’t need in-round abuse to pull the trigger, but I think it is useful, especially when you’re talking about the impacts to your standards.  I enjoy a nuanced T debate, but wouldn’t call myself a hack.  For what it’s worth, I liked going for T in the MO.   Counterplans -  I enjoy a good counterplan/disad debate and am quite familiar with it, as it was once my bread and butter strategy as a debater.  Conditionality is probably good although I’m sympathetic to “it’s bad to have multiple conditional strategies that don’t jive with each other”.  However, feel free to read as many conditional strategies as your heart desires if you think you can defend it.  I tend to think counterplan/perm theory means I reject the argument, but if you want me to reject the team, tell me so and give me reasons why.  I do think some counterplans are less theoretically defensible than others (delay, veto, consult), but that’s why theory/”perm: do the counterplan” exist.     Disads:  Because Will Chamberlain taught me how to MG, I think uniqueness has two components: awesomeness and fragility (the SQ is really great, but can change at a moment’s notice).  As an MG, I found that disads often ran into trouble when the uniqueness was missing one of these components.  As a judge, I appreciate uniqueness comparison from the MG and MO on a particular disad so that I know what things are the best economic indicators or why some country cares the most about certain things over others.   Kritiks -  I’m familiar with a variety of kritiks as they are read in debate rounds.  I am most familiar with the lit bases for the kritikal arguments that my partner and I read as debaters, but don’t let that deter you from reading something you want to, just clearly explain your thesis.  I would say the debate kritiks I’m least familiar with are psychoanalysis arguments.  Here’s some of what I read most often: Marx, biopower, security, transhumynism, CRT, CLS, Freire, Feyerabend, nonviolence, positive peace, orientalism, development, ecofeminism, and anthropocentrism.   I think kritiks are often most successful when the links are plan-specific, or specific to the other team’s discourse/reps and not just “you use the state”.  In addition, I appreciate a clear alternative text and solvency, as I believe it is both strategic to you and helps me understand how you solve the aff/why they can’t perm your alt.  I don’t think that all K’s HAVE to have an alternative, but I think that it behooves you to have one.   Disclosure:  I do not feel comfortable voting on something that did not happen in the round, in front of me.  For example, statements like “they said they were defending X, and now they’re reading Y” or “they did not disclose” make me uncomfortable and unsure what to do as a judge, because I was likely not there listening to your conversation or reading your texts or Facebook messages.

Logan Emlet - Puget Sound

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

Lucas Barker - UT-Tyler

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

Luke Landry - Oregon

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

MATTHEW LANE-SWANSON - SMC

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

Maclean Andrews - PLNU

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

Mark Bentley - NPTE Hired 2015

Section 1: General Information Experience: College policy and pari debater for 4 years (also 4 years of high school policy), former Director/Coach at Cedarville for 5 years. current AppState Director of Forensics/Debate Coach. Debate is a game, and I approach it as such. I vote on arguments, not people. I will not vote for a team based upon personal characteristics they were born with or somehow acquired (unless they are superpowers...which, if you have them, why are you here?). Debates should be about ideas, not attacking people. I typically evaluate policy arguments in a net benefits / comparative advantage framework. I usually do not vote on defense alone, and prefer offensive arguments on positions rather than defensive. When weighing net benefits/comparative advantage, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and timeframe, but I will weigh them differently if you tell me why.  . I have a rather high threshold for spec arguments and need to see clearly articulated in-round abuse, or I will not vote on them. This usually manifests itself as obvious underspecified, groundshift-ready plan situations. Spec arguments generally function best for me as link insurance for other positions. Asking questions are a must when running spec arguments (also, as a general rule, don’t be a dork, answer some questions). Generally, the neg gets 1 conditional advocacy and the status quo. I am willing to vote on conditionality with multiple conditional advocacies. I tend to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but like POO’s called when whoever’s giving the rebuttal thinks they’re getting away with sneaking new arguments in.  I tend to protect the PMR against arguments suddenly blown up in the MO, and the opposition from arguments suddenly blown up in the PMR. Section 2: Specific Inquiries Please describe your approach to the following. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?            25-30. 26-30 is my typical range, 25 and below is for really bad speeches a/o 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 critical arguments that are “grounded in the specificity” of the resolution, over generic, over-run kritiks (if your criticism is as important as you say, you can certainly link to and specifically engage with any res/arguments the other team runs). I will vote on permutations and theoretical objections (I also 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 critical arguments when they’re not generic and the ideas are clearly articulated (that’s not a speed commentary, just be able to explain your ideas). I also think it’s important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction the criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don’t drop or omit solvency of the criticism. Also, don’t give blanket blips of “alt solves all” because, no, it doesn’t (I understand that argument as a game piece, but have more than that).. Use solvency as a way to justify the need for the criticism through analysis of its effects. 3.   Projects and performance based arguments… I don’t find these particularly persuasive, and aren’t really my thing. The way performance arguments are often run makes it too easy for the other team to non-unique the performance with links to existing power structures/discourses/performances. I don’t buy arguments that your in-round performance solved for more than what it might have in the immediate context (if you advocate for suspending the illusion of the debate world). I also hold that the act of debating itself is a performance, and so you will need to do extra work to justify how and why yours is extra unique. For projects: I have and will vote for projects that engage with the topic of the resolution and the other team’s arguments. I will not vote for a team based upon personal characteristics they were born with or obtained. Avoid debates about the personal characteristics of the people in the room. This leads to bad things for lots of reasons. 4.   Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I tend to weigh topicality through competing interpretations (make them clear what they are), but a clear “we meet” by the Aff can also be sufficient if it’s obvious. I prefer specific ground abuse stories when voting on topicality, though they don’t have to always be “articulated in-round” abuse. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? I tend to view most counterplans as theoretically legitimate and like to leave it up to the debaters to determine what is or is not legitimate in the given round. I don’t like delay counterplans, and will not be likely to vote on a PIC when the resolution calls for a specific plan action on the part of the affirmative, but will be open to voting for a PIC bad argument. Neg should also give CP status. 6.   Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Yeah, I don’t really care what you share...but that also doesn’t mean you don’t have to flow and just 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 default to weighing probability over magnitude and timeframe. 8.   How do you weigh arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? Again, if it gets to this point, you haven’t done your job and I won’t be real happy, and you probably won’t be happy with my decision. I don’t automatically weigh death more than dehumanization, but can go either way based on the context and arguments. Well warranted impacts are always preferred over poorly warranted ones.

Marlin Bates - Pacific

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

Marshall Thompson - Wheaton

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

Marten King - Puget Sound

The purpose of this judge philosophy is to give you insight into who I was as a debater and how I tend to think about the game that I obsessed over for 4 years. I do not find philosophies that declare themselves to be “neutral” to be particularly useful. Rather, I believe it is more valuable that I make my preferences clear to you so that you can debate to the best of your ability.   Debate background:   I debated for four years at Whitman College. For the most part, I did parliamentary debate, although I also went to 2-3 policy tournaments per year. I graduated in 2014.   General comments:   First and foremost, you should roll with the strategy that you are most comfortable with. While I have certain preferences, I am willing to vote on almost any argument. That being said, you should use the knowledge of my preferences to your advantage. Rather than changing your go-to strategy entirely in front of me, it is probably best to simply pay attention to the frustrations that I have with particular parts of various strategies.   Regardless of what you run, please place an emphasis on clarity and depth of warrants. I am very troubled by the recent trend in favor of blippy LOC arguments. Please have clear taglines that explain each distinct argument in a position, be that a subpoint of uniqueness or a link. A good rule is that you should be able to read the taglines of your position to a person outside of debate and they should be able to understand what the position is saying. I am confident in my ability to flow, and I will give the PMR leeway to respond to arguments that were impossible for me to follow in the LOC.   Please read the above paragraph again. I really mean it.   I am fine with speed. I think that speed is a positive for the activity and, absent issues concerning disabilities, it is perhaps the most accessible tool in the activity; becoming fast requires nothing more than a closet and time. However, I do think that there is a limit (around 300-330 wpm) to how fast you can go in parli because the need for pen time is much greater than in policy.   Etiquette:   Feel free to be as passionate and as intense as you want in front of me. That being said, be respectful. I have seen far too much bullying in debate in my time. It is totally unnecessary and inappropriate. Do not, for instance, scoff at every argument your opponent makes. It is fine to have strategic non-verbals, but do not be rude.   Try to be as inclusive as possible. If you are debating someone who is clearly less experienced than you and they ask you to slow down or explain things again, I will reward you with speaker points if you do.   The K   I believe that the concepts and ideas explored in Kritik debates are very important. I also recognize that the K has immense strategic value. During my senior year, my partner and I ran a K along with a DA almost every round because of the flexibility that the K-DA-Case strategy provided. I am perfectly willing to vote on a Kritik, and I believe that MGs responses to Ks are generally lackluster. That being said, I find a lot of things about K debate frustrating.   I do not like the use of overly obtuse language. Too many debaters try to be intentionally confusing reading the K. If I do not understand the K out of the LOC, I will not want to vote for it. As a great judge once told me, you want to make everyone in the room want to vote for you. Don’t do that by hiding the meaning of your argument. Have a clear thesis section. Have crystal clear links that can then be explained as DAs to the perm. Perhaps read the K a little slower than other parts of the debate.   I find much of the impact debate on the K to be underdeveloped. I rarely, if ever, will find no value to life claims persuasive. I find the extinction and turns case arguments on the K to be very tenuous. For the aff, this means that you should defense to the Neg’s impact claims. For the Neg, this means that if the aff reads solid D to those over the top claims, you might want to go for a structural violence impact coupled with case indicts (for example).   While I understand the trend away from framework, I am somewhat puzzled by it as well. I do not think that the Ks function in a debate is “self-explanatory.” In fact, it is not immediately obvious why the mindset/decision making process/etc. of the aff is a reason why the plan is a bad idea. While I do not think framework is necessary, I do think it is important for the negative to explain their conception of debate and how the K functions within that conception. How does the alt function? Does it ACTUALLY get rid of all bio-power, or is that question irrelevant? This being said, spending a lot of time saying the aff “isn’t real” and therefore its impacts don’t matter is not compelling to me.   Politics   I ran politics a LOT. I like politics. I also think that there are many problems with the politics debate.   Please do not lie. Do not claim that a bill has bi-partisan support when it passed the house without a single democratic vote.  Please also have an explanation for how the link is connected to your specific piece of legislation – I.E., why would the GOP being mad about Obama’s executive orders relating to immigration make them unwilling to do something totally unrelated?   If a politics DA is bad, then it should be easy to beat. I find thumpers to be one of the best answers to a politics DA. The link is not simply “stupid,” but rather demonstrably false – the GOP has been angered many many times, but the farm bill still passes.   Not Defending the Topic   I am not very fond of this strategy. I believe in the educational value of topic-area research and of switching sides. I am not compelled by answers to framework that claim that policy debate is totally vapid. I also find fairness and competition to be important, as I think the competitive aspect of debate is what incentivizes people to research and participate at an in depth level.   That being said, I recognize the importance of the discussions that have been generated by folks who decide not to defend the topic. If you wish to do this, I will of course evaluate the debate in as fair a manner as I can. Do know, however, that I will be pre-disposed towards certain arguments that your opponents might make. You will need to be nuanced in responding to these arguments.   CPs   I believe that counterplans are, by their very function, conditional. I believe that it is fair for me to kick the counterplan for you, but I believe that the NEG has to introduce this theoretical concept.   I believe that conditionality is a logical and educational model for debate, and I think that this is uniquely true in parli where the lack of backside rebuttals makes PMR sandbagging on DA’s to CPs particularly unfair. That being said, I find people’s answers to conditionality bad to be horrible. I think that given the bad answers that MOs generally have, it is strategic to read conditionally bad in front of me if your PMR is good at going for it.   I believe that counterplans should be both textually and functionally competitive. While textual competition is an arbitrary standard, so is all other counterplan theory. I find text comp to be a predictable limit that allows the negative to read educational PICS while preventing them from reading abusive strategies.   In general, I find counterplan theory difficult to assess. The lack of backside rebuttals leaves the debate woefully underdeveloped. It also makes the MOs life very difficult as they are unable to both read standards and weigh them in an efficient way. I have not decided how much room I will give the PMR to extrapolate on their standards, but it will not be as much as some judges give.   Please don’t say “perm do both – they can both happen at the same time!” and leave it at that. If a perm does not shield the link to the DA or resolve some of the negative’s offense in some way, it does not matter.   Theory   Theory – excluding counter plan theory – was the one area of debate that I did not invest a particularly large amount of time in. I rarely if ever ran T by the end of my senior year.   As a result, I do not have a lot of fully formed preconceptions when it comes to T. While I default to competing interpretations, I am somewhat compelled by the model of debate encapsulated by reasonability that states that the aff’s interpretation is ok if it gives the negative sufficient ground, not if it gives the negative perfect ground. My guess is that I will have a generally high threshold for voting on T. It is difficult to provide a brightline when evaluating T through the lense of sufficiency, however, and I will continue to struggle with the CI/Reasonability debate.   I do not like spec arguments.   Please read your interp slowly and twice. If the interp is missed, nothing else makes sense.   Parli-specific things   I will protect against new arguments even if you don’t point of order.   I will assess the intuitive interaction between every argument, including those that are dropped. I think that this is especially fair given the lack of backside rebuttals.   Please write down a text of any advocacy and share them with your opponent.

Matt Gayetsky - UT-Tyler

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

Matt Gander - Whitman

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

Matt Reisener - NPTE Hired 2015

~~Background:  -I spent four years debating for William Jewell College and competed at both NPDA and NPTE from 2010-2013.  -My knowledge of debate was heavily influenced by Kevin Garner, Kyle Dennis, Gina Lane, Andrew Potter, David Dingess, Kyle Mellon, Tim Brooks, and Luke Landry, so, if you have time to read nothing else in this philosophy, know that I my decisions will likely be very similar to those reached by these critics. -I am working on my MA in International Relations at the University of Chicago, which means I haven’t watched (or thought about) debate for any significant length of time since March of 2013. It also means that I am very up to date on news affecting international relations, and that I have a strong working knowledge of IR theory.  General Information: -As a rule, debaters should not feel that they need to substantially alter their strategies to fit my preferences. Just because I read Heg and PTX every round when I competed, doesn’t necessarily mean I expect you to do the same. Read whatever arguments you believe will best help you to win the debate round, and I will do my best to fairly evaluate them in making my decision. -I am a big fan of warrants. I know this sounds obvious, but I feel like there are some critics who are willing to reward teams for being extremely blippy in the constructive speeches and collapsing to previously warrantless tags in the rebuttals. As a rule, if a team reads an argument against you that is not coherent or warranted when it is initially read, I will give you a certain degree of leeway in answering it in later speeches. For example if the LOC reads a disad or kritik that does not make any sense to me until the MO/LOR, I will give the PMR a longer leash in answering that argument than I would under normal circumstances. This won’t be a problem in 99% of debates, but if your strategy is to purposefully muddle the debate in the constructives, do so knowing that your decision to do so may end up effecting you negatively. -I will clear you if I can’t understand you. I feel pretty confident in my ability to flow fast debaters, though I may ask you to increase your volume if you tend to speak quietly, particularly if I am relegated to the back of the room.  -I believe each debater should have to take at least one questions during a constructive speech (if asked). -While I am not in the business of discounting particular arguments on face, I will warn you that I am not likely to vote for “fact/value debate good,” “perms are advocacies,” “Aff doesn’t get fiat,” anything dealing with attitudinal or existential inherency, or reverse voting issues unless the other team just drops these arguments completely.  - I flow the LOR on a separate sheet of paper. It probably goes without saying, but I think splitting the block is extremely abusive, and will likely discount the LOR entirely if it is spent going for arguments not in the MO.  -If you think an argument is new, call a point of order. I will do my best to protect you from new arguments, but it is to your advantage to alert me when the other team is making one just to be safe. -Please provide copies of all texts and read all interpretations slowly and at least twice. Failing to do this will make adjudicating theory or perm debates exceptionally difficult, so it’s in your best interest to heed this advice. -Numbering your arguments does wonders for my flowing. I promise I will still write down your arguments even if they are delivered stream-of-consciousness style and absent any tags, but it will make my flow a lot cleaner if the PMR can reference “MG #5 on the disad” as opposed to referring to, “that one argument my partner made about Russia,” and forcing me to hunt for it after the round.  -An average speaker will receive 27 speaker points from me. If you receive 30 speaker points, it means that you have given one of the single best speeches I have ever seen in a debate round, and likely found a way to cleverly incorporate Jay-Z, Kanye West, Outkast, or Wu-Tang Clan lyrics into your speech in a way that amuses me.  Theory:  -Unless specifically told otherwise, I evaluate all theory arguments as a priori.  -I view all theory debates through the lens of competing interpretations. If you do not have a coherent interpretation on a theory position, I will find it very difficult to vote for you.  -I do not necessarily need proven abuse on theory in order to vote for it, but being able to articulate a clear instance of in-round abuse will likely increase your chances of winning a theory debate.  -As a rule, if you want to go for theory, you should go all in on theory. My experience is that attempting to bifurcate your time in the MO by going for theory and the straight up debate tends to prevent you from winning on either of these fronts if the PMR is strategic. -SPEC debates are not my favorite. I understand the utility of reading these arguments to secure your links, and while it doesn’t make for a particularly fun debate, I do understand that sometimes going for a SPEC in the block is your only option if you’re getting hosed everywhere else (this may or may not have happened to me a lot as a freshman). However, I generally think that normal means is a sufficient level of specification, so I anticipate that I will side with the Aff in most of these debates.  Kritiks: -I don’t hate the Kritik, I really don’t. But I honestly do not have a ton of background in most of the K lit, particularly more post-modern arguments. I feel fairly comfortable with the Cap, Biopower, and Militarism debates, but I do not delude myself into thinking that I have read all of the relevant literature on these topics. Therefore, if you want to debate the K in front of me, PLEASE give me a general thesis of the argument at some point during the shell, and try to define all of the obscure terms of art you use so that I can figure out what you’re talking about.  -The best Kritiks are either topic-specific or include specific links that directly answer the affirmative. The worst Kritiks are those that are composed entirely of post-modern buzzwords, rely on links of omission to interact with the affirmative, and name-drop authors at the expense of reading warrants. If you believe you can debate the K without falling victim to the pitfalls listed above, then you will probably be safe reading it in front of me as long as you can explain the argument effectively. -I have no idea what judges mean when they tell LOCs/MGs to “engage the Kritik” when answering it. If they mean that you should answer its substantive claims as opposed to exclusively reading procedurals and permutation arguments, then I absolutely agree. But in my experience, certain critics use “engage the Kritik” as a euphemism for, “the only way to answer the Kritik is by trying to move father left than the Kritik.” I am not one of those critics. If you want to answer the K by out-lefting it, go right on ahead. But you should also feel free to impact turn, read framework offense, defend the merits of fiat, or just read 8 minutes of reasons why the alternative would collapse hegemony. In my mind, giving a list of reasons why the thesis of the Kritik is a terrible mindset to adopt is the definition of “engaging the K,” regardless of which side of the political spectrum you approach it from.  -I am predisposed to think that the Aff should get access to the impacts of the PMC.  -Alternatives should include a clear description of what the world looks like after their implementation. If you do not defend that anything physically changes in a world of the alt, you should include an explanation of what happens after the critic takes this action. -I have no experience with performance debate, and while I’m sure that the poem/song/free style rap you wrote during prep time is just fantastic, you should probably save it for someone who is more qualified to determine its place in the context of a debate round.  Disadvantages:  -These arguments are much more in my wheelhouse. Disads that outweigh and/or straight turn the affirmative tend to be the most strategic in my eyes.  -I LOVED reading PTX disads as a debater. My partner and I probably collapsed to PTX in 50% of our neg rounds our senior year. That being said, I think the best PTX disads are those with clear uniqueness and link stories, and PTX disads that lack them tend to be pretty terrible. I STRONGLY advise going a bit slower when reading the top half of a PTX disad and clearly outlining what the bill in question does, who supports/opposes it, and whether the bill will pass through Congress in the SQ. Speaking from experience, I slowed down reading the shell of PTX disads after becoming frustrated that critics weren’t able to flow every tiny, crucial detail of the uniqueness story, and found that judges were able to evaluate the position much more effectively as a result.  -It would take a Herculean effort on your part and/or a concession on the part of the other team to convince me that it is legitimate to perm a disad.  Counterplans: -I assume that all counterplans are conditional unless specifically told otherwise. If you are reading a counterplan dispositionally, please provide some sort of explanation regarding under what circumstances you will defend the CP. I’ve heard about 5 different interpretations of dispositionality during my career, so I think it’s important that all participants in the debate have a mutual understanding of what this term means.  -All counterplans should strive to be textually and functionally competitive. -For what it’s worth, I tend to think that PICs, Conditionality, and Topical Counterplans are all acceptable, while Delay, Veto/Cheato, and Object Fiat CPs tend to be pretty abusive. However, I will not allow my pre-dispositions to determine the outcome of the debate, and will allow these questions to be settled in the round.  -Permutations should include some sort of text explaining how the affirmative can interact with the counterplan (example: perm-do both, perm- do the counterplan, etc).  -I tend to think that severance and intrinsic perms are abusive, and that a well-warranted theoretical objection is a reason to reject these arguments, but I will let this question be decided in the context of the debate.  Weighing Impacts: -You should do this. A lot. Kevin Garner taught me how to debate, so I am very partial to buzzwords like, “probability,” “timeframe,” and “magnitude,” being used to describe your impacts.  -Absent arguments to the contrary, I will default to voting for impacts with the largest magnitude.  -Offense wins championships in debate. Defense can be very useful insofar as it prevents the other team from accessing their offense, but defense alone cannot win you the debate round.

Matthew Hogan - UNR

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

Maxwell Evans - WWU

McKay Campbell - Lewis & Clark

I debated for Lewis & Clark for 4 years and graduated in 2014. I judged at Mile High, Oregon, and (now) NPTE this year. I think first-year judge philosophies can be pretty self-indulgent sometimes. Every time I watch a round, I learn something new about what would’ve made my judges’ jobs easier when I was a competitor and the more I judge, the closer I get to actually wanting to reply to some weird net-benefits thread about disclosure. Clearly, I am still discovering many of my opinions and biases. Here’s what I’ve learned so far:   Speed and clarity: If you cannot name 3 debaters in the community that are faster than you, it will serve you well to slow down a bit in front of me. If your primary debate tactic is to be incomprehensible and then have your partner clarify your arguments in rebuttals, don’t do that.   The K: Please explain the thesis of your K instead of just name-dropping. I think this is best for both your opponents and your own education. I appreciate alternative solvency that makes sense.   Projects: Please provide a role of the ballot. You need to have decided whether you want the ballot or not before you enter the round and then explain to me what I should do with the ballot at the end of the round. If you want me, as a judge, to meaningfully engage with your project, then you need to tell me if I should flip a coin and why, if you should win because your project has to be competitive to be solvent, etc. If you do not provide me with a framework (which is a position you do not want to be in), I default to net-benefits.   Disclosure: I have not yet watched a round where this argument has come into play, so I’m not sure how I will evaluate it. Here are my initial thoughts: 1) Wow, an argument wiki solves 100% of the harms plus some. Why can’t we just do that? 2) I am worried about a debate that comes down to “he said/she said/they said” 3) I would like the opportunity to watch a round like this, but no guarantees on it going in favor of the theory position.   These are the issues I have seen be the most controversial this year. Feel free to ask me any questions before/after/in between rounds.

Mitchell Molinare - CU

This is my first year judging.  I did 4 years of parli at Boulder, and studied economics and international affairs for my undergrad. If you are familiar with him, I was coached by Will Van Treuren (and a little by David Dingess too!) so I see debate similar to them. Speed is fine, but if you are like top 10 fastest I may recommend not top notch otherwise you can probably go as fast as you want, especially if you are clear.  My flow didn’t look neat but I get most args.  In general I prefer policy arguments but other types have strategic value too and should be utilized. DAs: Love’ em probably the vast majority our negative strategies were just DAs.  The squo is really not all bad.  I will listen to all kinds of DAs.  Obviously specificity will help you, especially later in the round when you are weighing impacts against case.  I came from a small program where our research was fairly minimal so I ran a lot of generic DAs (soft power, bizcon, hege).  I think generic type arguments are super powerful when they are tweaked to be contextualized to the resolution because people read generic answers that don’t really link.  To be honest I’m not great with politics, especially in fast debates if it is very complex so I appreciate a more simple scenario, or some extra pen time.  Econ scenarios are my favorite. As a note.  I think the best arguments in debate are straight case args.  If an LOC stands up and says “no-off” I can tell you it will likely go well for the negative.  In general the more good on-case args and less off-case args the more strategic options you have in the MO (and likely of higher quality too). CPs:  I rarely ran CPs and they were generally either advantage CPs, or PICs in tough spots where we didn’t have a lot of good neg ideas.  I get annoyed by CPs that are just thrown out without any strategic utility because they will get you in trouble (happened to me plenty)—make sure it has a purpose.  For the aff having offense here is critical to beating CPs.  I’m open to all forms of theory on CPs, but I’ll admit I tend to think multiple conditional advocacies aren’t fair but feel free to change my mind. Critical stuff: I am familiar with some generic criticisms in the context of debate but have never read any of the supporting literature, and rarely ran them myself.  I find Ks to both the right and left compelling.  Framework to me is boring  and I tend to think it is resolved by neg gets the K to weigh against the fiated aff unless a major error occurs.  The fun stuff is the impacts and alternative which is where I recommend the majority of time is spent.  You spent 7 minutes reading a PMC, use it to your advantage when answering the K, although the neg wants it to, it doesn’t just go away.  This is especially good on the perm debate. In terms of non-topical K affs I’ll admit I’m not a big fan.  The amount of times I ran one can be counted on 1 hand, but I understand their strategic value.  As such I am more comfortable with well crafted neg theory that interacts with the aff.  If this type of aff is your cup of tea and you think you can beat back a strong piece of theory go for it but probably an uphill battle. Theory:  This is by far my favorite argument and thoroughly believe you should deploy it as much as possible.  I jumped at every opportunity to go for theory in the MO and PMR.  Your interpretation (and counter-interp) is absolutely critical, should be clear, and resolutionally contextual.  Please read it slowly twice.  For me, the difference between good theory debates, and great ones is specific arguments/warrants that interact with the resolution.  Please dazzle me with your sick T interp.  You should take a question in each constructive to avoid getting spiked by specification/take a question theory. Ask any question of me before the round to clarify my philosophy.  As this is my first year judging I anticipate some changes to this philosophy over time.  If you care about speaker points everyone, including myself, loves some good jokes so feel free to have fun in round plus it probably keeps me paying closer attention. GLHF

Nick Russell - Long Beach

Judge Philosophy for Nick Russell DOF @ CSU, Long Beach Years in Debate: 20 Rounds Judged this Year: not many Months without a Weekend: 1.5 I view debate as a laboratory for democracy, by which I mean that debate provides an opportunity for students to become agents of positive social transformation. As such, my view is that debate should be a forum for debaters to develop a voice to express the arguments about which you are passionate; it’s your opportunity to positively transform society. And it’s not my place to tell you how to do that (e.g., run a project, a plan, or a pomo). That being said, I’m convinced that in order to transform publics, you must persuade your audience. And there are things that make arguments and debaters more or less persuasive as I audience them. <ol> <li>I think that human beings are different from one another. And, for this whole democratic experiment to succeed, I think we need to be respectful of differences. I may be wrong and you may be right, but for debate to work, there has to be space for a dialogic exchange. And that means respect. I loathe hostility and am uncomfortable with aggression, so please find a way to make the debate friendly.</li> <li>I teach argumentation, so my brain has been socialized to understand arguments in a relatively formal sense: e.g., a claim supported with evidence—connected with a warrant. Please don’t read this as a normative endorsement of the Toulmin model. Instead, it’s a descriptive claim of the way that I have learned to think through my experience in debate and my livelihood teaching Introduction to Argument classes.</li> <li>While I enjoy reading critical theory and cultural studies, my brain is quicker to make sense of things that are tangible, concrete, and explained using examples. For critical teams, this means you ought to describe how your argument plays out in the world of the plan; for orthodox teams, this means you need to describe how the plan solves your harms (even if this is internal to an advantage); and for project teams it means explaining how your argument will concretely and meaningfully cause change.</li> </ol> The bottom line is this: you are an active agent of social transformation. You should actualization that agency for positive social change—and not for social domination.

Nick Matthews - Long Beach

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

Nick Robinson - PDB

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

Rebecca Sietman - Wheaton

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

Rob Layne - Utah

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

Robear Maxwell - Oregon

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

Rosemary Loehr - Jewell

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

Ryan Hang - PDB

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

Saige Smith - NPTE Hired 2015

I think that judging a debate round should not be a difficult affair. I don’t want to have to fill in gaps, or come up with my own warrants for arguments for debaters. I also don’t want a debate to come down to a “nuh huh/yeah huh” type of argumentation, as that most likely leaves me right back to where I was before the debate even started. I probably am going to be more excited about a debate that is topic specific, but that does not mean that I dislike theory or critical debate, and I won’t discount them or never vote on them. However, if you are advocating something in a critique, especially if it has a performance component or very specific advocacy, the fastest way to lose my ballot is the team having a performative contradiction. I will vote on anything, as long as there is an explicit reason for me to do so, and it is clearly weighed against other positions in the round. I don’t like to say that there is a specific order of which I will vote on positions, aka T always comes first, I think that is the job of the debaters to decide and tell me. If this is not obvious or clear, I will go to what I assume to be pre-fiat issues first (topicality, criticism, etc.) then case. Impacts should always be weighed against each other, and I will take any impacts, as long as they have a clear story of how the debaters get there. Finally, speaker points for me usually range from 25 to 30. The way to get fewer points than this is by being rude to other debaters. Don’t do it, this is supposed to be a fun activity. I’m also okay with partners occasionally helping each other, but if the partner not speaking is constantly interrupting the speaker, that will also reflect in the speaker points. Points of order in the PMR are fine, as long as they are not annoying or excessive.

Sherris Minor - SMC

Short version: please run whatever you want I believe the activity is about you which means your argument selection should not be limited to my preferences. That being said there are some arguments I am more comfortable with than others. For instance I am not super deep on the econ debate. This just means you should be doing a good job of explaining the argument and comparing the warrants for me as that debate in general comes down to comparison. I like clash. I want you to explain how arguments interact with each other and why that means you win. I don’t think you will ever win every argument in the round so collapsing is great strategy in front of me. Impact calculus and prioritization are important to how I vote on your arguments. I think it is your job to be clear and explain the arguments you are making. Don’t just read tag lines and expect me to understand where you are trying to go with the argument. I believe debate is a game, but I do think that certain debates can impact the way we view the community and ourselves. Be nice to each other a debate isn’t worth losing friendships over or creating bad blood. I am a speaker-points fairy. My speaker point range is between 26.5-30. In most competitive debate rounds I give around a 28 and up. I default to a policy maker/ net benefits paradigm unless you tell me otherwise.  I really enjoy the framework debate I think that it is important as parli continues to trend towards theory and critical arguments. I will in some instances vote on framework if you tell me that’s where I should vote and Its clear that you are winning the framework debate. I like the critical / performance debate. I think it makes for some interesting clash and the ability to interrogate the implications/ methodology of the resolution beyond executing a plan. I am ok with aff/ neg critical arguments and I do not think you have to be topical as long as you can justify why you shouldn’t have to uphold the res. I think interactions between arguments are the most important in the critical debate you should be able to explain how your criticism interacts with the other teams case and why that matters. I think you can win a criticism without winning the alt if you go for how it impact turns the aff. I am not familiar with every theorist or theory I have a general understanding of most of the “popular” critical arguments in parli but please be clear about the nuances of your theory and why that’s important. Disclosure is not an argument I am particularly fond of because I have no way of knowing what happened during prep time. It essentially asks me to intervene on something that is not falsifiable. I will listen to the argument but I don’t find it particularly compelling. DA’s I like clear links and impact scenarios please explain how you get to your impacts don’t just give me tags that don’t really draw the line from point a to point b. Theory I like theory, I don’t think teams go for it enough especially when certain theory arguments are often overlooked on the flow. Although, I would caution you to develop your theory arguments I find at times they are underdeveloped or under explained. Topicality is an argument I vote on. I do not vote on potential abuse and I find that teams don’t go for it enough in front of me. CP’s I don’t care if your counter plan is topical. I do care if it is competitive. I think you should identify the status of your cp I have a bias towards conditionality being good, but I will vote on theory arguments as to why condo is bad. As an addendum I will be flowing on paper instead of my laptop. This means: you will have my undivided attention and I will be able to more clearly explain how things went down in the round. This also means I will not be as fast when it comes to writing down the arguments. Please slow down for your tag lines and articulate clearly. Please call points of order, I do not protect. Overall, go into the round do what you have been training to do all year and have fun.

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

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

Sohail Jouya - KCKCC

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

Somerset Bassett - NPTE Hired 2015

~~Judging Paradigm 2014 I think the resolution affects how I evaluate a round, if the resolution is broad I will listen to generic K’s or tic’s with less animosity than if you run them on a specific policy resolution where the oppositions ground is predictable. I tend to vote affirmative (around 60%) probably because I dislike K’s, Theory, and PICs. Sorry opp. The K- I will vote for the K and have run it both as affirmative and negative, however running the k in front of me tends to be an uphill battle. 1. I would like to judge the round without intervening and most K frameworks prevent this from happening.  If you ask me to vote for impacts that extend to real world then I feel I have an obligation to determine that your either not credible or I have to intervene as I wont endorse a real world movement that I’m opposed to simply cause the mg didn’t answer an argument, either way your odds of winning that round are slim as I will blame you for forcing me into that predicament and will listen openly to arguments of abuse or degradation to the activity. 2. In terms of literature I have a novice level of understanding on most commonly used philosophy however, please explain your argument, and don’t rely on an appeal to authority.  Thesis’s are helpful, go-slow here and explain your central argument early in the speech.  I would much rather you explain what your project is and defend it as opposed being sneaky and extending some muddled spew. 3. I feel that policy debate tends to be more grounded in reality (just barely) than the k debate and will look forward to debates on good topics.  I will not consciously punish you for running something else but understand that when I’m yawning through a generic FW debate I tend to give lower speaker points. CP- I prefer the disadvantage/advantage debate however I also enjoy a good counterplan plan debate. In terms of status I tend to side with conditional being ok, however dispositional without an explanation pisses me off, so be careful if that’s your strategy.  Blipped out preempts about severance should be answered in kind as I will do anything I can to not vote there. The permutation debate I prefer is that of net benefits i.e. Is perm better than CP. Multiple condo/perfcon strats/ 5 off + cp/ etc. – I will be very sympathetic to theory against these strats .(if you run the right interps!) because its probably not fair and more importantly I think it’s bad for debate. Positions either develop in block/PMR interaction or not at all.  I will give the PMR a lot of leeway in terms of new answers to a strategy that becomes intelligible in MO as it should have been in LO so if your going to run five off make sure you can develop them in LOC, especially those you plan to go for otherwise I will let the PMR be a constructive. PICs- I’m fine with PICs in general, I ran them, they make sense as an opposition strategy my one problem occurs when the aff has only 1 topical plan text ie. pass HR 356 in which case I am inclined to buy abuse claims. Speed- I don’t believe my preference is important, as you should debate your way as much as possible.  My capacity to flow fast debates is good, there are debaters who are too fast for me to flow well, but not many.  I generally think speed k/theory are a waste of time however if mishandled I will vote for them. Debate is a communication event and therefore if I didn’t flow an argument you made it is your fault J I’ll try to keep up. however ensuring you have clear taglines, allow pen time, and don’t jump all over the flow will be to your advantage. Theory-I ran theory very selectively almost always to protect against an abusive MG argument.  I hate whining and I hate exclusive technical theory.  I don’t think competing interpretations makes sense in parli and will generally prefer arguments saying I should vote on abuse in prep time or in round.  I don’t say this to discourage you from running theory as protecting your strategy is very important, if you think you might need it run it and kick it later. I wont punish you, but if you collapse to it you should have some real abuse present to convince me to vote here (also prove your lost ground matters).  I think there are situations where you can go for theory and a da/cp/case turns /whatever but if you do be careful of contradictions as any reason not to vote on theory is generally good enough for me. POOs – Please call POO’s if the PMR makes a new argument, LOR too I suppose but only if they are fundamentally changing the PMR strategy. Ie. Picking up a crucial drop out of the M.O.  Don’t call them excessively it’ll lower your speaker points, make me ignore your next POO’s nuance, and generally bother me as after 40 minutes of speeches I am generally sick of watching you argue. Impact Calc.- I prefer an impact calculus that favors probability to magnitude.  I generally don’t think a .00001 chance of nuclear war is a reason to not fix the economy right now.  Get ahead in terms of comparing impacts early in the debate I do think answering that death is worse than dehumanization in the PMR is new if the LOC said the opposite, so do your work early and it will benefit you.

Stephanie Dunn - MWSU

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

Steve Farias - Pacific

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

Steve Clemmons - Oregon

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

Steve Doubledee - Washburn

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

Tiffany Dykstra - Utah

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

Todd Graham - SIU

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

Tom Schally - Puget Sound

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

Trond Jacobsen - Oregon

Name: Trond E. Jacobsen_______ School: University of Oregon____ Section 1: General Information  Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist  the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not  clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the  NPTE. • I consider the opportunity to debate and to judge debate to be  extraordinary privileges and I hope and expect that debaters treat the  moment with a seriousness of purpose and consideration for the activity  itself and for others in the activity. Debate should be fun and I do  like humor, but, on balance, I prefer debates where the participants,  including the judge, are engaged in an intellectual activity focused on  understanding the world for the purpose of considering what kinds of  changes to that world are appropriate rather than a mere game or excuse  to travel and visit with friends. Debate is not *only* a game for me  and those who treat it as such may find speaker points affected.  • My experience as a competitor and coach is extensive (Oregon, Alaska,  Vermont, Cornell) but until this year that experience was entirely in  CEDA-NDT debate and mostly some years ago.  • Treating people fairly and with respect is my most important value and I will  react to offensive behavior and am responsive to arguments that lesser kinds  of offensiveness should have ballot implications.  • My flow is reasonably strong (still) and is the focus of my decision- making. • My experience and strength as a competitor and judge was in finding,  using, and attacking evidence. In its absence I nonetheless expect  people to make arguments grounded in literature and it is acceptable to  give some reference to where your information came from and why it is  better for current purposes than where their information came from.  • You may hear me interacting during the round, for instance, I might say  “clearer” or “slower” or “louder”. Sometimes I give other kinds of feedback  and those who are observant may benefit. It is normal for me to be focused on  the flow rather than watching debaters. However interaction and adaptation  and some eye contact are important. • You are smart, so be smart. Think about what you are doing. Understand what  you are doing. Know what you know and know what you do not know and be  honest. Have a strategy and execute that strategy. Don’t pretend Senator X  opposes the plan when she doesn’t or you don’t know or you can’t prove it. • Anything contained in this philosophy that conflicts with NPTE/NPDA rules is  void. Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Please describe your approach to the following. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical  In a typical round the worst speaker will receive 26-27 and the best  speaker will received 28.5-29.5 on a 30-point scale. arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Anyone person or team can run critical arguments they find compelling  and they understand. I am under no obligation to vote for them unless  they win them and win that winning them wins them the debate. While certainly debatable, I tend to think poorly of contradictory  strategies and reward varied, nuanced, but cohesive argument  strategies. 3. Performance based arguments… All arguments are performance-based. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing  interpretations? I strongly dislike topicality in all but the rarest of instances.  I never feel good voting on topicality. I punish people who run  topicality in a cavalier way. When I vote on topicality it is because  the negative has provided a compelling definition and interpretation,  both of which are rooted in some appreciation of the relevant context  (e.g. what are field-specific interpretations, terms of art, etc.) and  have clarified meaningful in-round harms.  5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual  competition ok? functional competition? All counterplans are potentially admissible however some things about  them are required: (1) clear text, clearly delivered, especially the  “plan” part of the counterplan; (2) the counterplan competes with  the affirmative plan: It is a reason to reject the affirmative plan  (or advocacy) and not just a better idea. This means that when all  arguments are considered, the counterplan alone is better than the  plan (i.e., net beneficial) and better than all of the plan plus some  portion of the counterplan (i.e., the perm is not net-beneficial). Neg should identify CP status. I tend to dislike conditionality, am  ambivalent about dispositionality, and resolutely disinclined toward  multiple counterplans.  Nearly any potential scope of action or, range of actors, deserves  consideration depending on the strength of argument by their advocates.  Every kind of process CP, agent (from states to no states to all states  to other states), every kind of PIC, anything really is potentially  acceptable provided it meets the requirements described above. In my ideal counterplan debate, the negative introduces one counterplan  that is well-considered, consistent with other arguments, rooted  (outside of the debate) in some literature base, germane to the  affirmative discussion, and is fully developed during the debate as an  alternative, competitive course of action. I will need help to understand why textual competition is not a  pathetic argument. For one, it is a type of functional competition. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Knowledge is good and shared knowledge accumulates non-linearly. I  would prefer teams share flows rather than debate in ignorance. 7. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will  use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost- benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? This question is impossible to answer in a principled way because  debaters always make some argument about ordering or weighing, I hope  explicitly, but always at least implicitly. I can answer with respect  to how I perceive judging patterns (whether these are mine or me  voting on others’ patterns is an interesting question): I rarely vote  on topicality so, that is moot. Other procedurals would tend to get  evaluated first, provided they are well developed and explained. For  instance, I hate plan-spec arguments but if they are well argued and  impacted then they might trump other considerations. The rules and  fairness are important in general. People tend to argue that critiques should proceed plan consequences  (whether because it is pre-fiat, or personal advocacy, or whatever) and  so I tend to vote in accordance with that norm. I think it reflects a  profoundly limited conception of fiat and its role in the debate and  often undersells both the value of policy analysis and the role of  “critiques” in policy-making and policy analysis. Part of my job when judging is to identify explicit or  implicit weighing or ordering based on arguments introduced  by the debaters. I will work to do that before defaulting to  my preferences. These impressions are based on years as a  participant but with those years in the past until this year. 8. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims  are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? Answer essentially the same as in #7. All impacts should be made concrete through powerful argument and analysis. For me this can mean that dehumanization is a very real  impact, very concrete, more so than a probabilistic risk of a war  resulting in an indeterminate number of deaths estimated to some  rough number. On the other hand, dehumanization can be flowery rhetoric used to hide from the real world consequences of one’s  advocacy. Tell me which description fits your impact(s).

Vasile Stanescu - Mercer

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

Whitney Coker - Washburn

Whitney Coker Background: First time judging, BA in Mass Media from Washburn University. Currently graduate assistant at Missouri State University As a point of reference, I teach public speaking at MSU. I do not have previous debate experience, but I have watched quite a few rounds (mainly Washburn rounds) over the last 2 or 3 years. Specifics Speed: I come from a non-debate background, so incredibly fast debates are a sure fire way to lose me. You don’t have to speak conversationally (though that would not upset me), but I wouldn’t go top flight. Speaking at a good clip, faster than one would speak normally, is probably optimal to ensure that I a.) Get arguments down and b.) Understand their relevance to the debate  CPs- There should be a clear difference between the affirmative and the counterplan. I don’t like highly theoretical debates on counterplans; if there is a common sense perm, or reason to reject the CP, explain it that way. Similarly, isolate the disads to the perm. I prefer substance on CPs overall. Conditionality is bad in parli. If you introduce a CP, you should have it through the entire debate.  Das/Case Debate. This is the area where I am most comfortable, if only because this will normally mean people will address the topic. I view the resolution, and subsequently the aff, at the center of the debate; strategies that don’t speak to the resolution are bad. Debating substance, however, is good. Procedurals: I am not big on debate theory. I understand how and why ground is important, and I could be compelled to vote on theory such as topicality, but this is an area where a focus on the highly technical aspects of the debate will probably not be good. If something really egregious is happening, by all means read a procedural to protect yourself; its not that I won’t vote on them. I just would prefer a solid, cogent explanation of how the procedural works in the debate proper, and why it matters. Ks: I do understand aspects of criticisms, but non-traditional strategies are sort of non-starters for me. These debates, in my experience, have been very convoluted and obtuse. If you can explain the function of the alt clearly, and the link and impact in a way that relates to the aff, I am happy to listen to these sorts of positions. Intense and complicated framework debates, constant references to authors I haven’t read (who has, really?) and super fast extensions with the assumption I understand the full nature of the K are ways to lose the debate in front of me.  Decision calculus: I implore the rebuttalists to do the work for me. I don’t want to have to agonize over how to frame the impacts in the debate; I would prefer that debaters resolve outstanding questions and prioritize their arguments so that I don’t have to.

Will Cooney - Loyol Chicago

William Cooney Experience: Competition: 4 Years Parliamentary Debate; 3 Years NFALD Coaching: 2 Years Parliamentary Debate and NFALD (ending in 2012) I have been assisting the University of Nebraska at Lincoln this year in NFALD.   Rounds Judged: 24 NFALD rounds   Evaluating Rounds: I default to a policymaker framework for resolutions of policy unless the debaters present an alternative framework. I expect the debaters to explain the intersection of arguments and tell me how to weigh them in the round.  My ear is faster than my pen, and a broken flow will make for a messy decision. If you break my flow, I will let you know, and you can decide how to proceed. I prefer well-warranted line-by-line arguments to blipped tag lines. If you run a theory dumps, give me some pen time.   Presentation: I like clear articulation and clear sign posting and expect collegial comportment.          On-Case Arguments: Like all arguments, provide good warrants and explain how the arguments function in the round. I do not find off-case arguments necessary.   Procedurals: On topicality, I understand the affirmative to have an obligation to affirm the resolution. If the negative demonstrates that the affirmative fails to meet this burden, I will usually vote on for the negative. If the affirmative gives a good reason for ignoring the resolution, however, I will not vote on topicality. I understand specification as necessary to stabilize the affirmatives position; tell me how to weigh specifications in the round.    Counterplans and Kritiks: I am fine with both. For counterplans, I default to net benefits when evaluating competition and prefer unconditional counterplans. For Kritiks, provide me a clear framework and alternative. Explain how I should evaluate each in the round.      Points of Order: Call them.

Will Van Treuren - CU

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

Will Van Treuren - NPTE Hired 2015

Experience: I debated for four years in high school policy and four years in college parli. I won the 2010 NPTE. I have coached CU for three years and a high school team for one. I enjoy the activity of debate immensely; a good round is life affirming and an actively bad round is unpleasant.   Arguments: I am comfortable with any style of debate. Choose the strategy that you are most comfortable with and I will adapt. If that’s case/DA/CP I will be excited; 1AC’s are usually poorly constructed in parli and good case debate is a hallmark of a good debater. I haven’t heard an aff yet this year that didn’t beg for (at least) 2 minutes of case in the 1NC. If your strategy is the K make sure you explain what voting for the alternative does (and don’t ignore case).  I am uncomfortable comparing the world of the plan (or a CP) to an advocacy whose enforcement boundary is unclear (if this doesn’t make sense, ask me). Lest you think I am anti-K, my favorite round this year was a huantology 1AC.  If your strategy contains theory, I’ll be a happy camper. I love a good theory debate and think it’s a sure way to demonstrate technical prowess. As a final note, I prefer strategies that engage your opponent and are commensurate with things I know about the real world (e.g. a good debate about science related policy). As an example, if you have the choice between an LOC with a CP, K, 2 DA’s and 2 case args, and an LOC with 1 K and a bunch of case args (or 1 DA, 1 CP, and case args), choosing the latter will give you a better chance at my ballot.   Speaker points: Intensity, precision, technical prowess, and knowledge are my favorite qualities in a debater and I reward these qualities. There is, however, a difference between frontin’ and intensity/passion during a speech/CX, and the former is highly discouraged in front of me. Using CX/flex time well is a good way to get high speaks.   Biases: <ol> <li>I assess internally consistent arguments that clearly articulate incentives for various actors as more probable. If your scenario (or strategy) is not internally consistent in some clear way, I will treat it with inherently lower probability. As an example, an aff with a really well constructed single advantage can often outweigh poorly warranted LOC disads (even if they are otherwise undercovered) by virtue of how important being able to construct the causal chain and incentive landscape for the actors is post your link for me. As a corollary, good defense (not just ‘MAD checks’) is very underutilized and can go a long way to controlling impact framing for me.</li> <li>I listen very intently for how impacts are flagged; if you say ‘war -> 1000’s die’ that impact gets a 5*103 mark on my flow. If you extend it as something it wasn’t shelled as initially, I will honor only the original demarcation (obviously if you explain why its actually bigger before the LOR/PMR you’re fine). If you say ‘nuclear war’ I’ll mark that contextually as best I can; if it sounds like you are saying a small nuclear war where 5*106 die that’s different than if you sound like you are claiming extinction. Either way, the best way to avoid ambiguity is to spend more time on the impact portion of your advantages/disads.</li> <li>Judging at the 2014 NPTE, I was accused of ‘over-thinking’ rounds. I believe that generally people under-think rounds. The move to multiple conditional advocacies and away from deeper work on a smaller set of issues has encouraged this behavior. As mentioned in biases 1 and 2, internal consistency and precise (and supported) tagging is key. Doing those things will help you avoid whatever tendency I have to overthink.</li> </ol>   Specific questions asked by the NPTE philosophy document. As a note – all the biases I express in the answers to the questions below are general and flexible. You can convince me to vote any way on almost any issue. <ol> <li>Speaker points - I normally give 27’s to 28’s. 29’s if you are really good, 30’s if outstanding.</li> <li>How do I approach critically framed arguments – I enjoy a good K debate. The problems that I have with K debate stem from an inability to compare the games being played by the team reading a fiated USFG action and the alternative to the criticism. How do I compare ‘voting negative to reject the biopolitics of the 1ac’ against passing the plan? For the plan, I understand the ‘enforcement boundary’, that is I can imagine the causal chain of events after its passage. For the alternative, it’s not usually clear to me what happens after passage/endorsement/whatever. Resolving this lack of understanding by explaining what the causal chain of events is after I vote for the alt helps a lot. If you have questions about this, please ask.</li> <li>Performances – I am fine with performance, but I am not sure how to approach performance that doesn’t make explicit arguments. As an example, at NPTE 2014 a team read a ‘space traders’ performance in front of me. The debate developed into a question of what was the best strategy to combat oppression of various types. I voted against the affirmative because the 1AC alluded to racism and solvency for that racism but did not make explicit, empirical or theoretically supported arguments. I am deeply uncomfortable voting for an argument that is implicit.</li> <li>Topicality – I like a good topicality debate and wish affirmatives were more topical. In round abuse is not necessary, but a more coherent defense of competing interpretations than ‘less judge intervention’ is required.</li> <li>Counterplans – a smart counterplan is wonderful to see and focuses the debate. I think PICs are good (though can be convinced they are bad for any individual round). Textual competition seems inferior to functional competition to me. Having a text of plans/cps is nice but not required.</li> <li>Sharing flows – not my business, do whatever you like.</li> <li>Order of evaluation – the priority of arguments should be determined by you in round. If you do not do that, I will default to theory first, then all other issues at the same time.</li> </ol> Weighing bias – read my general statements above. This is a hard question to answer in a general context, each specific round is different. In general, I find explicit comparisons of magnitude the most convincing. For dehumanization, it’s easy to be specific: dehumanization means loss of X quality of life for Y people for Z time for a magnitude of M. This is akin to the ‘quality-adjusted life year (QALY)’ used by organizations like the CDC, FDA, etc. It’s even easier for other body count impacts. If you do not do this (at your peril) I will attempt to do so.  Note that I think I would be very open to voting for dehum > war if impacts were more accurately quantified than ‘dehum -> all impacts justified’. QALY’s provide an excellent framework to do this.

Zach Tschida - NPTE Hired 2015

Hey everybody thanks for reading.   Background I competed in parli for four years at the University of Puget Sound and coached for 1 year at UPS and 1 year at Whitman.   In general, I think debate is best when teams are able to advocate in whichever manner they see fit. As a debater, I wanted total freedom to shape the debate. I believe that as a judge my role is to preserve your freedom of argument. Consequently, feel free to argue whatever you want. I appreciate: 1. Nuanced analysis. 2. A clear distillation of complex thoughts.  3. Humor and civility.    Here’s how I come down on specific issues:   Theory I believe theory allows debate to be self-correcting. I do not believe that any type of argument is inherently prohibited.   I evaluate all theoretical questions as competing interpretations.   CPs/CP Theory I err in favor of conditionality. However, even though I think condo is theoretically justified, it does occasionally detract from thoughtful debate.   Judge-kicking: If your MO/LOR strategy advocates a conditional CP or K, I will only evaluate the world of the CP/K. I am typically persuaded by theory against delay and consult CPs.   Textual/Functional competition: this is a contextual issue and a very interesting theory debate. Yes I believe CPs should be textually competitive. I don’t think textual + functional competition itself is a good thing necessarily, but I think CPs that fail to satisfy both thresholds tend to be illegitimate or expand neg ground too broadly. However, feel free to debate this out. Kritiks I think K Affs are acceptable and, if deployed well, can provide thoughtful insight specific to the topic. As I said, nothing is ‘off the table,’ so I do not automatically bind Affirmatives to presenting a topical plan text. However, if you read a plan text, I think you are responsible for defending it; if you do not read a plan text, I think you are still responsible for defending a stable and well-articulated advocacy. Framework: for me, the K serves as a weighing mechanism for prioritizing different types of impact claims. Problematize some stuff and be sophisticated about it, don’t just say X isn’t real.   Ask and I’ll clarify.

2015 National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence