Judge Philosophies
Abel Addleman - U of M
Experience/General Stuff:
I debated 4 years of NPDA/NPTE parli in college for Wheaton (graduated May 2017) and 4 years of LD in high school. I coach parli and policy at the University of Minnesota and LD at Apple Valley High School. I care deeply about debate, about equity in it, access to it, and very much believe in the power it has to change lives. I believe that debate is simultaneously a game and the real world, so I refuse to check my status as a moral agent at the door. Iâm fine with speed and will clear you if you pass my threshold (which is unlikely). Please say all plans/CPâs/T-interps/alts/etc. slowly and twice and take at least one question in your speech (if flex time/CX isnât happening). Please be respectful of your opponents and partner.
Overall Note:
I believe that the technical aspects of debate are tools we use to allow us to understand and engage with the substance of arguments more deeply. I therefore do not think that tech is a substitute for substantive engagement. I value more highly arguments that engage with the opposing positions substantively than ones that merely do so technically (while to do both is truly masterful debate).
AD/DA/CP Debate:
I never got deep into complicated economic or political AD/DA debate as a competitor, so I will be largely limited to my understanding of what you put out in a given round. If youâre clear, there shouldnât be a problem, just donât expect me to know what various terms or abbreviations mean off the bat or grant you internal warrants without clear explanations.
Weighing:
Please do it. This will make my job a lot easier, and also make it a lot more likely that I see the round the way that you would like me to. I will evaluate the round as you tell me to but, that said, I default to probability first and will have a substantially lower threshold than most parli judges to vote on systemic/materialized/highly probable impacts (given any arguments being made that I should prefer them). This does not mean I will not vote on nuclear, disaster, etc. scenarios, just that I will not accept prima facie an unwarranted claim that those impacts outweigh all other things if your opponents are making arguments to the contrary.
Theory:
Win the debate on whatever layer you would like. My threshold to vote on theory is determined by the extent to which a clear impact on the shell is articulated and weighed. I also believe that standards should be contextualized to your opponentsâ position. I find great problems in reading generic reasons why policy is good against non-T affs because I very much believe that theory should be about bringing questions of how debate ought function into the conversation, rather than forcing certain ideas out. This doesnât mean donât read theory in those situations, but that, if youâre going to, I will hold you to a high standard.
Kritiks:
I debated lots of Kâs in my time in parli and I love them. The biggest thing I need is clear alt texts and alt solvency. Tell me the (presumably very good) reasons your K matters in this round/against this case/whatever and give me a clear picture of what your alt is going to look like, and I will be happy. I really hate chicken-and-egg style root cause debates and would much prefer to hear substantive debate about the issues in the K. Please donât assume I know your literature. I will vote on what is said in the round, not my prior knowledge of your particular author.
Performance:
Debate is both a game and the real world. Bringing real world issues to the forefront within debate rounds is simultaneously extremely important and extremely difficult. It definitely creates change in our community and, as such, is something I take very seriously. I will attempt to evaluate every round as fairly as I can, while recognizing I do not check my status as a moral agent at the door. The one thing I like to be clear in these debates, therefore, is the role of the judge. I donât mean that you have to include me in your movement, make me feel comfortable, or anything like that; I mean expecting me to evaluate what Iâm supposed to do at the end of a debate round, with many moral issues on the table and no framework to deal with them, has the potential to give me a major panic attack. I donât say this because I anticipate any such problem, but simply because it is a very real concern for my mental health.
Speaker Points:
26-30, unless you do something very rude or exclusionary.
Adam Testerman - TTU
Background
Hi there!
My background as a competitor involved a couple years reading primarily policy strategies and a couple years reading primarily old-white-man criticisms (Baudrillard, Marx, Lacan, etc). As a coach, my teams have dipped their toes into nearly every kind of argument. I love it all, when it is done well. I can hate it all, when it ain't.
I feel comfortable judging any genre of argument and have no real argument preference beyond the desire to see clash.
I coached for three years at Lewis & Clark College; this is my fourth year as Director of Forensics at TTU.
General Issues
Parliamentary debate is the most fun and the most educational when a variety of argumentative styles, people, knowledge bases, and strategies are given room to thrive. I feel lucky to have judged a vast array of different arguments in my judging career. One of my main goals as a judge is to allow teams to run the arguments they feel are most compelling in front of me. Ive picked up teams reading structural indictments of debate about as many times as Ive picked up teams reading policy affirmatives and defending incrementalism.
It is my goal to involve myself in the debate round as little as possible. I have no preference for any particular kind of argument and generally feel that almost every debate issue can be resolved in the round. I will vote for arguments with warrants. I will try my best to synthesize your arguments, but I also believe that to be a central skill of effective debaters.
Parli debates should be slower than policy debates. Your theoretical top speed is too fast for parli, in my opinion (we don't flash documents, and we don't have enough predictable CX time to clarify key issues). I don't think I've been unable to keep up with even the fastest parli debaters the past several years, however, when in doubt... slow down just a bit.
I will vote for arguments I think are stupid 10 out of 10 times if they are won in the round.
I rely on my flow to decide the round. I attempt to flow performances and I do my best to write down what youre saying as close to verbatim as my fingers allow me. If there is an expectation that I not decide the round based on the way I understand argument interaction on my flow, that should be stated explicitly and it would be a good idea to tell me how I am intended to evaluate the debate round.
Emphasize explanation early¦ dont let your argument make sense for the first time in the LOR or PMR etc.
All constructive speeches should take a question if asked, and its strategic to ask questions (unless there is flex, then I'm agnostic on this question).
Theory interpretations and advocacy statements should be read slowly and read twice.
Points of Order should be called, but I will also do my best to protect new arguments¦ dont be excessive with them though [Ill be vague about what that means, but be an adult]
RVIs have never been good arguments, read them at your own risk.
Theory/Procedurals
I cut my teeth on procedural arguments in college, and I am still a huge fan. To vote on a procedural, I need an interpretation explaining how the debate should be evaluated, a violation detailing specifically why the other team does not fit within that interpretation, standards that explain why the interpretation is good, and a voter that outlines why I should vote on the argument. PLEASE read your interpretation/definition slowly and probably repeat it. It is good to have an interpretation that makes some sense.
DAs/Advantages
DAs and Advs. require uniqueness arguments that explain why the situation the affirmative causes is not happening in the status quo. Defensive arguments are useful, but they often serve to make offensive arguments more impactful or serve as risk mitigation, as opposed to terminal takeouts.
I ran politics in a majority of my negative rounds and I coach my teams to read the position as well. So, I will totally vote on politics every time it is won. That being said, Im finding the position to be one my least favorite and least compelling these days. The obscene nature of congress make the position even more laughable than it was in the past [and its always been sketchy at best, without cards (and with?)]. Read the DA if youre a politics team, but there are almost always better arguments out there.
Critiques
Critique debates can be fun to watch, but only when the position is clear at the thesis level. If your shell argues that the K is a prior question or something like that, spend some meaningful time explaining why thats the case instead of shadow extending an argument from the shell. I am familiar with a lot of the literature, but you should argue the position as if I am not. Critiques are totally dope, but only because they have the potential to advance compelling arguments¦ not because they are obtuse.
Framework debates (on the top of critique... i.e.: epistemology comes first) are a waste of time a vast majority of the time. I do not understand why teams spend any substantive amount of time on framework. The question of whether the affirmative methodology/epistemology/whatever vague term you want to use, is good or bad should be determined in the links and impacts of the criticism. I see almost no world where framework matters independent of the rest of the shell. So¦ the only K framework questions that tend to make sense to me are arguments about why it is a prior question. It makes sense that if the critique wins that the affirmative impacts are threat constructions that Im not going to weigh the affirmative impacts against the position. Thats not a framework debate though, thats a question determined by winning the thesis of the position.
Critical affirmatives can be cool, but they also put me in a weird position as a judge sometimes. If your affirmative is positioned to critique DAs, then I still want to see specific applications of those arguments to the DAs. I need to see how the DA demonstrates your argument to be true in some specific way. By that I mean, if the negative outright wins a DA, I would need to see why that would mean the affirmative shouldnt lose early, often, and specifically. The same is true of any set/genre of negative positions.
Performance/Non-Topical Affirmatives/Alternative Approaches to Debate
I tend to not have super strong feelings in favor or in opposition to performance style arguments. Several of the teams I have coached have run non-traditional arguments and I have seen those be incredibly beneficial for the debaters and have a positive effect on education garnered from their rounds. I have also seen people really struggle with performance-style arguments on an interpersonal level, in both advocating their positions and responding to others doing so. I defer to the debaters to wade through the various issues related to alternative approaches to debate.
I will vote for framework as answer to these arguments if the other team wins the position. However, I also think most non-topical affirmatives are written with 5 minutes of impact turns to framework. Affirmatives must explicitly extend those kinds of arguments to answer framework (don't assume I understand how that's happening just by you extending the affirmative) and teams going for framework should not assume the "a priori" nature of theory means I reject the aff out-of-hand.
I tend to think arguments about the collapse of debate due to alternative approaches to debate, are frequently poorly warranted. Which doesn't mean those warrants don't exist... I just need them to be made explicitly. Debate can look like many things, and still be interesting/educational/productive, in my mind. However, I also believe compelling arguments about "topical versions of the affirmative" can be very compelling. If there is a way to read your criticism as a nuanced way to affirm the resolution, you've probably landed close to my ideal version of critically framed affirmatives. Affirmatives seeking to indict structural conditions of debate can also be very compelling, too. I hope to put my personal desires for a particular model/instantiation of debate to the side in any particular round I'm judging.
CPs
In general, the CP/DA debate is probably what I feel most comfortable judging accurately and I think CPs that solve the affirmative are very strategic. There are probably enough arguments on both sides to justify different interpretations of how permutation or CP theory in general should go down, that I dont have strong opinions about many CP related issues.
I tend to think objections to conditionality are rooted in some very valid arguments, however I find myself concluding conditionality is probably more good than bad in my mind. That only means the conditionality debate is totally fair game and I probably have voted conditionality bad as many times as I have voted it is good.
Cheater CPs are cool with me, so feel free to deploy delay, conditions, consult, whatever. I tend to think the theory arguments read in answer to those positions are more persuasive than the answers when argued perfectly, but that in no way makes me more predisposed to reject any kind of CP strategy.
Alice Lin - Parli at Berkeley
Alyson Escalante - CUI
Background: I competed in NPDA at El Camino College for two years and at the University of Oregon for two years. I was director of debate at Oregon for two years as well, and have consistently judged at least several national tournaments every year since then.
General: Do what you want, I will do my best to flow the round in detail and vote on the flow. I have my preferences but those are ultimately of little concern in the round. I list them here only so that you can know what unspoken biases frame my view of the round. I do my best to exclude these biases, but I think that no judge is a flow robot, so they are worth being up front about.
I truly love parliamentary debate and I promise to treat your round with the utmost seriousness. My hope is that competitors will likewise recognize the unique opportunities parliamentary debate opens up and enter the round with a mutual respect and openness towards all participating in it.
One important note: I really would appreciate it if competitors would not read arguments that discuss sexual assault in graphic detail. Reading SA impacts is fine but more narrative based approaches to the topic are not something I am comfortable judging. This is the only thing I really strongly ask you do not read.
Speaker Points: for me, speaker points are primarily a matter of rewarding technical skill and decision making rather than presentation style. I use speaker points primarily to reward strategic decision making. My point range is mostly between 26.5 and 29.5. Anything outside that range represents exceptionally good or exceptionally bad performance. Although I see speaker points as mostly a matter of rewarding technical excellence, I will probably give you higher speaks if you manage to make strategically sound decisions while not being an asshole to your opponents as well.
Theory: If neither team offers an alternative framework to weigh theory I will default to competing interpretations. This means that I view theory not as an issue strictly of what happened in this round but also as a norm setting framework that raises the question of most desirable practices in all future rounds. I place a high emphasis on competitive counter-interpretations, and teams should be sure their counter-interpretations are not subsumed by the other teams interpretation.
If teams want to propose as alternative framework for assessing theory, such as reasonability, they should provide a clear explanation for how I can evaluate the theory flow through their own framework. Don't just say "judge intervention is inevitable so intervene for us."
I enjoy theoretical debate and do not outright disregard most theory. I understand that reading theory for a time trade off is a part of sound debate strategy and it does not bother me. That said, I find theoretical arguments regarding when affirmative plans are read and when sheets of paper are handed to the other team to be asinine, arbitrary, and incredibly unenjoyable to judge. Ive voted on these arguments before, but always reluctantly.
My own views on theoretical issues are largely irrelevant since I try to bracket them out from the round, but for full transparency: I think conditionality is good, pics are good, actor counterplans are good, the affirmative should defend the topic, and the affirmative does not need to specify beyond normal means.
Non-topical Affirmatives: While I personally prefer and enjoy topical debate, most the rounds I judge feature non-topical affirmatives and I am comfortable assessing these affirmatives. Upon reviewing my voting record, Ive realized that I have a high tendency to vote on topicality in instances that the affirmative totally rejects the topic. This might be worth keeping in mind. I try to keep my personal biases out, but the actual numbers of my voting record indicate that I lean towards the negative when the affirmative rejects the topic. That said, affirmative teams that reject the topic are most likely to get my ballot if they have a strong and competitive counter-interpretation ready to go, and if they are able to frame fairness impacts out of the round.
Critical Debate: I studied continental philosophy in both undergrad and grad school. In terms of familiarity with literature, this is my strong point. That said, I still require critical oriented teams to explain thesis level claims of their criticism. My understanding of critical literature is strongest when the relevant literature relates to marxism, psychoanalysis, structuralism, theories of race. My understanding of post-structural theory is more limited. This is relevant because most Baudrillard and Deleuze critiques I have judged have assumed a higher level of familiarity with the literature than I actually had. I do not feel comfortable voting for a critique which I cannot explain back during an RFD, so if your criticism is particularly esoteric, I would appreciate thesis level explanation.
Disadvantage/Advantage Debate: This is honestly my favorite form of debate to judge. When it is well executed it can provide some of the most in depth clash of any type of debate. I personally enjoy disadvantages that many might consider somewhat generic such as politics, business confidence, or hegemony. As long as there is a solid link to the affirmative, the generic nature of these positions shouldn't be an issue. In terms of topical affirmative construction, I'm fine with pretty much anything. I've found myself voting on topical dedev, spark, and wipe-out many times, and I will evaluate these arguments as seriously as any other argument.
Counterplans/Alternatives/Perms: I believe that counterplans are opportunity costs to the affirmative. This means that they must either be functionally competitive or compete through net benefits via disadvantage links or some other form of independent offense. I must confess that I have never had a clear grip on what "textual competition" is so arguing net benefits differential or functional competition in front of me is your best bet.
In terms of alternatives, I have no particularly strong preferences here, but unless a criticism is coming from a specifically nihilistic or pessimistic perspective, I find that alternatives which propose some sort of positive program or outlook instead of merely rejecting the affirmative are most compelling.
I think that permutations are tests of competition. When the affirmative reads a permutation, the affirmative advocacy does not suddenly shift to the affirmative + the alternative/counterplan. Permutations are simply a way of testing whether or not the negative advocacy is an opportunity cost to the affirmative. As such, I find "perm shields the links" arguments to be fairly asinine, and I also find arguments that the permutation is the affirmative co-opting the negatives method to be equally asinine. Permutations do not mean the affirmative changes, they just test competition.
In general I do not feel like affirmatives by default need to read a perm text that includes the exact text of the plan or the alternative/counterplan. "Perm do both" or "perm: do the affirmative and all non-competitive parts of the alternative" are sufficient unless a clear theoretical argument is raised in the debate for why further textual specificity is needed.
On a more theoretical level, I need negative teams to tell me why intrinsic perms or severance perms are bad. You should not simply point out that a permutation is theoretically illegitimate, you should explain why by providing theoretical offense. You should also explicitly tell me if this offense means I reject the permutation or reject the affirmative.
Miscellaneous:
In general I feel like terminal defense is underutilized in debate. I find that inevitability claims on the uniqueness level of a debate can reframe the offense in a round and are usually underutilized.
I am willing to vote on presumption if a compelling case is made for such a vote.
I think most framework debate ultimately focuses too much on excluding the other team. In an ideal debate round, I think teams should simply be winning access to their own impacts and then trying to outweigh their opponents. Framework is just framing, you dont need to win every argument on the framework level of the debate to win the round, you just have to win impact access and then win on the impact level.
I find points of order somewhat annoying. I will be protecting from new arguments throughout rebuttals. If you really need to me to flag an argument feel free to call a point of order, but dont be excessive.
NPDA rules do not provide an explicit framework for the resolution of a point of personal privilege. As such, I would prefer they not be called except in dire circumstances where the round absolutely must come to a stop.
Amanda Stauder (Ataiyan) - McK
Section 1: General Information
I debated policy and public forum in high school for four years (2003-2007), debated
four years for McKendree doing Parli and some LD (2007-2011) and have been coaching at
McKendree and Belleville East high school (PF, LD) semi-regularly since I graduated in? 2011.
Speed I think I am relatively competent at flowing debates but admit that
I am a little less in the know about current issues and slower in terms of
speed than I was when I was still debating. If I cant understand you or youre
going too fast I will let you know. If Im confused about a position I will
look confused.
I generally protect the PMR but just in case I miss something you should
call points of order if you think the argument will matter in the decision for
the round. Points of order and of inquiry are not your speech time and not a
time to make an argument-- they are for question asking or to challenge whether
an argument is new. If someone says no to a question do not just talk loudly
over them and ask anyway/comment on the round- its annoying and I cant flow
arguments when two people are talking loudly at me.
Disadvantages- do the impact calculus work in the rebuttals and make sure
that the rebuttals include explicit extensions of the position you want me to
vote on. Politics- I do not follow domestic politics closely if at all. I do
not know which senator is from where and what they think. I did debate in
college and have a political science degree so you dont have to dumb things
down just make sure to clearly explain your story and why points matter on
politics disadvantages.
Section 2: Specific Inquiries
Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average
speaker points given)?
I try to give the median of speaker points. Higher if you really impress me,
lower if you are really offensive or particularly bad at speaking. Stuttering,
disorganization, and a lack of understanding about how positions interact will
also not be good for your speaker points.
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run
critical arguments? Can critical arguments be contradictory?
with other negative positions?
I didnt read critiques when I debated but I think I am more critical
argument friendly than I was a few years ago, though they are not my favorite.
I do not understand nor do I have a background in post-modern literature and
the jargon does not make sense to me. Say critical things and use regular words
and I should be more than able to follow along. Explain a voting rational for
critical arguments over the others in the debate to help me construct a
decision for one. Critical affirmatives I like less- I think you should affirm
the resolution. I am likely to not vote for performance affs and really
critical affirmatives- it will be an uphill battle for you and probably not bode
well for your speaker points.
Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round
abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?
I view topicality in terms of competing interpretations- standards claims
with impacts to education or ground I find much more compelling that abuse
claims and reverse voters, though Im sure most people feel this way. In-round
abuse not necessary but you do need to articulate what, as the negative, what
you do not get access to in the world of your interpretation and then why I
should care (ie how it affects debate, education, ground, etc). For affs, you
have to have a clear and supported counter interp and your own counterstandards
if you want me to not vote negative.
Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of
the counterplan? Perms textual competition ok? functional competition?
PICS are okay, specify the status of the CP so were all on the same page
from the beginning, not voting for the CP means just that- I can still vote negative
on other arguments in the debate. Reading CP with Ks is okay but you should
not go for a combination of those. You can run a K and a CP but you need to
pick one in the MO and adequately kick the other which means you have to answer
the offense first of course.
CP theory I understand but am not particularly opinionated about. Keeping
theory arguments to a minimum is probably best thought sometimes they are
warranted when youre caught off guard or the CP is actually really
abusive. Theory arguments are okay but I am more reluctant to vote on them.
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 kritiks, then CP/DA/Aff. The order of priority is
also up for debate. Framework arguments indicate how to evaluate the kritik
verses the aff. See CP stuff above about not going for the K and a DA/CP at the
same time.
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")?
When not explicitly weighted by the debaters- people dying outweighs human
rights abuses. Human rights abuses are the root to all violence ever? without
examples and as a blanketed claim will not get you far with me. Concrete
impacts are preferable but some topics lend themselves more readily to
arguments about human rights. Which is more important is up for debate and
dependent on the context, and resolution, those arguments are made in.
Benjamin Lange - CUI
TL;DR: Do what you want, but I have a high threshold for theoretical defenses in favor of rejecting the topic (although I'm very in favor of creative ways to endorse the topic), and I tend to hold proximal impact framing/proximal solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard as well.
While I'm open to arguments about debate being a "training ground" for personal advocacy and political change, I view debate itself as a game. This means that I view arguments very impersonally, and I care more for the strategic aspect of the game than the emotional or truth-based appeals. Those things are obviously still important, but that just means I will very likely vote for arguments that are "winning" even if I don't necessarily like them (just because of how I understand the utility of debate). For impact weighing, I probably default to magnitude>probability>timeframe unless told otherwise, so do in-depth impact comparison that includes weighing of the different metrics. I tend to hold proximal impact framing and solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard, and while I'm down to vote on proximity you should just keep in mind that I think of all of these arguments as pieces to a game, so I'm not more persuaded by proximal impacts than magnitude-based impacts absent a clear reason.
I'm fine if you want to reject the topic on the Aff, but I'll be very sympathetic to the Neg's theoretical objection to that. You can win the theory debate, but I'll have a pretty high threshold for your theory answers so just be aware of that. Impact turning theory out of the aff is fine as well, but I've found that if the Neg team wins that you shouldn't get to leverage the Aff against theory if truth-testing the aff is impossible, I'll usually evaluate the theory prior to the PMCs reasons that fairness and education are bad or impossible to access. I'm pretty indifferent about conditionality also, but will vote on theory saying it shouldn't be allowed if you win that sheet.
Also on theory, this has only mattered a couple of times, but if I'm not given a paradigm by either team I have a tendency to default to reasonability instead of competing interpretations. This is largely because (absent being told otherwise/as a default) I tend to evaluate theory as a check against abuse (i.e., should I penalize a team for doing something unfair), rather than evaluating it as the endorsement of the "ideal model" of debate, which tends to make a difference regarding how I evaluate the impact framing on the theory, but this has only ever mattered when neither team makes any of the arguments that would give me a cohesive story on theory and I'm left pretty much evaluating a non-functional/unclear interp with no voters.
I love policy debate, but I was also super into reading Ks and I dig janky stuff from obscure philosophical sources. In my opinion, I'm able to understand and follow pretty much whatever you want to throw at your opponent. On the flip-side though, that also means that you probably won't get very far with super ambiguous solvency. You need to have some kind of solvency that is (at the very least) a clearly explained mechanism that is preferably drawn from the literature that the K is based on. As a Neg, I think your best bet is to read a diverse strategy, but if you have a baller K that you want to go all in on then go for it.
Finally, and I've realized that this is probably a very important thing to make clear, I am willing to vote on terminal defense if you are able to explain what it means for the round. That means that if you win the "we meet" on theory, then the rest of the sheet is irrelevant - even under a paradigm of competing interpretations, their rule is irrelevant if you followed it.
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me in person! Good luck :)
Brent Nicholson - McK
I am a Debate Coach at McKendree University. We compete primarily in the NPDA and NFA-LD formats of debate. We also host and assist with local high school teams, who focus on NSDA-LD and PF.
Email: banicholsonATmckendreeDOTedu
I have sections dedicated to each format of debate I typically judge and you should read those if you have time. If you dont have time, read the TLDR and ask your specific questions before the round. If you do a format of debate I dont have a section for, read as much as you can and ask as many questions as you want before the round.
TLDR
My goal as a judge is to adapt to the round that debaters have. I do not expect debaters to adapt to me. Instead, I want you to do what you want to do. I try to be a judge that debaters can use as a sounding board for new arguments or different arguments. I feel capable judging pretty much any kind of debate and Ill always do my best to render a fair decision that is representative of the arguments Ive seen in the round. If I am on a panel, feel free to adapt to other judges. I understand that you need to win the majority, not just me, and Im never going to punish you for that. Do what wins the panel and Ill come along for the ride.
I view debate as a game. But I believe games are an important part of our lives and they have real impacts on the people who play them and the contexts they are played in. Games also reflect our world and relationships to it. Debate is not a pro sport. It is not all about winning. Your round should be fun, educational, and equitable for everyone involved. My favorite thing to see in a debate round is people who are passionate about their positions. If you play hard and do your best, I'm going to appreciate you for that.
The quick hits of things I believe that you might want to know before the round:
1.Specificity wins. Most of the time, the debater with the more well-articulated position wins the debate. Get into the details and make comparisons.
2.I like debaters who seek out clash instead of trying to avoid it. Do the hard work and you will be rewarded.
3.I assume negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. I think conditionally is good. Anything more than two advocacies is probably too much. Two is almost always fine. One conditional advocacy is not at all objectionable to me. Format specific notes below.
4.I love topicality debates. I tend to dislike 1NC theory other than topicality and framework. 2AC theory doesnt appeal to me most of the time, but it is an important check against negative flex, so use it as needed.
5.I dont exclude impact weighing based on sequencing. Sequencing arguments are often a good reason to preference a type of impact, but not to exclude other impacts, so make sure to account for the impacts you attempt to frame out.
6.I will vote on presumption. Debate is an asymmetrical game, and the negative does not have to win offense to win the round. However, I want negative debaters to articulate their presumption triggers for me, not assume I will do the work for them.
7.I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts because that feels least interventionist.
8.Give your opponents arguments the benefit of the doubt. Theyre probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning.
9.Debates should be accessible. If your opponent (or a judge) asks you to slow down, slow down. Be able to explain your arguments. Be kind. Debate should be a fun learning experience for everyone.
10.In evidence formats, you should be prepared to share that evidence with everyone during the round via speechdrop, email chain, or flash drive.
11.All debate is performative. How you choose to perform matters and is part of the arguments you make. That often doesnt come up, but it can. Dont say hateful things or be rude. I will dock speaker points accordingly.
General
This philosophy is very expansive. That is because I want you to be able to adapt to me as much as you want to adapt. To be totally honest, you can probably just debate how you want and it will be fine I really do want you to do you in rounds. But I also want you to know who I am and how I think about debate so that you can convince me.
Everything is up for debate. For every position I hold about debate, it seems someone has found a corner case. I try to be clear and to stick to my philosophys guidelines as much as possible as a judge. Sometimes, a debater changes how I see debate. Those debaters get very good speaker points. (Speaking of which, my speaker points center around a 28.1 as the average, using tenth points whenever possible).
I flow on a laptop most of the time now. Flowing on paper hurts my hand in faster rounds. If Im flowing on paper for some reason, I might ask you to slow down so that I can flow the debate more accurately. If I dont ask you to slow down, youre fine dont worry about it. I dont number arguments as I flow, so dont expect me to know what your 2b point was without briefly referencing the argument. You should be doing this as part of your extensions anyway.
One specific note about my flowing that I have found impacts my decisions compared to other judges on panels is that I do not believe the pages of a debate are separate. I view rounds holistically and the flow as a representation of the whole. If arguments on separate pages interact with each other, I do not need explicit cross-applications to understand that. For instance, MAD checks on one page of the debate answers generic nuke war on every page of the debate. That work should ideally be done by debaters, but it has come up in RFDs in the past, so I feel required to mention it.
In theory debates, Ive noticed some judges want a counter-interpretation regardless of the rest of the answers. If the strategy in answering theory is impact turns, I do not see a need for a counter-interp most of the time. In a pure, condo bad v condo good debate, for instance, my presumption is condo, so the negative can just read impact turns and impact defense and win against a no condo interp. Basically, if the aff says you cant do that because it is bad and the neg says it is not bad and, in fact, is good I do not think the neg should have to say yes, I can do that (because they already did it). The counter-interp can still help in these debates, as you can use it to frame out some offense, by creating a lower threshold that you still meet (think some condo interps instead of all condo).
I look to texts of interps over spirit of interps. I have rarely seen spirit of the interp clarified in the 1NC and it is often used to pivot the interp away from aff answers or to cover for a bad text. If you contextualize your interp early and then stick to that, that is fine. But dont use spirit of the interp to dodge the 2AC answers.
I start the round with the assumption that theory is a prior question to other evaluations. I will weigh theory then substance unless someone wins an argument to the contrary. Critical affs do not preclude theory in my mind unless a debater wins a compelling reason that it should. I default to evaluating critical arguments in the same layer as the rest of the substantive debate. I am compelled by arguments that procedural issues are a question of judging process (that non-topical affs skew my evaluation of the substance debate or multi-condo skews the speech that answers it, for instance). I am unlikely to let affirmative teams weigh their aff against theory objections to that aff without some good justifications for that.
A topicality interpretation should allow some aff ground. If there is not a topical aff and the aff team points that out, I'm unlikely to vote neg on T. That means you should read a TVA if youre neg (do this anyway). I am open to sketchier T interps if they make sense. For instance, if you say that a phrase in the res means the aff must be effectually topical, I can see myself voting for this argument. Keep in mind, however, that these arguments run the risk of your opponent answering them well and you gaining nothing.
NPDA
Im going to start with the biggest change in my NPDA philosophy. Debates need to slow down. I still think speed is good. If all the debaters are fine with speed, I still like fast debate and want to see throwdowns at top speed. However, analytics with no speech docs are brutal to flow. Too many warrants get dropped. While we have laundry lists of arguments, they are often not dealt with in depth because theyre just hard to keep track of and account for. Our best NPDA debaters could debate at about 80% of their top speeds and maintain argumentative depth through improved efficiency and increased focus on the core issues of rounds, while still making the complex and nuanced arguments we want and getting more of them on each others flows and into each others speeches. Seek out clash!
NPDA is a strange beast. Without carded evidence, uniqueness debates and author says X/no they say Y can be messy. That just means you need to explain a way you want me to evaluate them and, ultimately, why I should believe your interpretation of that authors position or the argument youve made. In yes/no uniqueness questions, explain why you believe yes, not just that someone else does. That means explaining the study or the article reasoning that youre leaning on and applying it to the specifics of the debate. Sometimes it just means you need an even if argument to hedge your bets if you lose those issues. I try to let these things be resolved in round, but sometimes I have to make a judgment call and Ill do my best to refer only to my flow when that happens. But remember, the evidence alone doesnt win evidence debates the warrants and reasoning do the heavy lifting.
Arguments in parliamentary debate require more reasoning and support because there is no printed evidence available to rely on. That means you should not just yoink the taglines out of a file someone open-sourced. You should explain the arguments as they are explained in the texts those files are cut from. Use your own words to make the novel connections to the rounds were in and the topics we discuss. This is a beautiful thing when it happens, and those rounds show the promise that parli has as a productive academic endeavor. We dont just rely on someone else saying it we can make our own arguments and apply what others have said to new scenarios. So, lets do that!
Affirmative teams must affirm the resolution. How you do that is up to you. The resolution should be a springboard for many conversations, but criticizing the res is not a reason to vote affirmative. You can read policy affs, value affs, performance affs, critical affs, and any other aff you can think of as long as it affirms the res. Affs should include an interpretation of the resolution and a weighing mechanism to determine if youve met this burden. That is not often necessary in policy affs (because it happens contextually), but sometimes it helps to clarify. I am not asking the aff to roleplay as oppressors or to abdicate their power to pose questions. Instead, I want the aff team to reframe questions if necessary and to contextualize their offense to the resolution.
Negative teams must answer the affirmative. How you do that is up to you. You should make sure I know what your objections to the aff strategy are and why they are voting issues. That can be T, DAs, Ks, performances, whatever (except spec*). I vote on presumption more than most judges in NPDA. The aff must win offense and affs dont always do that. I think risk of solvency only applies if I know what Im risking. I must be able to understand and explain what an aff does on my ballot to run that risk on their behalf. With all that said, articulate presumption triggers for me. When you extend defense in the MO, explain thats a presumption trigger because.
I can buy arguments that presumption flips aff in counter-advocacy debates, but I dont see that contextualized well and is often just a risk of solvency type claim in the PMR. This argument is most compelling to me in PIC debates, since the aff often gets less (or none) of their 1AC offense to leverage. Absent a specific contextualization about why presumption flips aff in this round (bigger change, PIC, etc.), I tend to err neg on this question, though it rarely comes up.
*On spec: Spec shells must include a clear brightline for a we meet so aff must specify the branch (judicial, legislative, executive) is fine. Spec shells often only serve to protect weak link arguments (which should be improved, rather than shielded by spec) or to create time tradeoffs. They are sometimes useful and good arguments, but that scenario is rare. In the few cases where spec is necessary, ask a question in flex. If that doesnt work, read spec.
Condo: 1 K, 1 CP, and the squo is fine to me. Two Ks is a mess. Two CPs just muddles the case debate and is worse in NPDA because we lack backside rebuttals. Contradictory positions are fine with me (procedurally, at least). MGs should think ahead more and force bad collapses in these debates. Kicking the alt doesnt necessarily make offense on the link/impact of a K go away (though it often does). I am open to judge kicking if the neg describes and justifies an exact set of parameters under which I judge kick. I reserve the right to not judge kick based on my own perception of these arguments. So probably dont try to get me to judge kick, honestly.
I don't think reasonability (as it is frequently explained) is a good weighing mechanism for parli debates. It seems absurd that I should be concerned about the outcomes of future debates with this topic when there will be none or very few and far between.At topic area tournaments, I am more likely to vote on specific topicality. That does not mean that you can't be untopical, it just means you need good answers. Reasonability makes more sense to me at a tournament that repeats resolutions (like NPTE).
Brittany Hubble - El Camino
TLDR:
Do what you want and make the debate space fun and educational. Don't be petty. Don't lie. Don't abuse flex time.
BG:
I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and I have been coaching parli for El Camino since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round.
Impacts:
You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate.
Case Debate:
I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well.
Disadvantages:
Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability.
Counterplans:
Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea.
Conditionality:
I am not a fan of multiple conditional advocacies but you can read them if you want. In general, I prefer unconditional advocacies and have no problem voting on condo bad. However, if you win the condo debate I will still vote for you and wont punish you for it.
Kritiks:
I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than they used the state.¢? I am not saying this cant be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I dont like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should.
Identity Arguments:
With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual.
Theory:
I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! Dont just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win.
Speed
Speed is fine but please be clear. I dont see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments.
Defending the Topic:
Whether or not you choose to defend the topic is up to you. I think you should provide substantial justifications for why you should be required to defend the topic. I will not drop a team for choosing not defend the topics, as I feel the debate space is yours to decide how to manage. However, I believe there are valid arguments to be made why defending the topic is important and how abandoning the topic can be bad. I find it best when negative teams engage with the affirmative in addition to justifying why they should defend the topic. I have both voted for and against teams on framework as well. You really just need to win the argument.
Speaker Points:
If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. I tend to believe speaker points are arbitrary and tend to awards speaker points on the higher side. That being said, I reserve the right to punish teams for egregious behavior by deducting speaks.
Miscellaneous:
Be organized and sign post. Dont assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round.
As flex time has been introduced, I am not particularly receptive to you asking for a copy of every interp, plan, ROB, etc. during speeches. This also means that you don't get to wait to start your flex until you get copies of whatever you want a copy of. Your flex starts immediately after the previous speech. I also don't think it is a particularly strong theoretical argument to claim that you should be handed these texts during the speech. This is parli not policy and you should be flowing these things. That is not to say I will not vote on theory that claims you should be granted these luxuries, but I believe making case arguments are a much better use of your time.
I also don't really believe in RVIs especially on theory.
Chris Miles - U of M
Mid-season change for NPDA/NPTE I am really annoyed by the amount of theory arguments that I have been judging. I will be massively increasing my threshold on these arguments and will generally default to reasonability for most arguments besides topicality. I will also probably cap your speaker points at like 27.
TOO LONG DIDNâT READ: You do you. If you bring me chai I will give block 30âs. If you have questions then ask me.
I am a former debater for FOHS, KCKCC, and Missouri Western State University. I have been involved in HS policy, NPDA/NPTE, and CEDA/NDT for 10 years. I debated many styles. People never read these, but here is a tldr.
The K if itâs your thing then do it. I donât care that much about FW in the LOC/1NC. Have overviews and link package. I hate R.O.B comes first claims. Explain things to me.
Theory Slow down for the interp. Proven abuse is better. Simple interps are good. Multiple violations bad. If reading multiple theory positions put them on different sheets. read standards and voters.
Topicality (see above) I prefer pseudo topical to not topical.
DA/ CP Read them. Good advantage cpâs are nice.
Perms are test of competition. I think external net-benefits to permutations are the worst, donât do them. read 1 and explain it. I treat them like text, so I prefer you slow down and read them twice.
Offense vs. Defense Read both. Will vote on terminal defense.
Affâs have one. donât say try or die 200 times. read internal link arguments. Be inherent. Be consistent.
Method/Performance I like knowing what the method is to a performance argument is and think that both are equally important and should be defended. I think that these arguments in general should have a method that is helpful for more than just the reader.
David Worth - RIce
David Worth – Rice
D.O.F., Rice University
Parli Judging Philosophy
Note: If you read nothing else in this, read the last paragraph.
I’ll judge based on given criteria/framework. I can think in more than one way. This means that the mechanisms for deciding the round are up for debate as far as I’m concerned. My decision is based mostly on how the debaters argue I should decide the round but I will intervene if the round demands it. There are many cases where this might be necessary: If asked to use my ballot politically for example, or if both sides fail to give me a clear mechanism for voting, or if I know something to factually incorrect (if someone is lying). In these cases, I try to stay out of the decision as much as I can but I don’t believe in the idea that any living person is really a blank slate or a sort of argument calculator.
I prefer debates that are related to the topic.
I will not vote for an argument that I don’t understand. If I can’t figure it out from what you’ve said in the round, I can’t vote on it.
I will admit that I am tired of debates that are mostly logic puzzles. I am tired of moving symbols around on paper. Alts and plan texts that are empty phrases don’t do it for me anymore. The novelty of postmodern critique that verges on--or actually takes the leap into--nihilism has worn off. I don’t think there’s much value anymore in affirming what we all know: That things can be deconstructed and that they contain contradictory concepts. It is time for us to move beyond this recognition into something else. Debate can be a game with meaning.
Warrants: I will not vote for assertions that don’t at least have some warrant behind them. You can’t say “algae blooms,” and assume I will fill in the internals and the subsequent impacts for you. You don’t get to just say that some counter-intuitive thing will happen. You need a reason that that lovely regionally based sustainable market will just magically appear after the conveniently bloodless collapse of capitalism. I’m not saying I won’t vote for that. I’m just saying you have to make an argument for why it would happen. NOTE: I need a good warrant for an "Independent Voting Issue" that isn't an implication of a longer argument, procedural, or somehow otherwise developed. Just throwing something in as a “voter” will not get the ballot. I reserve the right to gut-check these. If there is not warrant or if the warrant makes no sense to me, I won't vote on it.
Defense can win, too. That doesn’t mean that a weaker offensive argument with risk can’t outweigh defense, it simply means that just saying, “oh that’s just defense,” won’t make the argument go away for me. Debate is not football. There’s no presumption in the NFL, so that analogy is wrong.
You need to deal with all the line-by-line stuff but should not fail to frame things (do the big picture work) for me as well. It’s pretty rare that I vote on one response but it’s equally rare that I will vote on the most general level of the ideas. In a bind, I will vote for what’s easier to believe and/or more intuitive.
Speed is fine as long as you are clear. There are days when I need you to slow down a tad. I have battled carpal/cubital tunnel off and on for a few years and sometimes my hand just does not work quite as well. I’ll tell you if you need to clear up and/or slow down, but not more than a couple of times. After that, it’s on you.
Please slow down for the alt texts, plans, advocacies, etc., and give me a copy too. If I don’t have it, I can’t vote for it.
Strong Viewpoints: I haven’t yet found "the" issue that I can’t try to see all sides of.
Points of Order: Call them—but judiciously. I’ll probably know whether the argument is new and not calling them does not change their status as new. Also, if you’re clearly winning bigtime don’t call a ridiculous number of them. Just let the other team get out of the round with some dignity. If you don’t, your speaker points will suffer. It’ll be obvious when I think you are calling too many.
If the round is obviously lopsided and you are obliterating the other team then be nice. I will lower your speaker points if you aren’t respectful or if you simply pile it on for the heck of it. If it’s egregious enough, you might even lose the debate.
You don’t need to repeat yourself just to fill time. If you’re finished, then sit down and get us all to lunch, the end of the day, or the next round early.
Theory: I’m not going to weigh in on the great theoretical controversies of the day. Those are up to you to demonstrate in the round. T can be more than one thing depending on the round. I’m not going to tell you what to do. Debate is always in flux. Actually, I’ve learned or at least been encouraged to think differently about theory issues from debaters in rounds far more often than from anyone else. If I had pontificated about The Truth As I Knew It before those rounds, the debaters would have simply argued what I said I liked and I wouldn’t have learned, so it’s in my interest as well as yours for me not to hand you a sushi menu with the items I’d like to see checked off. PICS, Framework, Competing Interp, in-round abuse, etc. are all interpretable in the debate. I will say that I probably most naturally think in terms of competing interpretations, but, again, I can think in more than one way.
My “Debate Background:” I did CEDA/NDT in college. I coached policy for years, and also coached parli from the days of metaphor all the way into the NPTE/NPDA modern era. I have also coached NFA-LD.
Finally, I ask that you consider that everyone in the room has sacrificed something to be there. A lot of resources, time, and effort went in to bringing us all there. Be sure to show some respect for that. I am serious about this and it has come to occupy a significant portion of my thinking about debate these days. In fact, I think it’s time for the in-round bullying to stop. I see too many rounds where one team’s strategy is simply to intimidate the other team. I find it strange that an activity that talks so much about the violence of language often does so in such a needlessly aggressive and violent manner. In some rounds every interaction is barbed. Flex/CX is often just needlessly aggressive and sometimes even useless (when, for example, someone simply refuses to answer questions or just keeps purposely avoiding the question when it’s obvious that they understand the question, opting instead for aggression sometimes verging on ad hominem). I see too many other rounds where everyone is just awful to each other, including the judges afterward. You can be intense and competitive without this. We are now a smaller circuit. It’s strange that we would choose to spend so much time together yet be so horrible to each other.
Fiker Tesfaye - TTU
Please, I beg, read the things I write here.
I'm Fiker (pronounced like snicker). She/her/hers. I debated a bit in high school which is mostly unimportant, and then did four years (2015-2019) at Texas Tech University. I (and my partner) won the NRR and I won all 3 national top speaker awards in 2019. Now I judge and coach for TTU. So it goes.
I generally think debate is a game, but a useful and important one. It may not be "fiat" but it does influence the real world by how we exist inside of it. Let's not forget we're human beings. Read what you want, I certainly did. Speed isn't usually an issue but if we're blazing, let me know so I can use paper and not my laptop.
Things to keep in mind: I like to do as little work as possible when it comes to making decisions on the flow. Impact calculus is essential. however many warrants you have, double it. Don't be terrible. Don't be bigots. Condo is good, but don't test the limits. I don't really get presumption. Thought experiments aren't real. Jokes are fun. 9/10 the MG theory is not worth it.
Affs: Read them. K affs are fine (I'm a big fan) just make sure the things you say make sense and do something. Read case against them. Be clear.
DA/CP: Also read these. They need to be complete and fleshed out. Warrants are your best friend. CPs should come with written texts, imo. I would say I have a slightly higher than average threshold for CP theory.
Theory: I like this and my threshold is pretty equal if run well, but I needneedneed good structure. Interpretations are key, please slow down and repeat them. Now, I don't need several sheets of theory, MG theory, overly high-level theory, and certainly not MO and later theory. Keep it at home. Have voters. Defend them.
Ks: I love them, but I don't vote on nothing. Framework needs to be strong or it needs to not bog down the real parts of the argument. Links need to link..... please......Alt needs to make sense, repeat them twice for me, and if they're long, I'd like to be told in flex or given a copy. Even if I know your literature, I am not debating. Please do that work for me in round. Identity arguments are fine, do as you please just don't be offensive or overly satirical about real violence.
Have a debate. Live your life. Yee, and dare I say it, haw.
Its Black History Month. Adjust preferences accordingly.
Grant Tovmasian - RioRunners
I debated NPDA and NFA-LD. In IE's, focused on Limited Prep and Platforms, minimal personal experience in Interps. Been coaching forensics speech and debate for the last 15 plus years.
You matter, your opponent matters, your speech matters, truth matters, rules matter, I matter. I refrain from interceding on any one's behalf up to a point. Please remember that although I approach the round as impartial as I can, that does not negate the truth, I still am aware which country I live in and who is the president and killing puppies is wrong (also, hurting, kicking, and just violence in general, I frown upon)
In all forms of debates my guiding principle aside from fairneness, consideration and humility will be the official rules of the event. Although I might disagree with some of the rules, untill they are changed, I will abide by the existing sets.
I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any students. Do not isolate, offend, or make your opponent feel less than wonderful human beings and students that they are. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attacks and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments and not a bully pulpit to bash fellow students.
I prefer good On Case/Off Case. Be aware that procedurals force judge intervention. As such I am a believer that presentation and sound argumentation is critical towards establishing one's position. DA vs Advantages. CP vs Plan are all sound strategies and I hope students will use them. If you are running a CP, you give up presumption. You take upon yourself same burdens as the Aff. If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. Please call Points of Order and 95% of the time I will respond with (point well taken, point not well taken) That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete.
I firmly believe that speed kills, "DO NOT SPREAD" as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round. Critics, i.e. K are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important than whatever else is happening and is directly connected to either the actions of the other team or resolution in it of itself. As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything.
I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates.
Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)
On IPDA. It is a stand-alone debate. It is not Parli Light, it needs logic, anlaysis and persuasivness, which means for the duration of IPDA round I do not speak Parli. Make your arguments conversational, logical and devoid of lingo that has no place in this event.
On NFA-LD. Its stock issues and spread delivery is antithetical to this event.
Joe Provencher - UTTyler
The allegory of the cornbread:
Debate is like a delicately constructed thanksgiving dinner. Often, if you take time to make sure you donât serve anyone anything theyâre allergic to, we can all grit it and bear it even if we really didnât want to have marshmallows on our sweet potatoes. Mashed potatoes and gravy are just as good as cranberry relish if you make it right. Remember, If youâve been invited to a thanksgiving dinner you should show up unconditionally unless you have a damn good excuse or your grandma got hit by a reindeer because weâre here to eat around a point of commonality unless your great uncle happens to be super racist. Then donât go to thanksgiving. Iâll eat anything as long as youâre willing to tell me whatâs in it and how to cook it. Remember, you donât prepare stuffing by making stuffing, thatâs not a recipe thatâs a tautology. I eat a lot, Iâm good at eating, and Iâd love to help you learn how to eat and cook too.
PS: And why thanksgiving? Because youâre other options are Christmas featuring a man way too old to be doing that job asking if youâve been naughty or nice at the hotel lobby, the Easter bunny which is just a man way older than youâd think he is in a suite offering kids his definitely-not-sketchy candy (who maybe arenât really even old enough to be eating all that candy), or Labor Day where everyone realizes they canât wear their hoods and be fashionable at the same time.
Kelly Hutchison - UOP
Read what ever you want, I am willing to listen to any argument, critical or topical affs. I like framework arguments, but make sure that they have impacts and flush them out. I wont do extra work for you, that means you need to make extensions. Please make sure that you have evidence to back up your claims, and then give analysis. Debates without evidence are boring and not as educational.
Kelly Burns - TTU
I have 4 years of policy debate in high school and 5 years of parli at Washburn University
I am currently a coach at Texas Tech University.
I want to hear a good case debate because warrants and resolutional understanding is good. If that is not possible, here are my opinions on other things:
Speed is good. Just be accessible when called clear or slow down.
K's are good as long as the structure and warrants are there
CP's are good but have your theory ready.
DA's are great make sure you have squo solves if you don't have a cp
Theory is good (make sure you have a competitive interp when answering)
You can run anything as long as it's justified
Don't drop offense!! Be kind and respectful, rude people are losers and will be treated as such.
Lance Allen - McK
I competed for Mckendree for 4 years and have been coaching since 2013. I try to open about most any arguments that are placed in front of me. I am pretty good with speed, but clarity is important, because Im not as good as I used to be. I will say clear or speed if Im not getting enough. I am open to most any critical arguments; I just need it to be explained and impacted effectively. I am open to performance based args as well, again impacts are important and should be obvious to me and to opponents.
When it comes to topicality, I do not require in round abuse, but it helps. Competing interps is the best way get ahead as an Aff. You should be able to explain why your interp was best.
CP: I generally think pic are bad, but Im ready to hear that debate in round. And, in some specific cases a PIC can be warranted. Any type of competition is acceptable to me in CP.
I usually start evaluating a round on the procedural items and then make my way to case. I think that DA come last because even if I win 100% solvency of the AFF there is a chance I link to the DA or K. If I link, then I evaluate the off-case impacts. To be clear, I should never have to make the choice about where I need to go to evaluate. Debaters should be framing their offense for the judge.
I think that in most cases the easiest thing to default to is terminal impacts. I tend to weigh them first. Systemic impacts are next. Again, I feel uncomfortable making the choice as to what come first, I really want the debate to tell me what needs to be weighed and why.
Make the rounds as clear as possible for me. An arg you know best and can explain best to me is you best route to my ballot.
Li-Ren Chang - El Camino
Important stuff:
Mackenzie Marquess - UTTyler
Background:
HS competitor at Van High School (TX) from 2010-2014
Attended UT Tyler, degree in communication and political science
College competitor 2015-2018
Director of Forensics at Lake Travis HS (2018-2019)
.
Judging philosophy
I don't really care what style the debate round takes as long as there are warranted arguments. I want you to weigh arguments for me at the end of the round. I base speaker points mainly on the arguments made in the round. Be kind to each other in rounds. I don't want to watch you fight or be hateful. Respect one another.
I can keep up with most speed and I am fine with it, but only if it is necessary (ie. if you are speeding so that you can read 10 underdeveloped arguments instead of just 2 good ones, I will be unhappy). The easiest way to get bad speaker points from me is to be rude in CX, make ad hominem attacks, or be offensive.
I don't like voting on unnecessary theory, show me proven abuse.
If I am not on an email chain PLEASE repeat all important texts (alt, ROB, interpretations, etc.). I want to have them on my flow word for word.
Please don't read a K aff or a K neg strat if you do not understand it/ are unwilling or unable to explain it to your opponent during CX if they ask.
Margaret Rockey - WWU
Background: Parli coach at WWU for one year. Competed in parli at Whitman for three years and one year independently (sco Sweets!). I have no idea if I am or if people perceive me as a K- or policy-oriented judge. I guess I read a lot of disads, topical K affs, disads, and always read, but never went for politics, but I strongly preferred being a double member because I gave no shits about what our strategy was and would defend whatever. So I have no strong preferences regarding argumentative content.
Iâve tried writing a philosophy four or five times this year, and every attempt has ended with one sentence rejecting the proposition of writing in a philosophy in the first place. The short version, and what you probably want to know, is that you can read whatever you want, and should give me a reason why you win and a reason why the other team loses. In the event that the reason you win is also the reason they lose, you should explain how it is so. What follows is not a syncretic philosophy but a disorganized and unenclosed series of thoughts on debate, some arbitrary biases and thresholds, and judging tendencies Iâve noticed in myself. It may or may not be helpful.
Judging Generally
I find I feel much less certain about my decisions as a judge than I did about my predictions as a competitor and observer. Actually doing the work of making and justifying a decision almost always necessitates getting my hands dirty in some form or other. Most of my decisions require intervention to vote for any one team, either because certain core questions have not been resolved, or some resolved questions have not been contextualized to one another, or some combination of the two. Recognizing the frequent inevitability of dirty hands in decision-making, I try to stick to both a general principle and practice when judging. In principle, I try to have a justification for every decision I make. In practice, I find I try to limit my intervention to extrapolating from arguments made to resolve unanswered issues; if a certain team is winning a certain part of the flow; what does that mean for this part where no one is clearly ahead but where someone must be to decide the round? This is also means that an easy way to get ahead is doing that work for me--provide the summary and application of an argument in addition to making it.
Framework
In general I think framework either tells me how to prioritize impacts or understand solvency, and in particular how to situate solvency in relation to debate as a practice. Most framework arguments I see in-round seem to be made out of a precautious fear of leaving the something crucial open on the line-by-line, but with little understanding of the argumentâs application to interpreting the rest of the round. At least, thatâs what I felt like when I extended framework arguments for awhile. I donât understand the argument that fiat is illusory. The advocacy actually being implemented has never been a reason to vote aff, as far as I can tell. The purpose of fiat is to force a âshouldâ? and not âwillâ? debate. Framework arguments that dictate and defend a certain standard for the negativeâs burden to argue that the advocacy âshould notâ? happen are ideal. Iâm open to arguments proposing a different understanding of solvency than what a policymaking framework supplies.
My only other observation about framework debates is that every interpretation seems to get slotted into some âcritical non fiat âologyâ? slot or âpolicy fiat roleplayingâ? slot. This is a false binary but its frequent assumption means many non-competitive framework (and advocacies!) are set against each other as if theyâre competitive. Policymaking and roleplaying are not the same thing; epistemology and ontology being distinct doesnât mean theyâre inherently competitive, for a couple examples.
This is also the major flaw of most non-topical K v. K debates I seeâthe advocacies are not competitive. They feel like I.E. speeches forced into the debate format when the content and structure of that content just donât clashâI mean, itâs like the aff showing up and saying dogs are cool and the neg firing back that cats are cool. Itâs just not quite debate as weâre used to, and demands reconceptualizing competition. This is also why I donât think âno perms in a method debateâ? makes any sense but I agree with the object of that argument. The topic creates sidesâyouâre either for or against it. In rounds where each team is just going to propose distinct ways of apprehending the world, whatever that looks like, I see no reason to award noncompetitiveness to either team. (Oh, this should not be used as a justification for negative counterperms. How counterperms being leveraged against perms represents anything less than the death of debate is a mystery to me) Iâm not saying donât have nontopical KvK rounds, please do, just please also read offense against each otherâs arguments (cats are cool and dogs are bad). In those rounds, your reason to win is not the same reason the other team loses, which is the case for advocacies which are opportunity costs to each other. For the record, I think critical literature is arguably the most important education debate offers. I just think debate is structured for competition oriented around policy advocacies and the ways that kritikal arguments tend to engage each other challenge that structure in ways we have yet to explore in parli (at least, writ large).
Theory
Donât have anything in particular to say about this other than that I have a high threshold for evaluating anything other than plan text in a vacuum in determining interp violations. Everything else seems a solvency question to me, but make the arguments you want to and can defend.
Independent Voters
Iâve noticed that I have a pretty high threshold on independent voters. I voted for an independent voter once when the block went for it. Arguments about discursive issues serve an important purpose. But for arguments read flippantly or as a gotcha or, more often, that lack any substantive impact, I always feel a little guilty voting there and jettisoning the rest of the debate, like feeling bad for picking one spoon over another when youâre a kid. I think a lot of judges want the simple way to vote but I donât, as far as I can tell. They donât necessarily have to be complicated, but I like thorough ways to vote, which do often involve a lot of nuance or at least word dancing (I believe debate is fundamentally competitive bullshitting, which I do not mean derisively in the slightest).
Maria DeMarco - McK
Read bolded portions
if you?re in a hurry!
Maria Judith DeMarco
B.A., Communication
Studies
Texas Tech
University '19
Background:
I debated on the
NPTE/NPDA circuit for 4 years. During 2 of those years I also competed in IEs.
My former coaches, including Adam Testerman, Joe Provencher, Kaitlyn Johnson,
David Hansen, Jackson DeVight, and other members of the current TTU coaching
staff inform the majority of my views about debate. If you have any additional
questions about my background, where I?m at now, or anything else regarding my
judging philosophy, please feel free to ask at tournaments or add & message
me on Facebook.
General:
I love good debates!
<3 That is all. I do not enjoy being in the back of rounds when debaters are
clearly unprepared, disinterested, or otherwise demonstrate a lack of
engagement; there are too many individuals who make enormous sacrifices for
students to not reciprocate by investing all they can. This is not to say that
you should not prioritize having fun or that things must be serious, but it is
always better to watch a round in which everyone is committed to doing the best
they can. This also extends to my personal role as a critic. I care about the
rounds I watch and will not be a judge who carelessly makes a decision.
What you can read in front of
me:
Read any argument you want but
be mindful of theory.? I do not prefer one type of debate over another, and do not
have any favorite arguments. Though I read the K, performances, and other
identity arguments for the better part of 3 years, I read straight up policy
arguments for most of my senior year and fell in love with that strategy.
Feel free to read
literally anything & please do not make assumptions about what debates I
like to see simply use the best strategy given the topic
and your own personal preferences.
If you are considering breaking
a new position or wondering if you can read creative arguments in front of me,
go for it.? I have read a wide variety of arguments from afrofuturism to
feminist rap, and I love hearing unique positions. If you don?t talk about the
topic, great (although specific topical links are preferred). If you talk about
the topic, also great. I do not necessarily require specific links to the
resolution if you are reading a ?project? or other argument about the debate
space rather than the topic.
However, perhaps my
strongest opinion at the moment is that? I am *very* over frivolous
theory debates.? This refers to theory that (and I?m being
generous) is overly ?nuanced? to be meaningful. I will reluctantly vote on
these arguments if you decisively win them, but will be less receptive and have
a higher threshold if you go for 3 sheets of theory in the block without
collapsing, or read a canned/irrelevant ?specify your ethics? argument when it
is a very, very thinly-veiled time suck. Unless there are legitimate violations
or these arguments are clearly applicable, there are almost always more
strategic and pedagogically productive interpretations that have the same
utility. To quote the wonderful David Worth, ?I am tired of debates that are
mostly logic puzzles.? I have taken the LSAT and can assure you I do not need
further practice with it.
Theory that is going to be an
uphill battle with me as your critic:
- multiple sheets of
theory which are not collapsed in the MO
- ethics/philosophy
SPEC
- any CP theory that
is not conditionality
- PMR theory
That being said, I
do not have predispositions to viewing a theory debate any other way than how
you tell me to evaluate it. I do think that most arguments function through
competing interpretations; for example, reasonability is often just another way
to interpret the rest of the debate that follows.? I would also appreciate having a copy of any interpretations that
are particularly complicated? to avoid confusion and
intervention.
A note on Politics DAs:
I don?t always feel
the most comfortable in evaluating politics disads. Though I frequently read
ptx, it took me longer than normal to fully understand how the politics
scenario would break down. If you choose to read politics, it would be best to
slow down slightly on the links. Also, tenuous links are a no-go. If you are
creating several internal links that are only tenuous, I will have a hard time
finding a way to vote for you because it?s unclear whether you even garner an
impact.
How to win my ballot with the
K:
Please ensure that
you know what your K does, and that you are able to articulate that clearly.
It?s fine to be more ambiguous in the beginning, but by the end of the
round,? I want to have a clear understanding of what your solvency
mechanism is and what it will do? to solve the main points of
clash in the debate. If you are going for proximal impacts and your solvency
mechanism is predicated on your K doing something in this particular room and
round, you need to win why those impacts are more important than other impact
calculus like timeframe/magnitude/probability/severity.
More
importantly,? you need to ensure your solvency mechanism
addresses the impacts you are going for. For example, do not go for
proximal in-round impacts if you?re reading a K that claims to solve
capitalism. This does not apply if you clearly explain that in-round solvency
is a prerequisite or has inroads to solving other impacts in the future.
However, doing that type of analysis requires warrants (not assertions) that it
might lead to something later. For example, a Cap K with dialectical materialism
or similar solvency for gaining class consciousness within a certain round also
needs to explain how a few people gaining consciousness could realistically
translate into solving capitalism writ large.
A note on answering
Ks:
Always read a perm!
There is rarely a reason not to and I will be sad if you are decisively winning
the rest of the debate but lose because you did not perm.
RFDs/Speaker Points
I intend to write
RFDs that minimize personal biases, though? I have zero problems docking
speaker points for insensitive comments regarding sexual violence, racism,
misogyny, etc.? I have participated in too many rounds where
teams read Nietzche, Buddhism, or similar Ks and thought it appropriate to
inform me that sexual violence and abuse was inevitable and ought to be
embraced. Not only are these arguments often traumatic to hear, but are also
gross mischaracterizations of actual philosophy, so if you do not fully
understand said philosophy then avoid debating it altogether. Weaponizing
nonsense like this for the sake of a ballot is just not the move, and if you
find yourself resorting to verbal violence to get a W, it demonstrates not only
a general lack of care but also a lack of skill. However, do not take this as
an open invitation to pretend that violence is happening in an attempt to win
by saying to prefer "tech over truth" if nothing offensive has truly
happened.? Tech and truth are not mutually exclusive.
I try to stick to
the most commonly used speaker point breakdown. A below average debate will be
around 26, average will be around 27-28, and above average will be around 29.
30s are reserved for speeches that I thought were near-perfect. If you have
questions about an RFD or how you might improve speaker points in another
debate in front of me, please ask for more feedback.
Speed:
Do not be afraid to
use speed if you are clear. Over the past two years I?ve been partners, and had
practice rounds, with some of the fastest debaters in the nation, so if you can
read a 4-off LOC then go for it. However,? if you are fast yourself and
subsequently tell the other team to slow, I will absolutely dock your speaker
points.
Member speeches:
Make sure you
clearly signpost. Beyond that, I will be on board for wherever you take the
debate.
Leader speeches:
I was a double leader
for almost my whole career.? I love LOCs that have lots of
case turns, and would prefer a few turns that are related to your
off-case position(s), but are combined with more turns that garner external
offense. I am willing to listen to an LOC that is straight case but have rarely
seen it done well.
I also do not enjoy flowing
rebuttals on separate sheets of paper.If you feel the need for me to flow
them separately, it should be because the debate was particularly messy or if
it is the only way you have learned to give the speech.
The PMR and LOR were
my favorite speeches; I love impact calculus and it is an absolute necessity to
compare and weigh your impacts against your opponent?s impacts throughout the
speech. I do not prefer certain impacts over others, but I do need clear
reasons why your impact is more important; i.e. magnitude does not matter in a
world where the impact is improbable. I also need a clear thesis and overview
at the beginning of your speech that is at least one sentence explaining why
you win. It is okay (and sometimes necessary) to give a speech that answers
back line-by-line arguments in the block, but I would prefer if you group
arguments or simply tell me what the most important issues are in the debate
because it is generally more efficient. You can also provide a brief
explanation about why you are not answering a certain argument with a line that
says something like ?the most important argument on this sheet of paper is X ?
the others do not have terminalized impacts.?
Warrant comparison
in rebuttals is a great way to boost your speaker points. It is crucial that I
know why your warrant is a better indicator of an impact than the opponent?s,
especially if you are going for the same impact. For example, a round where
both teams are going for an Econ impact but disagree on whether consumer
confidence or investor confidence is key to the economy needs to articulate why
their metric is preferable. Please also make sure you do not mix up your
warrants by changing what argument they correspond to from speech to speech.
For people new to debate:
As someone with
minimal debate experience prior to joining college parli, I am unsympathetic to
the notion that the NPDA format is wholly inaccessible to people who do not
have a debate background/did not come from policy. That being said, I am 100%
understanding of the substantial learning curve when it comes to Parli, especially
for teams with limited resources/coaching/travel opportunities/etc.? Please let me know if you are in need of additional resources and
I will do my best to help you!
Matt Parnell - TTU
MATT PARNELL JUDGE PARADIGM
Section 1: General information
I debated four years of high school policy and then another five in parli at Washburn. I believe that offense will win you most debate rounds as long as its packaged well enough. As a debater, I read a lot of different positions but there is a soft spot in my heart for politics + counterplan debate. I can hang with most positions however if youre reading something new, you might wanna go a bit slower so I can jive with what youre reading. I will say that theory is my jam. I wont vote for silly theory (I mean I might if you win it) but I do love really good and deep theory debates. Overall, Ill vote on the framework that you present. Ill default to an offense vs. defense paradigm but if you want me to evaluate the round differently, you gotta let me know.
Identity/Performance/Critical Arguments: I view these arguments very similarly as I do Ks. Provide a clear advocacy, or at least some form of tangible action and tell me why that action is key to resolve your links. Provide a clear way for me to weight the debate through impacts. At the core, I believe your argument should have some sort of linkage to the topic. Im not asking you to be topical, but I am asking for at least a little time in the PM/LO dedicated to a discussion of the topic.
Flowing: I need like a second of pen time between positions. If you have any particular questions about my flow, just ask. Essentially I will vote based on what I have on my flow. Im a big fan of debaters who organize well.
Texts and Interps: Slow down when you read plan/cp/alt texts. I think texts are pretty important to the round and I want to ensure that I understand what the text of your arg is.
Procedurals/Theory/T: I love theory. That doesnt mean I like really silly theory but a really intense and deep theory debate is fantastic. I need interps to be said slowly. I think that if you collapse to theory you need to be doing the work on the voter level. So many times, debaters blip out fairness and education and call it good however if you go for theory, give me actual, termialized impacts to those claims. I will vote on potential abuse but you need to tell me why I am doing so. It makes me happy to see debaters having an in depth theory debate. Generally, I think condo is bad however I am not rigid in that interpretation. I will vote on condo strats and condo good if youve won the flow.
DAs: Read them. The more specific the link story the better. I was a politics debater so I enjoy a good politics debate. I do have a high threshold when it comes to the uniqueness question of a politics disad so give actual details i.e. who is voting for what, vote counts, etc.
CPs: Also read them. I really like creative counterplans. If you read a counterplan, make sure you have a net benefit attached.
Ks: These are also fine. Please explain what the alternative does however. Im willing to pull the trigger on any K however I need an explanation of how the alternative resolves the links page. Also try not to slam a bunch of postmodern terms together and call it good. The alt advocates a particular action so please, tell me what that action is. Im at least baseline familiar with most lit bases however if youre breaking something completely new, give a small thesis at the top of the shell.
Perms: Perms are fine and you should be making them. You dont have to read the entire perm text for me. Just say Perm do X and here are the net benefits. Perms are a test of competition but if you want me to treat it as an advocacy, you better make that argument.
Speaker points: Ill start at 28 and go up or down. If you give a good speech with solid arguments, youll be rewarded. If I cant understand you, you will be punished. Ill really only give less than a 26 for things such as hate speech, hyper aggression, etc.
This is your space so you do what you want. I will judge what you want me to judge. I only ask that you be considerate of the other people in the room.
Max Groznik - McK
Quick Thoughts:
Teams that engage directly with thesis level questions and the warrant level substance of arguments are likely to be rewarded more than strategic choices more dependent on debating around the other team (Yes I?ll still vote on spec, but now may not be the time to be reading McTaggart).
Generally, I don?t think there?s a meaningful distinction between most types of arguments. I don?t care what you read, and I care even less what you call it. I?ll sit in the back of the room and cheerfully flow your speech regardless of its content. I?ll try to keep as tight a flow as possible, but what I do with that is up to you. If you want to avoid decisions that feel rife with intervention contextualize how warrants interact and tell me the order in which I should prioritize and evaluate them while making my decision. Absent this, we?ll probably all be a little annoyed and confused.
My strongest argument preference is novelty. I?ll be ecstatic if you teach me something. Also jokes are neat. If you prioritize having fun, we will probably all have more fun. I think we'd like to have fun.
My second strongest argument preference is the Impact turn.
So is my third.
Pet Peeves and Idiosyncrasies:
Please don?t yell presumption. Presumption should be softly whispered at best. If presumption is a pivotal component of your strategy I would recommend you either strike me or read a case turn.
Excelling at explicit warrant comparison, strategic thinking, and impact weighing is probably always the smartest way to spend your rebuttals.
The only net benefit to a permutation is the Aff. Feel free to interpret this as a challenge at your own risk.
I am unlikely to spend much time thinking about role of the ballot args that involve tautological or tautological adjacent clauses.
I am unsure if there is a compelling justification for Time Zones.
I think Competition functions differently when you define a word vs. define a rule in theory debates.
I respond to bribes like any reasonable person would, graciously and with great deference to the provider.
I like alternatives that defend material actions. If your alternative doesn?t do this, you should probably read a reject alt in front of me. A good litmus test of this is whether or not you can explain to me how your alternative, if enacted, would change the process of shopping at a grocery store.
Teams that restart debates run the risk of acquiring low point wins.
I get distracted and sidetracked in slower rounds; they?re genuinely more difficult for me to flow; tell jokes, have rhetorical pizzazz!
Please, please, please find a filler word that isn?t articulate/articulated
If there?s tension between your claim and your warrants I will determine your warrants to be correct and proceed from there.
Testimonials:
?Max is a firm believer in the art of communication and persuasion, so treat him like an old horse that you're riding with into uncharted territory on the Oregon Trail. He also has a soft spot in his heart for voting on presumption, so extra speaks for that." - Ryan Rashid
?Hello, Max is a smart cookie who writes really fast and thinks pretty well. He will hear your words and think about them and maybe you'll win.? - Eliana Taylor
?The thing about a good recliner is that is has to both be firm enough for back support, but cushy enough for butt comfort. the ability to recline is a necessary component for any sustainable home living.? - Cody Gustafson
?Max is a huge nerd, but in like a good way.? - Alex Li
?Debate is like a clock, both teams make circular arguments. by the time the minute hand returns to where it started, everything was said, and none of it matters? - Chris Miles
Nadia Steck - Lewis & Clark
Nadia here, I am currently the Coach for Lewis and Clarkâs debate team I graduated from Concordia University Irvine where I debated for 2 years, before that I debated for Moorpark College for 3 years. Iâm gonna give you a TL:DR for the sake of prep time/pre-round strategizing, I want my personal opinions to come into play as little as possible in the debate round. I want the debate to be about what the debaters tell me it should be about, be it the topic or something totally unrelated. I am fairly familiar with theory, policy, and critical debate. I donât have a strong preference for any one of the three, all I want you to do is not be lazy and expect me to backfill warrants from my personal knowledge of arguments for you. If you donât say it, it doesnât end up on my flow, and thus it doesnât get evaluated. There arenât really any arguments I wonât listen to, and I will give the best feedback I have the ability to give after each round.
For out of round thinking or pre tournament pref sheets here are a few of the major things I think are important about my judging philosophy and history as a debater
â?¢I hate lazy debate; I spent a lot of time doing research and learning specific contextualized warrants for most of the arguments I read. It will benefit you and your speaks to be as specific as possible when it comes to your warrants.
â?¢I did read the K a lot during my time as a debater but that doesnât mean I donât also deeply enjoy a good topical debate
â?¢I did read arguments tethered to my identity occasionally; if you want to read these sorts of arguments I am sympathetic to them, but I believe you should be ready to answer the framework debate well.
â?¢As far as framework and theory arguments go, I am open to listening to any theory argument in round with the exception of Spec args, I honestly feel like a POI is enough of a check back for a spec arg. I have yet to meet a spec arg that was justified much beyond a time suck. If youâre In front of me, I give these arguments little credence so you should respond accordingly.
â?¢As far as the actual voting issue of theory, I by default assume they are all Apriori, as theory is a meta discussion about debate and therefore comes as a prior question to whatever K/CP/DA is being read. When it comes to evaluating the impacts of theory, please please please do not be lazy and just say that fairness and/or education is the voter without justification. These are nebulous terms that could mean a thousand things, if you want to make me really happy as a judge please read more specific voters with a solid justification for them. This way I have a more concrete idea of what you mean instead of me having to insert my own ideas about fairness or education into the debate space.
â?¢As far as policy debates go, I default net bens, and will tend to prefer probable impacts over big impacts. That being said, I am a sucker for a good nuke war or resource wars scenario. My favorite policy debates were always econ debates because of the technical nuance.
â?¢Go as fast as you want, just make sure if your opponent calls clear or slow you listen because if they read theory or a K because you didnât slow down or speak more clearly I will most likely vote you down.
Nora (Justin) Fausz - McK
I also go by Nora. If you want, you can ask which I prefer by going by that day. But I won't be upset if you don't or use either name (I use any pronouns, feel free to ask)
Important Stuff (PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE):
--Do not use ableist slurs. It is offensive and traumatic for me. This is a vote down on the spot issue. This includes the term p*ranoia/p*ranoid and d*lusional. I have a zero tolerance policy on this. I do not care if you do not view them as a slur, they are a slur to me. Do not test me.
--I will drop a team on the spot if they advocate suicide/the opposing team killing themselves . I will quit flowing the round and will sign the ballot right then and there
--Misgendering someone on purpose, (including being corrected on pronouns, but refusing to the correct ones) will result in me voting you down on the spot. I have no tolerance for transphobia in debate.
--Do not lie in round
Overall/Background:
I have competed in Debate for 3 years. 1 year of Parliamentary Debate and 2 years of Lincoln Debate. I have also done Policy Debate at a tournament. Since then, I have been judging and helping out with McKendree Debate for 2 years judging both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary Debate for them. I also have judged Policy Debate for the Saint Louis Urban Debate League for 4 years.
On Kritiks/Critical Affs:
I can vibe with the Kritik. But Please explain your kritik (Underview or overview). Dont say buzzwords and taglines and expect me to understand it. Im not really up to date with the literature. I also have comprehension issues when it comes to this. Please Know your Kritik. Also, I am open to kritiks on the language used in the round (Ableism for example). You can be non topical in front of me. But you must be able to defend it.
On T/theory:
For Potential Abuse: Id like some example of abuse or a reasonable disad/cp that could not have been read (you don't have to read the disad that no links, a simple here's a disad I could have ran works fine). Because they are so potent, I like the team to be winning at every level and the majority of standards. I would also like some form of impact coming off of T, something you can argue why this is bad and such.
Cross-X:
I do hold cross-x as binding. However, I do not flow it. But you can extend argumentation and answers said in cross-x on the flow and I will consider them as arguments/stuff the other team said.
Misc.:
Speaks for me start at 27, meaning a 27 for me is a normal speech, not exceptional but not bad. I am somewhat fine with speed to an extent (this is more for parliamentary). Dont use it to purposely discriminate/exclude a person from the activity. If you are going to fast for me. I will say SPEED to signal to slow down (if you are becoming incoherent I will say CLEAR). If you dont slow down, I will try to flow But I probably wont get it all so you probably wont like my RFD (Please be considerate, I have ADHD and autism so if you are going too fast it can cause me to end up losing my focus, I'll let you know if this is happening). I am in favor of disclosing RFDs and can explain my reasoning, you are welcome to ask questions. I view Politics as a legitimate disad. Do Impact Calculus please. It makes my job easier and increases the likelihood I vote your way.
Paul Villa - UOP
The metaphor of the highway patrol: On top of being an educator and decision making robot, I think part of my job as a judge is refereeing but I try to perform that function like a member of the highway patrol. If you are driving 70 in a 65 and no one calls to complain about your driving making them unsafe I am probably going to let you drive along. If you are going 95 in a 65 and I deem that as a clear and present danger to the drivers you share the road with, I will likely feel obligated to get involved. Most of the time that will probably just result in a warning or fix-it ticket unless something particularly egregious occurs. Drive approximately the speed of traffic and recognize that you share this road with a variety of people with different backgrounds, abilities, and experiences that might inform how they approach their travels.
Actual Debate Philosophy Stuff: In an ideal world I believe the Aff should be topical and the Neg should be unconditional. Iâm partial to defense and think it can absolutely be terminal. I vote on kritiks as long as I understand them and especially their solvency mechanism and mutual exclusivity. I am not comfortable judging on the basis of your identity or anyone elseâs. I am more likely to have your arguments if you go 85% of your top speed. The PMR should be small, the LoR should be pre-emptive. I will do my best to protect from new arguments in the rebuttals. Most RVIâs are dumb. If the format has rules I take them seriously but assuming neither side cares about those rules I am willing to just let the competitors play. I think you introducing a performance into the round and straying away from âtraditionalâ? debate invites me to make my decision on the basis of whether that performance was particularly compelling or cool.
Rodney McBride - McK
I debated for McKendree from 2013-2016, qualifying for NPTE in my
last two years of competition.
If I have to, I will roll my eyes, sigh, shrug, and vote for your
critical Aff, but please dont lie to me about it. Make coherent arguments. Dont
make me make arguments for you, I make weird arguments. I dont care about the
inherency of the transparency of your jargony bargaining. Say smart things, not
purposefully confusing things. I am not bothered by your speed, but be polite.
Win your argument.
Ryan Corso-Gonzales - McK
Overview- About Me:? Ryan
Corso
Pronouns: He/Him/His
I competed
on the competitive circuit in Parliamentary debate for 5 years, from 2014-2019.
I began my competitive career at Moorpark Community College. I was a two time
state champion in California, and one time National Champion at Phi Rho Pi.
From there I competed my last three years at Concordia University Irvine. I
broke at the NPDA all three years at Concordia. My senior year, my partner
Benji and I, took 6th at the NPDA and 4th at the NPTE national championships. I
am now a student at the University of Louisville, I'm getting my masters in
Communication, my studies focus heavily on Marxism, Neoliberalism, The Public
Sphere, and Networking.
I owe all of my knowledge in
debate and my success to my amazing coaches, mentors and teammates that helped
me through my career most significantly Amanda Ozaki-Laughon, Joe
Ozaki-Laughon, Benjamin Lange, Alyson Escalante, and Judith Teruya.
Debate Overview:
I like to
think that I understand debate fairly well, and I consider myself a very flow
centric judge. Debate is a game, you can run what you want and do what you want
in front of me. I'm open to almost all arguments, (No pro racist, homophobic,
fascists args, etc) just be prepared to justify your actions, and tell me where
to vote (This is what the rebuttals are for). I ran policy args, just as much
as I ran Kritiks, however I probably read theory the most. I think people on
the circuit would have referred to me as a K debater, yet I wouldn't have.
Winning in
front of me is simple, provide an ample framework, clear links and terminal
impacts. Win the flow, and collapse to the argument you believe is the clearest
and most compelling path to vote on. I love learning new things (Policy,
Kritiks and even theory) so you can feel free to use me as a test for a new
kritik or position, I'm not affiliated with any school atm, and I just want to
experience debates where people talk about what they want to talk about.
Policy:
I default
to policy making good framework, if both teams accept this then great, however,
this doesn't mean critical arguments don't operate within that framework.
Policy debates should consist of advantages and disadvantages. I prefer the
Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact structure, because I believe it
provides the clearest format for debate. I am very familiar with other
structures for policy debates as well. Value and Fact rounds do exist and
provide unique educational and fairness aspects to them (this probably has to
do with my CC background).
Theory:
Theory is
the most important aspect to debate in my view. A good theory consist of a
clear interp, and an unique violation that explains the operative nature of
that interp. Standards, are not tag lines, this is the substantial aspect of
theory. There is a very good lecture on NPTE 14 (youtube) about how standards
consist of Links, Internal links and Impacts. Fairness and Education are the
only two competitive impacts that I have heard in regards to theory. Do not
just read tag lines on in theory debates, I will not fill in arguments for you.
Each round is specific and this should be clear in your reading or responding
to theoretical positions.
Kritiks:
You need a
CLEAR link to the AFF, or the topic, for me to even consider voting for you! I
will not do the work for you filing in your links. Make sure you have specific
warrants and nuance in your links to explain how it uniquely works in this
specific round. You do not get to win just because you read a Kritik, you need
adequate links in order to win, and an alternative or advocacy that resolves
the impacts identified. (This means I'm more then willing to not vote on a
kritik that has adequate forms of terminal defense against it. If I believe
there isn't an adequate explanation of a link I will not vote on the K.)
If you
believe your kritik is complicated, please have a thesis portion! I am a firm
believer in providing a thesis for kritiks. Almost all the kritiks I wrote had
an in-depth thesis. I enjoy complicated kritiks, and at the end of my career I
even began to utilize Kritiks without frameworks, so I understand how a well
written kritik has the potential to operate in that manner.
Kritiks
are a great method to layering the debate, it doesn't mean that all other
impacts are invalid just that new framework arguments are needed to balance or
relayer the debate. Please make sure your impacts are terminal and do impact
comparison and make sequencing arguments in the rebuttals, even if you believe
that you have out framed your opponents.
Here's a
list of Kritiks that I read while I competed to give you an idea of what I'm
familiar with. Off the top of my head Neoliberalism, Anarchy, Marx, Whiteness,
Satire, Absurdism, Deleuze and Guattari, Fragility, Existentialism, Set Col,
Feminism, Cyborg Fem, Ecocide, Nietzsche, Reps and Rhetoric. (This doesn't mean
read these Ks in front of me, I am much more open to the idea of voting down a
bad K shell, then I am picking up a bad K because it's relatable.)
Speaker Points:
I am not a
fan of the speaker point system, I view it as a method to reward good arguments
and strategies. An easy way to think about this is in regards to Ethos, Pathos
and Logos. I value Ethos and Logos far greater than Pathos. While all are
essential to argument making, I don't find pathos as compelling in the debate
setting. I give speaker points based on the idea "Who ever did the best
debating".
Fair warning:
* I will clear or slow you if I
feel like I need to.
* I am not a fan of Condo, or
dispo? but if you can win it, i guess go for it, but good
luck.? Your best be is to NOT BE CONDO
OR DISPO IN FRONT OF ME if you want my ballot.
* I do NOT vote on RVI's, they are
illegitimate arguments and I will dock speaker points if you read them in front
of me!
*? Substantial engagement, or
whatever this theory arg was called, is NOT an impact!? You
will not pick up a ballot from me be reading this, it is an internal link to
Fairness and Education. If you decide to collapse to a theory shell with this
as your only impact, you can just assume you already lost the round.
*? Solvency deficit is not a
compelling theory position,? this is defense at best.
Attempting to turn a defensive argument into an offensive position is not how
you win that argument. This falls into the category of relabeling arguments in
manners that they do not function. I believe this is bad for debate and creates
"improper" forms of education which only harms the event.
* DO NOT LIE in round,? I feel
that debate is first an educational event, I do feel that it's appropriate to
fact check people in round if I believe they are lying, or just factually
incorrect.
*? DO NOT belittle or demean your
opponents.
* I do not know how to judge
unfalsifiable arguments.? Therefore, I do not believe that
debate is a space for you to impose or weaponize certain religions or
religious, or other non-falsifiable content. For instance, I do not feel
educated enough on these matters and or comfortable being put into a spot
affirming or disaffirming your faith in a certain religion. I think it's also
probably disingenuous to weaponize a religion that you do not believe in within
the debate space.
*I have a VERY HIGH Threshold
to vote on a "Call out Kritik"...? I don't
know what these kritiks are being labeled these days, but I do not feel that it
is my job to determine in round who is or isn't a good person (especially at a
national tournament). This doesn't mean I won't vote on kritiks that call out
bad rhetoric or whatever that occurred in round, cause I will. Being able to
witness the link occur is a lot more of a viable link argument in my opinion
then one team claiming things happened outside of the round, or in the past. If
have no way to validate an argument I therefore won't feel comfortable voting
on something. Please don't expect me to already "know" (I'm removed
from the debate community for the most part), also please don't attempt to
prove something occurred to me. Also, I feel very compelled by apologies as a
method to resolve the kritik, for in most instances I've seen this run I think?
I know this is probably a controversial opinion and that's ok with me, if these
kritiks are viable and important strategies to you as a debater I think you're
better off striking me. Sorry...
Side note:
I am a
year removed from debate, I do not watch debate rounds frequently and very
rarely engage in conversations about debate. I'm sure not as strong at flowing
or keeping up with speed as I used to be. Please keep that in mind when
debating in front of me.
I will do
my best to weigh the round in the manner I think is most fair in regards to how
you present them. I will try my best to vote for the team I think won... I
guess that's all I can do.
If you
think my decision is wrong please feel free to talk to me about it. I won't
hold grudges for people defending positions they had in rounds. Debate is a
very passionate event, I was a very passionate debater, and I think that's a
beautiful aspect about debate! That being said there is a difference between
being a passionate debater and a jerk in round, I don't think you should
belittle your opponents in debate, but you can question me. It is my job to
vote for the team I think won, and I believe it is part of a judges job to
defend and explain their decision in the instance that occurs.
Good Luck,
Have Fun! DEBATE IS A GAME! ENJOY THE RIDE, PLAY IT HOWEVER YOU WANT!
Sarah Dweik - TTU
My background: I debated for 4 years on the NPTE/NPDA circuit (2.5 years at the University of Missouri and 1.5 years at Washburn). I have helped coach policy, public forum, and parli debate, finished my undergraduate degree at Washburn, and am now pursuing my Master's degree at Texas Tech. Im currently judging for Texas Tech. Starting off at a student-run program has helped me learn debate from a variety of different people and from learning from watching rounds online. I have also largely been shaped by people like Doubledee, Ryan Kelly, and Calvin Coker.
Highlights: I think that debate is a space where we can all engage with each other to different degrees. Personally for me, debate became a place where I could feel more comfortable to express myself and engage with others in-depth over a variety of topics that exist or arent discussed outside of this space. I am fine with whatever arguments you decide to read in front of me, but I cannot claim to fully understand every argument that is read in front of me. I do have an expansive knowledge regarding a lot of different K's, but that doesn't mean that I know everything that you will talk about in the round. I am here to learn just as much as you are. The round is yours and you should do what you are comfortable with, have fun, be respectful, and compete.
I prefer debates that engage the topic and, in an ideal situation, utilize fiat to do so, but I will definitely listen to arguments that interpret the topic differently or if you decide to reject it. I would prefer that you read advocacies unconditionally, but I will not vote you down without the other team winning the condo bad theory. Im most familiar with the following arguments: Politics, T, Hegemony, Feminism, Black Feminism, Queerness, Orientalism, and most other identity or state based criticisms. I will try and protect from new arguments in rebuttals, but please still call them out if you think they are new so I am not intervening as much. I will vote for who wins the round, regardless of my personal views, as long as you can clearly explain your offense and how to weigh the impacts of your strategy. And finally, impact calculus is the most important thing to me as a judge. I want the rebuttal speeches to help me craft my ballot through the lenses of timeframe, probability, and magnitude (not necessarily in that order). I enjoy rebuttals that reflect as much of the RFD as possible, so framing in the LOR and PMR is critical.
Identity/Performance/Critical Arguments: I totally think that debate is a performance, but make the round for you. I judge these arguments similarly to other criticisms. Therefore, I need a clear advocacy; it does not need to be an alternative, but make your advocacy clear (whether it be a poem, metaphor, alt, etc.). I still think you need to have very strong solvency for your argument and I need some type of way to weigh the debate through impacts or a mechanism that you make clear to me. Im willing to listen to framework debates and many times would use framework as an answer to critical affirmatives. I do think that if you are rejecting the resolution then you need some sort of justification for doing so or some kind of explanation or link to the resolution because I think this fosters creativity and gives context within the round of why the debating the resolution, in this case, is bad.
Flowing: I flow on my laptop because I can type a lot more quickly and clearly than I can write. This means that I would prefer if you just gave me enough time to switch tabs on my laptop when you switch sheets, and please flag when you're moving on so I can make sure your arguments go where you want them to be. If I think you are too quiet, unclear, or fast I will let you know immediately. I keep a good and fast flow as long as youre clear.
Texts and Interpretations: You can either provide me with a written copy of the text or slow down when you read the plan/cp/alt and repeat it. I think this is very important during theory debates and framework debates. I would like you to either repeat it twice and slowly to make sure that I have a copy of it or make sure that you give me a copy. If I don't get your text or interp, I will make sure I have the correct wording in my flow when the round ends.
Procedurals/Theory/T: I enjoy a good T debate and I default to competing interpretations, but this does not mean that I wont listen to other frameworks for evaluating T. I think that all procedurals can have a role depending on the round. I am not a fan of RVIs. I understand the utility of these arguments, but they likely arent going to win my ballot. I do not need real in round abuse, but an abuse story needs to exist even if it is potential abuse. I need procedurals to have clearly articulated interpretations, violations, standards, and voters not just blips in the LOC of, vote for us for fairness and education. I view topicality similarly to a disad in that I view standards as being the internal links to the voters (impacts). When it comes to theory concerning advocacies, I find multiple worlds bad theory to be quite compelling because I find that inherent contradictions in strategies for the sake of winning take away from the in round education. I am not a huge fan of multiple new theory sheets in the MG. I can see the utility of MG theory arguments, but reading them to simply shotgun the other team hyper-expands the debate into a jumbled mess. If you are going to read multiple theories, please collapse :D
Disads: I enjoy topic specific disads. However, I also loved reading politics, so I understand the utility of reading politics on a variety of different topics. However, I have higher standards for voting on politics than most others because I ran the argument so often. I need specifics such as vote counts, those whipping the votes, sponsors of the bill, procedural information regarding passage, etc. All disads are great in my book and I will always love hearing them in round.
CPs: I love counter-plans and I regret not reading them as much while I was a competitor. I am not prone to vote against any type of counter-plan. I prefer functional competition over textual competition because it is easier to weigh and more tangible to me, but if you want to go for textual competition, just show me how to weigh and vote on it.
Ks: I enjoy criticisms and I believe that they can offer a very unique and creative form of education to the debate space. If your criticism is complicated, then I would like a thesis page or an explanation of what the alternative does. I really enjoy a good perm debate on the K and am not opposed listening to theory regarding the alternative/perms (floating PICs, severance, etc.). When reading a K, please give me a clear explanation of what the alternative does and what the post-alt world looks like. Just a bunch of fancy words pushed together doesn't mean that I understand what your K is doing. With the alt, there should also be a stable and clear solvency/alternative ground that allows the other team to have some space to argue against it.
Perms: I really enjoy perm debates. As a PMR, trust me, I really love the perm debate. I think that the text of the perm is critical and must be clear in the debate. Slow down, read them twice, and/or give me a copy of the text. You dont have to read the entire plan text in K debates and instead it is sufficient to say, do the plan and x. My definition of a legitimate perm would be that they are all of the plan and all or parts of the CP/Alt. I think that perms are in between a test of competition and an advocacy (because youre really achieving both, ya know).
Speaker Points: I usually start at 28 and will go up or down depending on how everything goes. I do think speaker points are totally random, with no real scale for all of us to follow, but I will try my best to reward you on how well you do. I highly value the argumentation that is made to earn speaker points, although if I cant understand your arguments, then we might have a problem. I do love quotes from RuPaul's Drag Race, after all "Facts are facts, America!"
Basically, I want you to come into a round and not think that I would keep you from reading what you want to read. I understand that I won't get every argument read in front of me, but I want to make sure that I am not preventing you from expressing yourself the ways that you want to in this space. This space for me is something extremely important, so I want to make sure that I can at least help it continue to be important for you.
Sarah DeBruyckere - McK
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 did parli debate for 4 years at McKendree
University (2010-2014). I qualified for NPTE my last two years, but only
competed one of those years. I debated at NPDA all four years. Keep in mind
that Ive been out for a few years, but have been a volunteer coach for McK on
and off since graduating.
I was never super into the K debate as a
debater, but that doesnt mean I dont enjoy a good K debate. Dont let my
personal preferences as a competitor halt you from doing your thing, just
please slow down and articulate more because Im not as familiar with the
litbase unless its Cap
Im fine with speed, but it needs to be clear. I'm
fine with conditionality and it would be hard to win a round on condo bad, but
not unattainable. Not a big fan of generic politics unless it actually has
solid links.
Section 2: Specific Inquiries
Please describe your approach
to the following.
1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point
range or average speaker points given)?
My
range is probably 26-29, with most people getting 27-28.5
2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can
affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be contradictory?
with other negative positions?
You
can run whatever you want, but I do think your strategy should be cohesive (IE
your CP, K, and disad should all be in the same direction). Im not saying if
you run contradictory arguments youre going to lose, but I will grant the
other team more leniency in the round in those instances.
3. Performance based arguments?¦
Again,
you can run what you want. Im likely not going to understand as much so please
explain the position more clearly and dont assume I know any of the litbase.
4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality?
Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?
I
try not to intervene but I think in-round abuse is good to win T.
5.
Counterplans --
PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms --
textual competition ok? functional competition?
You
should be able to run what you want. I think if the other team asks you should
identify the status but you dont have to offer that info off the bat. I will
listen to theory shells on CP and let you decide where the debate should go.
6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed
arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)
I
think if all teams are ok with sharing flowed arguments its fine. Im not
trying to stop you from having a comfortable debate, as long as all parties are
cool with it.
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
is hard, and likely just depends on how the debate plays out. I am always going
to try and find the easiest route to the ballot. Which means if there are a lot
of concessions or Im not told specifically where to vote first, I am going to
look at my flow and find an easy way to the ballot. This could be on any
position, and largely depends on how the debate played out.
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 Im not specifically told that dehumanization means more than death, or vice versa, I will likely look at the easiest way to avoid either impact on the flow. Its really hard to say without being in the debate. Id like to say Im more likely to vote on immediate or large/permanent impacts (such as a million deaths) but thats not to say thats how Id always evaluate. If a debate is messy, you might not like the outcome.
Sean McKean - McK
Experience:
4 years policy debate at Tualatin High School, 4 years NPDA/NPTE experience at
the University of Oregon. 3 years high school coaching experience at Thurston
High School. Current NPDA/NPTE coach at Oregon.
Quick in
prep version: In general I am down with just about anything, however I would
much rather hear a good disad than some only tag lines and a bad alternative
kritik. Theory was my jam when I was debating, so if you want to read it go
ahead, however, I?m not going to vote for you just because you read it, while
my threshold is probably lower than most judges I like to pretend I?m not a
hack? 
.
Longer
(probably unnecessary) version
General
Overveiw:
My ideal
debate is a strategic topical aff v some CPs and a DA or a topic K. That being
said, I tend to be down with anything you want to read in front of me, I
believe that it is my job to adapt to you and the arguments you want to read
not your job to adapt to me. I am not going to tell you what to or not to read
in front of me or reject your arguments on face. I tend to prefer more
technical debates where you explain to me how all of the relevant arguments
interact at the end of the round over just extending them and making me try to
figure it out myself at the end. I want to be able to write my RFD at the end
of the round by sticking as much as possible to the flow without having to
insert my own analysis, this means I want you to write my RFD for me, tell me
why I should vote a particular way at the end of the round.
Impact
framing is a lost art, it?s not helpful to just inform me that both teams do,
in fact, have impacts. I want to hear how I should evaluate those impacts
against each other, ie. Do I care more about fairness or education on the
theory flow, is timeframe or magnitude more important, can I even evaluate
arguments rooted in some kind of epistemology?
More
specific stuff:
Theory/
T? 
: I read a lot of theory
when I was debating so I am pretty much able to follow what is going on in complex
theory debates, although I would prefer that you slow down a bit when spreading
theory since it is more condensed and harder to flow. I evaluate theory just
like any other argument, which means I am probably more likley to vote on it
than most judges if you go for it correctly. In order to win theory in front of
me you are going to need to impact it out and explain what it means for the
round. (IE just because they dropped your Consult CP's are illegit argument
doesn't mean you insta-win if you don't give me some reason why that theory
argument results in a ballot, not just me dropping the CP). I find myself
voting a lot this year on teams forgetting to read a counter interp. If I am
judging in a competing interps paradigm, which is usually how these things
shake out, and there is not either an interp or a counter-interp that you meet
I will vote against you regardless of the rest of the flow, as there is not an
interp for me to stick your offense to. I think that this is a pretty common
way of evaluating theory but I feel it is worth flagging explicitly in my
philosophy given that I find myself voting on this a lot.
Framework? 
: Framework was my
go-to when debating the K aff. That doesn?t mean that you necessarily shouldn?t
or can?t read a K aff in front of me, just be aware than I?m not going to be
one of those judges that just ignores the argument for some vague political
reason.
K
affs? 
: I would prefer that if
you are going to read an aff that isn?t topical that you have some good
justification for doing so, I am not really interested in your ?I read a cool
book and here is my book report? project.
Ks? 
: I am down with the
K, however there are some recent trends in the kritik that I feel need some
addressing here. First, Marx was my bread and butter and I am fairly deep in
that literature, but outside of that and maybe Heidegger you should not assume
that I am incredibly well read in your lit base. That doesn?t mean that you
can?t read your K in front of me, it just means that you are going to need to
do some more explaining. Second, there has been a tendency of K?s becoming just
a list of tag lines, that then get extended as arguments later in the debate.
If your K sounds like this I am probably going to give the other team a lot
more leeway in reading new arguments when your K finally becomes something in
the block.
CP/
DA? 
: Ayyyyyyyyy
Serena Fitzgerald - Oregon
Steven Farias - UOP
(March 2022) Quick Read (NPDA/NPTE):
Most debates I watch these days in parliamentary debate discuss structural and/or systemic violence both on the AFF and NEG. The second most common thing I see is theory of some sort. The best debates I see discuss these issues across the debate (i.e.- how does access to the debate implicate the way folks in the round acknowledge and interrogate structural and/or systemic violence). Debates that often end in frustration tend to silo arguments and retreat from counter-arguments in favor of concessions.
I think the AFF should defend a topical advocacy. This does not mean I believe the AFF MUST role play or defend the state structure of the status quo. I believe being creative in how we imagine what state structures can become can allow us to engage in what Native Hawaiian scholar Manulani Aluli Meyer refers to as the radical remembering of the future. Societies and nations have excisted without structures of oppression in the past which means that the current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable. I borrow here because I think there are excellent justifications (although many in debate may end up half-measures) for why the AFF can be topical AND critically interrogate current political and economic systems.
I think NEG advocacies in parli should be unconditional as the concept of testing the AFF and what it means to do so is altered by the structure of parli debate. Theory and advocacies are distinct. Theory is distinct from T. If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then they presumption flips to the AFF as the burden of proof has shifted. Kritik, performance, T, theory, framework, Disads/CP to non-topical AFFs, and Disads/CP to topical AFFs are all open to the NEG. However, I think that the opportunity to indict the AFF in the LOC is often overlooked and many NEG teams allow the AFF infinite offense by conceding case warrants and relying on implied clash.
I think that parli debate is a unique format and that format allows meaningful engagement. While these are things I think the AFF and NEG should do, the only thing you MUST DO is defend a world view at the end of the debate and if you want to win, you ought be comparative in your impact analysis. If you have any questions, I have a lot more below and also am happy to answer any questions at sfarias@pacific.edu.
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY
TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. In terms of theory I generally have a medium threshold for voting T/Spec except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. However, clever theory is great and generic CONDO Bad is meh. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually have a high propensity to solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.
Section 1: General Information-
While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE PROBABILTY MEANS MORE THAN MERELY CONCEDING AN ARGUMENT/LINK CHAIN.
I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips dont ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say I didnt get that. So please do your best to use words like because followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.
Section 2: Specific Arguments
The K- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality/framework with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that Ks without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves.
In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provided a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how I should perform that role will be ahead on Framework.
For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Please also provide a space for your competitors to engage/advocate with you. If they ask you to stop your position because arguments/rhetoric have turned the space explicitly violent then all folks should take it as a moment to reorient their engagement. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not.
I believe you should be able to read your argument, but not at the expense of others engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.
Topicality/Theory- I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competing definitions and a question of what debate we should be having and why that debate is better or worse than the debate offered by the AFF. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an AFF who is winning that the plan meets a definition that is good in some way (my understanding of reasonability), if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T.
In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized arguments to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win.
Counter Advocacies- Best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team. It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. ALTs, PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with so long as you defend the solvency of your advocacy. Theory can even be a counter advocacy if you choose to articulate it as such. You should do your best to not link to your own advocacy as in my mind, it makes the impacts of your argument inevitable.
With regard to permutations, if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the ALT/CP alone is insufficient and should be rejected as an offensive voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. I do not believe that every link is a disad to the permutation, you must prove it as such in the context of the permutation. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the ALT is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links in both instances as well.
Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as I would when I was a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.
LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY
Section 1 General Information
Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 12 years coaching experience (2 Grad years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 7 years A/DOF years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific)
General Info: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. I think the AFF should find a way to be topical, but if you are not I then I am sure you will be ready to defend why you choose not to be. I think the NEG is entitled to read whatever they like but should answer the AC and should collapse in the NR. Failing to do one or both of these things means I am much less likely to vote for your strategy because of the primacy of the AFF and/or an inability to develop depth of argument in the NR.
As an academic familiar with critical theory across a host of topics (race, gender, "the state", etc.) feel free to read whatever you like on the AFF or NEG but I expect you to explain its application, not merely rely on the word salad that some of this evidence can use. I understand what is in the salad but you should be describing it with nuance and not expecting me to do that for you. The same is true for standards on theory, permutation arguments, solvency differentials to the CP, or the link story of an advantage or disad. I am willing to vote on any theory position that pertains to the topic (T) or how debates should happen (all other theory). This includes Inherency, or any stock issue, or rules based contestation.
In terms of impacts, I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war, or other black swan events, and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.
Last--I do not think you need evidence for everything in the debate. Feel free to make intuitive arguments about the world and the way things operate. I do think its good if you have evidence for 80-90% of your arguments. I will also say that evidence on issues where it is usually lacking (like voters on theory or RVIs) will be weighted heavily if the only response back is "that's silly"
Section 2 Specific Inquiries
1. How do you adjudicate speed? What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?
I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debaters lack of clarity you will say clear (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debaters excessive speed, I expect you to say speed. In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to report me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.
2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you dont find yourself voting for very often?
I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.
3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:
Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achievable at the end of the debate.
4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue
Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons to ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all theory arguments are voting issues.
5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?
Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.
6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months
Yes
7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?
I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.
8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?
No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.
9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?
You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way I am told to weigh them. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.
10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?
My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.
Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!
Trevor Greenan - Parli at Berkeley
Background
I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 3 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years, and now exclusively coach/run the program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but Ive had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. Im generally open to just about any argument, as long as theres good clash.
Â
General Issues
-
I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that Ill try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and Ill pick up the worse argument if its won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that theres a certain degree of intervention thats inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments, arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.
-
In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if theyre won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they werent sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.
-
The LORs a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I dont need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I prefer to not flow it on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer that format Id rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.
-
I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if its read well.
-
Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.
-
I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but its always better to call the POO just to be safe.
-
Im open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way.
- I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.
Â
Framework
-
I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. That being said, absent substantial argumentation either way, Ill usually defer to each side being able to leverage their advocacy/offence against the other.
-
I have a pretty high threshold for voting on presumption. I find it difficult to buy that either side has actually won terminal defense, absent a good amount of work in the round. That being said, I default to presumption flowing negative.
-
Prior question arguments in framework are fine/good, just make sure that theres sufficient explanation of these arguments and application to the rest of the round. Im not very likely to vote on a dropped prior question/independent voter argument if there isnt interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round.
Â
Theory/Procedurals
-
I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. Im perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.
-
I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I dont think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation, although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.
-
I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I dont know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline Ill usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.
-
I have a very high threshold on RVIs. If extremely well-developed and extremely mishandled by the other team I could imagine myself voting on one, but I would hope to never have to.
Â
Advantage/DA
-
Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure youre reading uniqueness in the right direction.
-
I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume theres at least some risk of offense, so dont rely on just reading defensive arguments.
-
Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and Im generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, the more you can contextualize your argument to the round the greater weight that I will give it. Specific and substantial case debates are great.
-
I default to fiat being durable.
Â
CP
-
Please give me specific texts.
-
Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.
-
I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.
-
I generally wont buy textual competition absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.
Â
K
-
I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, and I have a decent understanding of postmodern theory (particularly Foucauldian/Deleuzian/Derridean). That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I will do my best to not just vote for an argument I understand absent explanation in-round, and theres definitely a good amount of literature I wont know of.
-
Im perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework. On that note, Im also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation.
-
Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. Im also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.
-
I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.
-
I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.
-
Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and theyve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. Ill usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible.
Zach Schneider - McK
Hi! Im Zach. I debated for 5 years of NPDA/NPTE parli (4 at Cedarville University and 1 at SIU) and this is my 5th year coaching/judging.
I used to have a longer philosophy with thoughts on more specific arguments, but I deleted most of it. The vast majority of my opinions on arguments reflect who I was as a debater, not who I am as a judge. Ive really stopped caring about most ideological preferences; I think Im a competent judge in just about any debate and I want to see you excel at whatever it is you do best. If youre reading my philosophy to find out whether you should read argument X, you should probably assume that Im ambivalent towards it, and in general Id rather you think "what do we want to read" or "what is strategic in this debate" not "what is Zachs favorite argument." I also keep a Google doc of stats about my decisions if you want to find out how I historically have evaluated arguments in your preferred genre.
With that said, heres the foundation of how I structurally understand and evaluate debates:
- I respect and appreciate teams that are willing to stake out their argument and defend it, pretty much regardless of what that argument is. I love courageous, gutsy, nuanced arguments. In contrast, I am usually annoyed by arguments that I perceive to be running away from the substance of the debate. I'll vote for a technical knockout but I would much rather watch you be about something and your speaker points will probably reflect that.
- I greatly enjoy theory debates that are T or framework (on the negative) and condo or objections to a specific genre of counterplan (on the affirmative). I am fine with nuanced spec arguments rooted in the topic and read after the other team fails to respond in CX. And obviously, if the other team derives some fancy new way to blatantly cheat, you should read the theory that you need to read. But I am strongly biased against most other theory positions -- such as generic spec or random requirements about if/when you must be passed written texts and the like. These debates are very boring to watch and I've never understood why these objections are a sufficient reason to reject the team. Again, I will vote for a technical knockout, but in an evenly matched debate the team advancing these sorts of theory positions should lose my ballot the vast majority of the time. Also, text comp has never made any sense to me.
- I fundamentally believe that the aff team should defend a plan or advocacy that solves an impact and the neg team should say that the aff is bad or an opportunity cost to something better. I am very unlikely to vote negative if the neg does not have links to the aff, even if the neg also has a good advocacy or is more correct? in the abstract. This also means that I think the aff always gets a perm, even in a methods debate? (I also think every debate is about methods).
- Permutations are a test of competition; this means I am highly skeptical of many disadvantages commonly read against permutations. It's not possible for a permutation to be cooption, for example, because that would imply that the aff is shifting their advocacy to somehow also perform or advocate for the neg's alt. Permutations ask the question "is there some intrinsic characteristic of the aff that makes it an opportunity cost to the advocacy endorsed by the neg?" -- nothing more and nothing less.
- I think that the rotating topic is one of the best things about parli, so I am somewhat inclined to think that aff teams should defend the topic (or at least adapt their K aff to the topic). I lean negative about 60/40 in evenly matched framework debates. Successful teams on either side of these debates usually win because they do explicit framing/impact work to explain why their interp outweighs and/or internal link turns the other team's impacts.
- On that note, I generally think that every high-level debate is won on warrant depth/comparison and impact calculus whether its a policy debate, K debate, framework or T, etc. I dont think Ive ever seen a rebuttal with too much impact calculus. In any good debate, both sides will be winning a lot of arguments; the next-level teams are the ones that can then compare those arguments and tell me why their winning set is more important.
- When I split with other judges on panels in high-level rounds, its usually because I am very technical as a judge. I keep a tight flow and I am most likely to vote for the team that is correctly identifying and leveraging the arguments theyve won on the flow. This is the best way Ive found to remove my biases and make myself predictable as a judge: if your flow has the same arguments as mine (and the same extensions/comparisons) then you should rarely be surprised by my decision.
- I cannot evaluate arguments that I dont flow; I have ADHD and Ive long forgotten them by the end of the debate. Im happy to listen to your speech in whatever form it takes, but if you dont want it flowed and you also care about competitive success, its in both of our best interests that you strike me.
- I will not evaluate arguments about teams doing something objectionable outside of the current round (in another round, etc.). I don't have a way to fairly verify claims about things that didn't happen in front of me; at best, this relies on me being acquainted with people who witnessed the event in question, which is inherently arbitrary and biased in favor of larger/more established programs.
LD notes
- I am comfortable with any level of speed (unless you're using it to run up the score on a novice, which will tank your speaks) and the risk of me voting on a speed bad procedural is negligible.
- I strongly believe that you should disclose your aff cites (at minimum) on the wiki and I am amenable to the disclosure procedural if you choose not to do so.
lila lavender - St. Mary's
UPDATE: shit has been really rough lately, so I am asking a few things of the competitors I'll be judging this weekend. A). Please dont read any detailed descriptions of male violence, theoretical (w warrants ofc) is fine. B). Dont read anything about suicide or self harm, nothing at all. C). When you start your speech start loud and 2/3rds of your max spread, after 30 secs or so you can ramp up to max.
I'll drop you for violating A) & B), and wont be too thrilled (but wont drop you ofc) if you dont adhere to C).
"To speak of desire in its multiplicities: the survival and breathing and possibility of transfeminine desire amid and beyond our social and material conditionsof austerity, racism, xenophobia, transphobia and transmisogyny, ableism, whorephobia. How can we connect these conditions that undergird the negative affects of transfeminine life to ground a politicized understanding of our brokenness?"
-Nat Raha, "Transfeminine Brokenness, Radical Transfeminism"
Hey yall!!! I'm lila (pronouns she, her and they, them) and I debated for roughly 7 years!! I did LD for 4 years in high school, competing in the national circuit for both my junior and senior year, qualifying and debating at the TOC my senior year. I finished my competitive debate career after doing 3 years of NPDA Parli at Western Washington University. My freshman year I qualified and got 14th at NPTE nationals. My sophomore year my partner (Serena Fitzgerald) and I cleared to finals in 50% of the total tournaments we participated in, winning Lewis and Clark, Berkeley, and the Point Loma Round Robin; netting us 5th place overall in the country. We placed 8th at the NPTE nationals tournament. For the first half of my Junior year season I debated with Cameron Allen, getting 2nd at all 4 of the tournaments we attended. For the latter half of the year, Jessica Jung and I decided to hybrid together for the remainder of the year and our debate careers as an act of trans woman rage/joy. We won all 3 pre-nationals tournaments we attended and despite being barred from competing at the NPTE, got 3rd at the National Round Robin and won the NPDA nationals tournament. That said, I find myself caring less and less about the competitively technical parts of debate and more so about the survival and revolutionary potential the space has. Due to that fact, if you want to use our round as a place to disrupt the normativity of debate (in whatever way you see fit) I would absolutely love to help facilitate that and be a body present for such disruption!! :) currently associated with Impact Debate!!!!
Tldr: Go as fast as you want, ill be able to flow it. Most people would probably label me as a K hack, so do what you will with that information. That being said though, I don't really care what you do, unless it is overtly oppressive, if you win whatever position you are reading I will vote for it. I have no inherent predilections to what debate should be, or how specific 'rules' of debate ought function (barring those that are violent). It's your job to tell me how to evaluate that, so please do it. Oh also I won't kick arguments for you, if you don't know how to collapse your a bad debater.
Note 1: If you misgender me, your competitors, or anyone else within the space during the time at which i am judging and don't correct yourself or continue to do so I will auto drop you. This extends to any sort of transphobic and/or transmisogynistic violence; I am done with having to put up with that shit and ill use my temporary power as a judge to create an incentive for students to stop doing so. I say this not because transphobic violence is an exceptional form of violence among other despotic assemblages, cause I will surely auto drop you for being reactionarily violent in other ways, but rather because debate seems libidinally attached to transphobia in a way that is very specific, and given my subject location, very violent towards myself. In that sense, I find it important to highlight. This may seem harsh, and thats cause it is, it should be. If you have any complaints or are butthurt about this I refer to you Sara Ahmed "the transfeminist killjoy...is without doubt a violent figure: to point out harassment is to be viewed as the harasser; to point out oppression is to be viewed as oppressive. Part of the work of the killjoy is to keep pointing out violence. In making these points, killjoys are treated as people who originate violence. This is the hard work of killjoys. They are up against it! Transfeminist killjoys expose hammering as a system of violence directed against trans people, including from some of those who identify as radical feminists. Some of the hammering might seem on the surface quite mild because it appears as an instance: a joke here, a joke there. And jokiness allows a constant trivializing: as if by joking someone is suspending judgment on what is being said. She didnt mean anything by it; lighten up. A killjoy knows from experience: when people keep making light of something, something heavy is going on. Something heavy is going on. Many of these instances might be justified as banter or humorous (the kind of violent humor that feminists should be familiar with because feminists are often at the receiving end). So much of this material makes trans women in particular the butt of a joke. Following Julia Serano, I would describe much of this material as trans misogyny: what is evoked is the figure of the hyper-feminine trans woman as a monstrous parody of an already monstrous femininity."
Note 2: While it is true that I was quite a fast debater, this does not mean that if you are slower and/or more lay that I don't want to judge you. I think that lay debate can be just as good as hyper technical/fast debate, as long as it constantly works to break out of the violence it is necessarily predicated on, and in that sense, I would love to judge good lay debate. When I say do whatever you think will best help you win the round, that means do whatever you want, not just within the realms of going fast. Most importantly though, if you slow and/or clear your opponents (if they are going too fast or are being needlessly unclear) and they do not adapt to meet those demands, then I absolutely will tank their speaks and give you a lot of leeway in answering their arguments even if they are technically conceded. We as a debaters have an obligation to extend mutual aid to our comrades, and that means adapting our styles to make them accessible to anyone who we may debate!!
Parli Overview:
Obviously everything below applies to Parli as well, so please read it. If you ask my what my paradigm is in the round instead of reading it on tabroom I am going to be a little grumpy. That said, please do not hesitate to ask any specific questions or confusions about something in my paradigm because I am more then happy to help with that!!
Specific stuff:
1AC's:
Policy Affs: Despite my love for the K, I think a strategic and well written policy aff make for some of the best debates possible. I have no preferences on how policy affs should be formatted but I think it is always a good idea, especially since having me as a judge means the neg will probs run a K, to have a framework on the top, or bottom, of the 1AC that justifies policymaking in some manner. Other then that, do whatever you want but please for all of our sakes make sure your ADV's have uniqueness, links, and impacts.
K Affs: K Affs, 'performative' or not, are amazing. I put 'performative' in scare quotes not because I don't like those positions that have been signified as performances within debate, in fact quite the opposite, but rather to indicate that all of debate is a performance and to parse out radical mircopolitical revolutions within debate as exclusively 'performative' seems silly to me. That said, if you want to read these types of arguments in front of me, please please please do. Once again I do not really care about the content of K affs but I am most familiar with original and contemporary deleuzoguattarian lit, postmodernism writ large, antiblackness, colonalism and settler colonalism, trans and queer theory, anti-capitalism, and lesbian/trans feminism. I hate Lacanian psychoanalysis, and most psychoanalysis writ large, and think its fundamentally irredeemable. That being said, just because that is true does not mean I won't vote on it, it just wont make for a round that I am very happy to be judging in. Mentioning those areas of critical theory that I am most familiar with is not to say that those are the only ones I will listen to/vote for. Rather, I mention them because if you read them in front of me I will most likely know more about them then you do, and because of that, it heightens my threshold for shitty answers/bad runnings of them. That said, if these are positions that are your bread and butter and something that you are quite deep on then I am most likely the judge for you. If you are going to reject the res, which is totally cool with me, you should make sure to have justifications as to why the res is bad and why rejecting it on the affirmative is key. To give you an example of what K Aff's I tended to go for, Jessica and I most often went for Gender Death, Sex Workers, Juche, Medicalization, and Han.
Framework Affs (LD): As a quick preface, if you are doing LD and reading this you can run whatever type of aff you want, I have merely labeled this under LD because its most relevant to LD. Framework affs are dope, I love them and used to run them all the time when I was debating in LD. I am pretty well versed in most of the frameworks that are common on the circuit and especially with, as much as I hate it, Kantianism and Deontology. What makes framework affs strategic is their ability to have a framework that when won, wins the debate for the aff. Due to that fact, if you are running a framework heavy aff then you should make sure you have a framework that is strategic in that vein, not just a framework that seems fun to run.
1NC's/Off cases:
Note: Again, if you are in LD you can run whatever off positions are the most strategic, do whatever you think will best win you the round. That being said though, while I am cool with it and will be able to flow you, if you are hitting an opponent who does not want you to spread, don't be an ass. That does not preclude you from running K's or DA's or T, just don't spread them if you opponent does not want you to.
DA/CP: DAs and CPs are great, but I have noticed this trend lately in which people label every piece of case specific offense as "Disads." This is slightly annoying because it greatly reduces and distorts the reasons that DAs are strategic. DAs need to have uniqueness, case specific links, and external impacts that the Aff cannot resolve; all other case offense are just case turns. Even if you have a CP that solves for your DA(s), make sure you have status quo uniqueness on the top of the DA that way you are not forced to go for the CP if you want to go for the DA. If you are running a counterplan make sure it has clearly defined sections of "text," "competitiveness," and "solvency." Also I think that conditionality is great, not that I wont vote on condo bad, so if you wanna read 5 contradictory condo offs I am very cool with that.
Ks: I love Ks, they are what I ran most in highschool and what I ran most in college. If you want to see the types of Ks that I am most familiar with, and what that means for you, look to the K aff section of my paradigm. If you are in policy, during the 1NC make sure you have either labeled or unlabeled thesis, links, impacts, and alt sections. If you are going for the K in the block it is always a good idea to read a framework for the K in the 2NC. On the other hand, if you are in LD and reading a K in the 1NC you need to make sure to have a framework, thesis, links, impacts, and alt. Something that I have noticed in hs LD and Policy is that K alts never explains why the alt is key in resolving the K, but rather just describes what the alt is, so make sure your alt actually has descriptive solvency. In terms of the K's I went for most, Jessica and I often collapsed to Bataille, Barad, Semiocap, Maoism, and Trans Spatiality.
T/Theory: I love good topicality and theory debates, they are some of the most technical types of debate and I love good technical debate. While theory and topicality are not exactly the same thing, they do share a similar structure of how they should be formatted. Both should have a clear interpretation, violation, standards and voters. While I know the general trend is to collapse the standards and voters into the same section, it would easier for me if you would make sure that those are two distinct sections wherein the standards explain why violating the interp is bad, and how losing that standard links into what ever voters you are going for. Then in the voters section terminalize why those voters are the biggest impact in the round. I have a pretty low threshold for frivolous theory in that I think if a theory position really is that bad, then you should not lose to it. I think most people would probably in fact label me as a debater who reads and goes for frivolous theory quite frequently, so if thats your jam, go for it. That said, if you use frivolous theory as a form of disrespect, i.e. reading 40 spec shells against a project, that is not going to fly for me. Read it when its strategic, not when its repugnant.
Final Note: For both LD and Policy I would like to be on an email chain for all of the speech docs read in the round, email is "reiayanami454@gmail.com." If you have any other specific questions about my paradigm you can message me on facebook at "Chris Coles (lila lavender)" or email me.