FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Hughes/Lairson - CCC

n/a

Aaron Trembath - Purdue

Adrian Jackson - U of Houston

n/a

Alexandria Carraher - Cypress

n/a

Allan Axibal-Cordero - Chapman

n/a

Amanda (Ataiyan) Stauder - McKendree

Section 1: General Information I debated policy and public forum in high school for four years, debated four years for McKendree doing Parli and some LD. I coached at McKendree for three years before beginning coaching at a local high school last year. Speed –I am 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 can’t understand you or you’re going too fast I will let you know. If I’m confused about a position I will look confused. On critical arguments go slower. 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. 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 don’t 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 didn’t 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 I’m 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 we’re 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 K’s 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 you’re 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. 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.

Amanda Lovelace -

Speak clearly and if you argue topicality...do so and then move on. Use stock issues as core arguments but also be able to expound. Be respectful and have fun.

Amber Canady - TCC

n/a

Andy Luster - McNeese State

n/a

Andy Rapp - Northwood

n/a

Anne Hilton - EWC

Anthony Strohm II - MTSU

n/a

Becky Richey - MTSU

n/a

Brian Swafford - Northwest MO

n/a

Brian Weilert - FSCC

n/a

Brooks Johnson - Wiley

Cami Sanderson - FSU

n/a

Chad Meadows - WKU

Debate should reward hard work. Your strategies and in round execution should reflect intensive research and thought about the topic/your opponents arguments. My speaker points AND ballot will be used to reinforce a curriculum that normalizes debate practices I believe are needed for the overall health of the community. 1 -Evidence Debate should be a referendum on the quality and quantity of research done first, and then a matter of execution later. I will reward debaters who do excellent and thorough research over debaters who have “slick tricks” to win debates. I think evidence is VERY important, its quality and qualifications should be debated. I will usually prefer excellent evidence to spin. When comparing a good card which was not well explained/had no spin vs. no card or a bad card with excellent spin I will typically prefer the good card. I will call for cards after the debate. I will generally only call for evidence which is referenced in the final two rebuttals. Refer to evidence by last name and date after it has been cited in the first instance. If you do not READILY share citations and evidence with your opponent in the round - I WILL be cranky, probably vote against you, or at the very least give you TERRIBLE speaker points. 2 - Speed/Flowing If speaking at a more rapid rate is used to advance more scholarship in the round, I encourage debaters to speak quickly. If speaking quickly devolves into assaulting the round with a barrage of bad arguments in the hope that your opponent will not clash with them all, my ballot and speaker points will not encourage this practice. I keep an excellent and detailed flow. However, winning for me is more about establishing a coherent and researched explanation of the world rather than extending a specific argument. An argument is not “true” because it is extended on one sheet of paper if it is logically answered by evidence on another sheet of paper or later on the line by line. You can check your rhetorical bullying at the door. Posturing, repeating yourself (even loudly), insulting your opponents (except during cross-x), or insisting that I will "ALWAYS vote here" are probably a waste of your time. 3 - Argument Selection Any argument that advances argument on the desirability of the resolution through valid decision making is persuasive. The source of argumentation should be left up to the debaters. I am very unlikely to be persuaded that the source of evidence justifies its exclusion. In particular I am unconvinced the methodology, epistemology, ontology, and other indicts pertaining to the foundation of the affirmative are unjustified avenues of research to explore in debate. Above all else, the content of your argument should not be used to duck clash. Specific Issues: 1 - Topicality is a voter and not a reverse voter. "Proving abuse" is irrelevant, well explained standards are not. 2 – The affirmative does not have to specify more than is required to affirm the resolution. I encourage Affirmatives to dismiss specs/vagueness and other procedurals without implications for the topicality of the affirmative with absolute disregard. 3 – Conditionality is logical, restraints on logical decision making are only justified in extreme circumstances.  4 – There is nothing implied in the plan. Consult, process, and other counterplans which include the entirety of the plan text are not competitive. 5 – I will decide if the counterplan is competitive by evaluating if the permutation is better than the counterplan alone or if the plan is better than counterplan. Ideological, philosophical, and redudancy standards for competiton are not persuasive and not useful for making decisions. 6 – I mediate my preferences for arguably silly counterplans like agent, international, and PICS/PECS primarily based upon the quality of the counterplan solvency evidence. 7 – Direction/Strength of link evidence is more important than “controlling uniqueness” This is PARTICULARLY true when BOTH sides have compelling and recent uniqueness evidence. Uniqueness is a strong factor in the relative probability of the direction of the link, if you don't have uniqueness evidence you are behind.  8 - I do not have a "threshold" on topicality. A vote for T is just as internally valid as a vote for a DA. I prefer topicality arguments with topic specific interpretation and violation evidence. I will CLOSELY evaluate your explanation on the link and impact of your standards. 9 - I am very unlikely to make a decision primarily based upon defensive arguments. <a href="mailto:chadwickmeadows@gmail.com">chadwickmeadows@gmail.com</a>

Chatinoda Tinago - William Carey

n/a

Chris Fenner - FSC

n/a

Chris Medina - Wiley

Christi Siver - CSBSJU

n/a

Christy Bowman - Boise State

Cindy Phu - Chapman

n/a

Clara Adkins - Marshall

n/a

Clint Jones - Transy

n/a

Dan West - Ohio U

n/a

Danny Ray - Marshall

n/a

Darrell Farmer - UNL

n/a

David Bailey - SBU

n/a

David Brennan - Wartburg

n/a

David Trumble - St. Anselm

n/a

Deanna Beaton - Webster

n/a

Destiny Moore - GSC

n/a

Dustin Haider - Concordia

n/a

Ed Hinck - CMU

n/a

Emily Aldana - Chapman

n/a

Forest Ledbetter - OSU

n/a

Frank Davis - MTSU

n/a

Frankie Glennis-Watts - William Carey

n/a

Garret Castleberry - OU

n/a

Gary Deaton - Transy

n/a

Geoff Klinger - DePauw

n/a

Gina Jensen - Webster

n/a

Hannah Durbin -

n/a

Heather Moss - FSU

n/a

Ian Hopkins - Miami U

n/a

Jacob Stutzman - OKCU

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

Jaime Hamilton - IUPUI

Jake Morgan - Cypress

n/a

Janet Eaton - Wiley

Janis Crawford - Butler

n/a

Jef Petersen - CWI

Jeff Testa - Northwest MO

n/a

Jeff Stoppenhagen - Boise State

Jennifer Manship-Bagley - Boise State

Jennifer Talbert - William Carey

n/a

Jeremy Christensen - Cypress

n/a

Jessica Furgerson - Ohio U

n/a

Joel Anguiano - EPCC

n/a

Joel Hefling - SD State

n/a

John Boyer - Lafayette

n/a

John Schultz - Purdue

John Stanley - North Central

John Hansen - EWC

Debate / Judging Philosophy - John A. Hansen My philosophy of debate is constantly evolving or devolving depending upon your locus of control within the continuum.  Philosophically I think in order to understand my orientation you have to understand my background of debate and experience.  I’ve been associated with debate for nearly 20-years; I started as an old school Lincoln Douglas debater (value / criteria) from there I transitioned to CEDA and NDT, and now coach NPDA and IPDA. Each format has revealed nuances about argumentation and theory and allowed me to refine my views on what ‘debate is.’ The overarching ‘rule’ I ascribe to debate, is the notion of reciprocity meaning that if neg wishes to disco, dispo, challenge on multiple levels, etc. Aff is also able to engage within the same constructs to challenge the negatives suppositions.  Inherently debate introduces strategy into a normative oppositional framework; hence, I am open to speed, jurisdiction, the K, framework conditionality / dispositionality, etc.  Each strategy bends the goal of communication and have their own inherent strengths and weaknesses and just because I am o.k. with the bleeding edge of speed doesn’t mean that I am not sympathetic to a critique of said strategy.  This dichotomy is emblematic of my views on debate, I think its important to try new forms of argument/strategy but be mindful of how such constructs are impacted by reciprocity. My debate philosophy has transitioned beyond the tabula rasa judge because (literally not all arguments are equal {‘racism good’ never a ‘good idea’} and I am incapable of subjugating all past experiences) into viewing the communication medium as Habermas does- one whereby individuals evaluate their motives amongst the technical, the practical, and the emancipatory.  Each of these categories demarcate debate theory and communicative action and provide a scaffold for understanding our own constructions. Please impact your arguments, weigh the round, provide judging / evaluative standards and be respectful of one another. Regards, Hansen

Johnny Rowing - CWI

General Comments - Across Styles I will generally prefer Aff framework. I believe they have the peragotive to frame the round. They must do so fairly and in a predictable fashion. Signpost your argumentation. Help me to flow by telling me what you are entering/answering. Listen. I want you to honor your opponent by giving ear to their thoughts and arguments. On a related note, I do not like it when your arguments are mischaracterized (straw man).  Please sum up the round for me in 3-4 big picture/summation voters. I will do my level best to vote based solely upon what the summation speeches tell me to vote on.   IPDA I appreciate creative opens/salutations and courtesy. Be kind and considerate to one another. Unless the aff framework is wanky . . . I expect us to debate under their framework. It bothers me when we don't. I don't like C/Ps. If we are running a policy resolution . . . I prefer Harms Plan Solvency Advantages as the stock issues framework. I don't understand Uniqueness - Link - Impact as acceptable framework for a policy res. Please make sure that you define and describe your weighing mechanism (WM) for the round and . . . please frame your argumentation around that WM. Don't tell me this is the WM and then never mention it again until your final speech.    NPDA Open - Junior If you are a junior and/or open level NPDA debater . . . I doubt that you will like me.  I am more of a Comms judge. I do not like excessive speed. I do not like K's. I really dislike Affirmative K's. I don't like unnecessary Topicality, etc. I really prefer for issues to be explored rather than generic philosophical questions or debating about debate styles. T - I won't vote on potential abuse. I need to see actual in round ground loss.  So - if you draw me - I expect less speed (I drop my pen when you are too fast). I expect the issues to be described. I expect jargon to be defined. Novice Novice level NPDA debaters may find me as a more satisfactory judge. I don't believe K's should be ran at the Novice level. I can usually help novice debaters improve through comments on structure and the implications of D/As to case - presumption - solvency attacks - etc.    BP I will most likely be in the wing, if I am a BP judge. I have very little experience in this style. But, we now have 2 teams competing in this style and I would love to serve on a panel. Big picture - I prefer for this style to be considerate and I put an emphasis on unique contributions to the round both in the manner in which points are rebutted and the manner in which unique positive argumentation is offered.

Joni Carlo - CWI

Jordan Compton - Ohio U

n/a

Jory Baker - Northwest MO

n/a

Judy Santacaterina - NIU

n/a

Justin Foote - Miami U

n/a

Justin Daigle - McNeese State

n/a

Kacy Abeln - NIU

n/a

Kaleb Jessee - WKU

Karen Hunter - Wiley

Karen Hill Johnson -

n/a

Kate Henry - Boise State

Katharine Hodgdon - BGSU

n/a

Ken Newby - Morehouse

n/a

Kenny Hopkinson - Hutchinson CC

n/a

Kerrie Hughes - CCC

n/a

Konye Ori - IUPUI

Kori Thornburg - OSU

n/a

Kristi Scholten - Truman

n/a

Leigh Cummings - Ottawa

n/a

Lisa Roth - NIU

n/a

Liz Kinnaman - MHCC

Matt Delzer - SD State

n/a

Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale

n/a

Megan Chibanga - Webster

n/a

Megan Jardine - CSUSB

n/a

Melinda Jacobsen - CWI

Michael Dugaw - Lower Columbia

Michael Strickland - CWI

Michelle Bennett - CWI

Mike Fain - U of Houston

n/a

Nancy Jackson - Marshall

n/a

Natural D'Saster - BGSU

n/a

Nichelle McNabb - Otterbein

n/a

Omar El-Halwagi - Texas A&M

n/a

Patrick Lairson - CCC

n/a

Patrick Richey - MTSU

n/a

Paul Wesley Alday - BGSU

n/a

Penni Pier - Wartburg

n/a

Phil tschirhart - CMU

n/a

Rachel Pollock - Muskingum

n/a

Raven Mineo - Transy

n/a

Rebecca Koe - SBU

n/a

Richard Paine - North Central

Debate Philosophy:      (1) CLASH.  Don't let the debate turn into two ships passing in the night.  Be sure you respond to what your opponents say.  Carry through your own ideas (story) but also be sure you respond in detail to their story.  In terms of the sheer amount of time spent on the stories, I prefer that the debate preference Gov. ground - Opp ground should clearly be an analysis of what the Gov. position is.  Go line-by-line, be direct, be complete.  Pull through dropped arguments.      (2) STRUCTURE.  I want to see it.  I want to hear numbers/letters AND precise tags.  If I don't know where you are, I can't flow it effectively.      (3) SUPPORT your claims/assertions with specific concrete data whenever possible.        (4) TAKE QUESTIONS.  This is my pet peeve.  If someone rises to ask a question, take it, and take it quickly.  Statements like "I don't have time right now" or "I'll answer it at the end of the position" are a sure way to press all the wrong buttons with me.  Questions are crucial to debate and must be honored.  How many?  Three allowed per speech sounds about right to me.      (5) NEGATIVE RESPONSE OPTIONS.  I am not a fan of Counterplans, and I am not a fan of Kritiks.  If you choose to run them, I will of course listen to them and evaluate them - but I am not naturally inclined to embrace them.      (6) DISADVANTAGES.  I am not a fan of unrealistic high-impact disads ("Increasing grade school funding will lead to nuclear war").  Realistic and believable real-world consequences are more likely to carry weight with me.  Disadvantages must be evaluated in terms of both their impact AND by how likely they are to occur.      (7) SPEED.  It should be easily comprehensible.         (8) DEBATE JARGON.  I want to hear the whole argument convincingly.  Don't just toss out the lingo ("Turn!  Perm!") and assume that's enough.  You will have to explain the process by which the lingo applies.      (9) SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.  Partners should not talk to each other during their speeches or "cover mistakes" when the debater speaking starts to waver.      (10)  PLANS.  In policy rounds, the plan should be fully provided in the PMC.  It is not sufficient to say "any questions?  No?  Well, you had your chance."  The burden is on the Gov. to provide a complete plan without prompting in the PMC.  If that doesn't happen, I consider myself free (and likely) to vote on the basis of missing Plan planks.      (11)  OTHER THINGS?  Please ask!  I welcome all questions!      (12)  Have fun.  Enjoy it.  It's just a game!

Robert Markstrom - McNeese State

n/a

Robert Michael Johnson - MOSO

n/a

Ron Bronson - EWC

Background: I competed in parliamentary debate at Washington University in St. Louis and revived the debate programs at Monmouth College & Knox College in Illinois. I competed at NPDA nationals twice and organized the first midwest tour of the Oxford Debate Union, also competing against the English during that time. I co-founded the Central Debate Conference, a former confederation of liberal arts college programs throughout the midwest. I'm in my 2nd year coaching parli at Eastern Wyoming College, though my day job is actually as the college's digital strategist. You'd be safer thinking of me as a lay judge with insider knowledge into the activity than a formal debate judge. Approach to judging: I tend to view debate as a game and enjoy fun debates where teams are matching wits up against a topic. The key is people actually knowing what they’re talking about or sounding like it. Nothing frustrates me more than hearing people spew on misrepresenting an issue wildly for 45 minutes.  That being said, it’s your round. Impacts are fine, but I like things to be weighed. My opinion shouldn’t matter as much as your arguments and I don’t make a habit of inserting myself into rounds. I want debate with warrants and substance and strongly prefer debate that’s clear and persuasive over speedy drivel, but will vote for the latter so long as it gets the job done.   Counterplans are fine and DAs are super so long as each one of them doesn’t result in nuclear war. I’ve got a strong public policy background and so, it’s often hard to be tabula rasa when people get up and say wildly ridiculous things (though I’ll vote for it if the other team leaves it on the flow untouched.) Long story short is: Know what you’re talking about. I don’t expect you to speak with the breadth of a Ph.D., but I do expect both teams to understand the case they’re running at some base level.    Splitting the block is cool with me. I abhor tricotomy, run it at your own risk.

Russ Luce - Truman

n/a

Rusty Handlon - IUPUI

Ryan Louis - Ottawa

n/a

Sabrina Wittekind - Marietta

n/a

Sam Howe - OSU

n/a

Sam Pagano - Boise State

Sarah Collins - Longview CC

n/a

Sarah Rainey - Wiley

General Paradigm: Sarah Spiker Rainey<o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Background: 2011 NFA LD National Champion and Top Speaker. 4 year LD competitor at WKU with outrounds at nationals every year. 2011 State Champion in Parli. 4 year Parli competitor at WKU, although only 2 years were at the national circuit and I was a complete n00b back then so it doesn't really count; outrounds at NPDA/NPTE nats.   <o:p> </o:p>   Presumption: I presume neg, unless a CP is introduced in the round. Then presumption flips aff. Do NOT just say “Perm: Do both”. I need an exact perm text, preferably written down so that I can view the exact wording if it becomes an issue at the end of the round. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Defense v. Offense: Terminal defense is a winnable neg strategy, but you put all your eggs in one basket that way…it’s a risky way to get my ballot especially since most Affs will still show a propensity to solve. Your Terminal D better be baller. <o:p></o:p>   Extensions: I will not vote on arguments that are incompletely extended in rebuttals. If the warrant and impact are not articulated, I will cross out the argument from my flow. You need to extend your impact scenarios. Too many debaters get caught up in the link/link turn debate that they forget the impact. If an advantage or DA is dropped, tell me to “Extend Adv 1….this was 100% cold conceded with a dropped Nuke War/Global Warming/Extinction/5 million in poverty impact…at the end of the round, this is the most probably impact because there is zero defense/offense on the link or impact level.” Then give reasons why Adv 1 impacts o/w whatever other impacts are in the round. Just don’t tell me “Extend Adv 1” and move on. Do some impact calc. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Impact Calculus: I prefer impact calculus preferably in the 1NC (at the end of each DA or case turn). The 1AR at the latest. I flow impact calcs and consider them dropped weighing mechanisms for the ballot if unresponded to. If you don’t give impact calculus (or try/die or risk analysis), I default to probability over magnitude. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Counter Plans: I’m partial to good Devolve CPs. I’m definitely not a fan of poorly constructed Devolve CPs. Run them at your own risk…you may get chewed out on the ballot if you substantially mishandle a Devolve/States CP or Federalism DA. You need great topic-specific evidence to make me happy here. As for CPs in general, you need strong, intuitive mutual exclusivity arguments. Speaks: You should care about speaker points. They are absolutely critical to seeding and close breaks out of prelims. At NFA, your speaker points will certainly matter as you adapt back and forth between IE crossover judges and experienced policy judges. ADAPT. Speaking points and the flow are two separate issues. In general, wins are correlated with higher speaks, but that isn’t always the case. I deduct one point automatically for not reading full citations. You won’t lose the round for not reading full cites (unless there is a full cites procedural in the round) but you will lose one speaker point. I won’t hold it against you but I think the best debates occur when credentials are fully read as required by the rules (author’s name, qualifications, date, and publication source). If you are scoffing, laughing, snorting, etc during your opponent’s speeches, what’s wrong with you? 2 point deduction (or more depending on degree of infraction). Show some decorum! I won’t hold facial expressions against you, just don’t audibly interrupt your opponent. Double breathing and gasping while spreading will get you docked as well. Speed: Speed and clarity are two separate issues. Monotone speed reading, not a fan. Punch your words if you’re reading fast—articulate, articulate, articulate. Do pen drills. I also believe in accessibility. If your opponent cannot understand you, they have the right to call out “clear!” for clarity issues and “speed” for speed issues. Rules do states speed and spread is antithetical to this event. I believe that as long as everyone can access the round, I see no problem with speed delivery. And if your opponent really can’t flow that fast, you probably still won’t have issues winning the round at a slower pace anyway. Topicality: I do vote on T. However, too many T shells have generic violations/standards and not tailored to case. If you’re claiming ground abuse, I prefer you run the position you claim you should have access to (the DA or solvency press) and the T together. When your opponent no-links the DA/turn, then you collapse to T. Otherwise, I hate the mumbo jumbo of “I lost vague/nebulous/generic ground but I won’t specify what exactly” type T standards. Don’t just tell me “Limits good”. What kind of limits are good? Why are they fair? If you’re running Extra or Effects Topicality, your interpretation should include the words “direct” or “directly”…your violation should state “the plan is Extra/Effect Topical…[insert brief explanation]”. Effects/Extra T is NOT a standard. It is a violation. Your standards are why Extra/Effects T is bad. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   I rarely if ever vote on RVIs. I think they are easily answered. Negs can answer the RVI fairly concisely then kick T. 90% of the time, RVIs are run by people who were top heavy and couldn’t allocate time in their rebuttal properly. I’m not going to punish the Neg because Aff has poor time management skills. <o:p></o:p>   Reasonability begs judge intervention. Theory: Reading theory is fine…just tell me to “add another sheet on top of the CP” or whatever before you do. Otherwise, my flow gets crammed with the theory half and the on-position half of the debate. I may not like the particular theory shell you’re reading, but it’s not my fault if debaters can’t navigate answering the shell. I will not vote on theory if you forget to extend the internal link between the standard and the voter (or any other part of the shell, for that matter). Theory arguments should not be 10 second blips…you must development the argument if you plan to win on it. Otherwise, it’s wasted time for us both. Critical arguments: I stole this from a high school judge’s paradigm, but it fits what I believe: “I'm fine with critical arguments and am familiar with the basic gist of most arguments by continental philosophers, but I have not read any particular texts. I'll be upset if a debater's rebuttal massively clarifies the dense rhetoric of the constructive. I'm sympathetic to "if you didn't understand/flow it, don't vote on it" types of arguments. I will not vote on an argument that I do not understand.” I believe that far too often individuals hide behind the vocabulary of their K author without explaining its practical application in common language. This leads to frustrating CX as the opponent attempts to determine how these terms impact the debate. If you can’t explain a K position to the masses (i.e. imagine a bus driver judge) then you aren’t doing it right. I’m not stupid, but I won’t do K work for you by presuming you/I are on the same page regarding what these terms mean. K alternatives should have solvency. I much prefer CP alternatives as opposed to “reject ___________ and reconceptualize __________” alternatives. Reading the judge: I’m a fairly animated judge. If you (or your opponent) say something that is absolutely ridiculous and unwarranted, expect me to make a face. I grimace, nod in affirmation, and give quizzical looks regularly. Just giving you honest facial feedback throughout the round. It would be great if you could act accordingly because then we will all be happy. If I look like I’m not flowing in your rebuttal, that doesn’t mean you’ve lost. In fact, it may mean you’ve already made the argument that wins the round. Only in close rounds am I flowing up until the final second of the 2AR. I do read evidence when either a) you call for me to read it or b) the claim/counter claims are just too close to play by ear.<o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Sharing evidence: If you read it in round, you’re sharing it. Period. Your opponent and/or judge must be given a copy of anything and everything you read in the round if requested—during CX or immediately following the round. I don’t care if they hand write out the citations, take photos, or scan it with one of those fancy pens that capture digital text. Your integrity is at stake. Take pride in the quality of your evidence and your ability to debate. I strongly believe one of the only ways to verify that evidence is being accurately cited is to allow competitors to check the evidence of their opponent’s in between rounds or after tournaments. On more than one occasion, I would find individuals who were being unethical in their evidence. We were able to uncover such abuses only by verifying the evidence after round. Therefore, you must share (if requested) if I’m your judge. If you have any other questions, my email is <a href="mailto:srainey@wileyc.edu">srainey@wileyc.edu</a> or <a href="mailto:sarah.spiker@gmail.com">sarah.spiker@gmail.com</a> <o:p></o:p>

Scott Jensen - Webster

n/a

Scott Wells - SCSU

n/a

Scott Bonneau -

n/a

Shannon Valdivia - MHCC

Shawnee' Biggerstaff - CSUSB

n/a

Steve Hagan - McKendree

Steve Schneider - Hillsdale

n/a

Susan Millsap - Otterbein

n/a

T. J. Lakin - FSU

n/a

Terry Nelson - NECC

n/a

Thomas Roccotagliata - UMich

n/a

Thomas Duke - William Carey

n/a

Todd Holm - Miami U

n/a

Todd Rainey - Wiley

Tom Serfass - Webster

n/a

Tom Preston - GSC

n/a

Tomeka Robinson - Marietta

n/a

Travis Roberts - Hutchinson CC

n/a

Trenton Garber - Ottawa

n/a

Victor Muse - TCC

n/a

Vincent Kirkland - William Carey

n/a

Warren Koshak - U of Houston

n/a

William Cooney - Cypress

n/a

2012 PKD National Comprehensive Tournament