Judge Philosophies

Adam Austin - Sac State

<p>Adam is in his first year of graduate school and still new to debate. He has been working hard on this process, attending lots of tournaments and observing, but still has limited experience judging. He flows fairly well, but you should still take it pretty slow and be sure to explain your arguments in depth, particularly impact comparisons.</p>

Alex Severson - Sac State


Alexis Litzky - CCSF

<p>I update this google doc way more than any static philosophy out there: https://goo.gl/N5Ylg7</p>

Allison Foster - Pacific

Andrea Brown - Ohlone


Aparna Bhaduri - Rice

<p>Aparna Bhaduri</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Question 1 : Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, # of rounds judged, etc)</strong></p> <p>I debated for four years for Rice, 2006-2010.&nbsp;<br /> <br /> <strong>Question 2 : Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)</strong></p> <p>I will listen to any argument, and will vote on it if it is well reasoned.&nbsp; I will try my best to be a flow judge, though in fast rounds with lots of positions, the most logical, well warranted arguments are most likely to convince me.&nbsp;<br /> <br /> <strong>Question 3 : Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making</strong><br /> I am fine with any style of debate, and if you win on the flow it doesn&rsquo;t matter how you do it.&nbsp; I debated in plenty of fast rounds, so I should be able to keep up.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><br /> <strong>Question 4 : Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making</strong></p> <p>Wherever you want the debate to happen is fine.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>

Ben Warheit - SJDC


Benjamin Warheit - Pacific

David Worth - Rice

<p>David Worth, Ph.D.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>D.O.F., Rice University</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Judging Philosophy</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>My decision is based mostly on how the debaters argue I should decide the round; I try to avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible but will when the round demands it.&nbsp; There are many cases where this might be necessary: If asked to use my ballot politically for example, or if both sides fail to give me a clear mechanism for voting, or if I know something to factually incorrect (if you are lying).&nbsp; In these cases I try to stay out of the decision as much as I can but I don&rsquo;t believe in the idea that any living person is really a blank slate or a sort of argument calculator.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Decision-making Approach: I&rsquo;ll judge based on given criteria. I can think in more than one way.&nbsp; This means that the mechanisms for deciding the round are up for debate as far as I&rsquo;m concerned.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Warrants: I will not vote for assertions that don&rsquo;t at least have some warrant behind them. You can&rsquo;t say &ldquo;algae blooms,&rdquo; and assume I will fill in the internals and the subsequent impacts for you. You don&rsquo;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&rsquo;m not saying I won&rsquo;t vote for that. I&rsquo;m just saying you have to make an argument for why it would happen. NOTE: I need a good warrant for an &quot;Independent Voting Issue&quot; that isn&#39;t an implication of a longer argument or procedural. Just throwing something in as a voter will not get the ballot.&nbsp;I reserve the right to gut-check these. If there is not warrant or if the warrant makes no sense to me, I won&#39;t vote on it.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Offense/Defense: Defense can win, too. That doesn&rsquo;t mean that a weaker offensive argument with risk can&rsquo;t outweigh defense, it just means that just saying, &ldquo;oh that&rsquo;s just defense,&rdquo; won&rsquo;t make the argument go away for me. Debate is not football. There&rsquo;s no presumption in the NFL, so that analogy is wrong.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Assessing Arguments: An argument&rsquo;s weight depends on how strong it is.&nbsp; I think line-by-line vs. &quot;big picture&quot; is an artificial divide anyway.&nbsp; This can vary by round.&nbsp; I would say you need to deal with all the line-by-line stuff but should not fail to frame things (do the big picture work) for me as well.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s pretty rare that I vote on one response but it&rsquo;s equally rare that I will vote on the most general level of the ideas.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Presentation: All good as long as you are clear. I&rsquo;ll tell you if you are not, but not more than a couple of times. After that, I will try, but I make no guarantees.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Strong Viewpoints: As I&rsquo;ve said before, I probably won t vote to kill everyone to save the planet/galaxy/universe. Otherwise I haven t found &quot;the&quot; issue yet that I can t try to see all sides of.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I vote on procedurals a bit less than other arguments but that doesn&rsquo;t mean that you shouldn&rsquo;t run them. I am getting kind of tired of purely strategic procedurals. However, even though they aren&rsquo;t favorites they are sometimes necessary.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Points of Order: Call them, or don&rsquo;t call them; I&rsquo;ll probably know whether the argument is new and not calling them does not change their status as new.&nbsp; Also, if you&rsquo;re clearly winning bigtime don&rsquo;t call a ridiculous number of them in your opponents&rsquo; rebuttal. Just let them get out of the round with some dignity (if you don&rsquo;t, speaker points will suffer). It&rsquo;ll be obvious when I think you are calling too many.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Other Items to Note:</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>If the round is obviously lopsided and you are obliterating the other team (e.g. if they are novices), then be nice. I will obliterate your speaker points if you aren&rsquo;t nice or if you simply pile it on for the heck of it.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>You don&rsquo;t need to repeat yourself just to fill time. If you&rsquo;re finished, then sit down and get us all to lunch, the end of the day, or the next round early.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I&rsquo;m not going to weigh in on the great theoretical controversies of the game. Those are up to you to demonstrate in the round. T can be more than one thing depending on the round. Counterplans can function in more than one way. Critical debates can have many forms. I&rsquo;m not going to tell you what to do. I am familiar with pretty much all of it, and have been around for a long time. I don&rsquo;t pretend to think any of the issues are settled.&nbsp; Actually, I&rsquo;ve learned or at least been forced to think about theory issues from debaters in rounds far more often than from anyone else. If I had pontificated about The Truth As I Knew It before those rounds, the debaters would have simply argued what I said I liked and I wouldn&rsquo;t have learned, so it&rsquo;s in my interest as well as yours for me not to hand you a sushi menu with the items I&rsquo;d like to see checked off. PICS, Framework, Competing Interp, in-round abuse, etc. These are all interpretable in the debate. I will say that I probably most naturally think in terms of competing interpretations on T, but, as I mention above, I can think in more than one way.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I will also say that I dislike the post/pre-fiat issue. I am kind of over it.&nbsp; Find a way to compare the impacts/implications and the plan/alt, etc. for me. It really annoys me to have compare things after the round that I was told throughout the round were &ldquo;not comparable.&rdquo; If you don&rsquo;t find a way, don&rsquo;t get mad at me for comparing them however I choose to compare them.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>My &ldquo;Debate Background:&rdquo; I did CEDA/NDT in college. I coached policy for years, and also coached parli from the days of metaphor and holding-the-wig-on-as-you-stand all the way into the NPTE/NPDA modern era. I have also coached NFA-LD.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Finally, everyone in the room has sacrificed something to be there. A lot of resources, time, and effort went in to bringing us all there. Be sure to show some basic respect for that.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>

Douglas Mungin - Solano CC

I risk sounding hella basic by stating that I am only interested in "good" arguments but I am. For me, debate is the engagement with world making. We all realize our words at 9am in the morning on an empty college campus does not really change national and international discourse, but in this particular round and room it does. We take these conversations with us in how we engage in the world. So debate comes down to these stories we tell and argue. So all speeches need to focus on the impact and larger stories of the round. I am cool with Topicality but you need to tell me how this really impacts the round, the same for Ks and other theoretical arguments. If you are the gov/aff your case needs to be tight. You have prep time, do not make me do the the work for you. For both teams: Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out.

Emily Leber - BAC

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

Erika Anderson - Chico

Evan Haynes - Pacific

<p><strong>Evan Haynes</strong></p> <p><strong>My Background</strong></p> <p>I debated for 3 years at City College of San Francisco and 3 years at University of the Pacific in Parliamentary and LD debate. I graduated in 2016, and have come back to debate this year to be an assistant coach.</p> <p><strong>General Comments</strong></p> <p>I evaluate debates through comparative impact calculous, and I am open to whatever framework you believe the debate should be evaluated through. I think all speech acts are performance, and I am open to any type or structure of argument. I think you should run arguments you believe in or believe are the best strategy, not what you think I would like. However, when it comes to impacts, I prefer topically intuitive impact scenarios with well warranted explanation, even if they are much smaller in magnitude, to large impact scenarios that are relatively unexplained. Equity and compassion are paramount for me. I don&rsquo;t believe more advanced teams should use speed or lack of clarity to prevent a substantive debate from occurring with less experienced teams.</p> <p><strong>Critical Aff&rsquo;s/Performance</strong></p> <p>I enjoy many critical affirmatives, but if the Aff does not defend the topic, I become more easily persuaded by negative argumentation that the affirmative has limited the capacity for an educational and fair discussion to take place. Personalized performances can be transformative, but they can also be very difficult to judge in a competitive context.</p> <p><strong>Negative Strategies</strong></p> <p>I am most persuaded by deep and well warranted negative strategies that are topic specific. This can be the DA/CP or the K. CP theory is fine. But know I don&rsquo;t think text comp is legit. Conditional CP&rsquo;s are fine, but I am equally open to reasons why condo is abusive.</p>

Hal Sanford - SRJC

<p><strong>Hal Sanford, Santa Rosa Junior College</strong></p> <p><strong>Short Version:&nbsp; </strong>I&#39;m a stock issues judge.&nbsp; I&#39;m not fond of Ks, although a summer at debate camp has made me receptive to them if run well.&nbsp; Thank you Joe Allen.&nbsp; Be nice to each other.&nbsp;&nbsp; I&#39;ll vote for the team who displays the preponderance of persuasion <strong>Long Version:&nbsp; </strong>Some debaters may want more.&nbsp; Here&#39;s more.&nbsp; Remember, being electronic, it&#39;s length&nbsp; does not link to damaging environmental impacts - no trees were killed in the creation of the philosophy.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <strong>What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? </strong>I look to stock issues, as argued on my flow.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; AFFIRMATIVE:&nbsp; Make sure you are topical. Reasonable definitions are accepted; they do not have to be the &quot;best.&quot;&nbsp; Be sure your interpretation of the resolution gives ground to the negative.</p> <p>In policy rounds, show me that a post-plan world is better than one defended by the negative.&nbsp; Weigh impacts.&nbsp; Show your solution is workable and links to a better outcome than the negative option(s).&nbsp;</p> <p>In value rounds, show me how your value criteria are supported and illustrated through your examples. Provide reasons to prefer your values or criteria to those offered by the negative, if they dispute them.</p> <p>NEGATIVE:&nbsp; In policy, raise topicality only if it is a genuine issue.&nbsp; Too often negatives think they are being clever with &quot;time suck&quot; topicality arguments that fizzle in rebuttals and the negative loses because they did not devote 15 seconds more to weighing impacts or developing a disadvantage.&nbsp; Also, give me reasons why disadvantages actually make the plan net-detrimental; show me how your counter plan alone is better than plan or the plan plus C/P.&nbsp; Explain how plan does not solve the problem or is not workable.</p> <p>In value rounds, if you present counter values, explain how your criteria are superior to the affirmative&#39;s when in relation to the actual resolution.&nbsp; Weigh how the impacts to society (or part of it)are greater when supporting your arguments and value(s). Finally, if the resolution places one value over another, tell me equal status means a negative ballot: the affirmative must prove primacy of one over the other.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters?&nbsp; </strong>Be nice.&nbsp; Don&#39;t belittle your opponents by calling them, or their arguments, stupid, lame, or dumb.&nbsp; Remember, there is always somebody smarter and meaner than you.&nbsp; Do you want to generate the karma that comes with being a jerk?&nbsp; Really?</p> <p><strong>What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote?&nbsp; </strong>Stock Issues:</p> <p>In policy debate, these are key for me.&nbsp; Affirmative has to win all four to win; negative can win one to win.&nbsp; Remember, stock issues answer the questions needed overcome the uncertainty and the risk of change to justify adopting the resolution.&nbsp; Affirmative must win all four to win round.&nbsp; Stock issues are:</p> <p>1. Motive/Harm, 2.Blame/Inherency, 3.Plan, and 4. Solvency/Advantage(s) justify an affirmative ballot.&nbsp;</p> <p>Topicality:&nbsp; Be sure terms are reasonably defined, metaphors are accurately applied, and mere time-suck topicality arguments aren&#39;t argued by negatives.&nbsp; You&#39;ve got better things to do. Still, affirmatives, me buying a reverse voting issue on topicality is very unlikely. Even with a opp. drop, I&#39;ll really resist.&nbsp;</p> <p>Counter plans:&nbsp; It should be non-topical; otherwise, there are two affirmatives in the round and I&#39;ll just sign the ballot for the one actually listed as affirmative.&nbsp; They also should be competitive, meaning there is a genuine choice between the plan and counter plan.&nbsp; Show competition with mutual exclusivity or a reason doing both is bad.</p> <p>Critiques:&nbsp; Given equal teams, the critique most likely will lose. I have voted for critiques, but that is when a weaker team does not adequately deal with the critique.&nbsp; I dislike generic critiques that don&#39;t relate to the resolution, the opponent&#39;s arguments, or reality.&nbsp; Good luck selling me that K whose central premise is that&nbsp; &quot;we should all hurry up and die because life&#39;s greatest gift is death.&quot;&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; I vote on the flow, but I won&#39;t turn off my brain.&nbsp;&nbsp; Still, if your names are Robert or&nbsp; Sterling, I might buy it.&nbsp; They&#39;re eloquentus-maximus.&nbsp;</p> <p>Weighing:&nbsp; Explain why you win.&nbsp; Weigh impacts.&nbsp; Apply your examples to concepts like magnitude, probability, timeframe and show how the opponent loses, how opposing arguments are less compelling.</p> <p><strong>How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements?&nbsp; </strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p>SPEED - NFA-LD:&nbsp; This is not supposed to be an audition for a speed-freak auctioneer.&nbsp; Rules state spread debate is antithetical to the event.&nbsp; That said, I heard about 30 rounds last year, including some top 4-year debaters.&nbsp; Only one has been &quot;too fast&quot; for the event, but an eloquently argued and rightly applied speed challenge by an opponent might find me a receptive audience.&nbsp; After all, &quot;speed is antithetical to the event&quot;, right?&nbsp;&nbsp; If I or the opponent call &quot;clear,&quot; heed that request.</p> <p>SPEED - PARLI:&nbsp; Be sure you really have quality arguments that necessitate speed to get them all in during the allotted time. Be clear, organized, and persuasive.&nbsp; I&#39;ll stop you if you&#39;re going too fast and I&#39;ll be receptive to an opposing team demanding you slow down also.</p> <p>JARGON:&nbsp; Don&#39;t just sling jargon around and assume I&#39;ll do all the analysis and explanation to fully impact the concept.&nbsp; For example, if an affirmative thinks he or she can simply say &quot;perm&quot; and destroy the counter plan as a reason to vote negative, he or she is mistaken.&nbsp; Say something like:&nbsp; &quot;Perm.&nbsp; Do both the plan and the counter plan.&nbsp; If there is a permutation where both the plan and the counter plan can co-exist without disadvantage, the counter plan is not a reason to reject the affirmative plan.&nbsp; Vote affirmative unless the counter plan alone is net beneficial when compared with both the affirmative plan alone or the plan and counter plan together.&quot;</p> <p>TECHNICAL ELEMENTS:&nbsp; Please be organized.&nbsp; I won&#39;t time roadmaps, but they are appreciated.&nbsp; I do permit some conversation between partners during the round, but issues must be vocalized by the recognized speaker to count.&nbsp; I will not consider arguments made after time elapses.&nbsp; If you really need to sit while speaking, I&#39;m fine with that.</p>

Ian Mikkelsen - BAC

I debated for four years in NPDA/NPTE. During this time I ran everything from disads to kritiks to random theory arguments. Due to this, I have no real proclivity to any one style of debate. So long as a position is well explained I will generally be fine. I do not have any arguments that I feel particularly strongly against or for, and often times will swap between stating that all individuals should run the K and all individuals should debate only case and politics. In terms of how rounds are evaluated, I generally see debates as a clash of two overarching stories than individual arguments. As such, while a concession is certainly important, it only matters in so far as it is explained in the context of the themes that a team goes with in the final analysis. My only real desire is for there to be some explanation of arguments as they are being introduced. Not to some radical level, but if there is some nuance which is going to become critical in the LOR/PMR, I would prefer that to be at least stated to some degree in the first introduction of the argument. I do not know if there has been a time where a collapse to win a debate round can genuinely begin to early either, and would appreciate that teams make those delineations earlier in the debate round when possible.

James Gooler-Rogers - SRJC

Janene Whitesell - Solano CC

I have been teaching argumentation and debate for 25 years. I am not a debate coach, but have judged debate rounds for as long as I've been teaching debate. Here's what you need to know coming into the debate: First, I believe that all forensics events are public speaking events. I expect speakers to stand and deliver. As long as lawyers, politicians, and preachers stand, then our community should as well. Second, I feel strongly AGAINST prompting your partner. Again, in the real world a speaker has to stand on their own. Many times debaters interrupt their partner and the partner loses their train of thought. The more egregious the prompting, the more likely it will be that I drop a team. Third, I'm not a fan of topicality arguments. I would rather the the opposition/negative clash with the government/affirmative team. If you want to run topicality, make sure that it is warranted and that you have nothing to say against the affirmative. Fourth, I usually don't vote on K arguments (in a similar fashion as T arguments). Finally, your university/college/coaches have invested time and money into this endeavor. Treat it with respect.

Jared Anderson - Sac State

<p>NFA-LD judging philosophy</p> <p>I have been coaching and judging debate for about 10 years now. I&#39;ve primarily coached CEDA/NDT debate but I am also very familiar with Parli. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I will try to keep this brief and answer any questions you may have...</p> <p>NFA-LD rules - I have read and&nbsp;understand the&nbsp;rules and I will &quot;enforce&quot; them if arguments are made. I will not intervene, you need to argue the violation. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules&nbsp;to resolve any violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won&#39;t make sense, so I&#39;ll end up voting on it.</p> <p>Speed - I understand that this is one of the rules. It is also a rule that makes very little sense, is written poorly, and difficult to interpret. I take a good flow and I suspect that there are very few folks in LD that can test my pen. That being said, I am not encouraging any one to try to spread people out. That should never be the goal of debate. If there is a legitimate concern raised about the rate of delivery from somebody, I will consider the argument, but it needs to be well developed and explained.&nbsp;</p> <p>Topicality - is a voter.&nbsp;</p> <p>Kritiks - must link to the action of the plan. Winning &quot;doesn&#39;t link to the plan&quot; will function the same as &quot;no link&quot; for me.</p> <p>Basic Logistics:</p> <p>Prep - The prep clock stops when you stop prepping! When the clock stops, everyone needs to stop prepping. Don&#39;t tell me you are ready and then look for more cards or that you have to find your flow. Prep is done when you are ready to speak. If you are paperless, I will stop prep when the flash drive is in the other teams hand or the email is sent.&nbsp;</p> <p>Evidence Sharing - be adults about this. If you want a paperless debate, awesome. I think it works the best, however...get your tech together. If both debaters are prepared for paperless that is great, if you are providing a viewing computer it better be of a quality that allows your opponent to actually view the evidence without wasting their prep time. If the debate is on paper, pass down cards as you read them and avoid bickering about who has access to the evidence. The person who is prepping should be in control of the evidence.</p> <p>Disclosure - unless specifically forbidden, I will disclose my decision after the debate and give you brief feedback. Since we need to keep the tournament on time I will keep my comments brief. I&#39;m happy to answer additional questions at a later time.</p>

Jeff Toney - SJDC

Jonathan Bruce - Pacific

<p><span dir="ltr">I competed in Parli and LD for four years at University of the Pacific. I am pretty much fine with anything being run in front of me. However, as the cliche goes--do not assume I know the literature base behind the K you wish to run. </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>NEG:</strong></span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Disads: </strong>My favorite type of debate to watch is a Disad vs. Case debate. So I like them, is what I&rsquo;m getting at there. I am not against any type of Disads being run in front of me. Albeit, if you chose to run a Politics DA, what helps to make Politics more compelling is if you include a specific reason X Plan Text of the AFF would cause a reaction to the specific BILL/Proposal your D/A is about. In other words, please don&rsquo;t say &ldquo;Repub backlash because yeah!&rdquo; raising thumbs like Fonzie.</span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>CPs: </strong>Sure, they&rsquo;re a useful thing, so run it if you want. Conditional CPs are perfectly fine, I believe they do make more sense for Policy debate. Unconditional CPs make more sense for Parli Debate. So, I won&rsquo;t disregard Condo-Bad theory, on face. I will be viewing both as you characterize them. </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Theory: </strong>Proven abuse is more compelling, to me, than potential. I might actually be light weight vexed to have to sit and listen to potentially being abused in some hypothetical round in the future, for 17 minutes. That aside, I am not a fan of someone running multiple (3+) theory positions to me in one LOC. If you run any form of Vagueness, just make sure the link to what is vague and the link to what offense you lose, subsequently--is clear. </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>K: </strong>Like I said above--make sure the thesis of the K is clear. So, perhaps, chose to slow down in the portion of the K that has a thesis. Parli is not Policy, I can&rsquo;t check your arguments afterward, so clarity is the most important item here. Now, K debate becomes a game of controlling some type of grand Uniqueness frame. It&rsquo;s a great home, subsequently, for tech, advanced debaters. I will give leeway, thus, to new debaters and their responses to the <em>normative</em> tricks of all such &ldquo;non-normative&rdquo; K&rsquo;s. &nbsp;</span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>BOTH:</strong></span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Performance:</strong> Nah. </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Critical Affirmatives: </strong>Just establish the link between your literature and the resolution&rsquo;s topic. I&rsquo;m not saying you have to be topical. You don&rsquo;t. I&rsquo;m asking you to briefly describe why your K is relevant to this topic. </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Impact Calc:</strong> <em>Timeframe &gt; Magnitude &gt; Probability</em> is the default way I will frame impacts in the rounds. If you don&rsquo;t like that, then do impac calc in the LOR/PMR and tell me the 1) The frame 2) Why that frame is important (given the context of that round&rsquo;s arguments.) </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Speed:</strong> Blaze it. That being said, don&rsquo;t be rude to new debaters, allow them to engage. </span></p>

Keith Corley - Jewell

<p>My name is Keith Corley and I currently am the Assistant Debate Coach at William Jewell College. My experience in the activity is 2 years at Moorpark College and 3 years at Concordia University Irvine. My goal with this philosophy is to try and be as honest as possible with those who read it as it is my experience that quite a few individuals tend to mislead in order to be part of the in group.</p> <p><strong>KvsPolicy: </strong>During my debate career I spent a majority of it debating policy and case debate. That being said my final year in the activity I debated the K more than 70% of the time. As far as policy debate goes, I expect warrants for arguments. I know that all judges says this but I want to make it extremely clear that you need specific warrants to back up your claims. If you do not have it, often times I will accept the other team to just articulate a lack of warrants in order to refute the argument. Other than that I feel like I view policy in the same way that almost every other person does.</p> <p><strong>Theory: </strong>When I was debating I was really into theory debate, it was something that I really enjoyed winning on. While I am more than willing to listen to you read these, I think it should be pointed out that I really dislike listening to theory that is not strategic or meaningful, aka something that is meant just to waste the other team&#39;s time. More often than not I think that the questions that theory is asking is important and as such in this aspect of the debate I do not like gamesmanship.</p> <p>&nbsp;<strong>Conditionality</strong> I was coached by Kevin Calderwood and while I buy into his thoughts in regards to conditionality I want to make it clear that I do not think that one conditional advocacy is necessarily bad. That being said I will definitely listen to a condo bad shell for a variety of reasons. Specifically, I suggest you not run an argument such as whiteness or fem conditionally as I believe that is ethically bankrupt. However, I will not vote anyone down for this if the other team does not win a condo bad theory position.</p> <p><strong>The K:</strong> Like I said, I ran these quite a bit during my last year, however, I do not want you to think that I am up on every single bit of critical literature. I prefer a very explained out thesis for K&#39;s that arent cap or something basic. Additionally, you need to explain to me in a very clear way what the alt text does. I truly dislike utopian alternatives with no explanation as to how they function. As far as K&#39;s on the aff go I am fine with them, but I would prefer you to make it resolutional. I do not need you to make it topical or use fiat (though that can and should be argued by the neg if they so choose) but I would prefer if the resolution was incorporated somewhere.</p> <p><strong>Miscellaneous</strong> If you only read one part of my philosophy please read this part: Debate was my home and identity for a long time. However, I realize that they type of debate and the space in which I engage in it are not home for many people that do not have my privilege. I want everyone to be able to run the type of arguments that make them feel most at home. That being said, I think that on some occasion in an effort to run arguments that they feel most comfortable with debaters will do so at the expense of the team that they are facing. What I mean by this is that I believe there is a way to run arguments that do not make your opponent feel like shitty people. I understand that some arguments can get real. I think those arguments are fantastic. However, I do not think that it is beneficial for anyone involved to traumatize someone in order to win a ballot. I believe that this space is a place for us to grow an think and learn a bunch of new and different types of education that aren&#39;t offered anywhere else whether that be upper level international relations or very critical queer theory. My belief is that our community is at our best when people can experience these hard truths without being brought to tears because the round made them feel like shit. My last note is that most of the fastest speakers in the community often times were not clear enough for me to flow at full speed. If you believe you are in this group please drop to 80% of your speed or wait for me to clear you, whatever you prefer.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>TL;DR THESE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ME</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>Do not make the other team want to leave the activity</strong></li> <li><strong>No matter what you are running, please make sure that you have a solvency that explains how your plan, alt, advocacy, etc. function</strong></li> <li><strong>I NEED WARRANTS</strong></li> <li><strong>Please for the love of god somebody do impact calculus</strong></li> <li><strong>Totally down with theory, just not as a time suck</strong></li> <li><strong>If you make a good Hamilton reference, 30 speaks</strong></li> </ol> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>

Kevin Steeper - SRJC

<p>Kevin Steeper, Santa Rosa Junior College</p> <p><strong>Most Important Criteria</strong></p> <p>I&#39;m a tabula rasa judge, so I look to vote on the flow where the debaters tell me to. If one team tells me the sky is orange and the other doesn&#39;t respond, the sky is orange for the purpose of the round. I will, however, intervene if the other team says the sky is blue as I&#39;ll be inclined to give weight to the argument I know is true. I want to see concrete, real world impacts on your argumentation. I won&#39;t do any extra work for you in order to give you the ballot, so you need to make sure you impact out all of your arguments. At the end of the round, I&#39;m also far more likely to vote on probability over magnitude (so, for example, you&#39;ll might have a hard time getting my ballot if you lay out an unlikely human extinction scenario if your opponent has more reasonable impacts).</p> <p><strong>Predispositions</strong></p> <p>The only thing I&#39;m predisposed to not want to vote on is a K. I want to hear a debate on the issues, one that was prepped as much as can be expected in the 20 minutes of prep time as opposed to something you&#39;ve been working on all year. If you run it really well, or the opponent totally mishandled it, I&#39;ll still vote on it even though I won&#39;t want to. If the other team, however, handles it well enough, my threshold to reject a K is pretty low. Otherwise, I have no issues voting on T or any other procedural. I prefer to see arguments on the resolution, but have no problem voting on a procedural if it&#39;s warranted. In addition, on topicality (and related positions) I prefer potential abuse as opposed to proven abuse as far as what I need to vote on topicality. I feel that running a position that specifically does not link to the affirmative&#39;s case to prove abuse is a waste of my time and yours, and I&#39;d rather you spend the 30-60 seconds you spend running that position making arguments that really matter in the round. Topicality can be evaluated just fine in a vacuum without having to also complain about how it prevented you from running X, Y, or Z position. The affirmative team is topical or they aren&#39;t, and no amount of in round abuse via delinked positions (or lack thereof) changes that. Additionally, I tend to default to reasonability over competing interpretations, but will listen to arguments as to why I should prefer competing interpretations.</p> <p><strong>Speed/Jargon/Technical</strong></p> <p>I debated Parli for four years, so I have no trouble with jargon or debate terms. I&#39;m not a fan of speed as a weapon and I like to see good clash, so my feeling on speed is don&#39;t speed the other team out of the room. If they call &quot;clear&quot; or &quot;slow&quot;, slow down. Additionally, my feelings on speed are also directly related to clarity. My threshold on speed will drop precipitously if your clarity and enunciation is low, and conversely is higher the more clear you remain at speed.</p> <p><strong>NOTE:</strong>&nbsp;I do not protect on the flow in rebuttals. It&#39;s your debate, it&#39;s up to you to tell me to strike new arguments (or not). My feeling is that me protecting on the flow does not allow the other side to make a response as to why it isn&#39;t a new argument, so I want one side to call and the other side to get their say.</p> <p><strong>NFA-LD SPECIFIC NOTES:</strong> Because of the non-limited prep nature of the event, I am far more receptive to K debate in this event. Additionally, given that there are no points of order, I also will protect on the flow in rebuttals.</p>

Kyle Johnson - San Jose State

Malcolm Gamble - Pacific

Mariel Cruz - Santa Clara

<p>Schools I&#39;ve coached/judged for: Santa Clara Univerisity, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School&nbsp;</p> <p>I judge both Policy and Parlia debate. I just both events pretty similarly. I do have a few specific notes about Parlia debate at the bottom. Parlia debaters, be sure to read the notes at the very bottom as well.&nbsp;</p> <p>Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. This is my second year coaching, but I have seen a lot of rounds and know a lot about debate.</p> <p>I haven&rsquo;t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.</p> <p>I&rsquo;m good with speed, but be clear. I&rsquo;ll let you know if you aren&rsquo;t. However, if you&rsquo;re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you&#39;re going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow.&nbsp;</p> <p>I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I&rsquo;m not an avid reader of K literature, so you&rsquo;ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater, but I don&#39;t work with Ks as much as I used to, so I&#39;m not super familiar with every K, but I&#39;ve seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you&#39;re running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough.&nbsp;</p> <p>I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it&rsquo;s necessary not to. I&rsquo;ll side with you if necessary. I also think conditionality and topicality are pretty awesome. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this. I&#39;ll vote on theory and T if I have to.&nbsp;</p> <p>I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line, so make sure to make those type of arguments as well, ie impact analysis and comparative claims.&nbsp;</p> <p>I&rsquo;m cool with paperless debate. I was a paperless debater for a while myself. I don&rsquo;t time exchanging flashdrives, but don&rsquo;t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>PARLIA Debate</p> <p>I only went to a hand full of parlia tournaments as a debater, but&nbsp;I helped coach the parlia team during my entire debate career, and I coach both policy and parlia. And, as a policy debater, I&#39;m familiar with all your arguments (since most of them come from policy). I&#39;m also really good with speed, since I had to flow fast rounds all the time for policy. Just be sure to sign post so I can flow properly.&nbsp;</p> <p>Since the structure for parlia is a little different, I don&#39;t have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parlia rounds than in policy rounds. This doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;ll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parlia, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation.&nbsp;</p> <p>I&#39;m pretty familiar with debate jargon, but after judging some parlia rounds, I&#39;ve come to realize that the some terms have slightly different interpretations in parlia than in policy, so you should err on the side of explaining and elaborating instead of just using these terms. For example, explain what &quot;dispo&quot; means, or explain your &quot;try or die&quot; situation, etc.&nbsp;</p> <p>For any other argument, I judge it the way I would judge policy, so you can look to the information above if you want to know anything else. Also, feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.&nbsp;</p>

Mark Faaita - Chico

<p>I value debate because i believe it creates a space to engage in critical thinking and intelectual creativity. I appreciate arguments that are rooted in logic and&nbsp;reason, and I feel that leaves plenty of room for procedurals, K&#39;s, and case debate. Well warranted arguments are appreciated. Keep in mind that each of your positions are ultimately a part of an overarching story, and a story should be fairly easy to follow. There are no positions that I am adverse to. Speed wise, I haven&#39;t been spread out thus far this season, if that happens in a round I will verbalize it on the basis&nbsp;of fairness. I can&#39;t evaluate the arguments properly if they are not on my flow, but I don&#39;t expect you to be able to read my mind. I may ask for a line or two after the speech if I feel it is needed. My feedback this season has seemed to revolve around the importance of questions, the logical flow of arguments, and people missing the obvious. Also, I realize that debte is competitive, but competition can be fun, so have fun!&nbsp;</p>

Marnie Salvani - Pacific

Marvin Carter - FCC

Little bit about myself: multiple NDT qualifier, nationally traveled debater collegiately for 5 years in college, been involved with debate for the last 10-11 years, coached several high school teams, and coached collegiate policy teams. I am trained in policy, so if I am judging your round and you do LD or Parli I am going to default to how I have been trained, which is policy. Recently finished my masters and am looking at different JD programs so I am not as emerged in the topic as I would typically be. I hate paperless, but love technology: I am only 26, but I guess that means I am old. When cx ends your prep time begins. When you say you are done prepping you need to be ready to start speaking (not saving to a jump drive or organizing your flows). If there is an issue in the debate that means we should deviate from this norm I will tell you, not the other way around. Do not waste time playing with each other’s flash drives, I won't be thrilled. Try to look up every once and while. It will help your speaker points. Prep stops when the other team has the jump drive. Framework: If circular claims about predictability and fairness are how you roll, I am probably not the judge for you. If framework is based on comparative claims which construct the importance of differing roles for the judge/debate/space, I am fine for you. I am voting on whom convinces me does the better debating at the end of the round. Topicality: I lean a little aff here on question of reasonability and “most limited” vs. “best/reasonable limit”, but as with any argument, the burden to do the debating is on you, don’t assume you can blow it off and wait for me to conclude in your favor on reasonability. Disads: They are cool; even better if they are intrinsic. Critiques: These are the arguments I know the most about. I am familiar with most critical literature. I will do my best to exclude my background knowledge from affecting my decision. Just because I know a lot about criticisms does not mean you should go for the argument. Don't adapt to me, just be yourself. There is a much better chance that you will do better playing the game you're ready for rather than trying to do something that you think* I want to hear. The more specific the link to the affirmative the better your argument will be. This also applies to affirmative answers to the author the negative is using. I do not think the aff has a right to a permutation on a criticism. This does not mean the aff cannot justify one, but that is where I start. Counterplans: They're cool. The more specific the better like most arguments in debate. Please be comprehensible: I will not tell you to be clear, but I will be staring at you with a puzzled look which will probably mean to slow down so you are understandable. I’m pretty much willing to listen to whatever debate you prefer to have (K, policy, Other). You’re better off doing what you’re good at than trying to adjust to what you think I want to hear. Making fewer, smarter args: Typically you will get you farther than speeding through some unexplained "more evidence". Impact assessment and evaluation of the debate in the last rebuttals are important. Oh and there is such a thing as zero risk of a link. Debaters argue; evidence does not: If you just list 35 authors, I will not read your cards. I do not want to read your cards. Persuade me. It is a speaking activity. Read and say what you want. Its your debate so own it. That being said, I don¹t enjoy listening to debates in which gendered/racist/ableist language and so on is used. At the very least your speaker points will probably be effected. Random Thoughts: I am trained to judge naturally off the flow, unless told otherwise. I do think rules exist in debate: speech times etc. These rules do not set restrictions on content or curriculum. All of these things are up to the debaters. Im not stranger to K on K debates or traditional vs K debates. Typically, I am not in traditional vs traditional debates (except in high school). Judges I model after: Izak D., Luis M., Toni N., Jon B., Dan F., Pointer, Ode, Symonds, Sarah, Joel R., Amber K, Hester and obviously Jack E. Questions? Email me at: Marvin.carterjr@gmail.com Warm regards, mc

Matthew Zupko - San Jose State

<p>I&rsquo;ll flow anything you tell me, just be organized and let me know where you are. You need to tell me why your impact is good (or bad)- I&rsquo;m going to try not to assume anything. I really appreciate solid link scenarios, and evidence with good warrants can win you the round. Speed is fine, but please be respectful if the other team calls slow or clear. I like to hear about the topic, but if you run procedurals and provide good warrants I&rsquo;ll vote on it. I prefer proven abuse but it&rsquo;s not necessary to win the position. Weigh out and evaluate impacts, because if you don&rsquo;t I have to do it myself and you probably don&rsquo;t want that. Timeframe, probability and magnitude are what I&rsquo;m accustomed to hearing and I will usually put the most weight into probability unless you can show me why I shouldn&rsquo;t.</p>

Matthew Hogan - UNR

<p>Name: Matthew Hogan School: University of Nevada, Reno Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. To begin, I have about 12 years experience in the activity between competing in high school policy, competing in college parli, and coaching parli for 3 years. My general approach to evaluating the debate is that the government team has the responsibility to defend the topic and their case, while the negative can challenge either of those two burdens to win the round. I believe the affirmative team should defend the resolution. This means that if you want to run a critical affirmative, you need to explain to me how this position is topical under the specific resolution. I allow quite a bit of leeway when it comes to affirmative interpretations of resolutions, so the least you can do is spend the extra 30 seconds explaining how you are topical. My only exception to this burden is a project affirmative, but I need a good framework explaining why this is more important than the topic, and probably an explanation as to why you are not running the position just to skew your opponents out of the round (ie: disclose your project if it is that important to you). Opposition Teams, your Kritik should also be topical either to the resolution or specifically to the plan text. Generic links, links of omission etc, don&rsquo;t really do it for me. Link specific discourse, the plan text or the wording of the resolution. Really try to engage your opponent or the resolution with the kritik, don&rsquo;t run the kritik just for the sake of running it. Also, I believe in negation theory, so you can have contradictory arguments in the round. Just make sure you parameterize down to one of the two arguments by the rebuttals. If you are going for both arguments in the rebuttal and are winning both, I don&rsquo;t know what to do with the two competing claims you are winning and, thus, disregard them both (government teams should know this too). I am open to procedurals of all kinds, kritiks, diusads and counterplans. I am willing to vote for either liberal or conservative positions, so long as those arguments are not deliberately racist, sexist, etc. I am ok with speed, so far as you give a little pen time between claims, since this is parli after all. A good idea would be to give a warrant after the claim, so I can get pen time and so you can actually support your argument. Above all else, I expect both teams to be respectful to each other. Don&rsquo;t deliberately be mean, rude or patronizing. I am ok with banter, sarcasm, etc, but being rude just for the sake of bullying your opponent will upset me. Not enough for me to vote against you, but enough for me to dock your speaker points substantially. Points of order should be called in front of me. If something is blatantly new for me, I will do disregard the argument. If there is a grey area, I may allow the argument unless a point of order is called. I think it is better to be safe than sorry. My idea of net-benefits is probably not traditional, where whomever has a higher magnitude wins. Unless you tell me why I need to prioritize magnitude first, I will evaluate net-benefits to my default standard which is: probability&gt;timeframe&gt;magnitude. My political philosophy is that high magnitude debates stagnate real action and reform, which is why I prioritize probability. That isn&rsquo;t to say that I won&rsquo;t evaluate magnitude first if you tell me why I should abandon my default judging standard. If you have any specific questions, feel free to email me atmchogan86@gmail.com. Best of luck to you all!!! Section 2: Specific Inquiries Please describe your approach to the following. 1.​Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? ​26-29 2.​How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be &ldquo;contradictory&rdquo; with other negative positions? ​Critically framed arguments are cool with me for both teams. Critical affirmatives should be topical to the resolution (see above), and still give the negative some ground in the round. Critically framed arguments should have a clear framework for both teams that tell me how I should prioritize the position. Without a winning framework that prioritize the critical argument first, I will weigh it equally to other positions. Yes the position can contradict other positions, as long as you collapse to only one of the positions in the rebuttal. My one exclusion to this rule is that if you run a critical position based off the discourse someone uses, and then you use that discourse, then your contradictory positions can cost you the round, since you can&rsquo;t take back your discourse. 3.​Performance based arguments&hellip; ​I am also ok with performance based positions, so long as they meet a standard of relevance to the resolution. However, it needs to be clear to me that I am evaluating the performance rather than the content, with reasons why I should evaluate performance first. The opposing team should have the right to know if they are actually debate the performance or the content, instead of being excluded by a team switching back and forth between frameworks. 4.​Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? ​ ​I don&rsquo;t require competing interpretations. If you tell me why your opponent has a bad interpretation, I won&rsquo;t vote for it. If you want me to vote for your competing interpretation, though, I need counter-standards. I don&rsquo;t need in-round abuse as long as the standards and voters you are going for aren&rsquo;t related to ground (ie: grammar and Jurisdiction). However if you are going for a fairness voter with a claim to ground loss, then I need the abuse to be present in round. I do give government teams flexibility in being creative with the topic, as long as they can win topicality, but I am also more likely to vote on topicality than some other critics may. 5.​Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? ​Counterplan is assumed dispositional to me unless told otherwise. If asked about the status of the counterplan, the negative team should answer their opponent. Counterplans of any kind are ok with me, as long as you can defend the theory behind the counterplan you ran. All theory is up for debate for both teams when it comes to counterplans. My favorite counterplans are plan exclusive counterplans, but I will entertain any kind. 6.​Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) ​Yes, teams can share flowed arguments. 7.​In the absence of debaters&#39; clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? Procedurals first, krtiks second, then net-benefits. You can easily tell me why I should prioritize differently in the debate. Additionally, if nobody is winning the theory as to why I should look to one argument first, then I will weigh procederuals vs. kritiks vs. plan/da/cp equally under net-benefits and weigh the impacts of each. So you should be winning your theory debate on your position.​ ​ 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. &quot;dehumanization&quot;) against concrete impacts (i.e. &quot;one million deaths&quot;)? ​As mentioned before, I prioritize probability first. I will still consider things like magnitude and timeframe, I just give more weight to more probable impacts. Therefore things like dehumanization can outweigh extinction or vice versa, as long as you are winning the probability debate. The other option is give me framework reasons as to why I should prefer magnitude or timeframe first. BOLDED TEXT REFLECTS CHANGES TO MY PHILOSOPHY ON 10/29/12 Case Arguments: Fact cases generally make me upset and uncomfortable because I feel I must always intervene. Value resolutions, a little less so. I am most comfortable with policy rounds because I think it incorporates the other two types of rounds and then goes beyond; however, I will listen to the round no matter how it is formatted. Affirmative cases should be well-warranted, clear, and solvent; after all, affirmative does get the benefit of choosing their case. I think inherency is a difficult battle to win for the negative; however the link and impact debate are incredibly important. I probably give more value to solvency attacks then other critics. I view solvency/advantage links as the internal link to all the impacts I weigh for the affirmative, so for the same reasons why proving a no link on a disadvantage make it go away, I feel the same is true for solvency. Lastly, I will default to a net-benefits framework until either team provides me with a different framework in which I should view the round. Disadvantage Arguments: Generally enjoy the disadvantage debate. Disadvantages must be unique, with well-warranted internal links and articulated advantages. I hate hearing big impacts like global warming or nuke war without a clear articulated scenario of how we get there and how the impact occurs (same goes for the affirmative case). Example of a bad impact: Emissions create ocean acidity and lead to extinction in the ocean and the world. Example of a good impact: CO2+H2O results in carbonic acid, eating away the calcium shells of shellfish and coral, which are the 2nd most biodiverse place on earth and a major food source for all animals. I WILL NOT DO THE WORK FOR YOU ON THE IMPACT DEBATE. Links are very important as well, and while a risk of the link will get you access to the impacts, probability will greatly decrease, which given the right affirmative rebuttal may still not result in me voting for large impacts. Link turns are only offense if the government is winning the uniqueness debate. Counterplan Arguments: The following are my default views on counterplans; however, counterplan theory is completely up for debate, and I will listen to any counterplan if you defend and win the theory debate. I actually enjoy very clear, competitive counterplans. Delay counterplans generally are unfair and honestly quite unnecessary, since if you are winning the disadvantage, the CP isn&rsquo;t required unless you have small impacts. Consult counterplans are a little less unfair than counterplans, but I feel somewhat the same towards these counterplans as I do towards delay. Consult CP&rsquo;s have a little more offense, though. PICs are fine, but a little abusive (just a little J). I would just hope that you have a specific disad to the part you&#39;re PICing out of. I&#39;m fine with topical counterplans. My default view is that perms are a test of competition, and not an advocacy. A perm is all of plan, and all or part of the counterplan. Anything outside of this, and I&#39;ll have a sympathetic ear to Opp claims of severance or intrinsicness. I prefer if you write out the counterplan and perm texts on separate pieces of paper to avoid debates about shifting perm/CP texts. I view all CPs as dispositional unless I&#39;m told otherwise. To be clear, this means that Opp can kick it only if Gov perms it. If Gov straight turns the CP, Opp is stuck with it, unless they&#39;ve declared it conditional at the top of the CP. Lastly, losing the counterplan doesn&rsquo;t mean a loss for the opposition. Multiple Conditional (and usually contradictory) Counterplans will probably lose you the round, if your opponents tell me why they are abusive. They force the gov team to contradict themselves, run multiple uniqueness scenarios and definitely skew your opponents out of the round. Please do not run them. You already get the option between the status quo and/or a competing advocacy. You don&rsquo;t need 3 more! (This applies to a kritik alternative and a counterplan, unless the counterplan is the alternative. Kritik Arguments: Framework of kritiks is incredibly important. Without a clear framework, I will simply weigh the kritik against the case, which generally means all you have is a non-unique disadvantage. I would much more prefer specific links to the aff case/rhetoric over resolution links (I am somewhat sympathetic to the affirmative when they don&rsquo;t get to choose the resolution or side). More local impacts (personal/individual) will get you further in terms of the solvency of your alternative than huge impacts like &ldquo;root of all violence&rdquo;. However, I will listen to larger impacts as well, as long as your solvency can convince me that I can solve the root cause of all violence simply by signing my ballot!!!. Your alternative should be written and clarified if requested, and your solvency needs to be articulated well. Best option for the affirmative to answer the kritik is to perm, answer framework, or challenge the solvency. Impact turning something like, &ldquo;the root of all violence&rdquo; is risky, and chances are, the kritik probably will link in some way to the affirmative case. T and Theory Arguments: I give a lot of flexibility to the affirmative to be creative with their interpretation and affirmative case. On the flipside, I enjoy topicality debate more than most judges. I guess the two balance each other out and will result in me being able to hear arguments from either team regarding topicality. Interpretations should be clear, and preferably, written out. Ground/Fairness claims should have proven in-round abuse in order to win them; however, you might be able to convince me that prep-abuse is important too. Otherwise, in-round is the only thing that will win you a fairness debate. Other standards and voters can still win you topicality, though. Your voters should be related to the standards for your interpretation. Short, blippy, time-suck topicality will make me very sad and less likely to vote for it. If you are going to run topicality, you should be putting in at least as much effort as your other arguments if you expect me to consider it. Other theory arguments like vagueness, policy framework best, etc are all up for debate in front of me. However, theory should be explained clearly, and you should give enough pen time on these arguments, since generally there are not as many warrants for theory arguments as there are for case arguments. Approach to Deciding: Net-Benefits paradigm until told otherwise. I cannot stress enough the importance of the rebuttal for evaluating impacts. Tell me where to weigh, how to weigh, and why I should weigh the impacts the way you tell me too. I prioritize impacts in the following order unless told otherwise: Probability of impacts comes first, Timeframe second, and magnitude last. I will not vote on a try or die of nuclear war that has low probability if the other team has a 100% chance of feeding 100 people and saving their lives. This is contrary to my personal political perspective that catastrophic rhetoric can lead to political paralysis. However, if you want to go for big impacts, you can convince me to change my prioritization of impacts by arguing why I should prioritize timeframe or magnitude. Convince me why timeframe matters more than anything, or probability, or magnitude. Any of these can be enough to win you the round, even if you are losing one of the other standards for weighing. Big impacts don&rsquo;t necessarily result in a win, unless you tell me. Without any weighing, I feel like I must intervene and do the work for you (which I don&rsquo;t want to do), and you may not enjoy the decision I make if I do. Without weighing being done, I will default to probability over timeframe and then timeframe over magnitude. If you fail to argue why I should change the way in which I prioritize impacts, you may lose the round despite winning the line by line because I will default to a more probable impact scenario. THIS IS IMPORTANT, since most judges evaluate magnitude first and this is not in-line with my own views on policy-making. So if you are a large magnitude impact debater, you must make it clear why the magnitude should come before a highly probable, small impact advantage for your opponents. Presentation Preferences: Speed is generally fine with me. There are only a few teams that may be fast for me, and I will let you know during your speech if you are going to fast. Should you decide not to slow down, then you may not get your argument on my flow. However, I believe that this is an educational activity while also a competitive one. Therefore, if your opponents are asking you to slow down because they can&rsquo;t engage, and you refuse to, you may win the round, but you may not get very good speaker points in front of me. I believe using speaker points is the best way of balancing my responsibility in making sure debate is inclusive and educational, but at the same time not being interventionist by giving somebody a loss for speaking to fast. Sitting is fine and won&lsquo;t affect your speaker points, but you&rsquo;ll generally speak clearer and quicker standing, so I don&rsquo;t know why you wouldn&rsquo;t want to stand for your own sake. I am fine with communicating with your partner, but will only flow those arguments that are coming from the speaker. If communicating with your partner is excessive, then your speaker points may be affected. The person speaker should be answering cx questions (but you can get input from your partner). CLARITY is the most important thing in terms of presentation.</p>

Natalie Meany - FCC

Nicole Sandoval - SJDC

Phil Krueger - SJDC


Phil Kruger - Pacific

Reed Ramsey - Pacific

<p>I <span dir="ltr"> am a policy maker. I evaluate the debate through a comparative impact comparison. If you forgo this comparison I will have to make that call for you, which is never a good thing. I will listen to your kritik, but only if it has specific application (IE specific links/narrative) to the topic. That being said I want you to have a topical plan text. I think topical plans foster a more productive discussion from both sides of the debate. Theory is fine, but only under certain circumstances (mainly when it is egregious&nbsp;abuse). I also think that negative CPs and Ks should be unconditional. In my ideal world, I would like to hear two disads and a lot of case arguments from the negative, and a ton of impact calculus in the rebuttals. My approach to debate is that it is a game, and everyone can play however they want. With that being said I believe that the current trends of parli show that it is hard to be a one-trick-pony, which means that debaters should have a grasp on politics of the world as well as critical argumentation. Bottom line, I think debate is fun, and I would like to keep it that way. </span></p>

Rob Killian - UNR

Robert Hawkins - DVC


Ryan Sun - Rice

<p>Background:</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>- 4 years policy debate in high school</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>- 3 years Parli debate in college at Rice University (graduated last semester)</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>- 3 months in law school. (I&#39;ve been doing mock trial, so this is probably not great for judging Parli)</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Paradigm:</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I haven&rsquo;t judged and/or seen much debate since I graduated, but I assume things have mostly stayed the same in the last year. I was probably an above average debater (this is completely self-determined), so hopefully I&rsquo;m about the same as a judge. I ran a pretty decent mix of critical and policy arguments, but most of my knowledge of critical literature comes from a very debate-oriented perspective. Therefore, I don&rsquo;t have an in-depth understanding of many critical positions in terms of their substantive background past their utility in a debate setting. Also, please explain and warrant alternatives. That is my one true wish in life.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I&rsquo;m okay with performance style debating on either side, but it usually makes me uncomfortable, which is probably a good thing. I feel mostly confident that I can evaluate them fairly, but I need a clear framework to make a decision. If none is given, I&rsquo;ll probably default to deciding who won on the flow. If I don&rsquo;t understand your framework, I&rsquo;ll probably default to deciding who won on the flow. I&rsquo;m down with disads and counterplans. Unfortunately, most of my knowledge of current events comes from a mix of Reddit,&nbsp;late night talk shows, and my Facebook newsfeed. So a robust explanation of the uniqueness and link level would be appreciated.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I really enjoy topicality/framework and theory debates, but organization and structure is central to those debates being coherent. I&rsquo;ll default to competing interpretations if I&#39;m not given another weighing mechanism</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>In terms of speed, I was never the fastest debater, but I could&nbsp;usually keep up with most rounds. That being said, I haven&#39;t listened to much debate in the past year, so slower will probably be better for my flow. I will prompt you if it gets to the point that I do not feel like can judge the round adequately or fairly.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>

Ryan Guy - MJC

<p><strong>UPDATED: 3/8/2018</strong></p> <p><strong>Guy, Ryan</strong></p> <p>Modesto Junior College</p> <p><strong>Video Recording:</strong>&nbsp;I always have a webcam with me. If you would like me to record your round and send it to you<strong>&nbsp;ask me</strong>. I&#39;ll only do it if both teams want it, and default to uploading files as unlisted YOU TUBE links and only sharing them with you on my Tabroom ballot. This way no one ever has to bug me about getting video files.</p> <p>Me:</p> <ul> <li>Debated NPDA for at Humboldt State.</li> <li>Coached Parli, NFA-LD, and a little bit of BP and CEDA since 2008.</li> <li>I teach argumentation, debate, public speaking, and a variety of other COMM studies courses</li> </ul> <p><strong>The Basics:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Debate is a game.</li> <li>Post AFFs you have run on the case list or I get grumpy (<a href="https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/">https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/)</a></li> <li>Use&nbsp;<a href="http://speechdrop.net/">speechdrop.net</a>&nbsp;to share files in LD and Policy</li> <li>I&rsquo;m fine with the a little bit of speed in NFA-LD and Parli but keep it reasonable or I might miss something.</li> <li>Procedurals / theory are fine but articulate the abuse</li> <li>I prefer policy but I am okay with the K. That said, run it well or I might be grumpy.</li> <li>I default to net-benefits unless you tell me otherwise</li> <li>Tell me why you win.</li> </ul> <p><strong>General Approach to Judging:</strong></p> <p>I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other&#39;s arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I&#39;m looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments you all have epic failed.</p> <p>Organization is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around&mdash;if necessary&mdash;but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.</p> <p>I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it.</p> <p>If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won&#39;t. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I&#39;m always happy to discuss the round at some other time during the tournament.</p> <p><strong>NFA-LD SPECIFIC THINGS:</strong></p> <p><strong>Files:</strong>&nbsp;I would like debaters to use&nbsp;<a href="http://www.speechdrop.net/">www.speechdrop.net</a>&nbsp;for file exchange. It is faster and eats up less prep. If for some reason that is not possible, I would like to be on the email chain: ryanguy@gmail.com. If there is not an email chain I would like the speech docs on a flashdrive before the speech. I tend to feel paper only debate hurts education and fairness in the round. If you only use paper I would like a copy for the entire round so I may read along with you. If you can&#39;t provide this digitally or on paper, you will need to slow down and speak at a slow conversational pace so I can flow everything you say.</p> <p><strong>Disclosure:</strong>&nbsp;I&#39;m a fan of the case list I think it makes for good debate. If you are not breaking a brand new aff it better be up there. If it is not I am more likely to vote on &quot;accessibility&quot; and &quot;predictably&quot; standards in T. Here is the case list as of 2018. Get your stuff on it:&nbsp;<a href="https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/">https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/</a>&nbsp;If your opponent is anti-case list you should run a wiki spec argument on them. I think that teams who chose to not disclose their affirmatives are abusive to teams who do.</p> <p><strong>LD with no cards:</strong>&nbsp;It might not be a rule, but I think it is abusive and bad for LD debate. I might even vote on theory that articulates that.</p> <p><strong>Specifics:</strong></p> <p><strong>Speaker Points</strong>: Other than a couple off the wall occurrences my range tends to fall in the 26-30 range. If you do the things in my &ldquo;General Approach to Judging&rdquo; section, your speaks will be higher.</p> <p><strong>Topicality</strong>: Hey Aff&hellip;be topical. T and other proceedural debates are awesome if you can break free of the boring generic T debates we seem to hear in every round. I&rsquo;m cool with the &ldquo;test of the aff&rdquo; approach but please be smart. I&rsquo;ll vote on T, just make sure you have all the components. I prefer articulated abuse, but will vote on potential abuse if you don&#39;t answer it well. I&rsquo;m unlikely to vote on an RVI. In general I enjoy a good procedural debate but also love rounds were we get to talk about the issues. That said if you are going for a procedural argument...you should probably really go for it in the end or move on to your other arguments.</p> <p><strong>Kritiques</strong>: I tend to be more of a fan of policy rounds. That said I do enjoy critical theory and will vote on the K. Please keep in mind that I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you debate. Make sure your alternative solves for the impacts of K.</p> <p>I&rsquo;m not a fan of this memorizing evidence / cards trend in parli. If you don&rsquo;t understand a critical / philosophical standpoint enough to explain it in your own words, then you might not want to run it in front of me.</p> <p><strong>Weighing</strong>: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like overviews and clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I&rsquo;m in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Do some impact calc and show me why you won.</p> <p><strong>Speed:</strong>&nbsp;I think going a little bit faster than normal conversation can be good for debate. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can&rsquo;t do that and go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear&hellip;please do so. If someone asks you to slow down please do so. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I&#39;m pretty good if I&#39;m on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.&nbsp;<strong>Side Note</strong>&nbsp;on NFA-LD: I get that there is the speed is &ldquo;antithetical&rdquo; to nfa-ld debate line in the bylaws. I also know that almost everyone ignores it. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call &ldquo;clear&rdquo; or &quot;slow.&quot; That said if you use &quot;clear&quot; or &quot;slow&quot; to be abusive and then go fast and unclear I might punish you in speaks. I&#39;ll also listen and vote on theory in regards to speed, but I will NEVER stop a round for speed reasons in any form of debate. If you think the other team should lose for going fast you will have to make that argument.</p> <p><strong>Safety:&nbsp;</strong>I believe that debate is an important educational activity. I think it teaches folks to speak truth to power and trains folks to be good citizens and advocates of change. As a judge I never want to be a limiting factor on your speech. That said the classroom and state / federal laws put some requirements on us in terms of making sure that the classroom space is safe. If I ever feel the physical well-being of the people in the round are being threatened, I am inclined to stop the round and bring it to the tournament director.</p> <p><strong>IPDA:</strong></p> <p>I&rsquo;m a NPDA and NFA-LD judge for the most part. Even in IPDA I prefer that you signpost your arguments and follow the typical structure for advantages, disadvantages, contentions, etc. You get 30 minutes prep, you should cite sources and provide me with evidence. Arguments supported with cited evidence and empirics are more likely to get my ballot. In general I am okay with anything in IPDA that I am okay with in LD and NPDA. Meaning I will vote on procedurals, Kritiques, and other debate theory if it is run well. I&rsquo;m also generally okay with a little speed under the guidelines I provided above. In general I follow arguments on my flow. Make sure to respond to each other because a debate without clash is boring.</p>

Sasan Kasravi - DVC

<p>I go by what the debaters tell me as much as possible. I&#39;m very comfortable with theory-heavy arguments but you should know how to run them and know I&#39;m also very willing to vote against you in the round if the other team articulates how you&#39;re being abusive. The only writing I do during rebuttals is making a list of your voters, so be very clear about why I should vote for you and how your voters stack up against your opponent&#39;s voters. I personally hate spreading, so I&#39;m very receptive to kritiks or procedurals run against spreading teams, but it&#39;s still up to teams to tell me to vote against spreaders and why.</p> <p>Don&#39;t be mean and let&#39;s make it fun and worth everyone sacrificing their weekend to be here.</p>

Scott Hughes - FCC

<p>when the affirmative team persents a plan,they take it apon themselves the burden of proof tp prove that their plan should be adopted. they must prove that their plan is an example of the resolution, and they must prove that the plan is an good idea. the affirmative traditionally must uphold this burden using edidence from published sources, to avoid a ridiclous case.how much impact will this plan&nbsp;have? will the plan solve the harmand can it even happen in the real world? what is the problem in the status quo to justify implementation of the plan? is the affirmative&#39;s plan happening already,and if not why? is the plan an example of the resolution? does the affirmative teams proposed policy comply with the wording of the resolution?</p>

Shannon LaBove - Rice

<p><strong>Shannon LaBove</strong> MA, JD</p> <p>ADOF Rice University</p> <p>Judging Philosophy</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.)</strong></p> <p>I started debating at age ten when I could not see over the podiums in Junior High LD and loved it...still do. &nbsp;I competed LD in High School, Parli in college (I was in NPDA-90&rsquo;s style with hands on the head questions) and have coached a combination of &nbsp;Parli, IPDA and NFA-LD for 12 or so years for a combination of NPDA, PRP and PKD. Needless to say I understand that there are many styles of debate and consider myself a Tab/Flow judge who likes to evaluate the round presented. I am very keep it simple and give me a place to vote.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)</strong></p> <p>I do have what many call an &ldquo;old school&rdquo; debate preference which includes the following:</p> <p><em>Don&rsquo;t Like:</em></p> <ul> <li> <p>I don&rsquo;t do flow work for debaters. If you want it flow it through.</p> </li> <li> <p>I don&rsquo;t like bad law. If you don&rsquo;t know it don&rsquo;t get complicated with it.</p> </li> <li> <p>I don&#39;t like performance. This is not to say I don&#39;t see it as a valid mechanism this is to say it is not my preference in a round to watch.&nbsp;</p> </li> </ul> <p><em>Do Like</em></p> <ul> <li> <p>Clash-don&rsquo;t just dismiss and assume I know the position. I like link and clash work.</p> </li> <li> <p>Easy decisions-tell me where and how you want me to vote.</p> </li> <li> <p>Run what you would like-I try not to be interventionist&nbsp;</p> </li> <li> <p>Aff to define round-Will buy a trichotomy/framework issue if it is blatant and abusive.</p> </li> </ul> <p><strong>Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making</strong></p> <p>I don&rsquo;t mind speed but am a stickler for organization and clarity.</p> <p><strong>Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making</strong></p> <p>I like Clean case/off-case structure and for things to be run correctly. &nbsp;For me the Aff has Burden of Proof and the Opp to refute. Clash on case is great and preferred but will vote off/critical.</p> <p><strong>Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks</strong></p> <p>No real preference here but you have to link up to round. Generic without clear link does not fly well with me.</p> <p><strong>Preferences on calling Points of Order. </strong></p> <p>If you see it call it.</p> <p>Anything else feel free to ask. I look forward to watching great debate!</p>

Suzanne Ruckle - Yuba


Taure Shimp - MJC

<p><strong>OVERVIEW</strong></p> <p>Debate should foster civil discourse and honor the educational integrity of the event. I see it as my responsibility to listen to the arguments you choose to make and evaluate them as fairly as possible. However, I do have some personal preferences. The rounds I enjoy the most have a lot of clash, fewer but higher quality arguments, and clear impact analysis.</p> <p><strong>GENERAL PREFERENCES</strong></p> <p><strong>In IPDA:&nbsp;</strong>The rate of speech should be conversational. I expect to hear well-structured arguments with clearly delineated sub-points. I also expect to hear source citations--you have thirty minutes of prep, so please indicate where your information came from and use it to your advantage. While I get that IPDA discourages the use of jargon, procedurals, and kritiks, I am open to hearing arguments about definitions as well as arguments that identify problematic assumptions/worldviews within the debate. However, these should be articulated in a way that remains accessible to an intelligent, informed lay audience.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>In NFA-LD:</strong>&nbsp;Please set up a&nbsp;<a href="https://speechdrop.net/">speechdrop.net</a>&nbsp;room for evidence and share the code. I like to see evidence during the debate.&nbsp;Speed is fine as long as your tags are slow and clear and I am able to read along.&nbsp;If you are a paper-only debater or do not share a digital version of the evidence, you will need to go at a more conversational pace. Even if&nbsp;<em>I</em>&nbsp;am not able to see your evidence during the round, I do have the expectation that debaters will freely share their evidence with their competitor for the duration of the debate in compliance with the&nbsp;<a href="https://sites.google.com/site/nationalforensicsassociation//about-nfa/governing-documents">NFA-LD rules.&nbsp;</a>Specifically, the rules state: &quot;Both speakers in a debate are required to make available to their opponent copies of any evidence used in the round, including the affirmative constructive speech. The evidence must be returned to the speaker at the end of the debate. If the evidence is only available in a digital format, the debater is required to make a digital version of the evidence available for the entirety of the debate at the opponent&#39;s discretion. For example, if an affirmative case is only available on a laptop, the negative should be allowed to keep the laptop for reference until the debate is over.&quot; In other words, it is in your best interest to have additional paper copies of your evidence and/or a viewing laptop that can be used by your opponent during the round.</p> <p><strong>In Parli:</strong>&nbsp;Faster-than-conversation is fine, but I do not like spreading in this event. For me, it decreases the quality of analysis and becomes counterproductive to the in-round education. However, I will not ask you to slow down during the round or say &ldquo;clear.&rdquo;</p> <p><strong>Procedurals and Kritiks</strong>&nbsp;can make for good debate&hellip;</p> <p>&hellip;but I find&nbsp;<strong>AFF Ks</strong>&nbsp;are often gratuitous and I tend to dislike when they are run as a strategy to win rather than out of ethical necessity.</p> <p><strong>If you choose to run a Kritik</strong>&nbsp;(on either side), it is very important that you explain the theory clearly and accurately; have a strong link; and identify a realistic alternative. If you are unable to articulate&mdash;in a concrete way&mdash;how we can engage the alternative, I am unlikely to be persuaded by the argument as a whole.</p> <p><strong>Rebuttals&nbsp;</strong>are most effective when the debaters provide a big-picture overview and a clear list of voters.</p> <p>I&nbsp;<strong>evaluate the round</strong>&nbsp;by looking at Topicality and Specs, CPs and K Alts, then Advantages and Disadvantages.</p> <p><strong>Etiquette:&nbsp;</strong>I enjoy rounds with good humor where everyone treats one another with respect. This does not mean you need to begin every speech with flowery thank yous, but it does mean you should avoid rude nonverbals (scoffing, making faces, etc.). Basic guideline...if you would not speak to family members, co-workers, teachers, and friends in a certain way then don&#39;t speak that way to competitors.</p> <p><strong>MISCELLANEOUS FAQ</strong></p> <p><strong>Sit or stand</strong>&nbsp;during your speech; I do not have a preference, so do what&#39;s comfortable for you.</p> <p><strong>Partner communication&nbsp;</strong>is fine with me, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says. Try to avoid puppeting one another. Do NOT confer audibly with one another if the other team is giving one of their speeches.</p>

Ted Torous - Rice

<p>Edward (Ted) Torous Judging Philosophy:</p> <ul> <li>Background:&nbsp; Debated (NPDA) 2004-2008 for Rice University.&nbsp; Since competing, I&rsquo;ve judged approximately one to two tournaments a year each year.&nbsp; Currently, I&rsquo;m a practicing intellectual property attorney.&nbsp;</li> <li>Judging Philosophy: <ul style="list-style-type:circle"> <li><em>Overview</em>:&nbsp; I&rsquo;ll do my best to vote where you tell me to vote.&nbsp; It is my goal to not import outside knowledge into the round.&nbsp; When weighing impacts, I appreciate analysis as to likelihood and probability.&nbsp;</li> <li><em>Topicality</em>:&nbsp; If warranted, and properly articulated, I will vote on topicality.&nbsp; I believe that there should be articulated reasons why topicality is a apriori and voting issue.&nbsp;</li> <li><em>Critical Positions</em>:&nbsp; Again, if warranted, and property articulated, I will vote for critical positions.&nbsp; I believe it is important to explain why the critical position is a voting issue that warrants the ballot.&nbsp; Critical positions should have more than a tenuous link to the topic.&nbsp; If the position does not link, I&rsquo;d encourage the opposing team to articulate why it does not link and why I should vote against such positions.</li> <li><em>Debate Theory</em>:&nbsp; I&rsquo;m willing to listen to, and vote on, debate theory (<em>e.g.</em> &ldquo;PICS BAD&rdquo;).&nbsp; But as why topicality and critical positions, please articulate the voting issues related to the theory position.&nbsp;</li> <li><em>Speed</em>:&nbsp; I&rsquo;m generally fine with whatever speed you wish to go.&nbsp; That being said, speed is not a substitute for well-thought out and articulated positions.&nbsp; An unwarranted assertion that is dropped will not win the ballot.&nbsp; A good rule of thumb with speed is to watch me:&nbsp; if I&rsquo;m flowing your argument, then your speed is fine.</li> <li><em>Points of Information</em>:&nbsp; I&rsquo;m generally a fan of entertaining at least one point of information per speech.&nbsp;</li> <li><em>Points of Order</em>:&nbsp; Please call all points of order.&nbsp; If a new argument is raised, and not objected to, I will generally accept the argument.</li> <li>Please be respectful of your competitors.&nbsp;</li> </ul> </li> </ul>

Thalia Bobadilla - Pacific

Tiffany Freitas - Pacific

Tim Elizondo - Columbia

<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45;-"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Background:&nbsp; I am the founder and director of the Columbia College Speech and Debate program.&nbsp; Since receiving my doctorate in Cultural Studies, I have been teaching philosophy and speech courses for the past seven years.&nbsp;&nbsp; The program&rsquo;s emphasis is towards success at the State and National Championship tournaments held on the two year level.&nbsp;</p> <p>I will never vote on dehumanization if you use the term as a kind of shorthand for oppression, death, or some sort of other severely inhumane notion or treatment of poepple.&nbsp; Use different langauge to articulate this idea set as the idea set associated with &quot;duhmanization&quot; as a debate buzzword are minimized by the trend in debate to use it as jargon.</p> <p>Pedagogically speaking, I am influenced by the writings of Paulo Freire, John Warren, and other critical scholars.&nbsp; As a result, I view debate as an active and evolving game that has the potential to promote positive social change. This kind of scholarship promotes critical positions within the activity while reminding debaters that the utility of the activity resides in the debater&rsquo;s ability to communicate their arguments to those who lack elite-level training in listening, flowing, or jargon deconstruction. &nbsp;</p> <p>I do not begin the debate with the assumption that any kind of effect articulated within a Government&rsquo;s plan inherently outweighs the discourse within a round.&nbsp; I am interested in exploring the implications and limitations of a &ldquo;pre-fiat&rdquo; paradigm, but this is not an expectation placed upon the debaters. Prefiat &gt; post fiat.</p> <p>I expect to see &ldquo;gear changes&rdquo; in the styles and speed of the PM and LO.&nbsp; I understand a PMC may need to be quick, Rebuttals, however, should contain less emphasis on line-by-line analysis and, instead, seek to weigh out winning arguments. .</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>-I strive to record every argument offered in the debate, however, that should not be confused with an acceptance of every argument as valid, relevant, or compelling.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>-I am persuaded by speakers who strive to engage the audience with eye-contact, humor, style, or other aspects of effective public speaking.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>-I do not mind &ldquo;tag teaming&rdquo; during points of order however, speaker points will be affected if it appears as if one partner is acting as a parrot or puppet for the other.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>-Politically speaking, I am open to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>-Tell me where to vote&hellip;Tell me where to vote&hellip;.Tell me where to vote</p>