FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Cannistraci - Bethany

n/a

Alex Kramer - De Anza

At  this point in time, I guess I am pretty old-school in my approach to judging Parli debate. I like clear argumentation with warranted claims and well-articulated impacts that are actually logically connected to the argument they support. I am not opposed to theory debates, or topicality, or any other type of argument, although I do think critiques have a very limited place in academic debate, and aren't just another tool in the toolkit. I still hold to the idea that debate is not just a game, but ideally should also be a context for reasonable argumentation about an issue, with at least some attention paid to oratorical skill.

Alexandra Kulish - Concordia-CA

n/a

Amir Goodarzi - UCLA

Ana Petero - Solano

Judging Philosophy for Ana Petero, Solano College   I like structure! It is the responsibility of the Government to define the terms reasonably. If not, I will vote on Topicality, though I really would prefer not to have to. Label your arguments and impact them. I detest tag team constructive speeches, that is, when one person is speaking and his/her partner is talking to them and telling them what to say. I don’t particularly care for critiques unless they are warranted. Some like to run critiques because they think it’s cool. Finally, speed is not necessary in Parliamentary debate (so, unless you plan to be an auctioneer or a voice-over at the end of television commercials, don’t talk fast).

Angela Gregory - Chabot College

n/a

Anne Eastlick - Pacific

n/a

Annie Berry - Azusa

n/a

Antonio De La Garza - NAU

n/a

Becky Opsata - DVC

Ben Warheidt - SJDC

Ben Miller - Long Beach

n/a

Brian Horton - Rice

n/a

Brianna Allen - SJDC

Caitlyn Burford - PLNU

n/a

Candice McFadyen - Pepperdine

n/a

Cathy Glenn - SMC

Chris Gutierrez - PLNU

Christina Barber - Butte

n/a

Colin Murphy - UC Davis

n/a

Dan Scott - FCC

Critic: Dan Scott Institution: Fresno City College Years Judging L/D:  3 Years Judging Policy: 12 Years Judging Parli: 12     Comments: After a long discussion concerning our judging philosophies, I determined that neither of us have a strong disposition towards any strategies or stylistic approaches. At this point in the game our decisions are based on in-round dialogue.   P.S. I (Eric) would like to know the value of my ballot and I will vote against speed in L/D (if it’s run right). Dan doesn’t really care.

David Kruckenburg - PLNU

n/a

David Worth - Rice

n/a

Dominique Ingram - SJDC

Edwin Tiongson - IVC

EDWIN TIONGSON: IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE Background of the critic: I'm one of the Co-Directors of Forensics at Irvine Valley College. Although I competed in Parli when it was in its infancy stages (95-97), I have been coaching the event since 1999. I've been a part of the coaching staff where IVC/SOC won the community college national title at NPDA from 2002-2007. However, I haven't been to NPDA’s national tournament since it was at USAFA in 2008. Lately I've been coaching all forensics events, but not so much Parli. When it comes to Parli, I can get novice debaters started and then I would typically hand them off to our more advanced debate coaches: Gary Rybold or Eric Garcia. Regardless, I've judged numerous rounds and I consider myself a decent parli critic.  Miscellaneous info: I competed in Northern CA for Diablo Valley College & UOP from 1995-1999 in Parli, platforms, and interp. I’ve coached at CSUN and IVC in all events in Southern CA since 1999. Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I'm more of a stock issues judge or a comparative advantage judge.  Either approach is fine. I don't mind the trichotomy arguments. Make them compelling and worthy of my attention. I do believe that policy topics should be policy rounds. I'm open to making a value or fact round into a policy round as long as it’s justified and worthy of my attention.    Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making: I do enjoy communication skills in a round. Don't go so fast so that I can't understand. Please take into consideration if I have to work too hard to flow the round, you're going too fast. I will yell out clear if I’m annoyed.  Regardless, humor is a plus and helpful. “Sounding pretty” will help you with speaker points, but I’ve voted on low-point wins before. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: I believe that OPP should make on-case refutations.  Don’t assume the GOV’s case is unworthy of your attention. Make sure you don't simply abandon the on-case positions and run suicide T. I believe that offensive is important but still poke the holes in the GOV's case.  I’m open to Topicality and Kritiks but don’t put all your eggs in those baskets. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: I'm not a big fan of performance debate. This is only the case because I have yet to see one. I'm not so open to it and I'm not sure how I'd react. It's your debate; do what you like but I'm use to watching a non-performance type of a debate. Any additional comments: This season I’ve judged zero parli rounds at a tournament (I’ve been working the backroom for them) and a handful of practice rounds.  I’ve been working extensively with getting IEs up and running since we have enough debate coaches who have more experience.  If you get me as a critic, assume I want the “easy out.” Tell me where to pull the trigger on voting for the round.  All MGs & MOs better maintain the structure; typically it falls apart in those two speeches.  Signposting is a must; tell me where you are on the FLOW.  All rebuttals better paint that picture and weigh out what I get in “OPP-LAND” and what I get in “GOV-LAND.” In other words, paint me a picture.  I don’t time road maps but want them.  Ask questions if you want or ask my two students who are here.

Eric Campanano - Chabot College

n/a

Eric Fletcher - FCC

Eric Fletcher, DOF Fresno City College   Coaching/Judging Parliamentary Debate:       16 years Coaching/Judging Policy Debate:                   18 years   As noted above, I’ve been active in both Parli and Policy most of my career.  Normally I don’t spend a lot of time on my judging philosophy, but I highly respect this tournament, its directors and its participants.   I can’t specifically speak to things I won’t look at, but I will speak to “cools” and “annoying.”   Annoying:   1.  Bad critical debate.  I’ve noticed during the past few years that Parli has adopted the junior policy back file program.   Understand your K, pasting tag lines from the SDI 98’ Bio-Power file is not impressive, and hopefully will get you in trouble.  I am not a tool, so don’t make that your only offense on an alternative (if needed).  I didn’t like in 97’ and don’t like it now. 2.  Bad theory debate.  I come from the camp that muttering “RVI” in a round demonstrates your newness to the activity, so be creative in your AFF/GOV offense.  There is not a specific theoretical standard/preference for me on theory—just make the argument (don’t assume that potential abuse is not a voter—it might just be). 3.  Don’t big league me. If you want a resume, ask—it may surprise you.     Cools:   1.  Good critical debate.  Explain to me alternatives, off/on game board decision calculus, my role in the debate (as critic); understand your advocacy, and most importantly—creativity. 2.  Insight on link stories, both sides. 3.  Clarity.  You are probably not as fast as you think you are. 4.  Be smart.  I really believe I’ve heard just about all of it.  I like to be wrong on this one.   I do not favor Parli or Policy.  I do however believe each presents themselves in unique ways.  Utilize the skills you have, not the ones you think you should have—it goes a long way with me.

Gene Yonomoto - PLNU

n/a

Geoffrey Dyer - Taft College

n/a

Gina Iberri-Shea - USAFA

Glenn Prince - Rice

n/a

Harrold Centeno - SJDC

Hubert Powell - SJDC

Jamie Netznik - Concordia-CA

n/a

Jenn Sullivan - Rice

n/a

Joe Dudek - Pacific

n/a

Joe Henson - Vanguard

Joey Mavity - Azusa

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

John Kruckenburg - PLNU

n/a

John Hanecak - DVC

I look forward to a debate which is resolutional, provides ground for both sides, is incredibly well signposted, has plenty of clash, is delivered for a universal audience, contains some taseful wit, and is, in the end, the most persuasive. Like the 'ole 1960/1970's slogan said, "speed kills" when it comes to delivery. A sound final rebuttal also goes a long way. I enjoy policy, fact or value debates and am ready to listen to arguments as to how the language prefers one over the other. In all cases, don't forget the clash.

Jordan Innerarity - UT-Tyler

n/a

Josh House - Long Beach

n/a

Karen Nishie - Vanguard

<h2>Karen Nishie - Vanguard University</h2> Question 1 : Background of the critic Two and a half years college parliamentary debate 11 years coaching parliamentary debate.  DOF at Vanguard University.   Question 2 : Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) I am often called an "old school" critic -- which I think means I adhere to trichotomy (believing that there are three distinct types of resolutions with three types of argumentation that follow), I also follow stock isues with the rationale that they make for a cleaner debate than not. While I am well read I am not in the round -- meaning you don't have to argue the other team AND my biases/opinions. You should appreciate this. I have voted on positions that are, frankly offensive to my world view because that's where the debate went. I have never (to my knowledge) voted because the debaters did not cater to my world view nor have I assigned ballots to bad arguments that supported my personal world view -- I think that answers the question on tabula rasa. I may be the last judge standing who believes that opposition has presumption entering the round and that affirmative has specific burdens (like upholding the resolution, defining terms etc -- see stock issues). I am not a fan of claims that aff did not have to fufill primae facia because poi's "check back". Opps ability to ask questions is not a responsibility to make sure Aff is doing their job. Question 3 : Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making Very. This is a communication event preparing (in my mind) you to be better citizens and better communicators. I can keep up with speed, I just don't want to have to. You should be persuasive, this activity is great training for a future in advocacy, law, education, ministry, homemaking...fill in the blank -- and in no profession (other than auctioneer or voice telling me the potential harms of some new medicine) is speaking as fast as you can possibly spew words out a positive. In fact, a lot of what I see (lack of professionalism, lack of politeness, lack of respect) will likely COST you in the "real world". If you are speaking so fast that you spit on me -- it will not reflect well on the ballot -- and if you have to breathe in so hard that you break a rib let it be known that I do not know first aid.   Also, as a side note, I don’t appreciate foul language at all, but particularly in public presentations that are meant to be persuasive.  Dropping the F bomb in front of me is likely to earn you ridiculously low speaker points. Question 4 : Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making Very. Especially for the affirmative. For opposition you can stay off case, but all aff has to say is flow across and every argument they made stands -- in net benefits this may not benefit opp. Unlike some critics I think the opp has very few burdens (I believe they begin the debate with presumption and aff must prove other than the SQ is good) other than refutation and good argumentation. I will never drop an opposition team that did not run a counterplan.   One more thing – each speaker is given a set amount of time to speak – don’t talk over your partner during their time – I’m only flowing the person who’s turn it is to speak – so, make each other look strong and credible by giving your own speech. Question 5 : Concerns about any particular argumentative approach/arguments which the critic rarely/never will vote for I find Kritiks over used and under impacted. I like links so if the kritik is well articulated, well linked and well argued, I will buy it -- otherwise leave if for other critics. Arguments about how vampires have rights, or how the X-men function are probably better left for other critics also. I am a pretty pragmatic person so being overly creative (modern dance, hand puppets, arguments in the form of Haiku) are probably lost on me. I see my role in rounds simply to evaluate the claims you make and weigh them in the ways that you tell me to. If you fail to tell me how things weigh out then you give me permission to make up my own weighing paridigm -- and that will be bad for you. <hr />

Kasey Gardner - SJDC

Katy Corbeil - UCSD

n/a

Kay Harrison - Ohlone College

n/a

Keyon Shokraie - UCLA

n/a

Kim Horiuchi - FCC

Konrad Hack - Concordia-CA

n/a

Kristen Reid - Pepperdine

Kristina Whalen - CCSF

Kristine Clancy - Pepperdine

Kyle Van Sant - Chabot College

n/a

Libby Simas - Solano

Logan Newell - SMC

Marjorie Hazeltine - San Jose State

n/a

Matthew Swanson - Palomar

n/a

Matthew Hogan - UNR

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

Natalie Sintek - Concordia-CA

n/a

Nathan Steele - CCSF

What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I aim to subdue my bias and objectively adjudicate rounds, voting for the team that presents the most logical, well-reasoned, organized, creative, clever and dynamic arguments. Debaters should provide/contest criteria for evaluating the round. Highlight key voting issues during your final speech. What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters? Be respectful of your opponents at all times. You can be a little snarky but do not make it personal. Attack the arguments and behaviors in the round rather than the people. Avoid obnoxious nonverbal-behaviors. Partner communication is acceptable, but don't parrot or puppet your partner. Heckling is acceptable but everyone (partner and opponents) should minimize interruptions to the debate and the flow of the speaker. I will listen to you throughout the round, and I hope you will continue to listen to each other. What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote? Don't lie. Convince me of how I should evaluate the debate and what the affirmative or negative team must do to win my ballot. I'm capable of believing any well-reasoned and supported claim, but I favor cogent, criteria-based arguments that are ultimately weighed against other issues in the round. When well warranted, I can vote on well-structured and clearly explained topicality arguments and kritiks. Debaters should be specific in their argumentation and provide clear voting issues in rebuttal speeches. How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements? The debate should be accessible to your opponents and judge(s). Delivery can be accelerated beyond a conversational rate, but I value clear articulation, emphasis, inflections, pauses, and vocal variety. Delivery style may affect speaker points but will not factor into a decision. Points of order can be called when rules are broken; I will stop time and hear briefly from the opposing side before ruling.

Neil Glines - Solano

My View of Parliamentary Debate: I enjoy a good mix of both worlds. The way in which you present your arguments is equally important as the types of arguments you present. I am open to any and all types of arguments. Speed is not an issue for me. Please be clear and try to avoid foaming at the mouth. Humor is underutilized in debate these days. A team that can have a good time while advancing their arguments will stand out in my ballot. GOV: I need a criteria or weighing mechanism in order to evaluate the round. When you provide one, unless I hear otherwise, all arguments should be weighed through it. Res analysis is an easy way to avoid muddy debates and lots of T, so use it. When you make claims support them with examples or some other type of backing. Cases that advance Tag lines with little analysis are problematic. MG: please answer opp arguments and extend your partners. It is hard to win when you get dragged off case and do little to advance the original case. PMR: When answering OPP’S arguments don’t forget to go big picture when providing your own voting issues. Please remember to flow arguments through your weighing mechanism. OPP: T, CP, K, DA, and any other type of argument you feel is appropriate are fine with me. Make sure you spend the proper time justifying them. MO if you run a new argument you might want to have a unique reason why. I want you to defend yourself from case shifts or teams that are moving targets. However running new arguments in the MO other than the above-mentioned reasons leave you open for turns by the PM in the rebuttals. LOR: Try to avoid going for the whole enchilada. Issue selection is key. Final Comments: Speaker points will be awarded to smart, witty, reasoned, and affable speaker. Points will be deducted from rude, oppressive, and offensive speakers. Above all else have a good time.

Nicole Sandoval - Ohlone College

n/a

Paul Davis - Azusa

Phil Sharp - UNR

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

Rob Killian - UNR

Robert Yamamoto - FCC

8 years of policy debate.  I really have no preferences aside from clarity in the end.

Rodney Loehr - NAU

n/a

Ryan Guy - Chico

Guy, Ryan California State University, Chico   Me: <ul> <li>Debated NPDA for two years after transferring to Humboldt State.</li> <li>Fourth year coaching speech and debate at Chico State</li> <li>I also teach Rhetorical Theory, Argumentation, Research Methods, Group Communication, Intercultural Communication, and Public Speaking</li> </ul> The Basics: <ul> <li>Debate is a game. Play it well.</li> <li>I’m fine with the average levels of speed in NFA-LD and Parli.</li> <li>Procedurals are fine and can make for good debate.</li> <li>I okay with the K. That said do it well or I will be annoyed.</li> <li>I default to net-benefits unless you tell me otherwise</li> <li>Tell me why you win.</li> </ul>   General Approach to Judging: I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other'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'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments you all have epic failed. Organization is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around—if necessary—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. 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. If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some time during the tournament.     Specifics: Speaker Points: Other than a couple off the wall occurrences my range tends to fall in the 25-30 range. If you do the things in my “General Approach to Judging” section your speaks will be higher. Topicality: Hey Aff…be topical. T debates are awesome if you can break free of the boring generic T debates we seem to hear in every round. I’m cool with the “test of the aff” approach but please be smart. I’ll vote on T, just make sure you have all the components . I’m unlikely to vote on an RVI on T but it is not completely impossible. Critiques: I enjoy critical theory…that being said 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 persuade. Make sure your alternative solves for the impacts of the K. So far in my time as a coach/judge I have not seen an Aff team run critical arguments well. If you think you are the team to show me how it’s done I’m down to listen. Just make sure you run them in a way that is still topical. Weighing: 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 clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I’m in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Side Note: In NPDA I hate when the LOR just repeats what the MO just said. I got it the first time…why are you winning? Speed: I think in general speed can be good for debate. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can’t do that and go fast slow down. If someone calls clear…please do so. Side Note on NFA-LD: I get that there is the anti-speed rule that everyone ignores. 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 “clear.”

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

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

Steve Farias - Pacific

n/a

Steve Clemmons - Santa Clara

Steven Graham - SJDC

Theresa Perry - Chico

Tim Kamermayer - Pacific

n/a

Tim Ernst - Pacific

n/a

Tina Lim - San Jose State

You can convince me to vote for any argument as long as you are using reasonable evidence with logical warrants. Do NOT confuse evidence and warrant; they are different for a reason.  My preference is for you to tell me what's winning and why with clear impacts. I prefer reasonable impacts to improbable impacts with huge magnitude. I also prefer specific link scenarios over generic links. As for procedurals, I prefer actual abuse. Keep in mind that these are preferences that can change depending on how well you are arguing for your position. As for speaking style, I prefer a conversational style, but can tolerate speed provided that it's clear. The gist of my philosophy is that since we all chose to be here, it's important to be collegial, be smart and have a good time.

Todd Graham - SIU

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

Todd Guy - MJC

Whitney Dunham - Chico

Zoey DeWolf - NAU

n/a

2010 Paul Winters Invitational