FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

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.

Alina Ortiz - Vanguard

Alvin Ng - Chabot College

n/a

Aly Fetzer - Pacific

<div> Speed is not a tool for intentionally skewing someone else out of a round. I will vote on this.</div> <div>  </div> <div> Ts are not your chance to whine. And you should understand grammatical structure before running one.</div> <div>  </div> <div> I hate perms. I think PICs are smart.</div> <div>  </div> <div> I like case-specific Ks.</div> <div>  </div> <div> I take speaker points seriously--if you're a poor speaker or rude to your opponents, you will not win very many points. If you're a good speaker, you will. Simple as that.</div> Have fun!

Ana Diaz - SMC

Andrea Adams - Ohlone College

n/a

Andrew Grimalda - Concordia-CA

n/a

Annie Berry - Azusa

n/a

Antonio De La Garza - Utah

April Griffin - IVC

n/a

Ben Miller - Long Beach

n/a

Bettina Brockmann - San Jose State

n/a

Brandon Merrell - Lewis & Clark

Brianna Nishie - Vanguard

<h2>Brianna Nishie – Vanguard University</h2> Question 1 : Background of the critic While my high school did not have a debate program, I spent my high school weekends at PSCFA tournaments watching rounds of debate.  Upon entering Vanguard University I immediately joined the speech and debate program.  I was a modestly successful debater who spent much of her Junior and Senior years as a competitor working as a peer coach.  I graduated VU in May, 2011 and worked the last 2 years as the assistant coach at Vanguard.  I currently work in social media as well as a speaking coach for professionals while continuing to help the forensics community with coaching/judging.    My academic background is in communication with an emphasis in PR.   I was trained by what can best be described as an “old school” parli coach – and I have several of her fundamental traits in my own philosophy.  I have, however, more tolerance for some technical arguments than my former coach may have had.    I do not look at debate as a game.  The fundamental reason for this is that there are too few “rules” and the “rules” get to be “interpreted” for each team….this to me is problematic in terms of fairness.  I do feel that parliamentary debate has its foundation in the ideal of generally educated people being able to present an argument on a topic with limited preparation time Question 2 : Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) As a former debater who lost more rounds than I can count because I ran value on what I considered a value resolution but lost to a judge who thought that the only “true” weighing criteria was through a policy lens, I have to say I’m a bit sympathetic to trichot arguments – assuming there is an adequate justification for the argument.   I believe that there are certain stock issues that should be argued; if nobody talks about definitions or a plan or who enforces the plan (for example) then how do I know if the plan is a good idea?  Tell me where I’m voting and why.   Sometimes resolutions do call for debaters to act as policymakers – in this case one should clearly delineate what the harms are, how the harms are to be solved and what the advantages of solving the plan are….It might help you to know that my political leanings are probably more conservative than the average judge on the circuit when making a plan…   Finally, in the age of group preparation – make sure you understand any specialized case that was constructed in prep time.  Please remember that this is parliamentary debate, don’t just read your plan text and PLEASE don’t toss an extra copy to the opposition so you feel exempt from the obligation to explain your case – this is not CEDA.   Question 3 : Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making   Parliamentary debate was founded in response to what had become a loathsome communication event – CEDA – and it seems that a lot of the reasons people left CEDA (speed, spread, reading evidence with no audience connection whatsoever) are seeping into Parliamentary – that doesn’t make me happy about it.  Speak plainly and clearly – sometimes you have to go fast – ok, but if you go too fast so that the communication has left the event – don’t expect high speaker points and if I can’t keep up don’t expect to win.  This doesn’t mean speak to me like I’m an idiot.  Be persuasive.  You can be a horrible speaker making fabulous arguments and win – you can be an incredibly persuasive, articulate speaker making horrible arguments and you can lose.  Moderation is a good thing here. Question 4 : Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making On-case argumentation is important – if you make it important.  Dropped arguments can also be very important in terms of what your opposition decides to do with them.  Not every argument needs a ton of attention – so use your time wisely.   Question 5 : Concerns about any particular argumentative approach/arguments which the critic rarely/never will vote for   I am not a fan of critiques – I feel this is more an issue of the way they have been flung around as largely non-linked disadvantages.  I could probably vote on a K if it was very well articulated – but that’s your job.  I’m not a big fan on procedurals – again, a personal bias – but procedurals are an available tool – so if they are necessary – use them, but explain why I should weigh them in the round.   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.   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.   Be personable, have some fun, and be brilliant.  Tell me what matters in the round.  Tell me what wins.  Give me every opportunity to give you the ballot.    <hr />

Brianna Allen - SJDC

Caitlyn Burford - NAU

Burford, Caitlyn (Northern Arizona University) Background: This is my eigth year judging and coaching debate, and I spent four years competing in college. Please feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. Specific Inquiries 1. General Overview I think debate is a unique competitive forum to discuss issues within our rhetoric about the state, power, race, gender, etc. in a space that allows us to rethink and critically assess topics. This can come through a net benefit analysis of a proposed government plan, through a micro political action or statement, through a critique, or through some other newfangled performance you come up with. In that sense, I think debate is a rhetorical act that can be used creatively and effectively. Running a policy case about passing a piece of legislation has just as many implications about state power and authority as a critique of the state. The differences between the two types just have to do with what the debaters choose to discuss in each particular round. There are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. Thus, framework is imperative. I’ll get there shortly. You can run whatever you want as long as a) you have a theoretical justification for running the position, and b) you realize that it is still a competitive debate round so I need a reason to vote for something at some point. (a.k.a Give me a framework with your poetry!). 2. Framework This often ends up as the most important part of a lot of debates. If both teams are running with net benefits, great, but I still think there is area to weigh those arguments differently based on timeframe, magnitude, structural weight, etc. This kind of framework can make your rebuttal a breeze. In a debate that goes beyond a net benefits paradigm, your framework is key to how I interpret different impacts in the round. Choose your frameworks strategically and use them to your advantage. If the whole point of your framework is to ignore the case debate, then ignore the case debate. If the whole point of your framework is to leverage your case against the critique, then tell me what the rhetorical implications (different than impacts) are to your case. 3. Theory It’s important to note that theory positions are impact debates, too. Procedural positions, topicalities, etc. are only important to the debate if you have impacts built into them. If a topicality is just about “fairness” or “abuse” without any articulation as to what that does, most of these debates become a “wash”. So, view your theory as a mini-debate, with a framework, argument, and impacts built into it. 4. Counterplan Debate This is your game. I don’t think I have a concrete position as to how I feel about PICS, or intrinsicness, or textual/functional competition. That is for you to set up and decide in the debate. I have voted on PICS good, PICS bad, so on and so forth. That means that it all has to do with the context of the specific debate. Just make your arguments and warrant them well. Unless I am told otherwise, I will assume the CP is unconditional and my role as a judge it to vote for the best advocacy. 5. Round Evaluation Again, framework is important. Procedurals, case debate, and critique debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality/procedurals, then the case. Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team. (Again, this is only absent any sort of weighing mechanism for any of the arguments.) If there is a topicality/procedural run without any voters, I won’t put them in for you and it will be weighed against the case. I will not weigh the case against the critique unless I am told how and why it can be weighed equally. A concrete argument is always going to have a bit more weight than an abstract argument. A clear story with a calculated impact will probably outweigh an uncalculated potential impact. (i.e. “15,000 without food” vs. a “decrease in the quality of life”). But, if you calculate them out and do the work for me, awesome. If I have to weigh two vague abstract arguments against each other, i.e. loss of identity vs. loss of freedom, then I will probably revert to the more warranted link story if I must. 6. Speed, Answering Questions, and Other General Performance Things I’m fine with speed. Don’t use it as a tool to exclude your other competitors if they ask you to slow down, please do. I don’t really care about how many questions you answer if any, but if you don’t then you are probably making yourself more vulnerable to arguments about shifts or the specificities of “normal means”. It’s your round! Do what you want!

Cathy Glenn - SMC

Charles Mullins - MJC

Chelcy Gibbons - SJDC

Chris Hornsby - FCC

Chris Harris - Butte

Christina Barber - Butte

n/a

Cindy McGrath - Los Medanos

Colin Murphy - Davis

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.

Danielle Allen - Concordia-CA

n/a

Danielle Carmack - UCM

n/a

Dave Zimny - Los Medanos

~~ZIMNY, DAVE – Los Medanos College, Pittsburg CA BACKGROUND:  I earned my master’s and doctoral degrees in political science from Yale University and have taught college courses in the social sciences for 40 years, so I should be fairly familiar with the factual and argumentative foundations of most parliamentary debate resolutions.  I was a high school and college policy debater before there was such a thing as collegiate parliamentary debate.  This is my third year as an intercollegiate judge.  Over the last two years I have judged approximately 100 tournament rounds, including 16 preliminary and two elimination rounds at the NPDA National Championship Tournament. JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:  I am a noninterventionist; I will not reject or accept any substantive argument on the basis of my own knowledge or values.  In the absence of well supported voting criteria from either team, I will vote on the stock issues.  I firmly believe in supporting assertions with evidence, even in parliamentary debate.  Examples and hard data will go a long way toward persuading me.  I prefer adherence to the trichotomy; if you choose to argue a value proposition as policy, be sure to justify your choice. PRESENTATION:  Debate is a speech activity.  Unclear locution and garbled syntax will definitely cost you speaker’s points, and they could cost you my vote if I’m unable to understand your arguments.  Speed generally doesn’t bother me.  If I can’t follow your speech, I’ll let you know by saying, “Clear, please.”  I will always try to rule on points of order rather than taking them under consideration, to minimize uncertainty for both teams.  Prompting your partner is allowable, but excessive prompting will reduce speaker’s points.  I have no objections to sitting while speaking.  As with any competitive activity, good sportsmanship will be much appreciated, and a touch of wit will definitely garner you more speaker’s points.  I will award 24-26 speaker's points for competent presentation, 27-28 points for above average presentation, and 29-30 points for outstanding presentation.  I will never award fewer than 20 points. PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS:  I am open to topicality arguments, critiques and counterplans based on logical analysis of the Government’s case, but I frown on generic arguments of all kinds.  I will treat topicality as an a priori voting issue, but I will vote on actual, not theoretical, abuse.  I am more open to assumption and reasoning-based critiques than to language critiques. DEBATE THEORY:  Below are my personal opinions on some issues of debate theory.  I will never apply these preferences preemptively without actual argumentation by the teams themselves.  I’m there to listen to your advocacy, not make your arguments for you.  That said, debaters that I judge should be aware of my opinions.  I am generally “old school” – substantive arguments hold my attention; “metadebate” bores me.  I believe that: A counterplan may be either an actual alternative to the Government’s plan or a means of arguing competitiveness and opportunity costs.  If a counterplan is conditional or provisional, the Leader of the Opposition should announce that fact as soon as the counterplan is revealed. The Opposition should not present a topical counter plan.  I have no objection, however, to plan inclusive counterplans. The Opposition should enjoy exactly the same fiat power as the Government. Argumentation begins with the enactment of the plan or counterplan.  Neither team should base advantages or disadvantages on contingencies that precede enactment – e.g., particular voting alignments or bargaining in legislatures that might be required to enact a plan.  “Fiat turns the link.” The Opposition should not "split" its 12-minute constructive/rebuttal block, with the Opposition Member's constructive presenting new arguments and the Leader's rebuttal responding to the Member of Government's constructive.  This practice puts an undue burden on the Prime Minister's rebuttal. PLEASE NOTE:  I don’t claim to be familiar with all the recent developments in debate theory.  If you’re not sure about my knowledge of a particular theoretical argument, please ask me before the round begins. Debate is competition, but it’s also an educational and social experience.  Let’s all have some fun!

David Finnigan - Santa Clara

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 2 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School. Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible. Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads. Critically framed arguments: I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability. Topicality is good and it is an important aspect of the debate. Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained. Above all, have fun. Speaker points: you should work hard to earn your points through civility and solid speaking. Performance based arguments: Keep the thinking linear.

David Kruckenberg - PLNU

n/a

Dayle Hardy-Short - NAU

Dayle Hardy-Short - Northern Arizona University Saved Philosophy: Background: I have not judged NPDA parliamentary debate this year--I have judged BP and Lincoln-Douglas. So my flowing is a little rusty. On speaker points, I look to such things as analysis, reasoning, evidence, organization, refutation, and delivery (delivery being only 1 of 6 considerations I made for speaker points). Thus, I virtually never give low-point wins because if a team "wins", then it has done something better than the other team (i.e., like had clearer organization or better arguments). Generally: Generally, I am open to most positions and arguments. I expect the debaters to tell me what they think I should vote on, and why. I appreciate clash. I will not do the work for the team. I believe that the affirmative/government has the responsibility to affirm the resolution and the negative/opposition has the responsibility to oppose the resolution or the affirmative. Such affirmation and opposition can appear in different forms. I feel pretty comfortable in my understanding of whether or not something is a new argument in rebuttals, and I will not vote in favor of new arguments--just because someone extends an argument does not mean it's new, and just because someone uses a new term does not mean the argument is new (they may be reframing a previously-articulated argument based on additional responses from the other team). I prefer debates in which debaters clearly explain why I should do what they think I should do. This includes explaining use of particular jargon and/or assumptions underlying it (for instance, if you say "condo bad", I may not necessarily understand in the heat of the debate that you're talking about conditionality versus something you live in; similarly I do not understand what “fism” is—you need to tell me). Do not assume that simply using a particular word means I will understand your argument (argument includes claim, explanation, and evidence of some kind). Please consider not only labeling the argument, but telling me what you mean by it. I will listen as carefully as possible to what's going on in your debate (I will try to adapt to what YOU say and argue). Do your debate, make your arguments, and I will do my best to weigh them according to what happened in the debate. I am not arrogant enough to think that I get everything on the flow, nor am I arrogant enough to claim that I understand everything you say. But if you explain important arguments, most of the time I can understand them. At least I will try. Topicality is a voting issue for me, and I listen to how teams set up the arguments; I consider it to be an a priori argument. I have an extremely wide latitude in terms of what affirmative can claim as topical within the scope of any given resolution. I don’t like T arguments that are ONLY about so-called abuse (indeed, I do not find them persuasive). I prefer that you focus on why the affirmative isn’t topical. Thus, I prefer in the round you explain why something is not topical (standards, alternative definitions, etc.), but you do not need to articulate abuse (which I define as "they're taking ground from us; they’ve ruined debate; or similar arguments”). I guess it does seem to me that if a case is truly non-topical, then it almost always follows that the position is unfair to the negative--as long as the negative came truly prepared to debate the topic. Thus, the negative does not need to belabor the point--say it and move on. I will assume your counterplan is unconditional, and if you think it should be otherwise, please explain and justify that position. With an articulated counterplan, then my job becomes to weigh the best advocacy with regard to the resolution. Please provide me (and the other team) with an actual CP plan text, so I can consider arguments about it as they are made (I really do prefer a written plan text, or please repeat it 2-3 times so I get it written down correctly). I certainly am not opposed to permutations, but please have a text that you can show me and your opponents. I am not opposed to critiques nor performance debate, but please be very very clear about why they should win and what criteria I should use to evaluate them and/or weigh them in the debate as a whole. Abstract impacts should be clearly demonstrated and explained, and concrete impacts need to have similar weight. A final note on speed and civility. I don't have particular problems with speed, but clarity is essential--clear speakers can speak very quickly and I will get the flow. I believe that debate is an important activity, both as an intellectual exercise and as a co-curricular activity in which we get to test classroom learning in a more pragmatic way (application and reductio ad absurdum), including communication skills and the extent to which arguments can go. The way we behave in rounds often becomes habit-forming. So show some respect for the activity, some respect for your opposition, and some respect for the judge. I'll try to keep up with you if you'll treat me like a human being. I will think through your arguments if you will give me arguments worth thinking through.

Dom 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.

Elizabeth Patterson - SMC

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.

Eric Campanano - Chabot College

n/a

Hal Sanford - SRJC

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

Harrold Centeno - SJDC

Ian Sharples - PLNU

n/a

J. Edward Stevenson - Azusa

n/a

Jacki Evans - Utah

Jason Ames - Chabot

I believe it is up to you to make strategic decisions on how you perform in round. Thus, you tell me what I’m supposed to judge on.  I believe the round is yours to define and I’ll vote on any argument (T’s, K’s, CP’s, whatever) that is reasoned out, impacted, and persuasive.  If you blip it, I won’t buy it just because it’s on the flow.  Argumentation should be organized to enable me to flow your arguments better. Other things: I prefer that students adhere to the topic given, but I am also open and able to judge critical arguments from both sides of the resolution if applicable and necessary. I’m not a huge fan of speed in either NFA or Parli. I do try to adapt as best as possible, however, but I also don’t want to be a “flow machine”. I want to be able to hear and process your arguments so that I can make a good decision. Hit your tags, explain your analysis and we’ll be all good. If you’re going too fast for me, I’ll clear you and if you do that we’ll all be happy at the end of the round. In NFA, I believe that spreading is antithetical to the event. However, I don’t believe you need to be “conversational speed” either. Feel free to talk a bit quickly (as us debaters do). Hit your tags, explain your analysis and we’ll be all good. If you’re going too fast for me, I’ll clear you and if you do that we’ll all be happy at the end of the round. If you don’t, you’ll probably be unhappy. Also in NFA, if at least the tags and sources of your 1AC are not in a public space that is available to all debaters after round 2 of the tournament, I will become more prone to buy predictability arguments from the Negative side and more willing to vote on T in favor of the Neg. (FYI Neg, this doesn’t mean it’s a lock for you if they don’t … but the odds are ever in your favor). Here is the website for you to post your case: <a href="http://nfaldfilesharing.wikispaces.com/">http://nfaldfilesharing.wikispaces.com/</a> Your rebuttals should be a time for you to advocate your positions.  Enjoy!

Jasraj Deol - SJDC

Jennifer Hidalgo - MJC

Jesus Valles - Long Beach

n/a

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark

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

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 />

Jon Sonoda - PLNU

n/a

Josh Ward - MJC

Julian Plaza - CC

Justin Harris - Concordia-CA

n/a

Kasey Gardner - Los Medanos

Gardner, Kasey Los Medanos College   Experience: 9 years of Parliamentary Debate (Moorpark/Western KY/LosMedanos)   In order to enhance your clarity you should use examples, theory, or well warranted analysis. The above being said I find myself not voting for a lot of performance or super generic critiques (cap, state) but that doesn’t mean I don’t think they can be defensible.  Feel free to use whatever positions and arguments that you wish in front of me and I will do my best to evaluate them fairly and honestly   Speed is typically not an issue as long and you are clear and make sense. This argument applies equally if you are not fast but unclear as a whole.  I will probably look at you with an inquisitive look if you are going too fast, unlikely but possible.   I appreciate being told how to evaluate arguments especially if they are on different planes (critical, case, theory, ect.) Standard tools of impact calculus are paramount as well; such as magnitude, timeframe, and probability.  I encourage the use of other methods or analysis too, irreversibility or systemic impacts as well.  What I am not interesting in is hearing bad dueling oratory about which –ism is the root cause of problem.  Be more specific.   I’ve found myself being very disappointed with the consistent use of generic strategies instead of any critical thinking.  Debating the case is a lost art that should be found.  I will evaluate your fism/states counterplan, but it’s not that great of an argument and the affirmative should defeat you on it.   Examples are the lifeblood of Parliamentary Debate.  Please use them!!  You should call points of order in front of me.   There are a few things I don’t find persuasive; excessive prompting and tooling of your partner, rudeness to the other team on a personal level as opposed to the argumentative level and not getting to my round on time. I will enforce the tournaments forfeit rule judiciously.

Kay Harrison - Ohlone College

n/a

Kelly Williamson - SJDC

Kelsey Winther - Concordia-CA

n/a

Kevin Calderwood - SIU

Konrad Hack - Concordia-CA

n/a

Kristen Apruzzese - Chabot College

n/a

Kristina Whalen - CCSF

Kristine Clancy - Pepperdine

Libby Simas - Solano

Logan Herche - Concordia-CA

n/a

Marie Arcidiacono - CCC

Marina Whitchurch - SRJC

Marjorie Hazeltine - San Jose State

n/a

Mark Nelson - SRJC

Mary Winther - Concordia-CA

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.

Max Alderman - UNR

Megan Jardine - CSUSB

n/a

Nick Russell - Long Beach

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

Paige Sechrest - PDB

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.

Raman Deol - SJDC

Rebecca Benjamin - MJC

Rob Taylor - MJC

Rob Killian - UNR

Robert Yamamoto - FCC

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

Ryan McMath - FCC

Sarah Hinkle - CC

Shawnee' Biggerstaff - CSUSB

n/a

Sheila Kirn - Yuba

n/a

Sherris Minor - Palomar

I would consider myself a flow critic I will listen to any round you would prefer to have.  Unless told otherwise I will default to a net benefits paradigm.  I tend to not vote for fact or value debate and overall I prefer policy because I think the former encourage judge intervention.  I also do not find the “trichotomy” of debate particularly compelling unless it is used to justify policy debate.<o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "></o:p> <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Rate of delivery doesn’t really matter, most of the time I can keep up with the arguments coming from the speaker. I will yell slow down if it does become to much for me to handle. I haven’t had to do that yet this year. Clarity is a separate issue for me. This goes for both speaking and what is said. If I cant hear you because you are mumbling and I am missing things on my flow I will say clear.  If you are saying a ton of tag lines without warrants you will not win my ballot. The use of speed should not preclude you from making an actual argument. I shouldn’t have to wait until the LOR/ PMR to know how your arguments function. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Procedurals are fine to run in front of me, but I do not vote on potential abuse. I don’t tend to vote on RVI’s especially if the justification for it on T is “time suck they abused us.”   <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Condo, Overall, I believe all arguments in debate are conditional you choose to go for the ones you are winning and not go for the ones you are losing. If you want to run condo bad and impact out why their conditional cp/ alt is detrimental to the round go for it. I think it is all part of strategy. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> I think critical discussions are great within the context of debate and I will always listen to them. That being said you need to justify your framework for evaluating the round, and tell me how I vote using this framework. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> CP/perm theory is anything goes until someone tells me why it is not ok. You need to explain your theory to me don’t just expect me to know what your perm means. Multiple perms are ok. I believe both perms and CPs should have a text. You should also explain how your perm functions in the context of the round. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Overall, if you do the work you should be able to win my ballot. I don’t care what you run (for the most part).  I expect that your k, ad, disad has impacts and I want you to tell me how I weight them at the end of the round. Don’t be afraid to collapse to arguments you are winning, and be clear in what your case is and how it functions in the round.   <div> </div>

Simone Walter - Lewis & Clark

Simone Walter – 2012 Judging Philosophy   Background: I competed for Oregon for 4 years. This is my second year at Lewis & Clark.   How I conceptualize the round: the duty of the affirmative is to provide a policy action* that will provide a substantial benefit to the resolution-specific context; the duty of the opposition is to prove why the affirmative should be rejected (ie. why the disadvantages of the AFF plan outweigh its advantages). I will conceptualize ‘the world’ in which the round is located based on how I am ‘told’ to adjudicate the round, the ballot, and the in-round arguments. On a side note, this is not to say that I enjoy being ‘spoken for’ as a critic.   *I am not opposed to hearing critical affirmatives. In fact, I think they can be awesome if deployed strategically. If you do not read a plan text, you still must defend a stable advocacy. To win my ballot with a critical affirmative, it is imperative for the AFF – a) If you do not read a plan text, you still must defend a stable advocacy; and b) demonstrate that the critical affirmative is topical, competitive, and permissible.   Debate is a game, a really fun game; most so when the players engage in ways that best suit their interests and knowledge base. As a judge, I will listen to anything. But do not be morally repugnant. Even so, I find tricot to be silly (in other words, awful). I saw a few of these rounds last year. They were bad and just got worse. As a judge, I will do my best to not intervene. Except for tricot. So, just don’t do it.   Prior to giving my RFD, while I am making my decision, I would appreciate your silence. You can leave the room if you would like. If you have questions following the round, please talk to me immediately. Three rounds later, I guarantee that I have already stopped thinking of YOUR round.   Arguments:   Theory – Raising theoretical objections to whether a team’s strategy is justified is always permissible. Demonstrating tangible in-round abuse over potential abuse is preferable.   I assume theory arguments to be voting issues on competing interpretations. The specificity of the standards in justification of your interpretation is imperative to providing an effective comparison of why I should preference/reject an interpretation.   The Kritikkkk –   Discursive implications are real and so we should be held responsible for our rhetorical choices. Thus, my default mechanism for evaluating the K is that the critical implications presuppose the impacts of the affirmative. If the AFF team does not want me to default to this assumption, then explain to me how you would prefer me to evaluate the K in juxtaposition to the affirmative. For an AFF team to pick up my ballot against the K, I need tangible reasons as to not only why I should weigh the case against the K but also why doing plan is still a good idea.   I enjoy the critical debate. I will preference unique topic-specific critical arguments over generic backfiles. Nevertheless, I am often disappointed by the lack of explanation awarded to the nuance of the literature from which the K is derived. So please, fully articulate the thesis of your argument, its application (ie. framework/link arguments) and thus, its implications to the “world” in which the debate is located.   I believe that the most effective critical arguments are topic specific and function essentially as disadvantages that turn the affirmative. If you choose to operate outside the realm of “playing as policy-making,” then you must still defend a stable advocacy. Thus, your alternative should DO something. Often times, critical debates frustrate me because the alternative does not solve and/or the function of the alternative is not adequately explained, which causes me to err that plan is still a good idea. Though I may default to the assumption that the impacts of the K presuppose the case, if the alternative doesn’t do anything, then you will not win my ballot.   Counterplans – Please read text twice (This also applies to the PMC plantext, perm texts, the alternative to the K, and the T violation). A written copy would be preferable if the CP text is particularly long/convoluted.   In regards to specific CP theory arguments (ie. PICS good/bad, the status of the CP, textual v. functional competition, etc.), I assume these to be negotiable questions to be decided in the round and not based on my predisposition towards these arguments. So long as they are deployed strategically, I do not perceive to Consult/Delay to be inherently illegitimate. I tend to favor the arguments that best support topic-specific education, rather than fairness or predictability.   For me, CP theory arguments are most effective if accompanied with nuanced impact calculus as to their implications upon decision-making processes. In other words, the substantive solvency evidence in favor of your CP (or AFF plan) is what is going to win my ballot on this part of the flow.   LOR/PMR – please help me by providing substantive comparisons of the world of plan/perm and counterplan. How actually am I suppose to evaluate the risk of the solvency deficit to the risk of the DA if you do not explicate this for me?   Disadvantages – I will award full potency to defensive arguments. Even so, (particularly in the rebuttals) I would like a clear articulation of how the probability/risk/timeframe arguments interact with offensive arguments on magnitude. Also, be realistic about what offense you are winning and what offense the other team is winning. Don’t assume that you are winning ALL the things because then you will fail to explicate why what you are legitimately winning is more important than the other team’s offense.   If there is a NO link to the DA, then there is no link. If there is a link turn argument without any arguments at the uniqueness level, then I will still evaluate the argument (assuming the no link argument is fully articulated): for me, the no link isn’t washed away by what is happening at the uniqueness level.   Presentation:   Speed is fine; delivery that is unclear is not fine. If the other teams calls you out for your poorly articulated plantext/cptext/whatever, then do not assume that it was clearly articulated to me either.   In terms of speaker points, I award them based on a few things – <ol> <li>fulfilling the duties of your speaker position</li> <li>good smart arguments – multiple warrants are better than claims with none</li> <li>you debate the side of the resolution that you are given, but I don’t think that this is an excuse to be a prick</li> <li>if you teach me something</li> </ol>

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..

Sophia Alberti - Long Beach

n/a

Stephen Ban - Butte

Suzanne Ruckle - Yuba

n/a

Tara Norris - UCLA

Tariq Bruno - Pacific

Tariq Bruno: I an open to multiple interpretations as to the purpose/rules of debate (as either a competitive activity or an educational activity). Absent any arguments to the contrary I will default to a tranditional net-benefits paradigm, and evaluate augments according to the direction of the debaters. Assuming a close round, the magnitude, scope, and probability of your impact scenario might matter in round. Terminal impacts should be BIG (at least to get my ballot). While it bothers me to my core to do so, If you fail to articulate any offense against your opponent I will vote for the other team on a 1% risk calculus. Anything more specific feel free to ask me in-round.

Tim Kamermayer - Pacific

n/a

Tim Elizondo - Columbia

Background:  I am the founder and director of the Columbia College Speech and Debate program.  Since receiving my doctorate in Cultural Studies, I have been teaching philosophy and speech courses for the past seven years.   The program’s emphasis is towards success at the State and National Championship tournaments held on the two year level.  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.  Use different langauge to articulate this idea set as the idea set associated with "duhmanization" as a debate buzzword are minimized by the trend in debate to use it as jargon. Pedagogically speaking, I am influenced by the writings of Paulo Freire, John Warren, and other critical scholars.  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’s ability to communicate their arguments to those who lack elite-level training in listening, flowing, or jargon deconstruction.   I do not begin the debate with the assumption that any kind of effect articulated within a Government’s plan inherently outweighs the discourse within a round.  I am interested in exploring the implications and limitations of a “pre-fiat” paradigm, but this is not an expectation placed upon the debaters. Prefiat > post fiat. I expect to see “gear changes” in the styles and speed of the PM and LO.  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. .   -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.   -I am persuaded by speakers who strive to engage the audience with eye-contact, humor, style, or other aspects of effective public speaking.   -I do not mind “tag teaming” 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.   -Politically speaking, I am open to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.   -Tell me where to vote…Tell me where to vote….Tell me where to vote

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 Guy - MJC

Tony Bernacchi - Chabot College

n/a

Vivian Amezcua - Concordia-CA

n/a

Whitney Hart - Pacific

Experience: I have been around some form of debate since 2003. I debated policy in high school for two years; in college, I debated LD four years and parli for a semester at Missouri Southern State University. And I’ve been coaching/judging in some capacity since 2009. <o:p> </o:p> In general, run whatever you want. As long you as explain how the position accesses my ballot, I will vote on it. Debate is a game. Be strategic to win. The round is yours and you should make it your own. The following information is about my general judging philosophy, but I am willing to suspend my ow<a name="_GoBack"></a>n preconceived notions to vote where the debaters tell me to vote. These are my defaults. <o:p> </o:p> Please do impact calculus. I have found myself having to weigh issues in such a way that it gives me a headache, so do it for me to make my decision easy. I tell debaters to “write my ballot for me.” What I mean by that is do sophisticated comparative analysis and explain exactly what I should vote on and why and you will probably come out ahead. Impact calculus does not necessarily mean that your argument “outweighs” in a traditional sense of the word. But each argument you make in the debate round should serve a purpose and you should make that purpose explicit to me. On a related note, I am really tired of hearing ridiculous impact scenarios without internal links. If your impact is global nuclear war, tell me how you get there in a way that actually makes sense. Too often, positions are much like fat bottom girls (bottom/impact heavy and not link heavy) … and while they do make the rockin’ debate world go ‘round, they give me a headache. I am more likely to vote on probability than magnitude if you neglect your internal links. And do not tell me something is dehumanization without explaining HOW it is dehumanizing. An individual not getting paid what they deserve is not dehumanization. <o:p> </o:p> Speaker points: I award these based on a combination of how well you present yourself and the quality of your arguments. If you are excessively rude, your speaker points will reflect that. If you argue with me about a decision I have made, expect to see 1 speaker point on your ballot (yes, that’s o-n-e). Also—do not prompt your partner. This annoys me beyond all else. They are your partner. You should trust them. If you must help them, pass them a note. If you have to tell them what they should say every time they start a sentence, you need a new partner or you need to stop being such a control freak. I will tank your speaker points for this. Also, if the person who is giving the speech doesn’t say it, I don’t flow it. <o:p> </o:p> Speed: I do not care how quickly you speak. I will keep up. I really love listening to someone who is fast and articulate. As long as you do not sacrifice clarity to speed, we will be fine. If you are gasping for air and incomprehensible, your speaker points will suffer. I want a good, substantive debate. Speed should not be used to exclude others from the round, but should be used to enhance the quality of the debate by allowing debaters to a greater number of warranted arguments. <o:p> </o:p> Procedurals: I love debates about debate. Specification arguments regarding funding, enforcement, agent, etc. are great, but I prefer they be resolution-specific and the negative must explain how that particular specification is important. It’s difficult to convince me that the resolution sets a precedent for what the plan text should include since everyone has only known about it for about 20 minutes, so be prepared for me to be empathetic to a “normal means” response. I default to competing interpretations, but part of the standards debate should probably be ground arguments. Topicality: I love topicality debates and I view topicality as an issue of competing interpretations. Don’t blip out voters. I don’t know why I would vote on “fairness and education.” I have never heard a compelling RVI. I do not really know what it means to be “reasonably topical” because I have only heard it articulated in a way that wasn’t totally asinine once. The opposition can just as easily come up with an arbitrary interpretation of the resolution and use topicality to exclude the government as the government can arbitrarily demonstrate the resolution with their case to exclude the opposition. <o:p> </o:p> Criticisms: I was not a K debater, but that does not mean I have not voted for them. However, a clearly articulated alternative is a must. To win the K in front of me, you have to win the framework and the alternative. Do not assume that I know the same things you do about what your specific author says. Explain the thesis of their argument to me and explain why your criticism accesses my ballot. This is largely neglected. What role does my ballot serve? This needs to be explicit. Critical affirmatives: I will listen to them, but I will also listen to arguments about why your critical affirmative isn’t topical. <o:p> </o:p> Counterplans: are conditional unless otherwise specified. Counterplans should be held to the same standards of solvency as the affirmative. <o:p> </o:p> General information: When the PMR or LOR makes a new argument, I cross through it on my flow, whether you call the point of order or not. Call points of order if you’d like; they are a useful check against your opponent and a tool only available to parli debaters. But if you’re going to call a point of order, explain why your opponent’s argument is new. Also, if you’re going to respond to points of order, explain why it’s not new with direct reference to the previous argument (speech where the argument was originally made, how it was phrased, etc.) so I know what you are talking about and can rule accordingly. But I don’t evaluate new arguments. <o:p> </o:p> I don’t believe in shadow extensions. If you are the LO and you make an argument in the LOC and your MO does not extend it, an LOR extension is a new argument to me. Same thing goes for PMs and MGs.

2011 Paul Winters Invitational