FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Santos - SJDC

Abas Idris - SFSU

n/a

Alex Paez - Hired

Alex Kramer - De Anza

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

Alexandra Hood - Hired

<blockquote> Each round is a chance for you to build a universe with its own rules. This applies to “straight up” rounds and to the kritical ones   The best way to win my ballot: 1) Let me know what rules you've chosen for the round 2) Follow those rules 3) Be better than your opponents 3a) Being better means making more compelling, better warranted arguments AND being better at – for lack of a unique phrase – weighing those awesome arguments, especially but not exclusively in the rebuttals.   I rank impacts in order of probability, magnitude, and timeframe unless you tell me to do otherwise.   Partner communication is generally annoying and tends to damage your team’s cred more than anything.   Any questions? We can clarify before the round starts. </blockquote>

Alexis Litzky - CCSF

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

Amanda Ozaki-Laughon - Concordia

Hello,  I am the Director of Debate at Concordia University Irvine. I competed both nationally and locally at PSCFA and NPTE/NPDA tournaments during my 4 years of competition, and this is my 3rd year coaching and judging.  I tend to prefer policy debate, and am sympathetic to trichotomy arguments that say policymaking includes the educational facets of value and fact debate. Value and fact debates are often lacking in the very basic structure of claim+data+warrant, and rarely use terminalized impacts. These shortcomings are much easier to logically rectify if policymaking is used. "should" is not necessary to test whether or not the resolution is true.  Theory comes first in debate, since it is a debate about the rules. I default to competing interpretations and am unlikely to vote for your counter interpretation if it has no counter standards for that reason. MOs should choose whether to go for topicality or the substance debate and collapse to one OR the other, not both. Likewise, PMRs should choose whether to collapse to MG theory arguments OR the substance debate, not both.  Kritiks should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. The framework should be utilized as offense to frame out the method of the AFF, and prioritize the impacts of the K. The Alt should explain why they solve for the AFF, and avoid the disadvantages of the link story. I prefer critiques that do not make essentialized claims without warrants about how the AFF's method in particular needs to be rejected. I prefer critical affirmatives be topical in their advocacy statement or policy option.  Disadvantages should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. Uniqueness claims should be descriptive of the status quo, with a predictive claim about what direction the status quo is heading. Politics disadvantages should have well-warranted link stories that explain why the plan uniquely causes losers/win, winners to lose, etc.  Counterplans should solve for at least one of the advantages of the AFF. Plan-inclusive counterplans are core negative ground, though perhaps less so on resolutions with 1 topical affirmative (resolutions that require the AFF to pass a bill, for example). I usually default to counterplans competing based on net benefits, and thus permutation arguments need to explain why the perm shields the link to the disadvantage(s).

Ana Petero - Solano

1.   I DO NOT FEEL THE NEED FOR SPEED, so DON'T DO IT IN FRONT OF ME! If you don't speed when you're having a conversation or in your platform speeches or in your limited prep events, then don't do it in debate. Debaters often talk about being excluded in a debate round; don't exclude your critics. 2.  Do not speak when it is not your turn to speak. Each of you has your own special time to speak, so don't interrupt your partner. It's rude to interrupt people when they're speaking...yes, even in debate, unless you're asking them a point of information. 3.  Have fun; be clear, and above all, be structured...

Andrea Adams - Ohlone

The short version: It’s your time; you do what you want. I competed in both parli and policy. I have judged a substantial number of rounds this year but have not kept count. I believe debate is what you make it and I will follow whatever guidelines you tell me to in-round. But unless told otherwise, I default to using the flow as my basis of judging. Basically, this means in-round discourse with slight preference going to the better warrants and impacts and offense over defense. (But you can still win with only defensive arguments)  As long as I can understand you, I will flow you.  I’m fine with speed although I am also open to speed Ks. (See the first line.) On case arguments are as important as you tell me they are unless argued otherwise by the other side. (See the first line) Kritiks and critical affs are fun and interesting, please run them. That said, I won’t prefer them over other arguments and my first line still trumps everything. I flow alt and alt solvency on two separate pages (it keeps the perm and solvency debates separate) so please pause between the two so I have time to switch to a new page. Projects and performances- also fun and interesting but I want a clear role of the judge/role of the ballot and/or weighing mechanism. Not saying you will necessarily lose if you don’t provide me one but it helps me from feeling lost. That said, for projects and performances, my default might shift from strictly the flow towards a more ‘being present’ approach unless told otherwise by either team. Topicality, theory, counterplans, disadvantages, framework, etc, are all fine arguments. Go for offense over defense but I’ll vote on anything. See first line. Perms-They can be a test of mutual compatibility or the perm can become aff advocacy. Debate it out in-round. Please call points of order for new arguments in the rebuttals. If you don’t call it, I will consider it (obviously this doesn’t count for new arguments in the PMR that respond to new things brought up in the MOC speech). I will also give you give you better speaker points if you pleasantly surprise me with an argument. You can win with your international relations DA but it’s unlikely to impress me. I need detailed roadmaps before each speech begins (except the PMC).

Andrew Schwartz - Hired

Angelica Grigsby - Concordia

Ashley Nuckels Cuevas - PLNU

Overview: I am a flow critic and believe that debate, although it has numerous benefits outside of competition, is at its core a game.  Specific Arguments: Run what you want but I enjoy econ, politics and procedural positions. I accept both competing interpretations and abuse paradigm but you have to be the one to tell me how to evaluate the position. I enjoy the K but do not just name a theorist or throw out tag lines without explaining what they mean. There are thousands of authors who have multiple publications that sometimes even contradict themselves as time goes by so make sure you reference a specifc argument so that I can follow along. I have no preference between Kritikal or straight up debate but I did write my MA utilizing critical methodologies and am focussing my current research on Rhetorical Criticisms with a focus on critical gender studies. Run your K's but make sure you repeat your alt text, your ROB, and perms. Speed: I am fine with speed but don't intentionally exclude your oponents. Please repeat all texts, advocacies, ROB's, interps, etc.  Closing Remarks: Be kind to one another. Be respectful and use warrants. I am fine with high magnitude low probability impacts as long as there is a clear well warranted explanation of how we got there. That being said, I will vote where you tell me to so make sure that you use your rebuttals to summarize the debate and not as another constructive.

Barbara Gaustewitz - PLNU

<h2>Barbara Gausewitz - Point Loma Nazarene University</h2> <h3> </h3>   Background of the critic: Four years Parli at PLNU. Two plus years coaching/judging Parli, NFA LD, and NFL LD   Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock issues,    policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):   I believe that debate is a strategy game, so I will listen to any argument a debater can make, and it is the job of the debaters to prove to me why it is a winning argument. I do my best not to do any work for you; your arguments need to have warrants and you need to weigh impacts to explain to me why you win.   If you don’t provide a clear framework I will default to net benefits and I will default to weighing the impacts that are most proximal and probable first.     Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making:   The more time I spend away from the activity, the more I realize that communication is important in grown-up life, and I wish debate did a better job teaching and encouraging real communication skills.    That being said, I view debate as a strategy game. If "presentation" is part of your strategy, use it. If not, then don't.    I hate lying, rudeness, and whining. If you make a claim that sounds weird to me, I WILL fact check it before I make a decision, so don't claim anything you don't know know to be true.    You probably won’t speak too fast for me to flow, but if you aren’t clear about where you are, I won’t know where to write those arguments, and it will be hard for me to evaluate them. If I'm looking looking confused and not writing your arguments, it is probably a good idea to pause and tell me where you are or what you mean.    Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:  The most important thing you can do is weigh impacts. I think it is fine for the neg to concede or drop case as long as they have something that outweighs case, and as long as you can explain to my why it outweighs case.   Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks: I have a high threshold on abuse positions, but again, I’ll listen to anything. I was a kritikal debater, and I like to hear kritikal arguments as long as they are well done. I don’t love politics DAs, but I vote on them all the time. I don’t have a head for economics, so if you have a complicated econ case, make sure that it is well explained. For me it doesn't get any better than a well constructed case and a pile of well warranted case turns from the Neg.    Preferences on calling Points of Order: I don’t do any work for you, and that includes calling your points of order. If you hear a new argument, call it, or else I’m going to flow it like it has been there all the time.   Other notes: Have fun, be nice. Debate is not nearly as serious or important as people treat it. I always vote for the team that better articulates and WEIGHS impacts. If I disclose after round, feel free to ask questions but for the love of God do not argue with my decision. Please avoid made-up words like "secondarily" and "specitivity."

Benjamin Mann - Pacific

Brief version: I take my role as a critic very seriously. My goal is to judge in the most fair, neutral, and open way possible through a careful evaluation of the flow and strategic decisions made by debaters that avoids judge intervention and minimizes adaptation under the framework the debaters provide (or fairly resolve said framework if it is contested). Because I care about this activity and love to see competitors on their game, I enjoy judging a lot and strive to be the best critic I can be.   I believe you should debate in the most comfortable and strategic way for you. I’m open to and experienced with a variety of arguments, including advantages/disadvantages, kritiks, counterplans, performance, procedurals and critical affirmatives. I would much rather have you debate the way you like rather than alter your strategy because you have me as a judge. I don’t necessarily prefer certain types of arguments over others: the best debates come from people running the strategies they want.   Everything else is more specific but elaborates this general theme as well as my experience with the activity. Feel free to keep reading, but I realize time is often tight.   2015-16 updates: -My philosophy is fundamentally the same as last year. I realize it’s a novella, but I aim to be thorough, clear, and predictable as a critic, so I decided to avoid too much condensing. I also did some rearranging to put the most important parts at the top. -Added a small section at the bottom specific to NFA-LD. While everything before it is parli-specific, relevant aspects apply. -Regarding trichot: I personally find policy debates significantly more educational and easier to evaluate than fact or value, and I believe advocacies can be derived from fact/value resolutions. That being said, I respect competitors who want to have those debates and will do my best to assess them as fairly as possible, as well as any theory for or against trichot. -I find that extensive judges’ responses to points of order tend to heavily alter the rest of rebuttals. Still call them: I’ll hear the point and response, but I will need time on the flow to do a fair assessment of newness. Expect to hear “under consideration” unless I am very certain, in which case I will say “point well taken” or “point not well taken”. -2014-15, I judged at: Jewell, (both halves) GGO, Lewis & Clark, Reno, UOP, Mile High, (both halves) NCFA   This is my second year out of competition and my second year and final year coaching while pursuing my Master’s in Communication as a Graduate Assistant at the University of the Pacific. I competed for a year of high school Lincoln-Douglas debate followed by four years of college parli for Lewis & Clark from 2010-14 on the national circuit, with the team name Lewis & Clark HM my senior year. Overall, I competed in over 50 college parli tournaments and in my time as a competitor ran several different types of debate arguments, from politics to Foucault. From 2013-14, I also worked as a high school speech and debate coach, extensively judging both CX and parli.   The rest of this philosophy is divided into two parts: general notes and more in-depth discussion about my views on particular arguments.   General notes: -I do not aim to steer the direction of the activity with my ballot or use it to force people to debate in a certain way in front of me. -I approach theory in a neutral way, including conditionality, PICs, and textual competition. In other words, these procedurals are neither autowins nor dead in the water: I will evaluate them via competing interpretations unless an alternate criterion is offered and prioritized. Under competing interpretations, I examine which definition or interpretation is the best internal link (via the standards debate) to the impacts of the procedural through the arguments made by debaters. -Unless an alternative framework is offered, I default to a net-benefits evaluation of the round that examines the advantages against the costs between the hypothetical, post-fiat implications of the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option. This evaluation considers the risk of timeframe, magnitude, and probability, but does not necessarily prioritize one over the other: if impact prioritization is made by debaters in rebuttals, I will alter my evaluation of impact framing devices accordingly. -My speaker point average is 27.5. Things that will buoy your points include: argument and speaking clarity, strategic decision-making and collapse, argument diversity, strong warrants, aff-specific links, efficient time management, and comparing, resolving, and prioritizing warrants and impacts in rebuttals. Things that will hurt speaker points include: rudeness and personal attacks, dropping key arguments, needless repetition, counterfactual and warrantless claims, excessive cursing, going for too much, and lack of thesis level work in rebuttals. -I was trained to follow quick debaters while competing and similarly can flow fast debates as a judge. I will yell “clear” if your enunciation isn’t comprehensible to me, and will yell “slow” in the event that you are going too fast for me to flow. Generally, this should not be a problem, however… -Please slow down or repeat plan/counterplan/alt texts as well as interpretations for procedurals. Slowing for the thesis level of kritiks or the top of complex politics disadvantages is also preferable to help me understand the nuance of the position. -Though I competed extensively in IEs as well, that does not inform how I approach parli. The two activities have very different norms and expectations, so only debate in a “speechy” way if that’s how you want to debate. -Offense is generally more valuable in debate insofar as it gives me reasons to vote for you, but strategic defense can do a lot, especially if impact framing prioritizes probable impacts. -Unless told otherwise, I evaluate permutations of advocacies as tests of competition. -“Perm do both” is a sufficient perm text, but means I will evaluate the texts of the two advocacies in their entirety together. Thus, alts including “vote negative” are probably not the best places to read these kinds of perms and “do the plan and…” perm texts would work better. -Unless otherwise specified, I will assume affirmative advocacies are unconditional and negative advocacies are conditional. -I will not vote teams down on this basis unless theory is read and won by the other team, but my knee jerk reaction is that all constructive speeches should take at least one question unless CX is offered and a copy of an advocacy text should be provided, or have the text repeated. -Only call points of order if you feel an argument is close. I will protect against blatantly new arguments in rebuttals and it is not in your best interest to call points of order for arguments clearly on the flow in an attempt to get the rebuttal off its game. -While I’m fine with some partner prompting, I will only ever flow what’s said by the debater giving their speech, so they’ll need to repeat what’s prompted. -It’s in your interest to make extensions in member speeches, however brief, (e.g. extend the entirety of the advantage) of PMC/LOC arguments to avoid messy points of order in rebuttals and force me to evaluate the newness of extensions. -I’m here because I love this activity, community, and judging. Debate’s a fun and incredible limited time offer with a great group of people: please don’t misinterpret my tendency to be serious and aloof as apathy or condescension. At the same time, while I can be a silly person, I leave that at the door when judging rounds. My aim for RFDs is to clearly articulate my decision calculus and also to offer feedback of the round from my perspective as an educator.   My views on specific arguments are below:   Topicality I value T as both a viable strategic tool and an important check against abuse. If I’m not told otherwise, I will examine T a priori and default to competing interpretations unless a different criterion such as reasonability or a kritik of topicality is explained and prioritized. Under competing interpretations, I examine which definition is best via the standards debate for the impacts of topicality. As a result, I will consider potential abuse unless arguments are made against it. T is fundamentally a question of the best definition: it asks whether you should have links to an argument in the first place, not whether you’ve been no-linked out of a position. Good T debate includes a nuanced definition that’s clear out of the LOC, a coherent violation, compelling standards, and voters. I enjoy internal collapse for teams that go for T or answer it in the PMR, leveraging a few standards and prioritizing either fairness or education. While I will listen to RVIs, I generally think they’re not particularly strategic or compelling arguments. Arguments such as effects topicality or extratopicality are fine as either standards or standalone procedurals.   Other Procedurals As mentioned above, I’m neutral on other theory positions and tend to believe abusive techniques in debate (as well as the question of whether the technique is abusive in the first place) can be resolved in-round through these arguments. The deeper, more nuanced interpretation, the better. I similarly look for clear standards and impacts for these procedurals and also evaluate them under competing interpretations absent another framing device provided and explained. In answering these procedurals, I tend to think people can be too dismissive or defensive in MG standards, so offensive reasons why your interpretation is preferable will get you far.   Kritiks Strategic K debate solves, gets to the root cause of the aff, or provides a framework that precludes a standard evaluation of PMC arguments while beating back the perm and other offense. I enjoy K debate and am familiar with a lot of the classics (Nietzsche, Cap/Marx, Fem IR, etc) but am always open to different Ks or new spins of old favorites. Going a little slower through more obscure K literature is preferable so I can capture the argument. I do think that Ks can be too eager to find something to criticize while giving an alternative that resolves little offense or isn’t a good idea in the first place, and tend to think disadvantages to alternatives or impact turns are underutilized. I’m also not a fan of Ks designed to be confusing out of the LOC so the MG mishandles responding to them; it’s better to have a clear argument from the get-go you’re willing to defend. Perms and offense, including disads to the alt and either link or impact turns, as well as leveraging the aff or giving a different framework, are some strategic ways for the MG to engage the K. While I’ll listen to them, I’m less persuaded by K frameworks designed to moot the entirety of the PMC: whether or not they’re granted post-fiat implications, I tend to think the aff should be able to weigh the representations of their speech. Finally, please signpost clearly when going through different parts of the K, especially in rebuttals.   Counterplans Clever counterplans that capture the aff and avoid specific offense, such as strategic PICs, can be a thing of beauty, though as mentioned, I’m open to MG theory against them. As a result, run delay, veto, and other counterplans of that variety at your own risk. Please slow down or repeat CP texts. Without specific theory and under a standard framework, I believe that all CPs need to compete through net-benefits as a more desirable policy option than the aff or the perm. This means the CP need not be mutually exclusive: it becomes a question of whether the permutation should be done, verses whether it can be done. Clear explanation of the CP’s solvency mechanism is also essential: don’t name a nebulous bill that apparently solves the aff without any details. Aff teams that utilize solvency deficits, offense against counterplans, permutations, or theory to respond are well-equipped against these arguments.   Disadvantages/Advantages Nuanced uniqueness, deep warrants, specific links, and clear, varied internal link/impact modules can turn these good arguments into great ones. I’m familiar with a lot of generic disadvantages, such as politics, relations, and business confidence and understand their utility, but they become much more compelling when they’re tailored to the aff, especially on the link level. Teams often read a laundry list of econ/relations/etc uniqueness that accurately portray the state of affairs, but don’t give a clear trajectory on how something being low actually leads to collapse or give explanation in how the aff offsets this trajectory. Extinction level impacts are part of the game and I understand their utility, but also believe there should be an explanation of how you reach these impacts rather than blipping “extinction” or I’ll hold them to a high level of scrutiny. Small, systemic impacts are underutilized in debate and can be compelling, especially for teams that tell me to prioritize probability in rebuttals. For very specific positions, such as politics disadvantages, thesis-level clarity and slower explanation in the beginning is preferred to help me understand your argument. I also think that affirmative teams too often structure advantages on solving the status quo without shielding them against predictable counterplans. Brief source citation builds legitimacy to warrants, especially when warrant accuracy is brought into question by the other team and since cards aren’t used in parli. I enjoy internal collapse on these arguments as well. Rather than simply extending these arguments in rebuttals, final speeches should explain, compare, and resolve both warrants and impacts. Lastly, I think LOC arguments on-case are underutilized and can often be the best sources of clash. Neg teams can be quick to assume the solvency of their counterplans or Ks while missing big chunks of the aff.   Performance I want teams to run the arguments they enjoy, benefit them strategically, and are personally important to them, and I absolutely believe that performance-based arguments are good for this activity. If it’s supplemented with a robust defense of your approach should the other team brings it into question, I’ll follow the argument under the framework you provide. This being said, I am extremely uncomfortable with performance-based arguments that demonize or engage in personal attacks against programs, critics, or debaters without an extremely good justification. I would much rather see performance-based arguments that address important issues rather than target or scapegoat individuals or hurt the activity, but if those strategies are integral to your advocacy, please do them with extreme caution and understanding of their implications. I also think that neg teams can be too easily spooked by these arguments or deem them unwinnable when a lot of strategies, including compelling counteradvocacies or PICs can be extremely effective.   Critical Affirmatives Similar to performance, I think that teams should run the arguments they want to run and I will work to evaluate them fairly under the framework provided, or resolve the framework debate if two interpretations compete. Aff teams don’t always have to engage in rounds through utilitarian, net-benefits calculus and there are many topics where that approach isn’t advantageous. Unless told otherwise, I will evaluate impacts through the lens you provide.   Special Note on the LOR The LOR is easily the most misunderstood and underutilized speech in parli. At its worst, it can be a retread of the MO, but at its best it can do a ton for negative teams. Though I protect against new arguments in rebuttals without theory on splitting the block, smart LORs differentiate from MOs by giving thesis level explanation, unwrapping and re-explaining offense, and preempting PMR strategies. The LOR can only turn the dial more toward neg teams and make it harder for the PMR to turn it back.   NFA-LD Relevant aspects of parli apply. I assess postfiat implications as fairly as possible and do not have particular argument preferences. -I will fairly evaluate any rule violations or theoretical objects, but am open to impact turns against these. After all, sometimes there are things more important than the rules. -I generally will not need to see cards after the round, but reserve the right to ask. -Please time yourselves and monitor your use of prep. If you need a minute to get something on a flash drive, that’s fine, but try to be swift. -Generally I am more persuaded by carded evidence, but this ought to be explained and prioritized over other cards and cardless warrants. -I am inclined to believe that SOURCE, DATE warrants a full citation, but will fairly consider theory against it. If you have any additional questions about my coaching philosophy or decisions, I’d be more than happy to communicate with you via email at benwmann@gmail.com or by talking to me at tournaments. Happy competing!

Brad Bettridge - Chabot

Brendan Gormly - SJDC

Brenden Georg - UNR

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

BG: I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and have been judging and coaching ever since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round. Impacts: You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate. Case Debate: I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the LO…in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well. Diadvantages: Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability. Counterplans: Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea. Conditionality: I have recently changed my perspecive on conditionality. I am fine with multiple conditional advocacies but I HATE multiple blippy arguments that become something completely different in the block. The same can be true for any argument and not just an advocacy. That said, I will also vote on condo bad.  Kritiks: I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than “they used the state.” I am not saying this can’t be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I don’t like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should. Identity Arguments: With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual. Theory: I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! Don’t just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win. Speed: Speed is fine but please be clear. I don’t see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments. Speaker Points: If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. Being new to judging and understanding that speaker points can impact you in a tournament in ways other than speaker awards, I would say that I am currently on the more generous side of awarding speaker points. That is not to say I just hand out 30s or will not tank your points for being a jerk. I have a very low tolerance for offensive rhetoric or rudeness in rounds. Miscellaneous: Be organized and sign post. Don’t assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round.

BÃ¡rbara Ochoa - SMC

Judging Philosophy   A wise womxn once said, "fuck this shit." And she lived happily ever after. So that's how I'm approaching my philosophy.   Check-in Name's Bárbara. Pronouns are they/them. Respect them or I am down to catch a case. I was a parli competitor for about 2 years and did speech for 3.5. I am returning as a judge because queer poc visibility is extremely important to me. I think debate would have felt slightly safer and more bearable had I known more folx who knew what it was like having my gender policed, my browness invalidated, and my intelligence paralleled to my cunt on days I felt more femme. And although my debate experience wasn't extensive, I want to hold space for ya'll in ways that weren't for me.   Paradigm Naturally, I integrated a lot of performance into my rounds because I wanted to fill the void that traditional debate couldn't fulfill. I tried my hardest to be intentional with my arguments. I wanted to introduce discussions that weren't necessarily being had while implicating the structure of debate. I adored the fact that debate was a place where I could exert internalized rage and frustrations. I encourage you to do the same.   Straight-up: Traditional debate doesn't really resonate with me, I could find value in it if you make it known. Critical impacts would be a good route for that. I lean more towards policy than fact/value and even more so for the K (see below).   Procedurals/Theory: You're welcome to run 'em. That doesn't mean I'm over the moon for them, but I'll consider them if necessary. Just don't use it to push the other team out of the round, especially if they are newer folks. Make debate accessible, por favor. Oh, and tricot brings tears to my eyes.   CP: Go for it. I prefer you go unconditional, but I can see how conditionality can be good. Just make sure you state the CP twice or give me a copy. You'll gain more leverage if your CP solves your disad.   DA: I like disads. I think it encourages dialogue and sheds light on potential risks. I suck at tix and econ though. I generally don’t care for the whimpers of the machine, but if you talk about, let’s say,  trickle down economics, then I’ll be on the same page. As long as you contextualize things well enough for me to follow, sweet.   Impacts: Super important. Please, flush your impacts out. I think it makes space for you to impact calc at the end of the round, which makes me happy.   Speed: I don't mind speed. You do you. If I'm having trouble understanding you, I'll make sure to say, "clear," or in some cases, "slow down."   K/Performance: I'm down with performance. I'm down for the criticism. I'm down for topics that are important to you. If you're running a project, cool. Make sure you at least nod at the resolution's existence. What I'm not down for is exploiting narratives and struggles as a means to snag my vote. Tell me what the role of the ballot is. This makes it possible for me to weigh the round fairly. Some would argue that debate is a game. Sure, but not when it's at the expense of real lived experiences found within and outside the round. I enjoy framework debate, but I don't want the conversation to end there. Explore solvency and what that means. Terminalize your impacts. I'm not convinced with alts that simply reject, but open to hear reasons stating otherwise. And make sure to repeat your alt text twice or give me a copy.   Perms: Yes, please. But I also welcome arguments that talk about why perms are fucked up cause corruption and submission ya'll.   Speaker Points: I generally give 25-30. Clarity, efficiency, and empowerment makes all of this wonderful. If you just end up being outwardly disrespectful, racist, homophobic, transphobic, white saviory, misogynistic, or ableist then we’re both gonna have a problem. You’ll be unhappy with your speaks; I’ll be unhappy with you.   Triggers Due to personal mental processes and moments when I feel overwhelmed, I may not be open to giving my RFD. Nothing personal. Trauma and violence has become very prevalent and pervasive lately. I note this on here to ensure my self care. But you're welcome to approach me afterwards once I've decompressed.   Share space and have fun.   En comunidad, Bárbara

Carrie Evon - Concordia

Chad Reed - Hired

Col Andy Grimalda - Concordia

Experience:  Director of Debate at the United States Military Academy at West Point.  Program competed in both CEDA and Parliamentary Debate.   8 years of NDT debate in high school and college.   Overall:  I enjoy a round in which the issues are well analyzed.  Speed is fine, but I prefer few, well articulated arguments than a multitude of non-case specific, poorly analyzed arguments.  I will generally decide the round on the policy-making issues and not on who is the better speaker.  My decision in Value rounds will be based on whoever is the most convincing, which often means whoever is the most enjoyable to listen to.   Topicality:  I will base a decision solely on topicality, however; I will offer the Government some leeway in how they interpret the terms of the resolution.   Plan Permutations:  I don’t like to hear the plan change unless the Opposition has offered a plan-plus counter-plan, then I may consider the permutation.   Counter-plans:  I like good counter-plans that are not plan-plus and not topical.  The Opposition needs to demonstrate the net added benefit of selecting their CP.  I find conditional counter plans less effective.  Any DA’s offered should be unique to the Government’s plan and should not impact the counter-plan.   Fiat and Funding:  I accept the notion that adoption of the plan by fiat is acceptable because it “should” be adopted.  However, I’m not a fan of claiming funding by normal means.  How money is raised in a policy round is a serious consideration that is unfortunately too often overlooked.  If the Government defines funding by normal means, I will allow the Opposition to define what that means even if the Government subsequently objects.   DA’s:  I want to see good links and real harms.  If they don’t exist, the Government will have an easy time of convincing me to disregard the arguments.   KRITIC:  Generally I am not I big fan because they are seldom well presented.  If presented, the analysis should be specific to the Government’s case.  Do not present a generic Kritic brief with no explanation of its impact.  If you do, you are wasting precious time.

Cory Nims - UNR

Daniel Lopez - Chabot

David Worth - Rice

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

Dylan Brugman - ACU

TL;DR version: I don’t think that my job is to define for you the way that debate should be done. You should debate what you’re good at, not what I did/liked as a debater. **The only caveat: Please read interpretations/plan texts/and alt texts twice. That is the best way for me to get them down. Texts would be even better, but do what you want there. Longer version: General: I think that debates are won on offense, and I think that debates are won on strategy. I think that debate is capable in some ways of being a tool of liberation and expression, but I think that it is primarily a game to be played by two teams. The educational aspect of debate is nice, but if debate were about education, I would expect both teams to read textbooks to me about calculus or something during their speech. Win however you can and in whatever way you can. Speed: Hardly ever an issue. Clarity and argument depth often is. The way I flow is: I flow the claim and then flow the warrants underneath them. If I miss the claim, I flow the warrants and infer the claim from those warrants. If I miss both, your arguments are not warranted enough for me to write them down, and I will tell you to slow down. If you are unclear, then I will yell clear. Your options are to either become more clear, or slow down until you are clear. Or keep mumbling I guess. Theory/T/Procedurals: Run them. I default to competing interpretations, and that is the best way for me to evaluate theory, because it comes down to whoever debated it best and requires (arguably) the least intervention on my part; however, if I am given arguments as to why potential/proven abuse is good reason to pull the trigger, or why I shouldn't evaluate T, and the other team fails to provide an adequate answer, I’ll bite. Topicality is a voting issue, it is not a reverse voting issue. It's your fault if you let T become a time-suck. SPECs are generally for bad debaters. The Criticism: Can be run on the aff or the neg. Affs can be topical or not topical (as long as you win that you get to run a non topical aff), and affs can use fiat or not use fiat. A note about the criticism: If it is general/you assume that both teams understand it, I don’t need a thesis. If you are running something that I’m not familiar with/is super complicated, I would run a SHORT thesis. Most of the criticism’s that I ran were environmental, fem, and queer. I understand race pretty well, but if you start into post-structural, European philosophers like Baudrillard, Agamben, Derrida or the like, I need some indication of the thesis of the argument. For some reason, reading a bunch of leftist white academics wasn’t a thing we did at ACU in my undergraduate. That being said, I like hearing new things, if they are explained to me. I debated the criticism a lot as a debater, but in my old age, I prefer a Disad/CP debate. I also like DA/CP/K debate a lot if the negative can win condo. Criticisms/Turns of language in the PMC/LO/MG are generally ok. They are arguments that force the other team to spend time answering, which is always a good thing. Sometimes they make the other team look silly too, that can’t hurt your chances, right? On narratives/performance: Do it if you want, but when you introduce your own stories and experiences into a competitive environment, you make them competitive, and weaponizing identity doesn't help anybody in my experience. Do not physically hurt yourself or others in front of me (I cannot believe that I have to put this in a judging philosophy now). We should protect our activity and the people in it, and physical violence, I'm afraid, is not a good way to do this. Permutations are good to run on the aff. So are impact turns, and so is framework. And if you want to run a framework that policymaking is the only way to evaluate the round, I’ll evaluate that. Framing them out of the round is a good way to win. In general, I default to seeing permutations as tests of competitiveness, but will gladly hear all of the arguments about why they’re more than that. In general, when answering the criticism, do anything to win. Conditionality/multiple worlds: I don’t mind voting for a conditional argument, I also don’t mind voting on condo. I don’t care if you run three counter plans and a K, I don’t care if they conflict, and I don’t care if you collapse out of all of them into case turns. You should be the best condo debaters you can be though, because if you lose on condo or multiple worlds, I’ll vote against you. My favorite opp strat to watch as a judge is DA/CP/K debate. But each team should have one strategy that they're going for in the rebuttals. Opposition, you should go for one sheet of paper in the block (unless its a Disad/CP combo). Don't you dare stick to both disads. That is so bad. It's like the worst part of debate. Trust me enough to vote in the direction that you tell me. Disads: Are good. I like them to be big, and really like to have “burnt, dead bodies” in a disad. Dehume impacts are fine, and so are value to life arguments. With all disads, specificity is key (especially with politics). Lazy debaters are rarely rewarded, and many disads are lazy. Counterplans: Run as many as you want and run whatever you want. If you’re on the aff, run theory and run disads to the Counterplans. Also, permutations. Those are always a good thing. Case Debate: Offense is better than defense, but I think that impact defense (or impact turns) can be a pretty powerful tool. A note on impacts: I like impact calc, and I think it makes things easier for me. I default to extinction outweighs Dehume, but I am also very open to hearing impact frameworks that prioritize certain impacts over others. Everybody should let Ben Campbell teach them how to do impact calc, because that's the exact way that I feel about it. Speaker Points/Etiquette/etc: I don't call the house to order, I don't even know how to do that. I don't particularly like thank yous, but go for it I guess. I don't care if you talk to your partner or prompt them. I don't care if you stand or sit. You should wear some kind of clothing, but beyond that, you do what you want. I pretty much roll out of bed every morning. I don't care if you stand or sit, if you say "point of information" or not, or if you do the little teapot shin-dig when you ask a question (you know the hand on the head and the other one outstretched? Yeah, that's pretty silly). I always liked it when I felt that debaters were friendly to me, and I always disliked debaters that were not friendly to me. I think that for a lot of teams, being welcoming to them is important, inside and outside the round. Last year, I felt that my own RFD's were kind of mean spirited, and I'm trying to be more helpful in giving debaters an RFD that seems well justified. Because of that, I'll always flow on paper, but I'll probably open up my laptop afterwards and type up my RFD to read back to you. This is the best way for me to lay out the round and make the best decision possible. In addition, I promise to be respectful of you in my decision, and will always say something that is honest, but also encouraging. That being said, during the debate, I'm not very expressive, and may even look a little perturbed. I'm not, I promise, that's just the way that my face looks. I like jokes and references from Dungeons and Dragons, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Warhammer 40k, Firefly, Isaac Asimov books, The Sopranos, The Wire, The West Wing, Slavoj Zizek, my main man Barry-O, Kim Il-Sung/Jong-il/jong-un, and other weird things. Speaker points: My speaker points were a little lower than average last year, so I tried to change that this year, and create a more reliable/valid scale for speaker points. It is as follows: if I give you a 27, I think that you are a good debater, if I give you a 28, I think that you should be breaking, if I give you a 29, I think that you should be getting a speaker award, If I give you a 30, I think that you should be in finals. You want good speaker points? Then your rebuttal should be my RFD.

Frank Daniel - Hired

Background I competed in debate for 7 years. My main event was policy in high school and I did 4 years of NPDA at PLNU. This is my first year judging. Overall, I will try to be as objective as possible and vote where you tell me. I am open to all forms of debate but the most important thing I need to hear in a round is how to weigh my ballot, otherwise I’ll default to NB. I am fine with speed but please don’t be abusive with it. If I cannot keep up I will let you know. Case For most of my career I would only debate policy, though I grew to love the K. With that said, I cannot think of any policy arguments I was not comfortable understanding. As a debater I ran mostly systemic impacts but am not opposed to any other impacts. As in any debate, warrants are key. Read all texts/alts twice and slow down when reading them. K’s Unless you are using the same FW as the aff, or if you are the aff, have a FW with a role of the ballot. Tell me in the rebuttals how this favors you. Though I grew to love the K, very much, I was a relatively lazy K debater. This means I am not well versed in K lit. This is not to say I cannot keep up with the K, just don’t assume I know what your theory is. It’s fine if you don’t have a thesis but you should be able to sum up your K in one or two sentences. If it’s more than that please include a thesis. My weakest/least experience with K’s is with personal narratives. As all the other arguments, I am more than open to voting for them. Keep in mind my ballot is not indicative of my personal views as it is a competition. Please be civil. Procedurals Only theory I never really cared for was e-spec but run it if you think you can win. Slow down on interps and please read twice. Aside from T, I was not the biggest theory debater but am no stranger to it. My Ballot You tell me where to vote and why. I should not be hearing a role of the ballot til the rebuttals. I need a clear explanation of how your warrants interact with your FW. I am happy to be on this side of the ballot but remember, it’s my first year on this side so clear rebuttals are even more crucial. Most importantly, have fun!

Gagandeep Gill - San Jose State

Background: Debated in parli as an undergrad for three years .   I'm what you would call a "tabula rasa" judge: the world in the round is as the teams lay it out for me. If one team says the sky is green, and the other doesn't refute it, then despite knowing it's actually blue, I will consider it to be green when deciding the  winner. My job as a judge is solely to evaluate the arguments and refutations both sides to present me. I will not do your job when it comes to defending your arguments or destroying theirs. That being said, if the the other side does point out that the sky is blue, then I will side with them because my own knowledge backs this up.    Key things: -In your rebuttal, be clear about where you want me to focus my attention when weighing the round, otherwise it is up to me to decide which arguments I think deserve the most consideration. -Be respectful. I have a very low tolerance for debaters who shift from actually debating to personal attacks. Be ruthless in your strategy but keep that solely to the debate itself.  -I'm fine with speed, but I prefer a few good arguments over numerous arguments that have no real substance to them. I will be voting on what I hear so don't let a good argument fall to the wayside because you blazed over a crucial part.

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.

Haley Courtney - PLNU

I competed for Point Loma Nazarene University for 3 years and have been judging and coaching at Point Loma for 3 years.  First and foremost, this is your debate round and I will listen to anything if you can show me why it is relevant to the round. I love learning, so even if it is a position I am not familiar with, I will always do my very best to engage your arguments.   I like procedurals and have no problem voting on them if they are run well. I’m down with rules of the game. If you’re breaking them, tell me why it’s okay to do so. If the other team is breaking the rules in a way that makes it impossible for you to engage in the round, please tell me about it.   I do like Kritiks. I will listen to them and engage them, but I will not fill in the blanks for you while you run them.  I really appreciate knowing that teams genuinely care about the positions they are running, and this especially comes out in criticisms. It bothers me when critical discussions are devalued or dismissed in rounds because teams refuse to try to engage. That being said, I understand that debate is a game, but I also would really love that if you’re running something, it matters to you. That’s just a personal preference.  Just like in a straight up round, if I don’t understand how your criticism works or why it links, or most importantly, how you are actually gaining any solvency (in round or otherwise, just depends what you’re going for), I won’t vote on it. If there is no obvious link, you’ll probably have to work a little harder to convince me of your ability to have that particular discussion in that particular round, but don’t let that stop you from going for it.   That being said, I really value creativity and strategy. Have fun with debate. No matter what you run, critical or straight up, impact weigh. If you’re going to run an out of the ordinary position, just explain why it matters and how to vote on it. Show me why you’re winning in a tangible way. Impact calculus is super important. Tell me exactly where and why I should be voting for you.     Speed: I’m cool with speed. I have no problem keeping up with speed, but you need to be clear. If I can’t physically hear/understand you, I’ll let you know, but if I or the other team has to clear you and you make no change, it’s irritating. At that point, I can’t get all your arguments because I literally don’t know what you’re saying. Don’t use speed to exclude your opponents.   That being said, pay attention to my nonverbals; I’m expressive, I can’t help it. Mostly, I really want to know and understand what you’re talking about! If I don’t understand your argument initially, I will probably look at you while processing it and trying to understand it. Use that to your advantage, just clarify briefly.   Finally, please read me your plan text, counterplan text, or alt text at least twice so that I can get it down. It is extremely hard for me to weigh arguments being made for or against a particular text if I don’t know what you are doing. If you want to write me a copy, that would be cool, too.

Hilary Clair - Chico

Jared Anderson - Sac State

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

Jared Anderson - UNR

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!

Jeff Toney - SJDC

Joe Allen - Washburn

Generic information: I do not wish to impose my views on the activity through my ballot. What I mean by this is that I think you certainly ought to debate in front of me in a fashion consistent with what you're best at--and allow me to adapt to you. I fundamentally believe that nearly all aspects of debate are negotiable, and certainly a multitude of different kinds of strategies can be fun to watch and fun to do. I believe those who insist on debate conforming to their view of the activity are narcissistic and don't get the point. I also think that the notion of the inevitability of intervention does not remove the responsibility to evaluate issues in a fair and honest fashion--in fact it strengthens this obligation. I will do my best to make decisions which are not informed by my predispositions but rather a serious evaluation of the issues as they were debated. My burden of striving for non-intervention will not prevent me from passing judgment. This ought not be confused. I will make a decision based on judgments I make (clearly) but I will not be dishonest about the objective flow of the debate in order to cater to my own debate ideals. I am a debate nihilist (you might say), I begin with the assumption that what you can do in debate is only limited by your imaginative capacity to justify your argumentative choices. There is no strategy that I didn't try as a debater--who would I be to tell you that you can't do the same? Specific information: Despite my strong belief that our predispositions should have no effect on the outcome of our judging, I must admit that I obviously do have predispositions about this activity. I've spent enough time doing it, and even more time thinking about it, that I am not a clean slate. I'll put my slate away for the sake of fair deliberation, but here's a glimpse of what my slate looks like. Topicality: Unless argued persuasively otherwise, I default to assuming that topicality is both a voting issue and an issue of competing interpretations. I truly believe that affirmatives who make a good faith effort to support the topic (even if for a very abstract or nuanced reason) are the most strategic. Even some of the most strategic critical affirmatives I've ever seen affirmed the topic. I suppose a good general rule is that if you're not trying to be topical, you should have an exceptionally good reason why. I have never heard a definition of reasonability in my entire life that made more sense to me than competing interpretations (doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility). I believe that the specificity of the standards and how effectively they are compared (T debates are impact debates like everything else) is often the decider. Counterplans: I tend to assume that counterplans are a very useful strategy available to the negative. I am not predisposed against conditional counterplans, and frankly I'm also not predisposed against multiple conditional counterplans. Do not mistake this with an unwillingness to vote for condo bad if you can’t justify your instance of condo. Surprisingly perhaps, I also am not strongly against counterplans which don't compete textually (particularly if they are authentically within the scope of the topic). The reason I think textual competition is usually a good limit is precisely because most counterplans which textual competition limits out are those which detract from topic education. If yours doesn't and you can justify your counterplan you're fine. If you say there's a textually competitive version of the counterplan I will know if you're lying (just so you know). It's really all about what you can justify. The quality of your solvency evidence is generally a great indicator of how smart your counterplan is. The kritik: We shouldn't be afraid to have kritik debates because they serve as a way of making sure that our assumptions can be justified. That being said, our assumptions can be justified, and I appreciate people who do in fact engage critical teams and make an effort to defend the perspectives which inform their arguments. A few uphill battles critical debaters might find with me are that I often think critical framework arguments do not particularly limit the affirmative very much. There is no part of debate that isn't already a performance, and there is no part of debate that isn't already representational. It's about the desirability of those representations. Another roadblock critical debaters might find with me is that I have no problem signing off on topicality or evaluating the framework debate against the kritik. I'm not opposed to framework if you cannot justify the way your kritik is framed. If they're responsible for their representations why aren't you? I don't like the fact that kritik debaters uniquely have to have a sheet of paper justifying the existence of their argument right out of the gates, but if you cannot win that your argument should exist I think you should find a different argument. I also am a sucker for sophisticated and clever permutation arguments. Perhaps this is why I think the best kritiks are topic specific and turn the case.â€¯    Theory: I think theory serves a vital role in regulating debate trends, like a filter. Sometimes a strategy is a winning one precisely because it's not crafted in a fashion that is fair. Sometimes a strategy is antithetical to education to a degree that merits its total exclusion. Again, these questions are answered best through a framework of competing interpretations where sophisticated impact calculus happens at the level of the standards debate. If you can justify it, you can do it. Theory debates are one of the best tests of whether or not you can justify your given strategy. For this reason, I take it seriously and think it should be evaluated first. I will not evaluate it first only in the circumstance where you lose the priority debate (which sometimes happens). My default assumption is that fairness and education are both good, and keep the activity alive. This does not, however, remove the obligation to demonstrate why something is theoretically objectionable to a degree that merits the ballot. I also tend to fall further on the potential abuse side of the spectrum than the real abuse side. Just because you don't perform abuse (in the sense of how much of their strategy has in-round utility) does not automatically mean the way your strategy is positioned is suddenly educational or fair.â€¯    Disads: A well argued disad can be a beautiful thing. If you can't outweigh the case, read a counterplan that pairs well with your disad. If you want, read two. You could also surprise me and debate the case effectively (I will appreciate this). I do not dislike politics disads, but those which do not have any real link specificity annoy me a bit. Sometimes the politics disad is the right choice, sometimes it's not. Depends on the topic. The greater the specificity and applicability the happier I'll be. I love a well crafted topic disad. If your disad authentically turns the case, then I'll probably be inclined to thinking it's a good disad. Be prepared to debate all levels of disad uniqueness (not just top level) including link uniqueness, internal link uniqueness, and impact uniqueness.â€¯  Things that really annoy me:â€¯  1) Process disads. If your disad relies on the process of the plan passing, rather than the outcome of the plan, I will not like your disad. If you say things like "the plan will be horse-traded for x" or "the plan will move x off the docket" I will be utterly dissatisfied with your lazy and bankrupt disad. To be clear, it is the job of the aff to identify how absurd your disad is. I will not hesitate to vote for shitty process disads if the aff fails to correctly answer them, but it'll make me feel bad about myself and the state of debate.  2) Theory debates which begin in the PMR. Sometimes really egregious things happen in the block. In this case, I may very well vote for theory which begins in the PMR. Example: the negative splits the block. However, I am more often than not wildly uncomfortable with theory debates in which the negative has no opportunity to contest your argument. The best example I can think of here is that the MOC should take a question. My intuition is that you get the last word, and so you should have the upper hand in dealing with these situations without putting me in an awkward position. This is one of my least favorite debate arguments.â€¯  3) Spec arguments or T arguments which have no resolutional basis. If your spec argument has no basis in the topic, or requires the aff to be extra-topical in order to meet your interpretation, I will think it's a bad argument. E-spec is a good example of such an argument. This is especially egregious in instances in which T arguments have no basis in the topic since T is supposed to be explicitly premised on the language of the topic.â€¯  4) Floating pics. Alternatives should not include anything resembling the plan. They should especially not literally include the plan text. If they do, and you do not win the debate on perm: do the alternative with appropriate theory arguments about how nonsense it is for the alt to include the plan I will be pretty sad. The negative should have to make alt solvency arguments in order to demonstrate why the alt solves the aff, and the aff should be entitled to argue that the aff is a disad to the alt. If the alternative does not enable this debate to occur, it's more than likely theoretically bankrupt. I would hope that the aff would identify this.â€¯A good question to ask the LOC when they read their alternative is whether or not the plan can pass in a world of the alternative.   5) Incorrect permutation strategies. For every silly nonsense counterplan which shouldn't exist, there is a solid permutation text which makes such counterplan look pretty silly. I really appreciate it when the aff correctly identifies the appropriate permutation, and conversely, I really don't like it when the aff fails to problematize bad counterplans with the appropriate permutation.â€¯I am not principally opposed to severance or intrinsic permutations, but appropriate applications of them have a high degree of difficulty. Theoretical objections to them are a reason to reject the permutation, not the team, unless argued persuasively otherwise.   6) Failure to offer impact comparison. It is up to you to ensure that the debate is resolvable in a way that doesn't require me to compare things myself. I will always decide debates based on what occurs in your own words. I will not put the pieces together for you. I will not assume your position to be a priority if you fail to demonstrate this for me. Impact calculus is the centerpiece of how you can accomplish this.â€¯  7) Failure to identify things which are theoretically bankrupt. What bothers me the most about asinine strategies is when I'm put in a position to have to endorse them with my ballot, and I absolutely will if you fail to allow me to do otherwise. It is your responsibility to filter out irresponsible debate trends with sound objections to them. Take your responsibility seriously so that I don't have to make decisions which I know endorse things which are not good for the activity.â€¯  Summary observations: I suppose my views on the ideal strategy are almost always informed by the topic. The best K's turn the case and are topic specific, and the same can be said for the best disads. The best counterplans have very quality solvency evidence and a sensible net benefit. The best critical affs affirm the topic and discuss issues pertinent to the topic literature. There's always a good strategic option for a given topic, and it's up to you to find it. I will not be a hindrance to that process. Whatever you think is situationally best given the strengths of yourself and your opponent should be what you go with. I'll adapt to you. You'll probably debate better when you do what you're best at. Almost all debate is fun, it should be a question of what's the most situationally strategic option.    One last thing: I am a very expressive judge. 9 times out of 10 you will know what I think of your argument. I will shake my head at you if you say something really absurd, and I will nod for arguments that I agree with. I can't really control this very well (I've tried). On very very rare occasions I will verbally declare an argument to be silly during the debate. Do not take me too seriously. I vote for silly arguments when I would be intervening otherwise, and not all smart arguments are round winners. If it's very difficult for you to deal with non-verbal reactions to your arguments or this is very distracting for you, don't pref me. I literally could not possibly be less interested where I end up on your pref sheet.

Joseph Evans - El Camino

~~About me: I have been involved in forensics for 10 years. I debated HS LD for 2 years, and then 4 years of college parli debate at UCLA. I coached at CSULB while in graduate school, and I am now currently the assistant coach at El Camino College. I view debate as a game of intellect, and therefore I believe that any method of debate is viable when used as a strategic ploy to win. I will try to list my views on the major themes within debate. The way I evaluate the round: I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the eyes of a policy maker. Unless I am told otherwise, I tend to fall back on Net Benefits. This means that I will evaluate the arguments based on how clear the impacts are weighed for me (probability, timeframe, and magnitude). I will however evaluate the round based on how you construct your framework. If (for example) you tell me to ignore the framework of Net Benefits for an ethics based framework... I will do so. On the flip side, I will also listen to arguments against framework from the Neg. You win the framework if you provide me clear warranted arguments for your position, and weigh out why your framework is best. Speed: I am usually a fast debater and thus I believe that speed is a viable way of presenting as much evidence as possible within the time alloted. I can flow just about anything and I'm confident that you can not out flow me from the round. That being said, I value the use of speed combined with clarity. If you are just mumbling your way through your speech, I won't be able to flow you. While I won't drop you for the act of being unclear... I will not be able to get everything on the flow (which I am confident is probably just as bad). Counter Plans: I will listen to any CP that is presented as long as it is warranted. In terms of CP theory arguments... I understand most theory and have been known to vote on it. All I ask is for the theory argument to be justified and warranted out (this also goes for perm theory on the aff). Topicality: I have a medium threshold for T. I will evaluate the position the same as others. I will look at the T the way the debaters in the round tell me. I don’t have any preference in regards reasonability vs. competing interps. You run T the way your see fit based on the round.  Additionally, I have an extremely high threshold for "RVIs". If the neg decides to kick out of the position, I usually don't hold it against them. I will vote on T if the Aff makes a strategic mistake (it is an easy place for me to vote). Kritical Arguments: I believe that any augment that is present is a viable way to win. Kritical arguments fall into that category. I am well versed in many of the theories that most critical arguments are based in. Therefore if you run them i will listen to and vote on them as long as they are well justified. I will not vote on blips as kritical arguments. Framework: I will listen to any alt framework that is presented ( narrative, performance, kritical Etc.) If you decide to run a different framework that falls outside the norm of debate... you MUST justify the framework. Evidence: Have it (warranted arguments for parli)! Rudeness: don't be rude!

Joshua Harzman - Pacific

Name: JOSHUA CARLISLE HARZMAN School: U. PACIFIC   Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE.   I’m a former debater so run whatever you want; however you want. My voting paradigm is tabula rasa until you tell me otherwise. Please be kind to one another. After you maintain competitive equity, do whatever is necessary to win.     Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.   <ol> <li>Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?</li> </ol>   27-29----To get the 30, you must clearly be the best debater in the room. I do not give 30’s every round.   <ol> <li>How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?</li> </ol>   You may argue whatever you want, but be able to defend it. If you claim in-round solvency or impacts, you better warrant those claims. Affirmatives have equal access to these types of arguments. For contradictory positions, again, be able to defend your representations if opponents choose to read theory.   <ol> <li>Performance based arguments…</li> </ol>   Give a framework for how I ought evaluate and I prefer arguments that allow your opponent access to the representations, however, I understand this is not always the case.   <ol> <li>Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?</li> </ol>   I require a definition, competitive standards, and voting impacts. If you give a standard, (don’t explain what predictability means) explain how your interpretation better upholds said standard (explain how your definition is better for a predictable debate). I think reasonability calls for judge intervention but if that’s how you want me to vote then make the argument.   <ol> <li>Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?</li> </ol>   All types of counter-plans are fine – until the affirmative tells me otherwise. All permutations are fine – until the negative tells me otherwise.   <ol> <li>Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)</li> </ol>   Yes, if they want to.       <ol> <li>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?)?</li> </ol>   The debate will answer this question. No one argument is theoretically “before” another until the debaters tell me as such. If T is A-Priori and the K framework comes before the 1AC, then I would evaluate theory, followed by methods, and then impacts. If T isn’t A-Priori and the Case gets weighed against the K, I’ll vote as such.     <ol> <li>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")?</li> </ol>     AGAIN, ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN INSTRUCTED TO VOTE OTHERWISE: Quantity > Quality Extinction > Torture Genocide > Dehumanization

Joshua Rayburn - Hired

Joshua Rayburn – Hired<a name="_GoBack"></a> I have three years’ experience in parli, LD, and short-prep on the collegiate level. If you run net benefits, I will weigh equally the probability of links and magnitude of impacts. You need to win both to fully win the position. “Risk of solvency” is not a thing and will likely be voted down. If you run procedurals I am open to competing interpretations. Proven abuse is always a plus but not necessary if you win the interpretation. Do not answer with time-suck or RVIs. If you run kritical arguments you need to show an actual link (not something that is blatantly canned) and prove real-world solvency. I am not buying that my ballot will change the world because you say so; prove it. If you run performance, that’s fine. I’m not really familiar but open to new things, just explain it clearly. I am not opposed to speed but I will listen to speed Ks. The faster you go the more risk you run of me missing something. I’ll let you know if you’re losing me. If you double-clutch I will probably drop you speaker points just because it’s annoying to listen to. Speaker points are important to me. You don’t have to stand but please pay attention to your judge and be respectful of your opponent. I don’t mind partner talk but I will only flow what the speaker is saying, not what your partner is feeding you. Voting should be really easy. Be sure to collapse to where I am voting and why in the rebuttals. If I am left in doubt I will likely vote negative as the burden of proof rests on the affirmative. Have fun.

Kasey Graves - PLNU

I've been in the activity for 9 years now. I did policy for four years in high school and then 4 years in parli. I graduated from Point Loma with a Bachelor of Arts in International Studies with a focus in Peace. The easiest way to get my ballot is to have well warranted arguments followed with clear impact calc. I will listen to any arguments and would prefer to hear ideas/strats that are your strengths! If  a debate gets messy, that's fine, just clean it up and explain how you are winning the round. 1. I am fine with partner to partner communication but do not want to see someone giving their partner's speech. A quick reminder is cool or an arg you want for your member speech or rebuttal I can get down with, anything more will get irritating. 2. I am down for critical args...I think these can be used very strategically and are legitimate ways to evaluate the way we as a society make decisions. I may not be as well read as others so just make sure to explain your args/theory  clearly. 3.  Speed is also fine with me. If you are too fast for me, I will clear you. I don't agree with using speed as a way of excluding people from the activity so just don't do it in front of me. 4. Read plan, counterplan, and perm texts twice and clearly so that I make sure I have it correctly on my flow.  5. I prefer to hear Topicality and theory when it is warranted and not as a time suck/ waster of paper but I can also appreciate a strategic T and ultimately it is your round so do as you please.  Overall, run what you want, have a good time, and learn new things about global issues! Any other questions you can ask in round :)

Kathryn Starkey - CSU

Judging Philosophy: Kathryn Starkey   Section 1: General Information I debated at the University of Wyoming from 2006-2011. I coached at Texas Tech University for the three years following UW. Now, I am the Director of forensics at CSU Pueblo in my 3rd year.  As a debater, I tended to read policy-oriented arguments with the occasional cap-bad or constructivism K thrown into the mix. Debate is a game; be strategic. This is one of the most incredible educational activities out there. Treat it as such.   Section 2: Specific Inquiries   1. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given. So far my range tends to fall in the 26-30 category. Things to help your speaker points: strategy, intelligence, and wit. Adjustments will occur when debaters are inappropriate in round. Please be civil! I know that debates can become intense, but your speaker points will also be a reflection of your ability to treat your opponents with respect.   1. 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?  I have voted k’s for them since I have stopped competing, but a word of caution: I am probably not as well versed in the literature as you. This being said, if you run a K in front of me, make sure to thoroughly explain your argument. Several unwarranted tags coupled with name-dropping authors isn’t going to be as persuasive as a thorough explanation of the thesis of the K. The alternative must be able to solve the mpx of the K, which make both the alt text and the solvency contention pretty important in my book. I’m not a fan of using the K to exclude the aff. It makes the discussion solely about the K, which I think takes away from the merit of parli. Despite this, it’s your debate. The aff can run critical arguments, but there is a way to do so and be topical at the same time. The resolution exists for a reason. Please be topical. I’m very persuaded by framework arguments. As for contradictory arguments, it probably depends on your ability to defend conditionality as a beneficial thing in parli. I’m down with conditional arguments, but demonstrating why you are not abusive to the other team can be difficult at times and is your burden to fulfill. This also probably means you need to have a coherent strategy going into the block to deter possible abuse if you are going to run critical arguments that contradict other facets of the negative strategy.   1. 3. Performance based arguments… Not a fan….. I’ll vote for whatever you tell me to vote for in a round, but I’m not going to enjoy listening to a performance if read in front of me. I’d like to enjoy what I listen to.   1. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?  For the aff, you should probably be topical. Aside from this, I love T debates as long as they aren’t the generic, stock T debate that gets rehashed every round. Nuanced and educational ways to interpret the resolution tend to spur interesting debates, at least in my opinion. I’d prefer to have in-round abuse, but it’s not necessary. Without a specific weighing mechanism, I’ll default to competing interpretations. To vote on T, it clearly needs an interp, standards and a voter. In a paradigm of competing interpretations, there must be a net-benefit to one interpretation that the other fails to capture. I don’t see T as a win-all for the Aff. I don’t think I’d vote for an RVI on T.   1. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? With a substantial net-benefit, PICS are great. I welcome the theoretical level of the counterplan debate as well. That being said, it would be difficult to persuade me that arguments like PICS bad or PICS good are more than a way for me to view the round. I.e. Voting for the arg: PICS are bad, which means they lose. If a solid abuse story is established, I can probably be persuaded otherwise. I also think the neg should state the status of the counterplan in the LOC. It forces the theory debate to begin later in the debate, making it difficult to evaluate the end of a debate in which the PMR goes for that theory. Why hide your status? If you’re going to read a counterplan, be ready to defend it. Counterplans need to be functionally competitive, or there seems to be no point in running one. It must have a NB that the aff cannot solve. As for textual competition, I’m impartial. It probably helps to prove the competition of your counterplan, but it doesn’t seem as necessary to me, though I can be persuaded otherwise. Perms are tests of competition; they are not advocacies. If a counterplan is non-competitive, then it goes away, leaving the rest of the debate.   1. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Impartial. It’s probably in your best interest to make sure you flowed an argument as the other team stated it, but it’s up to you. Sharing texts is probably a good idea as well. I also don’t care if you ask the other team something during a speech (this isn’t a POI – it’s the other communication that occurs) as long as I can still hear who’s speaking. It seems to be a trend that’s picking up. Doesn’t bother me.   1. 7. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? As a disclaimer: this is your job, not mine. Please do this for me. Procedurals come first, then usually other theoretical objections, impacts. It all still depends what kinds of arguments are in the round.   1. 8. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? I would honestly prefer to NEVER have to do this, so please don’t make me have to do so! A thought, though: Extinction>dehume   Other Random thoughts J <ul> <li>I LOVE disads.</li> <li>Please read texts and interpretations more than once. If you want it down word for word, please repeat it for me!</li> <li>POI’s: Seems like a good rule of thumb to take one per constructive speech. Clarification on texts, especially, is sometimes necessary for a coherent strategy.</li> <li>Spec positions are awful. I understand their utility to guarantee a strategy, but they’re not very convincing in front of me if you go for it.</li> <li>Overviews are good; you should use them.</li> <li>Please make sure to compare positions and give impact calculus throughout the rebuttals.</li> <li>I’ll protect against new arguments in rebuttals. You should still call points of order in the event I may have missed something.</li> <li>Any questions, please feel free to ask. I love this activity, and I love to talk about it.</li> </ul>

Kaylen Runyan - ACU

I am a graduate assistant at ACU. I did not debate in undergrad, but I was a Communication major and have minor experience through one debate class. With what I have learned this year as a Speech and Debate graduate assistant, I have received additional experience. I will evaluate rounds through the weighing of impacts. Due to lack of experience in debate, I prefer a conversational level of speaking though I will not vote down based on speed. The fairest way for me to evaluate will be through case-disadvantage rather than criticism or counter-plan.  If you have any questions please ask.

Keith Green - Hired

UPDATED:11/05/2015 History: I competed in Parli debate for two years with Biola University. I also did speech with them for one semester. I also competed for 4 years in STOA and NCFCA  Voting: I vote on what you tell to me, provided you’ve put in the work on it. Eg, if you run a really horrid T, that is missing most of its parts, saying “a priori ” doesn’t mean you win. On Procedurals: if you’ve lost ground, prove it to me. Otherwise, I default to competing interpretations. I will usually not vote on vagueness and unpopular procedurals except if they are really, really, necessary. On K’s: I LOVE K’s. PLEASE RUN EXPERMINTAL K’S IF YOU HAVE THEM. The way to make me happy is to have a unqiune K, with a CITED LIT BASE, a INTERESTING ALT (reject alts I am not a fan of, but I have voted on them), and run by teams who understand the K they are running. On Alts: I understand that reject alts are really common and do fit the average criticism, BUT if you run an alt that is more than just reject, it greatly increases your chances of me picking you up. (provided you can defend it)hint: non-violence can be very effective. I like project K’s, if they are heart felt and come across that way. Unauthentic project K’s that feel like gamepeices I really dislike. THEORY and LIT bases: I have read extensively from Foucault, Butler, Spivak, Saide, West, Saussure, Derrida, Althusser, Marx, bell hooks, Nietzsche, Barthes, Bhabha, Beauvoir, Chomsky and Bell, and Ghandi. I am familiar/have read the following schools of theory: Femm, Queer, Po-Co, Marxist, Critical Race Theory, Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, reader response, intersectionality, and Eco-Fem. I do not like Deep Eco, and I do not enjoy psychoanalytic. I DO NOT LIKE ANTHRO K’s. Other kinds of lit bases I am not as well versed in which means you may have to a run a specific thesis block. I enjoy personal narratives as advocacy provided you make it clear how to weigh them IN ROUND. Same goes with performance debate. On Speed: gotta go fast! I can follow nearly all CLEAR speed. If you mumble I will not flow it. On Trichot: I will never vote for you on a fact res. The first person to say the word fact loses. Period. Same for value. Just run policy or I will be mad. Impacts:  I like them to be clear, well warranted and realistic. Running nuclear war as an impact is bad, and any good team can beat that. I will only vote on critical impacts if you actually terminalize them. Saying their imperialist is not an impact. You need to explain to me the pre/post fiat impacts. I love GOOD WARRANTED impact scenarios. Just saying “econ improves therefor JOBS” is a good way to lose. Do impact calculus EVEN FOR YOUR CRITICAL IMPACTS. Warrants: have them for important aspects of your advocacy. Preferably for everything. Calling out NO WARRANT is not an argument, it is at the very least, poor defense.. Points of Order: you should call them. I will try to protect as much as I can, for new arguments, but I will miss some. Don’t abuse POO though. CP: I agree with Sean Hansen: <ul> <li>“I think PICs are a good strategy decision, while delays and 50 states tend to be lazy strategies unless specifically justified.</li> <li>I think topical CPs are not only theoretically legitimate, but also probably the only way to allow NEG reciprocal access to the round (though I’ve picked up AFFs who have argued otherwise).</li> <li>I am also open to conditional CPs, and even multiple conditional positions, but allow AFF theory responses equal weight.</li> <li>My openness to CPs generates a corresponding openness to good perm debates, although I tend towards the perspective that legitimate perms use all of AFF text and some or all of CP text (unless severance is somehow justified, which can certainly be done, but is a hard theory battle to win).</li> <li>Perms should have a net benefit, and should usually be run with solvency deficits / turns to the alt.”</li> </ul> Speech: I start at 30spks, and go down. If you get lower than 26 you pissed me off.   Interpreting my non- verbal’s : 1.     If I knock that I means I like your argument. 2.     If I laugh, that’s means something funny has occurred. If you can’t figure out what it is, its probably you. 3.     If I stop flowing, that’s bad.  Give me things to flow. 4.     If I stare at your team during rebuttals I’m listening to a new argument, and wondering if you are going to call it. 5.     If I shrug that means I’m not impressed but I can buy it. 6.     Nodding quickly means I agree with what you are sating.   Speaking of things that piss me off: 1.     Any kind of racist, sexist,  homophobic, transist, bi, ablest, imperialist, classist, ethnocentrism, exceptioanlism, patriarchal, and  jingoist statements as well as  generally being unaware of one’s privilege  will KILL your speaker points, and may cost you the round. 2.     Repeating arguments. 3.     Interrupting speeches. 4.     Not taking ANY questions. (taking at least one won’t hurt you) 5.      Lying about what the other team has or has not done. 6.     Being rude. (don’t tell me their DA is crap, I’ll know) 7.     Looking at your competition, unless it’s a diag/expo round. <a name="_GoBack"></a>

Kelli Brill - UNR

Kelly Lootz - Pacific

I am an Interper by trade and currently an Individual Events coach. That being said, I’ve been around debate in various capacities for over eight years and love the activity. Some things to consider if you find me at the back of the room:   Speed – Take it down a notch or two and enunciate. If I can’t understand you I can’t vote for you. Arguments – Anything goes. Just make sure you take the time to explain what you are going for. Impact Calculus is always a great thing! Jargon – Be sure to explain exactly what you mean. If you just throw debate jargon at me, I may not catch it.   At the end of the day, tell me why I should vote for you. As a former interper I love to see the passion in a round – in your last speech break it down for me and tell me why you win!

Kevin Calderwood - Washburn

Kevin Calderwood Washburn University Quick Notes ---I think that you should make the arguments that you are best at making. With that said, I do believe that judges and coaches have an important (often unappreciated) role in this activity, and I wish that more debaters would attempt to adapt to some of the preferences of their judges. ---I prefer policy arguments. ---You must take at least one question in every constructive. ---All advocacies in the debate are unconditional. ---All texts should be written down for the other team and repeated at least once. ---Framework is never a voting issue; it's a lens to view the rest of the debate. ---Topicality is always a voting issue, and is never genocide. Spec arguments are never voting issues. Permutations are tests of competition. ---I vote negative more times than affirmative. ---I will err affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory (delay, consult, conditions, normal means, textual competition etc.). Ask, and I am sure I can clarify this for you. ---Although I do not have a predisposition towards these arguments in debate, I find that capitalism is typically the best and most fair economic system, and that the forward deployment of American troops and the robust nature of American internationalism generally make the world a better place. Additions to my philosophy (2015-2016): ---I no longer actively coach a team on a daily basis, which means I have seen zero rounds this year. Keep that in mind with speed and any new arguments. ---I am beginning my Ph.D. program in political communication and rhetoric at the University of Washington. Additions to my philosophy (2014-2015): ---I tend to think that teams should not have to disclose. ---I believe it would be unwise to read delay counterplans in front of me. ---I am flowing on paper from now on. I find that it keeps me more engaged in the debate. I might not have a complete record of the round, but research demonstrates that the ability to comprehend concepts greatly increases when taking notes by hand. ---Teams that provide a warrant that connects their claim with their data are more likely to be successful. This is really basic, but I think it is something that is done poorly at the moment. Telling me that a minimum wage increase would reduce GDP 2% does not tell me why the reduction would occur. Too often we are missing this key element of basic argumentation. Additions to my philosophy (2013-2014): ---Be responsible and use the restroom before the end of prep time. This means you use the facilities on YOUR time, not after prep time expires when you get to the room. ---In critique debates, I would prefer that the MG answer the critique in either the same order, start someplace and work your way through, or just read your arguments as a frontline. I flow the critique on one sheet of paper. For example: answer the framework, links, impacts, and then the alternative; OR, answer the alternative, framework, links, and then the impacts; OR frontline your arguments (1: Alternative does not solve, 2: Link turn, 3: Fiat good, etc.). ---If you read a politics disadvantage that is not “the issue of our time” then you should specify the bill’s status and give some background about the bill at the beginning of the disadvantage. On several occasions this year, I have heard politics disadvantages that were apparently on the “top of the docket” that I have never heard of before. I consider myself well read on the news, and I doubt the veracity of all, or nearly all, of the claims I have heard about the “top of the docket”. ---I still believe that you must take one question one question in each constructive. However, for me to vote on “you must take a question”, you must make a “good faith” effort to actually ask a question. This would involve verbalizing that you have a question, and the other team categorically refusing to answer a substantive question about the debate. Additions to my philosophy last year (2012-2013): --I like teams that spend a significant amount of time lighting up the case in the 1NC. --I still think that I err affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory, but I have grown tired of the textual versus functional competition debate. I think that the legitimacy of counterplans I tend to dislike (process, delay, anything that changes the nature of fiat) is better resolved through objections specific to the counterplan in question (i.e. delay bad, etc.) ---I think teams spend too little time on the link story and spend too much time developing their impacts. This isn't to say that I don't think that having a developed impact story is important, but very little of it matters if the extent of your link is "GOP hates the plan, next..." ---I think that systemic impacts are underutilized, especially in economy debates. Recessions are bad. Unemployment is bad. These events have a life long affect on your physical and mental health that is ignored in debate in favor of improbable impact scenarios like resource wars, etc. ---I think that fairness is the most important impact for me to consider when evaluating theoretical issues (including topicality). It is very difficult to convince me that education should come before fairness. Not being topical does not lead to the collapse of debate, but for me, this is first and foremost a competitive activity, and thus I am most persuaded by claims about fairness.

Kevin Steeper - SRJC

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

Kyle Cheesewright - IDAHO

“All that you touch   You Change.   All that you Change   Changes you.   The only lasting truth   Is Change.   God Is Change.” –Octavia Butler, “Parable of the Sower.”   Debate is a game. Debate is a strange, beautiful game that we play. Debate is a strange beautiful game that we play with each other.   I love debate. It’s the only game that exists where the rules are up for contestation by each side. There are some rules that aren’t up for discussion, as far as I can tell, these are them:   1/ Each debate will have a team that wins, and a team that looses. Say whatever you want, I am structurally constrained at the end of debate to award one team a win, and the other team will receive a loss. That’s what I got.   2/ Time limits. I think that a discussion should have equal time allotment for each side, and those times should probably alternate. I have yet to see a fair way for this question to be resolved in a debate, other than through arbitrary enforcement. The only exception is that if both teams decide on something else, you have about 45 minutes from the start of the round, to when I have to render a decision.   Pretty much everything else is open to contestation. At this point, I don’t really have any serious, uncontestable beliefs about debate. This means that the discussion is open to you. I do tend to find that I find debates to be more engaging when they are about substantive clash over a narrow set of established issues. This means, I tend to prefer debates that are specific and deep. Good examples, and comparative discussion of those examples is the easiest way to win my ballot. Generally speaking, I look for comparative impact work. I find that I tend to align more quickly with highly probable and proximate impacts, though magnitude is just so easy.   I tend to prefer LOC strategies that are deep, well explained explorations of a coherent world. The strategy of firing off a bunch of underdeveloped arguments, and trying to develop the strategy that is mishandled by the MG is often successful in front of me, but I almost always think that the round would have been better with a more coherent LOC strategy—for both sides of the debate.   At the end of the debate, when it is time for me to resolve the discussion, I start by identifying what I believe the weighing mechanism should be, based on the arguments made in the debate. Once I have determined the weighing mechanism, I start to wade through the arguments that prove the world will be better or worse, based on the decision mechanism. I always attempt to default to explicit arguments that debaters make about these issues.   Examples are the evidence of Parliamentary debate. Control the examples, and you will control the debate.   On specific issues: I don’t particularly care what you discuss, or how you discuss it. I prefer that you discuss it in a way that gives me access to the discussion. I try not to backfill lots of arguments based on buzzwords. For example, if you say “Topicality is a matter of competing interpretations,” I think I know what that means. But I am not going to default to evaluating every argument on Topicality through an offense/defense paradigm unless you explain to me that I should, and probably try to explicate what kinds of answers would be offensive, and what kinds of answers would be defensive. Similarly, if you say “Topicality should be evaluated through the lens of reasonability,” I think I know what that means. But if you want me to stop evaluating Topicality if you are winning that there is a legitimate counter-interpretation that is supported by a standard, then you should probably say that.   I try to flow debates as specifically as possible. I feel like I have a pretty good written record of most debates.   Rebuttals are times to focus a debate, and go comprehensively for a limited set of arguments. You should have a clear argument for why you are winning the debate as a whole, based on a series of specific extensions from the Member speech. The more time you dedicate to an issue in a debate, the more time I will dedicate to that issue when I am resolving the debate. Unless it just doesn’t matter. Watch out for arguments that don’t matter, they’re tricksy and almost everyone spends too much time on them.   Before I make my decision, I try to force myself to explain what the strongest argument for each side would be if they were winning the debate. I then ask myself how the other team is dealing with those arguments. I try to make sure that each team gets equal time in my final evaluation of a debate.   This is a radical departure from my traditional judging philosophy. I’ll see how it works out for me. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. For the record, I have strong opinions on just about everything that occurs in a debate round—but those strong opinions are for down time and odd rants during practice rounds. I work to keep them out of the debate, and at this point, I think I can say that I do a pretty good job on that account.   I just thought of a third rule. Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I thought speeches are. If you tell me what speaker points I should give you, I will listen, and promptly discard what you say. Probably.   For the sake of transparency: My personal gig is critical-cultural theory. It's where my heart is. This does not mean that you should use critical theory that you don't understand or feel comfortable with it. Make the choices in debate that are the best, most strategic, or most ethical for you. If your interested in my personal opinons about your choices, I'm more than happy to share. But I'll do that after the debate is over, the ballot submitted, and we're just two humans chatting. The debate will be decided based on the arguments made in the debate.   “[Y]ou can’t escape language: language is everything and everywhere; it’s what lets us have anything to do with one another; it’s what separates us from animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so on.” -David Foster Wallace, “Authority and American Usage.”   Old Philosophy A Body's Judging Philosophy Debate has been my home since 1996— and when I started, I caressed Ayn Rand and spoke of the virtue of selfishness.   I am much older than I was. These days, I am trying to figure out how subjectivity gets created from the raw material of words and research.   I have no interest in how well you can recite the scripts you’ve memorized. Or at what speed.   I will not be held responsible for adjudicating your bank balance. And I will not provide interest on your jargon. I will listen to your stories and I will decide which story is better, using the only currency I am comfortable with: the language of land, and the words that sprout from my body like hair.   I remember the visceral intensity of the win and loss, and the way that worth was constructed from finishing points. I am far too familiar with the bitter sting of other names circled.   I think that the systemic is far more important than the magnitude. Politics make me sick. And I know that most of the fun with words, has nothing to do with limits, because it’s all ambiguous. And nothing fair.   These days, I read Deleuze and Guattari, and wonder what it means when classrooms are madhouses. And all that remains is the affect.

Kyle Johnson - San Jose State

Kyle Varga - Hired

Kyle Varga – Judge Profile<a name="_GoBack"></a>   Judge Background: Currently I am assisting my local community college speech and debate team.  Though I did not participate in speech and debate in high school or undergrad, I did lead my law school’s team and later coached said team in the largest and oldest international moot court competition – Phillip C. Jessup International Moot Court.  Since then, I now find myself “debating” in front of judges and with opposing counsel regarding various legal issues. Argument: Your case, your argument.  I value creative arguments as opposed to standard run-of-the-mill arguments.  The structure of your argument is what I find most important, it must logically follow and withstand your opponents’ counterpoints. Speed:  Keep your speed to a normal pace.  I will verbally check your speed if I find it too fast.  If I need to check your speed more than three times I will likely deduct speaker points. Partner Communication: I think talking between partners should be kept to a minimum, as it is distracting to me and the other team.  Instead I would prefer competitors to pass notes to limit background noise.  If you feel that you must communicate verbally, please be respectful of the speaker, and do so in the lowest tone possible.  In addition, I will only register arguments that the designated speaker conveys, thus if another person is speaking out of turn, I will not account for said argument. Procedurals: I prefer to evaluate your arguments, new information presented, style, and critiques before predictability and ground loss.  In addition, I favor the team that is the most clear and concise in explaining the particular nuances of their argument or procedural position.

Loretta Rowley - Utah

I am primarily an individual events coach. I did not compete in, nor do I coach debate. I have taught and continue to teach argumentation courses and thus, I prefer slower delivery and well-developed arguments. Essentially, I am not well-versed in debate jargon so don't assume that I will have the exact understanding of your version of debate theory. That said, I can follow and assess any debate as long as the competitors explain themselves fully and weigh their arguments.

MATTHEW LANE-SWANSON - SMC

New for the 17-18 season - looked at the poem and was like..... damn, this is old I see debate as a contest of two sides of an argument.  The aff picks the argument and the neg responds to it.  Many times, the aff will select their comments based on a resolution that is provided by a third party.  Personally, the topic and customs of the round matter not.  What is the point of me trying to enforce rigid standards of competition that are not necessarily agreed upon by the individuals participating in the debate?  As such, I see my position in the round not as a participant but as an participant-observer.  I am someone who will enter into the field of debate with you and observe/record the data you present to me.  However, unlike traditional P-O methods I would prefer for you to do the analysis for me.  At the end of the round I will render a decision based off of the arguments in the round as instructed by the participants of the debate.              To unpack this further, to perform what I consider a debate there should be two sides to the debate.  Unfortunately for the negative, the burden they are given is to refute the affirmative.  The reason I feel this is unfortunate is that I believe the affirmative needs to offer an advocacy that would be better than the sqo.  This does not require the aff to pass a policy through the usfg/state/whatever agency in my opinion.  This does not grant the aff a free ticket to do whatever.  While I may not have those requirements the negative team may and they may even have compelling reasons why lacking those concepts is reason enough for you to lose the round.  The purpose of this is to explain that the debate I am to observe is up to you to determine as participants in nearly all ways.  The only rules I will enforce are structural such as start/end round times, speaker times, and speaker order.             In my RFDs there are two things I like to cover, arguments you did make and arguments you could have.  The best RFDs I have seen starts with what people are going for in the rebuttals and they work backwards in the debate and I have tried to implement this style into my RFDs.  Sometimes I want to run arguments by you and see what you think of them.  Not because they are the “right” argument but because I respect your opinion and wonder what you have to say on the matter.  Does that mean it affects the round?  No, of course not.  However, if we assume that all learning from debate happens in the round and not after I think we are selling ourselves out.  Lots of people, the greatest people, like to ask my opinion on what I would do in whatever situation and I think it is a great way to learn a little more by asking these hypothetical questions.             When it comes to speaker points I see a 30 A+; 29.5-29.9 A; 29-29.4 A-; 28.8-27.9 B+; B 28.4-28.7 B; 28.0-28.3 B-; 27.8-27.9 C+; C 27.4-27.7 C; 27.0-27.3 C-; 26.8-26.9 D+; D 26.4-26.7 C; 26.0-26.3 D-; Less than 26 = I will be looking for your coaching staff after the round.               I feel as though there are certain places my mind wanders in a debate that I am forced to fill in for debaters and so I wanted to share some of those concerns with you.  First, impact prioritization.  I often times will have one team saying nuclear war will happen and the other talking about poverty and nobody compares the two arguments with one another.  They just claim to win their impact and that impact is bad.  What happens when the aff and neg both win their impact?  Nobody really 100% wins their impacts ever so for however likely the impact is what should that do for my evaluation of the round?  Basically, the whole two worlds theory assumes a vision of the round where your impacts do not interact with the other sides impacts.  Would an overnight economic collapse with a poverty impact make a nuclear war more or less likely to occur?  Maybe you could tell me.  Second, how to evaluate the round.  I think this comes back to a larger question of impact calculus.  I feel that teams debating in front of me who are surprised by my decisions do not generally compare their impacts against the other team’s as often/thoroughly as they should.  They know they have won their impact, poverty kills and that’s bad, but they think I will just vote on that because I have a bleeding heart.  I am not going to fill in for you so do not ask me to.  I want rich explanations of concepts, especially later in the debate.  It is not that I do not understand the concepts but it is your job to explain them to me so I can evaluate them fairly.  When you say something without a warrant I just write n0w in the next cell, my abbreviation for no warrant, and move on.  I will not fill in the warrants for you or apply arguments to places you do not.  I might talk to you about doing so after the round but it will not play a part in the round.    Previous philosophy: Thoughts from Matthew Please speak up, I am still really hard of hearing.  I do sit in the back of the room almost exclusively to make you work harder.  If you want me to not sit where I want ask me to move, I have no problem moving.   Debate has been my home since 2k When it came to competing I did OK It is 2015 and I am still here Doing something that is so dear Before you decide that I am a worth a strike Question if that is really what you would like I have yet to go Mad as a Hatter don’t you fear But some of this may not be what you want to hear   Where do we come from and what have we seen Debate is about all of these things and more if you know what I mean Debate has something to offer us all Perform it how you want that is your call But when you say “new off”, condo, I squeal with sooooo much joy… Skipping that strat is something you may want to employ   Don’t just deposit your arguments, I am more than a purse We all have our own rhyme rhythm and verse As fast or as slow before time has been met Say what you can, leave no regret Teach me these things you believe I will listen to any argument that you conceive   Many of you will pretend to be the state If you don’t it won’t make me irate Yet, I read as much of your lit as you did of mine I say this now so you don’t again hear me whine Explain what you mean and mean what you say Wouldn’t want that pesky discourse getting in your way   Do you think this is some kind of game Probability magnitude timeframe Impacts are not dead, they represent life Be aware of where you point your knife   Now comes the end of my little story Go off and live – fight for your glory I wish you the best with an open heart As a judge, my time is yours, until our ways part

Marc Pollack - Davis

I come from an extensive background in Parli and British Parliamentary debate, and while I haven't participated in it, I've judged quite a bit of Lincoln Douglas and a few rounds of Policy as well. I've seen the major arguments, I know how they work, and I'll expect that if the debaters are running something technical (like a topicality or a Kritik) that they are well versed in them and fully capable of running them correctly. You don't have to explain how these arguments generally function, but you do have to examine why they're important and how they function within the debate. I care about links AND impacts. That means if you're telling me that there's an impact of nuclear war, then I need to know how the argument you're attacking links to it. If the link is tenuous, the argument will be weighed with that in mind. The same goes for nebulous impacts - even if your link story's marvelous, I need to know why it matters. At the end of the debate, I expect both sides to spend time not just refuting each other, but also explaining why their arguments have the most weight. This will sometimes require "even if" statements where you're granting that your opponent might be winning something and examining why that still would not matter. To be clear, my extensive debate history is a double-edged sword for debaters. I've seen a lot of supposedly tabula rasa judges show clear bias in debates, and I don't purport to be tabula rasa myself. I won't insert bias into the round, but if you're presenting an argument that's clearly wrong or logically insane, I may not buy it. Similarly, there are certain arguments I don't like. Please don't argue trichotomy, it will almost certainly not work unless it's clearly skewed against a given side. That being said, if you present the round as being fact, value or policy, I'll expect your arguments to be consistent with that view. I've seen a lot of speed in a lot of debates, and while I can most likely follow you, it is to your benefit to be clear and complete with your arguments. You are much more likely to win rounds with me as a judge if you're taking the time to flesh out clear contentions and speak in a manner that is easier to follow and understand. Similarly, throwing around a lot of jargon or buzzwords is something I'll understand, but it is to your benefit to completely explain your arguments rather than relying on jargon as the explanation. Simply throwing down a "non-unique" or a "no link" will not make those arguments stick - if someone has to explain their contention completely, then their opponents have to be just as complete with their rebuttal. Overall, I just want to see a good debate, with each side focused on producing a worthy argument and showing a basic level of courtesy to the other. Whether you're new to the activity or old hat, debate is an activity you can learn a lot from, and I hope that debaters are bringing that mentality into the rounds.

Mark Nelson - SRJC

Max Alderman - UNR

Michael Middleton - Utah

Michael Middleton Judging Philosophy A Quotation: “The present situation is highly discouraging” –Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari A Haiku: Debate is Awesome Judging Makes Me Cry Softly Do I weep in vain? Some things to consider (when debating in front of me): 10.  I DO NOT support speed as a tool of exclusion 9.    I DO NOT like deciding for myself what is the most important thing in the round or how to evaluate the competing arguments; You should do this for me.  You will like it less if you don’t. On the other hand, I will like it more. 8.    I DO like well-structured debates. I also like interesting structures. 7.    I DO like creative interpretations; I DO NOT like when you don’t explain/provide a rationale for why I your interpretation makes for a productive/rewarding/interesting/good debate. 6.    I DO NOT like nor understand potential abuse arguments; I DO like and reward teams that demonstrate compellingly that the quality of the debate has been compromised by an interpretive choice made by the other team. 5.    I DO NOT vote for any given argument or against any given type of argument.  Run whatever strategy you like; Be clear about your strategy. 4.    I am a participant in the round also.  While I make my best effort to vote on who is winning and losing the debate based on the arguments, I use speaker points to evaluate and highlight both excellent and poor behaviors, i.e. if you create a hostile environment, you get massively low speaker points. 3.    Jargon does not equal argument. Nor does it equal a good time. 2.    Cross-application does not equal new argument. It doesn’t really equal anything. 1.    Debate is not life.  Losing a ballot will not steal your humanity.  I tend to prefer rounds that demonstrate everyone in the room knows this. 0. Have Fun

Monica Silveria - SJDC

Mostafa Aniss - Hired

I would consider myself an experienced forensics judge, particularly with individual events. I competed in parliamentary debate at the novice level. At the open level, I competed in individual events like impromptu, after-dinner speaking, and persuasion. As it pertains to judging debate, I heavily lean on the qualitative side of judging arguments. This means that I prefer a MEDIUM-SLOW RATE of speaking so that I can fully grasp the the argument that is being made. If you speak too quickly, I will drop my pen, signaling that I am no longer listening. By and large, I am familiar with the debate jargon (e.g. topicality, solvency, etc.). I will only disclose if I am 100% certain of my decision by the time the round ends. This is generally not the case with me. I typically look at my flow and think about which debaters persuaded me best.    As it pertains to my education level, I have my Bachelor's degree in Communication from Sacramento State University. Currently, I am a Graduate Assistant for the Communication program at University of the Pacific. So, I getting THE BEST education around. :-) Good luck!

Natalie Meany - FCC

Nick Brummel - PDB

Nicholas Brummel – Judging Philosophy Experience – Parli for four years, IE’s for five. General – I consider myself a flow judge. I try to go into the round free from the influence of what I  know. What this means is, I will hold true what is said in a debate if it does not receive response. If I am  told the Earth revolves around the moon, and it receives no response, it flows across as true. That does  not mean the argument wins, only that it is available for use once it comes down to impact calculus.  Now if the facts are in dispute, and receive refutation from both sides, I then allow myself to be  influenced by what I know.  *Important to note – I have been absorbed in legal studies this past year and have not been as absorbed  in international news and politics. The only real news I have been able to follow is regarding the  primaries. Speed – I have a decently strong threshold for speed. I debated for several years, and have developed  the ear. However, I have been away for almost a year, and was never exactly a speedster to begin with. I  am a reactive judge, so you’ll probably be able to tell if I am not keeping up Specifics – I love theory debate, and relished in it as a competitor. I am open to pretty much any theory  debate, as long as it is argued well. T’s, Tri-cot, Spec, K. While I consider myself a flow judge, there are  certain arguments which would be hard to win without clearly winning the flow. I, for example, do NOT  believe that policy debate is the only valuable debate. I believe certain institutions (Like our Supreme  Court) utilize value assumptions more than policy assumptions. That being said, I will try to weight  tricotomy arguments without bias.  Speaker Points – As seriously as debaters hold themselves, I love nothing more than smiling and  chuckling during a debate. I am honest in my speaker point allocation. I feel it is very important to be  honest, lest weaker competitors get through to finals because stronger competitors do not get enough  speaker points. Also, DO NOT tell me how to assign speaker points. I’m a flow judge for my decision, I  am not a flow judge for SP’s. As someone who was more on the Speech side of S&D, I value strong  speaking. Any other questions, just ask! I’m narcissistic, and happy to talk about myself.

Nick Brummel - S@B

n/a

Nicole Sandoval - SJDC

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

Raman Deol - Hired

Raman Deol Juding philosoohy   I am a very tabula rasa judge in that i try my best to keep my mind open and let you create a world in the debate. However, that also means that you bear the burden of proof.  Whenever you make a claim, be sure to back it up with evidence and warrants.  I will vote on the flow, which means do not make me do work for you.  Control the narrative and be clear about your arguments and how they function in the round.  I will listen to any kind of argument, as long as it is well supported and clear.  I think of debate as a game whose rules are made as a product of playing, so anything and everything is up for debate.  Most of all, be clever, coherent and, of course, smart.

Randy Carver - Contra Costa

n/a

Richard Ewell - Concordia

Hello, all! My name is Richard Ewell and I currently serve as one of the Co-Directors of Debate for Concordia University Irvine. I competed for El Camino College for three years and Concordia University for two. When I first set out to write my philosophy my goal was to give you all some insight into how I evaluate arguments as a critic. The interesting thing I have found is that it is difficult for me to do that because I don’t have a great deal of experience judging anything other than one-sided high policy debates. So unfortunately you are stuck with a bunch of random things I think about debate. Hope this helps! Disadvantages: Yes, please? No judge has ever squawked at the idea of a case specific disad with an intuitive link story, and I don’t plan on being the first. If relations, hegemony, or politics is more your thing, that is perfectly fine too, as I spent a large chunk of my career reading those arguments as well. Counterplans: Counterplans like condition and consult are legitimate under the specific condition that there is some sort of solvency advocate presented. Otherwise I will be skeptical of the theoretical legitimacy of such arguments, and thus more likely to reject them should an objection be made by the opposing team. Perms are never advocacies, and are only tests of competition. But you knew that already… Theory: I will listen to your SPEC shells, and I won’t penalize you for running it, but the likelihood that I endorse such an argument with my ballot is slim. I believe such debates are best resolved through debates about what constitutes normal means. When evaluating theoretical objections I am inclined to reject the argument and not the team (except as it pertains to conditionality, which we will get to in a second), but will listen to arguments which suggest a harsher punishment is warranted. As for conditionality…I don’t really think it’s that bad. Considering I was unconditional for 90% of my career I might be inclined to favor the “condo bad” over the “condo good” arguments, and multiple conditional strategies are likely to annoy me a great deal, but logically consistent strategies which include disads and/or case turns with a conditional K or counterplan don’t seem that unreasonable to me… K’s on the Negative: I read the K a good deal in my final years in debate, and I enjoy these types of debate very much. However, NEVER assume that I have read the foundational literature for your K because I make it a policy to not vote for arguments I don’t understand… K’s on the Affirmative: I read K’s on the affirmative a great deal. But even when I was doing it I wasn’t sure how I felt about it. Was it fun for me? Yeah. For my opponents? Probably not so much. That bothers me a bit. Does that mean that you ought not read these arguments in front me? No, that is absolutely not what I mean. In fact, topical critical affs are some of my favorite arguments. If it is not topical aff (perhaps, a rejection of the res) that is fine as well so long as there are specific reasons why the res ought be rejected. Put simply: the less your argument has to deal with the topic, the more likely I am to be persuaded by framework and topicality. Miscellaneous Stuff: -Be nice! Providing a spirited defense of your arguments and being kind are not mutually exclusive. -Not a huge fan of “no perms in a methods debate” type arguments. Tests of competition are generally good for debate, in my opinion. I understand the strategic utility of the position, so I will not fault you for running it. I would just prefer that you not (get it? prefer that you not? never mind). -I am also not a huge fan of “you must disclose” type arguments. I think topicality is the argument you should read against critical affs, but do what you will. -I don’t know what to do with text comp. I think I know what it is, but for all of our sakes making a specific theoretical objection (delay bad, consult bad, etc.) will get you further with me than text comp will. -And last, have fun! (EDIT FROM AMANDA: Richard is a TOTAL REBUTTAL HACK. Also any fantasy football references or shoutouts to the Philadelphia Eagles will get you speaks)

Rob Killian - UNR

Robear Maxwell - Oregon

Robert Hawkins - DVC

n/a

Ronald Thompson - MJC

Ryan Guy - MJC

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

Scott Hughes - FCC

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

Scott Laczko - Chico

Copied over from tabroom. My basic beliefs about debate have not changed. for LD ... rules are debatable the more like policy debate you make the round for me the happier i'll be Updated 10/29/13  I'm still figuring out my paradigm and it is an every changing process as this is my first year out but, below ar my basic beliefs about debate. With that being said i'm also trying to determine what i look for when giving speaker points. To get a better understanding of what my values are or what i look for I should start by saying that I have been heavily influenced by Sue and Jason Peterson and Theresa Perry. If my philo is confusing i suggest you look there for additional information. I debated for 3 years at CSU Chico the reason you read the philo-   Framework and non topical aff's - i believe that you should affirm the resolution. I love a good framework debate specifically when it is well carded. the community  bashes on the clash of civs debate but as a competitor they were probably my favorite to have. I think that the framework should have it's own built in topicality but additionally that a different topicality is worth the time investment. topical version of the aff is very compelling to me.  stolen from Sue's philo: if you are going to "use the topic as a starting point" on the affirmative instead of actually defending implementation of your plan, I'm probably not going to be your favorite judge.  If that is unclear i'll state it another way. If you are not even loosly related to the topic you should not pref me. I believe that the debate should at least in the same hemisphere as the resolution. I believe it at the most basic level the resolution is the commonality that binds the activity together. K's-  holy batman if your link is solely based off a link of omission you are running an uphill battle before me. I think links of omission debates are the largest waste of time it is impossible to talk about all of these problems in the world in a 9 minute speech. Linking to the status quo is also problematic for me links should come off what the aff does not to what the squo is. alternative solvency needs to be explained so that it makes sense, I am not familiar with the liturture base. Why is rejecting the plan necessary what does it actually do? T's - go for it i'm down. i default to competing interpretation and don't like to vote on potential abuse C/p and DA: always a dependable 2nr decision. I really enjoy listening to nuanced DA's. c/p with a solid internal net benefit are also underutilized. case: 2a's hate talking about their case in the 2ac. a good 1nc strategy will have a large case debate ready to ruin some days.  theory: should always be where it applies. however i'm pretty persuaded by reject the argument and not the team

Sean Hansen - Biola

Philosophy as follows:    TLDR:  I will pursue objectivity as much as I can while admitting my own unique subjectivity. I will vote for whatever you tell me to vote for on the flow, and accept any framework or paradigm therein. <ul> <li> I have no problem with procedurals, Ks, performance, or whatever else you want to run, as long as you give me a solid way to interact that paradigm with the other arguments in the round. </li> <li> That also goes for good policy debate; I will always prefer well-warranted positions and I will be looking for good clash and impact calculus in both constructives and rebuttals. </li> <li> I dislike being forced to do my own impact calculus, so please do so at least in the rebuttals to make my decision easier.   </li> <li> My easy cheat philosophy is that turning case / advocacy and controlling root cause is probably the easiest way to my ballot. </li> <li> I despise fact debate and have similarly volatile feelings towards value, so please run either policy or critical argumentation. </li> </ul>   Otherwise, run what you want and give justification for it and I’ll have fun too! â&tilde;º For other preferences (admitting my own subjectivity), please see below:   Procedurals and Theory: I'm a bit of a theory nerd, so few things get me more excited than good procedural theory debate, but nothing can make me more bored than bad procedural debate. <ul> <li> I default to the belief that T should be examined under competing interpretations (as evaluated by the offense under the standards debate). </li> <li> Even if you run articulated abuse, I always look to the standards debate to prefer one team over another, and think that your standards should include substantial impact framing for offense. </li> <li> I would always prefer if NEG runs competing interp or even potential abuse and then ran case turns rather than articulated abuse, which then requires me to sit through an additional 7 min of arguments that don't link (see delivery notes on me being bored). </li> <li> That being said, if you just run apriori fairness and education as voters, I will default to articulated abuse and look for the requisite arguments. </li> <li> I also think good theory usually has a clear brightline for the interpretation that the other team can meet / violate. </li> <li> I admire creativity in running new responses to procedurals, but am familiar with traditional responses as well. </li> <li> I don't vote on RVIs for T, because I don't think being topical is inherently a reason to vote for the AFF. I may consider RVIs on other procedurals if they are well-warranted and impacted, but time skew arguments in general usually indicate that either you or your partner misappropriated time during your speech to allow for the skew.  </li> <li> Not a fan of spec arguments, but you could always change my mind by reading one that doesn’t sound unnecessary. Bear Saulet says it best: “Your Spec argument is presumably to protect your normal means-based link arguments, so just read those arguments on case.” </li> </ul>   Case debate: <ul> <li> LOC’s that allocate time and effort to the line-by-line on case make a happy Sean (although if you have awesome off-case that require more time, then you make the strategical choice – it won’t hurt ballot or speaks if you win on the flow). </li> <li> Especially great if it clashes over controlling uniqueness and link solvency. </li> <li> I think impact defense is a lost art and can grant you unique strategic ground in the round. </li> </ul>   CP: <ul> <li> I think PICs are a good strategy decision, while delays and 50 states tend to be lazy strategies unless specifically justified. </li> <li> I think topical CPs are not only theoretically legitimate, but also probably the only way to allow NEG reciprocal access to the round (though I’ve picked up AFFs who have argued otherwise). </li> <li> I am also open to conditional CPs, and even multiple conditional positions, but allow AFF theory responses equal weight. </li> <li> My openness to CPs generates a corresponding openness to good perm debates, although I tend towards the perspective that legitimate perms use all of AFF text and some or all of CP text (unless severance is somehow justified, which can certainly be done, but is a hard theory battle to win). </li> <li> Perms should have a net benefit, and should usually be run with solvency deficits / turns to the alt. </li> </ul>   K: I am a huge fan of good critical debate, and enjoy hearing new arguments. <ul> <li> Your framework should give clear indications of weighing arguments in round, as this is the first place I look to evaluate my decision. </li> <li> Since I think critical argumentation can be some of the most important argumentation to happen in our league, I also think your alt and alt solvency need to be solid. If you tell me to vote for you to uphold a certain ideology and win that I should do so, be assured that I will do whatever your alt asks, so make it worthwhile. </li> <li> Solvency needs to clearly articulate what it solves for and how. Blipping “Solvency 1: the personal becomes the political. Solvency 2: radical change is the only solution” are lazy arguments and can be answered with an equal lack of verve. </li> <li> I am most familiar with the literature base for rhetoric and media studies, post-structuralism, post-modernism, persuasion, and liberal education studies, but I love to learn new perspectives and ideas, so by all means run a project in front of me. </li> <li> In the last year, I think my ballots in K rounds (either given from AFF or NEF) tended to be split evenly for and against, so I’m just as open to any type of answers to K. </li> <li> You should probably explain how perms of methodological advocacies with policy plan texts function (and as always, provide a net benefit) </li> <li> I like clear Role of the Ballots that are read twice so I can be sure what my interaction is with the critique. </li> <li> As per procedurals, I do enjoy creative responses to Ks that provide depth of thought and clash. </li> </ul>   Performance debate: Quite honestly, I have similar judging paradigms and habits when judging performance / project / narrative positions as I do judging critical positions, so you can mostly see above for my preferences. I do find that the framework and theoretical debate becomes significantly more important in these rounds. I am open to hearing theory blocks or alternative advocacies from the opposing team in response.   Impact Calculus: <ul> <li> Good impact comparison MUST happen in order for me to resolve debate, including prioritization (with standards) of magnitude over probability, timeframe over reversibility, etc. </li> <li> Must happen at least in the rebuttals, is probably also a good idea in the constructives. </li> <li> I tend to prefer impacts of probability and timeframe over magnitude and reversibility, and have found myself voting more and more for the most proximal impacts (which are usually systemic in my mind) if no clash happens to tell me which I should prefer. </li> <li> If no calculus happens, I will prefer the “worst” impact, but at that point I think your rebuttals aren't doing a very good job because I have to assert more of my own assumptions into the round.  </li> </ul>   Delivery / Speaker Points: <ul> <li> I don't mind speed, as long you are articulate enough for me to understand you. </li> <li> I will call clear if you are inarticulate, but that has happened exactly once, because I had a sinus infection and couldn’t hear out of one ear. </li> <li> Speaker points tend to be focused on your argumentation, with considerations of your delivery proper a secondary concern. </li> <li> I generally reward between 23-30 <ul> <li> A 23 usually looks like: weak argumentation, poor strategy, inconsistent articulation / trying to speed when you can’t, and bad time allocation. </li> <li> A 30 usually looks like: exceptional refutation that combines great defense and offense, top-notch time efficiency, clarity, and outstanding strategy / round awareness. </li> </ul> </li> <li> I rarely protect against new arguments unless it’s an outround; I will be flowing, it’s your job to call arguments to my attention (plus I think that points of order can be of significant strategical value as well). </li> <li> I think partner communication is not only desirable but vital in this sport, so by all means communicate in-round with your partner. I will only flow what comes from the designated speaker’s mouth. </li> <li> I am trying to work on my nonverbal expressions in round so that you can keep track of how much I like / dislike your arguments before I release my RFD. <ul> <li> If I think you are going for the wrong argument I will be frowning at you a lot, with lots of furrowed eyebrows and extended eye contact (unusual since I’m usually looking at my flow). </li> <li> If I drop my pen, it’s usually because I think you’re repeating an argument and hope that you’ll move on, otherwise I’ll get bored. </li> <li> If I’m really Really REALLY bored, you will see lots of dropping of my pen and looking around the room. </li> <li> If I look at the team who isn’t speaking during the rebuttals, I probably think the speaker is making a new argument and I’m waiting to see if someone will call it. </li> <li> A quick head nod means I like your argument; a continuous head nod means I understand and you should move on. </li> </ul> </li> <li> I don’t care whether you sit or stand; I will (usually) be looking at my flow. </li> </ul>   Things that I don’t enjoy / make my decision harder / lose you speaker points: <ol> <li> Being rude / racist / patriarchal / homophobic / etc. in your rhetoric. </li> <li> Neglecting impact calculus in the rebuttals (AUGH). </li> <li> Politics DAs that assume your bill is “top of the docket” without any reason it should be. I’m going to quote K. Calderwood’s philosophy on this: “If you read a politics disadvantage that is not “the issue of our time” then you should specify the bill’s status and give some background about the bill at the beginning of the disadvantage.  On several occasions this year, I have heard politics disadvantages that were apparently on the “top of the docket” that I have never heard before.  I consider myself well read on the news, and I doubt the veracity of all, or nearly all, of the claims I have heard about the “top of the docket”. </li> </ol>   Again, a caveat to all the preceding observations and a return to the overview: I will vote for you if you win on the flow with well-warranted offense and good impact / framework calculus.

Sean Hayes - Hired

What I look for most in a debate round is warrants.  I want to know why what you’re telling me is true, not just a bunch of taglines left for me to sort out.  I think it’s important to clash with your opponent’s arguments and weigh your arguments against their arguments throughout the debate.  Please have a plausible argument that leads to your impacts.  I am much more likely to vote for a high-probability impact than one that will almost certainly not happen even if it’s some extinction scenario.  I strongly prefer policy-style debates, but that being said I will listen to any style.  I’m not all that receptive to the trichotomy argument because I think the government has the right to define (within limits).  I require proven abuse on all procedural arguments for them to be winning arguments.  As for the K, I don’t really enjoy listing to kritiks.  I don’t have a background in philosophy so most of it goes over my head.  You can run it and I will listen but you should know that you will have to slow down and explain your position to me more than you would to most other judges on the circuit.  I would much rather see a good econ debate than a K debate.  Speed:  I’m OK with speed in most circumstances but if you’re in the top 5-10% of speakers you will want to slow down a little.  I’m not a full-time debate critic but I have been judging debate for the last 4 years and competed off-and-on for 3 years in open. In summary: Give me warrants and tell me exactly how you get to your impact scenario.  Make sure you are weighing your arguments against your opponent’s during the debate and make sure to clash with their arguments as well.  If there is anything else please feel free to ask me before the round starts. <a name="_GoBack"></a>

Shannon Prier - Concordia

Edits in this version: I removed a lot. Clarified my position on conditionality. Adjusted the K and speaker point sections. Background: I have been involved with debate for 4 years. I debated at ECC for 2 years and CUI for slightly over 1. I stopped competing after Jewell my senior year and moved to a minor coaching role on CUI’s team (really just helping new folks write files and judge a tournament here or there). I have been judging all of the 2015-2016 season.   General: Most important: I have issues hearing. Please, please, please read all plan texts, counterplan texts, advocacy texts, alternative text, and interp/role of the ballot arguments twice and clear.  Also, I flow on paper if that means anything to you. QUICK STUFF: I enjoy debates about the topic. My dislike conditionality has more to do with my distaste for backfilling warrants. I have no moral issues with conditionality, but I also have no issue voting for Condo bad. For the K: I’m not in the lit base for most things post modern so keep that in mind. Most of my issues following those arguments have to do with the use of phrases I’m not familiar with. If you have me in the back of the room, consider simplifying the terminology if you are running something based on a post-modern philosopher and I should be fine. I am fine with you reading a criticism. However, I am not the best critic for your arguments. I think about public policy frequently. This is less true for critical arguments. Chances are I’m not in your lit base so it’s your job to make sure your argument is understandable/accessible. Also, if you go one off and 5 minutes of case and the one off is a disad, you’ll probably have my heart forever. The K: As a very brief background for me with the K: I frequently ran Cap bad and Fem Ks, more specifically Fem IR. Feel free to run a critical affirmative, but I’ll definitely be open to the argument that you should defend the topic. Also, I flow criticisms on one sheet with the alt on a separate sheet if that matters. REJECTING THE RESOLUTION AND RECURRING CRITICISMS (sometimes referred to as projects): I approach debate as a game that you are trying to win. If you tell me that debate is a platform for you to spread your message, I will do my best to assume genuine intent, but realize I will usually assume you are just trying to win a ballot.  I understand that advocacies get incredibly personal, especially when you spend a year researching it. On the aff: I have no issue with you not debating the topic. I would much rather watch you debate what you are passionate about rather than attempt to talk about the economy if that’s not your thing. Just make sure the argument is still clear and easy to evaluate (i.e., have at minimum a role of the ballot argument). For criticisms that utilize personal experience, please avoid using arguments about mental health issues or sexual violence, as I would prefer not to have to critically evaluate those. If you would like to get more information on why I would prefer not to evaluate personal struggles of mental health, contact me privately (Facebook before the tournament, or just come and talk to me if you see me around). I am completely willing to discuss my issues with evaluating these arguments if you reach out to me. ALTERNATIVES: Make sure you have a written text and repeat it twice and clear. If you have a critical affirmative that doesn’t have an advocacy text (or if your narrative/entire PMC is your advocacy) then please have a role of the ballot argument somewhere. Counterplans: I prefer that you provide a copy for the other team.  Make sure you have a written text. I like advantage counterplans, PICs, and actor counterplans. Consult less so, but I’m open to it. For the affirmative: I’m open to PICs bad arguments (particularly at topic area tournaments) claiming the neg shouldn’t get a PIC when there is only one possible affirmative. Permutations: Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies. I will not reject a permutation outright unless you give me a reason of why it shouldn’t be evaluated. Theory: All theory positions should have an interpretation, a violation, standards, and voting issues. Please read your interpretations more than once. I am willing to vote on theory arguments, however I do not believe that new theory in the PMR is legitimate, even if it is in response to something that happened in the block. (This includes theory such as “You must take a question”). Topicality: I have yet to see a round with a legitimate reason why topicality is a reverse voting issue. My threshold for T is maybe lower than some. If you win your interpretation, violation, and your standards outweigh I will vote for you. Speaker Points: Be smart and concise and your speaker points will range between 26-30. Others have told me that I’m a bit of a point fairy (I’ll typically start from 29 and move down to about 27 with half points in between). I think speaker points are fairly arbitrary so I have never found a good justification for changing that range.  TL;DR: Be nice and smart. I like policy debate. Ask me any questions if necessary. (updated: March 6, 2016).

Shannon LaBove - Rice

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

Sherris Minor - Hired

<h2>Sherris Minor</h2>   Short version: please run whatever you want I believe the activity is about you which means your argument selection should not be limited to my preferences. That being said there are some arguments I am more comfortable with than others. For instance I am not super deep on the econ debate. This just means you should be doing a good job of explaining the argument and comparing the warrants for me as that debate in general comes down to comparison. I like clash. I want you to explain how arguments interact with each other and why that means you win. I don’t think you will ever win every argument in the round so collapsing is great strategy in front of me. Impact calculus and prioritization are important to how I vote on your arguments. I think it is your job to be clear and explain the arguments you are making. Don’t just read tag lines and expect me to understand where you are trying to go with the argument. I believe debate is a game, but I do think that certain debates can impact the way we view the community and ourselves. Be nice to each other a debate isn’t worth losing friendships over or creating bad blood. I am a speaker-points fairy. My speaker point range is between 26.5-30. In most competitive debate rounds I give around a 28 and up. I default to a policy maker/ net benefits paradigm unless you tell me otherwise.  I really enjoy the framework debate I think that it is important as parli continues to trend towards theory and critical arguments. I will in some instances vote on framework if you tell me that’s where I should vote and Its clear that you are winning the framework debate. I like the critical / performance debate. I think it makes for some interesting clash and the ability to interrogate the implications/ methodology of the resolution beyond executing a plan. I am ok with aff/ neg critical arguments and I do not think you have to be topical as long as you can justify why you shouldn’t have to uphold the res. I think interactions between arguments are the most important in the critical debate you should be able to explain how your criticism interacts with the other teams case and why that matters. I think you can win a criticism without winning the alt if you go for how it impact turns the aff. I am not familiar with every theorist or theory I have a general understanding of most of the “popular” critical arguments in parli but please be clear about the nuances of your theory and why that’s important. Disclosure is not an argument I am particularly fond of because I have no way of knowing what happened during prep time. It essentially asks me to intervene on something that is not falsifiable. I will listen to the argument but I don’t find it particularly compelling. DA’s I like clear links and impact scenarios please explain how you get to your impacts don’t just give me tags that don’t really draw the line from point a to point b. Theory I like theory, I don’t think teams go for it enough especially when certain theory arguments are often overlooked on the flow. Although, I would caution you to develop your theory arguments I find at times they are underdeveloped or under explained. Topicality is an argument I vote on. I do not vote on potential abuse and I find that teams don’t go for it enough in front of me. CP’s I don’t care if your counter plan is topical. I do care if it is competitive. I think you should identify the status of your cp I have a bias towards conditionality being good, but I will vote on theory arguments as to why condo is bad. As an addendum I will be flowing on paper instead of my laptop. This means: you will have my undivided attention and I will be able to more clearly explain how things went down in the round. This also means I will not be as fast when it comes to writing down the arguments. Please slow down for your tag lines and articulate clearly. Please call points of order, I do not protect. Overall, go into the round do what you have been training to do all year and have fun.

Sierra Gonzalez - Hired

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..

Supreet Mann - Hired

Supreet (Sam) Mann Judge Philosophy               While my experience with speech and debate is limited (I did not participate in forensics in either high school or as an undergraduate), I have had experience with public speaking students and there are certain qualities that I value in a speaker. I am currently pursuing my masters in communication at the University of the Pacific, and am applying to doctoral programs in communication for next Fall. At Pacific I also act as a graduate assistant, leading two sections of an undergraduate public speaking course and one section of interpersonal communication. As this is my third semester facilitating discussion sections for public speaking, I have found that there are certain characteristics I find to be important in a speaker. I value clear reasoning, strong motivational appears, and fluid transitional statements. A fast-paced speaker does not bother me, but I do find that I struggle to keep up with certain arguments because of my lack of forensics background. All in all, I value speakers who have a clear thesis and follow a clear organizational pattern that is maintained with strong transitions.

Taure Shimp - MJC

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

Tiffany Dykstra - Utah

Experience… I did HS policy for 4 years and competed in parli and LD for four years in college- this is my fourth year coaching/judging.   I consider myself tabula rasa, I like well warranted and clearly explained arguments. Beyond that, I’ll listen to almost anything. If no one defends an alternative framework, I’ll revert to policy making.   Point of orders..… Although I don’t have a problem with speed, I struggle keeping up with confusing, messy or inarticulate speeches. Because this can be a problem in rebuttals, I appreciate points of order. I will do my best to protect but it’s just a much better idea to call out new arguments as you hear them. I will never dock speaker points unless you are excessively calling illegitimate POI’s for the sake of disrupting your opponent.   Speaker points…. I usually won’t give lower than a 25 unless you are extremely offensive or dishonest. 26-28 is my average. I will reward excellent articulation, efficiency and strategic decision-making.   Critical arguments…. I am open to critical debate but I usually don’t like voting on kritiks without an alternative. I also don’t like rejection alternatives. That’s not to say that I won’t vote for a reject alt, just that I appreciate more creativity and imagination. And I also always want an alt text. Critical affirmatives are fine with me, just be sure to clearly explain and justify your framework. If you read a kritik it has to be unconditional, I don’t like multiple advocacies or reverting advocacies. I am completely open to performance, but I don’t have a lot of experience evaluating these arguments in a debate context. As long as you are sufficiently knowledgeable and can clearly explain your position we shouldn’t have a problem.   Topicality…..I actually really enjoy a good topicality debate but I would prefer you to have some in round abuse. For me, evaluating potential abuse is problematic. Also, I will never vote on an RVI.   Impacts… It’s super important that you’re weighing things for me. Please, do not make ridiculous or warrantless dehumanization claims. I feel like this desensitizes people to real dehumanization and makes it less likely that people will recognize and respond to actual instances of dehumanization.

Tim Milosch - Biola

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

Tom Schally - Concordia

Tom Schally, by James Stevenson:   “First, the highlights. Tom’s generally interested in all types of arguments – policy, K, whatever. He’s got a fairly technical mind and a clean flow, but tends to vote for arguments which demonstrate superior nuance and contextual specificity. Explanation is a big deal to Tom, and he won’t necessarily consider an argument dropped if it’s blippy and undeveloped. He understands debate as both a game that is fun (sometimes even when it stretches what is ‘true’) and as an educational endeavor that should probably teach us something valuable.  He also considers the communicative aspect to be a central component of debate, so rhetorical skill, drawing connections in CX and late rebuttals, and humor/self-awareness will take you far. Clash and argumentative comparison, as with most judges, are key.   I’m not sure the stuff I below will actually be helpful, but here’s the bottom line. Tom’s a smart person with a lot of debate experience and know-how who takes judging very seriously. He doesn’t decide debates lightly, and will take his time to give a clear, sound explanation and good feedback. --- As a background, Tom just started a job at a political communications firm or something, and studied public policy in grad school. He has like six years of experience coaching college debate, mostly in NPTE/NPDA parliamentary, but has been at least partially involved in policy for the last few. He did a year of college policy at Macalester before transferring to Western Kentucky University where he was ridiculously successful in parli and NFA-LD. I hesitate to mention this because NPDA/NPTE folks can be super elitist about their style of debate, but debate is debate, and Tom’s good at it. He can also speak much faster than I ever could, so as long as you retain clarity, speed is probably not an issue.   In his personal life, Tom is probably a pragmatist more than anything else, but in a very broad sense. What he sees as the ‘pragmatic’ move is largely context-dependent, particularly in debate – I think he likes to see teams draw direct linkages between where we are, what we should do, and why we should do it, especially in a reflexive and self-aware manner. This is, once again, largely a function of good explanation and strategic/argumentative nuance, rather than ideological location – he picks between “trying or dying” or “reflecting/resisting” based on who better outlines the relevance of their method, the validity of their knowledge claims, and the implications of their arguments. He’s pretty knowledgeable about public policy subjects, and also is pretty well-read on K stuff like Marxism, postcolonialism, and critical IR, but is fairly detached from what the debate argument flavor of the month is, so don’t assume he’s familiar your specific jargon or ideology.   In “policy” debates, Tom is willing and able to defer to traditional debate risk analysis tools like “try or die” or “uniqueness outweighs the link,” but I think he gives more credibility to good defense (even if it’s uncarded) than other judges do. Card quality matters to him, and he’ll definitely read evidence after a round and consider it significant if its quality is put into question during the debate. In particular, evidentiary specificity is probably a big deal on aff and CP solvency debates. Additionally, he prefers counterplans that compete with the substance of the plan over those premised off “normal means” or process.    Tom will vote on T. As with other kinds of debates, I think he values comparison of offense over an enumeration of many possible lines of offense. Keep in mind, Tom does some topic research but isn’t stalking the caselist 24/7, so throwaway references to particular schools or affs might not make sense to him. As for theory, he’ll probably reject the argument instead of the team without some substantial work. Conditionality could be a voting issue, but not necessarily. As with T, comparison and argumentative interaction are paramount.   Tom likes the K and other nontraditional argument styles, and this has been more and more of what he’s coached over the last few years. That said, he still expects clarity and rigor on the basics – what the ballot does, how decisions should be made, what kinds of stuff should be prioritized, and so on. If you are defending alternate styles of argument competition or analysis, this kind of explanation would be especially important. Buzzwords and mystification will not impress him. I think that on framework/clash of civs debates, smart and well-placed defense (on either side) would go a long way.   Clever references to Twin Peaks would probably make him laugh.

Tom B - FCC

Tony Bernacchi - DVC

Please run whatever you want! I judge based on what happened in the round, but I am not going to waste a bunch of my time defining what should be run in front of me.  So bring it! I was a policy debater for 4 years so I am going to be able to keep up with your 'speed'........HOWEVER, I dont really like that parli-debaters spread as if they are in policy debate.  If spreading is a core strategy of yours you should probably add evidence to your speech and join CEDA. Oh.......impact analysis/voting calculous is appreciated. Finally, be respectful of one anotherin the round. If you are overly rude, consistently interupting your partner, or try to influence my decision with obnoxious facial expressions and non-verbals......DON'T! a) it wont work, and b) it will reflect in your speaker points.(negatively) debate well

Zach Schneider - SIU

Hi! I’m Zach. I debated for 5 years of NPDA/NPTE parli (4 at Cedarville University and 1 at SIU) and now I’m an assistant coach at SIU. I aim to remove my argumentative preferences from the debate as much as possible and allow you to argue whatever strategy you think you’re best at. I’m involved in debate because I love the activity and I want to judge you regardless of what style you prefer. With that said, I provide the following as guidance as to my opinions and predispositions. Quick Hits - I’m fairly predisposed to believe that the affirmative should defend the resolution (not necessarily fiat) via a topical plan or advocacy. Framework is not an autowin in front of me but I am almost always willing to vote on it. - As a competitor, I debated a variety of strategies; about 2/3 policy and 1/3 critical. On the critical side of things, I’ve spent a lot of time in debates reading Nietzsche, DNG, Wilderson, and disability based positions. - I am thoroughly wedded to my flow as a judge; I do not know any other way to evaluate the round that does not just involve me making arbitrary assertions about which arguments deserve more value. - I am a computer science major working at a technology startup and a general Internet geek. I don’t think it’s my job to be an arbiter of truth (in other words, tech > truth) but particularly with regards to science and technology-related topics I’ll get kind of irritated if you’re just asserting blatantly inaccurate things. - Speed is good. Against teams of equal or better skill, feel free to go as fast as you want in front of me. However, if you are debating novices or people with accessibility issues, I expect you to slow down, especially if asked. Please also try to make sure your speed is intelligible – if I say “clear” it almost certainly means “be clearer” not “go slower.” - If you want to go super in-depth, I maintain my historical judging record with some neat stats as a Google doc: <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OAE7LV2off4DLvcNdRLNAmMDAUPYOQtDJ9R6UMpWnZI/">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OAE7LV2off4DLvcNdRLNAmMDAUPYOQtDJ9R6UMpWnZI/</a> Offense/defense - Offense wins championships, but smart defense is underutilized. I am quite willing to assess terminal defense/no risk of something. I generally evaluate defense as either probability (arguments that the impact is unlikely - e,g, MAD checks) or possibility (it is physically/legally impossible for the impact to happen - e.g. Brazil cannot start a nuclear war because they do not have nuclear weapons). If you concede your impact is impossible, I will assess 0 risk of it. If you concede your impact is improbable, I will compare the strength of the two claims and decide how much risk to assess (or, ideally, you do this comparison for me in a rebuttal). Disads - Intrinsic, specific, well-sourced, big-stick disads are a thing of beauty and definitely in my wheelhouse. - Comparative link/impact analysis in the rebuttals is likely to be the deciding factor in the debate. You should identify which member of the Holy Trinity you are winning (timeframe, probability, magnitude) and then use the rebuttals to tell me why that outweighs the other two. - “Extend the defense” is not an argument, please take the five seconds to say “extend MAD checks nuclear war” or whatever. I am often enamored of affirmatives that take the time to exploit lazy kicking of disads. - Politics is fine. I didn't go for it much but I understand the strategic utility of these positions. Compelling politics disads require a robust description of the status quo (both the bill/process that the disad is centered around, and the motivations that hold the status quo together) as well as a coherent link to the affirmative; I find that the best politics disads are top-heavy, while the ones that give politics a bad reputation have few/blippy uniqueness/link arguments stuck on top of a big impact. Case debate - It’s good and you should do it. Counterplans can be a useful component of a negative strategy, particularly if they solve large portions of the aff, but anyone who thinks you need one to win is wrong. - It’s fine if you read little mini-disads and stuff as case turns (I did it like it was my job) but if you have more than 1-2 “unrelated” case turns please tell everyone to grab a new sheet of paper for the case debate. I get really frustrated by rounds that come down to a poorly handled case turn because the LOC read like 15 turns on “inherency” and probably nobody flowed them all correctly. Counterplans - PICs are good unless there’s a whole bill or (maybe) one topical affirmative. Agent CPs are good. Consult is fine if accompanied by a compelling argument that consult is not normal means. - Delay, veto cheato, object/utopian fiat, and whatever other obviously cheater CPs people come up with are bad. Doesn’t mean I won’t vote for them if the aff doesn’t read theory/answer it correctly but I’ll be at least a little annoyed. I also think states is a lot less legitimate than people tend to give it credit for; it’s always smacked of multi actor/quasi-utopian fiat to me. - Text comp is a made up standard that has never made much sense to me. You should read PICs bad or more specific theory if the counterplan is abusive. T - I default to evaluating the debate through competing interpretations. Feel free to argue another framework, but I think I’ve yet to hear a credible justification (or even definition) for reasonability. - The affirmative should lose every debate if they fail to read either a “we meet” or a competitive counterinterpretation to T. I do not require in-round abuse to vote on T. - T is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue; the aff does not get to win because they were topical. (K of T is different - I am quite inclined to believe that T is good/does not lead to genocide, but I will not dismiss the argument with prejudice as I will generic RVIs.) Other Theory - I will not vote for spec arguments of any variety under any circumstance unless you can demonstrate actual ground loss because of egregious vagueness on the part of the affirmative. I won’t punish you for reading it in the 1NC (other than perhaps with an annoyed glare) but you will lose the debate and probably get terrible speaks if you go for it in the block and the affirmative wasn’t blatantly abusive. The K - I love the K debate. I went for the K in about a third of my negative rounds and occasionally on the aff as well. A knowledgeable, deep MO going for a specific K with strong, intrinsic links to the affirmative is one of my favorite speeches to watch. - I don’t automatically let the aff weigh their aff. You have to do that work on the framework; if you concede that ____ology comes first and you don’t defend your ____ology you’re going to have a bad time. I think that big-stick affs should usually spend their time on framework defending the ____ologies of consequentialism, threat response, and empiricism. - I’m often suspicious of alternative solvency, particularly “alt solves the aff” claims – but many affirmatives lose debates simply because they don’t answer arguments. Tags like ____ comes first/is a prior question, no value to life, root cause of violence, or alt solves the aff should be setting off alarm bells if you’re giving the MG. - The permutation is always a test of competition and never an advocacy. The recently popular argument that “you don’t get a perm in a methods debate” doesn’t make much sense to me; the permutation is then a question of whether it is possible or desirable to employ both methods in the same world. Generally speaking, the more specific your net benefits to the perm, the more they will compel me. - Absent some glaring concessions by the affirmative, I don’t think it’s possible to win the K debate if you read the K along with other contradictory positions (e.g. cap with an econ disad). “Perm: equal risk of a link to the K, aff is still good” is devastating in that instance. Identity based/performance/not-about-the-topic positions - I do not think that identity-based positions are well-suited to parli; these debates are extremely difficult to fairly adjudicate (particularly without evidence to contextualize critical claims), and I think they deny the breadth of topic education (and/or education about oppression and violence in a variety of contexts) which makes parli uniquely valuable. If you find it liberatory to discuss your experiences with systemic oppression in debate, I don’t think it’s my place to tell you what arguments to read; but you should also know that, like all judges, I am more compelled by positions that reflect my own personal views (e.g. framework). In more concrete terms, I’m probably a low B or high C pref for you if this is your kind of debate. - As I mentioned at the top, I am fairly predisposed to believe the affirmative should defend the topic. Even if you read the same position in every round, adapting it to the specific context of the topic will help you a lot in front of me. If you don't contextualize your position to the topic (or even if you do), I prefer if you focus your argument around the defense of a specific method in a specific context and away from questions of individual identity. For an excellent example of this, look at the argument NAU RS was reading at the 2013 NPTE: defense of a method (“abolition of whiteness” with comprehensive explanation of what it looks like to be an abolitionist) in a specific context (debate). - When reading or answering framework, comparative impact analysis of the standards and counterstandards is important to me; for that reason, I think the best framework shells function as disads to the method of the 1AC and/or net benefits to policymaking. As a debater, I essentially thought of framework as a counterplan/countermethod of policymaking, contrasted with the method/advocacy of the 1AC; I thus often find arguments that "there's a topical version of the aff with a net benefit" (topic education, policymaking good, etc.) to be compelling. - Outside of framework, I find it best for negative teams to engage critical affirmatives on the level of method; I think reading a countermethod, a PIC out of some portion of the affirmative's advocacy, or just case turns can all be effective strategies.

Zack Lampitok - Sac State

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td>My Name is Zack Lampitok, I did both parli(4 YEARS) and policy(1 YEAR) in college. My function as a judge in a debate round is to render a decision based on what I am told to do by the participants in the round. I flow and go in the direction I am told. I have no qualms with any argument or style of debating. If you argue it, win it and tell me how it wins you the round, Ill vote for you. I do tend to enjoy creative argumentation but just because its creative doesn’t mean it’s a round winner. Critical arguments are as any other argument in a round, if explained how they function in the round and how they work in relation to the rest of the round, they are in play. If neg positions contradict the Aff must explain why that matters, why I should care and how that somehow delinks them or means it’s an aff win.    There does not need to be abuse to win a round on T, if there is a standard explained that provides the grounds for me to vote on T, I will. Competing interpretations can help but are not always required. Run any counterplan you like. Knowing the status does help. Be competitive in any way you see fit and can defend.    I try to avoid weighing arguments not weighed for me, so if they are directly opposing and not clarified by either side, they wash. Impacts are interesting, when competing, there absolutely has to be explanation of why to prefer and that explanation needs warrants for both sides. Death or dehum. I only care as far as I am told to care. </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Zack Lampitok - Hired

My Name is Zack Lampitok and I debated for San Jose State. I did both parli(4 YEARS) and policy(1 YEAR) in college. My function as a judge in a debate round is to render a decision based on what I am told to do by the participants in the round. I flow and go in the direction I am told. I have no qualms with any argument or style of debating. If you argue it, win it and tell me how it wins you the round, Ill vote for you. I do tend to enjoy creative argumentation but just because its creative doesn’t mean it’s a round winner. Critical arguments are as any other argument in a round, if explained how they function in the round and how they work in relation to the rest of the round, they are in play. Critical affs are fine. If the neg positions contradict the Aff must explain why that matters, why I should care and how that somehow delinks them or means it’s an aff win. There does not need to be abuse to win a round on T, if there is a standard explained that provides the grounds for me to vote on T, I will. Competing interpretations can help but are not always required. Run any counterplan you like(including PICs). Knowing the status does help. Be competitive in any way you see fit and can defend. I try to avoid weighing arguments not weighed for me, so if they are directly opposing and not clarified by either side, they wash. Impacts are interesting, when competing, there absolutely has to be explanation of why to prefer and that explanation needs warrants for both sides. Death or dehum. I only care as far as I am told to care. Call all points of order you see fit, I wouldn’t want to risk something being missed.

Zack Freels - Hired

Zach Freels Judging Philosophy Judge Background: I currently coach at my alma mater for limited prep, platform speaking, and NFALD. I’m also a board member of the Sacramento Urban Debate League and have expertise in microfunding, and stakeholder/community engagement. So if your program is student run or struggling with finances and stakeholder support, feel free to come talk to me! Speed:â€‹I ask that you be inclusive of your opponents and I will vocally check your speed. I don’t generally need to do so but if I do so more than three times I’m likely going to start deducting speaker points. I’m also sensitive to English language speaker privilege. So check it. Partner Communication:â€‹I generally find this to be a distracting and prefer competitors pass notes to limit background noise so that I can pay full attention to the speaker. If you are communicating verbally, please be respectful of the speaker. Also, I only flow what the designated speaker says. If another person is making an argument or explanation out of turn, it should be repeated by the designated speaker. Argument Selection:â€‹This is your decision to make. I am open to any and all types of arguments and frameworks. However, I tend to prefer depth to breadth. I am also known for defaulting to a preference for specificity over vagueness. I am well versed in most areas of public policy, critical theory, philosophy, and interdisciplinary social science. I generally believe debaters should stick to ground they are best at. So if business confidence, politics, and hedge are what you are best at then do that instead of a poorly executed criticism. And vice versa if you prefer the critical debate. Procedurals:â€‹I generally adopt the threshold argued in round. However, I will default to evaluating educational, critical, or case implications before predictability and ground loss if not otherwise specified. I also generally preference the team that is the most clear, concise, and tight in explaining the particular nuances of any procedural position. I pay particularly close to the standards debate and if it’s messy I’ll generally find somewhere else to vote. Overview/Underview: Iâ€‹always flow these and generally prefer teams to handle their own macro and micro picture analysis. I prefer these to be concise and purposeful as my ballot tends to land in favor of whoever does the best job here. You probably don’t want me parsing the nuance of the arguments myself anyways... If you have any other specific questions, feel free to email (zâ€‹achary.freels@gmail.com)â€‹or find me in person before prep time begins. You may also ask in person before the round begins. Best of luck! The only test that matters is the one you give yourself. Speak truth to power always!

2015 Paul Winters Invitational