FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Ailey Pope - Wiley

n/a

Amanda Lovelace -

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

Amorette Hinderaker - TCU

n/a

Andrea Carlile - SDSU

n/a

Andrew Dykstal - Hillsdale

n/a

Andrew Moffitt - Marquette

n/a

Andrew Harvey - GCC

n/a

Andy Rapp - Northwood

n/a

Anthony Wachs - Northern

n/a

Ashley Mack - Southern Miss

n/a

Barbara Harmon - KWU

I have judged individual events and debate for a long time.  I still consider myself as a novice judge in that I am not an expert on the language and theory involved.  I have heard a lot of excellent presentations in every event and and have a good idea of what a good presentation should sound like.  I enjoy this activity.

Barry Regan - Grand Canyon

Benjamin Unanaowo - William Carey

n/a

Beth Hewes - CSI

n/a

Bobby Ellis - William Carey

n/a

Brent Brossmann - JCU

Note: For those whoâ€™ve known me as a judge previously, things have changed. I have been in debate continuously since 1976. I am a policy maker. I believe in the value of policy debate. The organization specifies that it embraces policy debate. I will make my decisions on policy. Thus, there are two ways you can win my ballot: 1. Have the best policy. 2. Prove that your opponentâ€™s practice is so egregious that I need to vote against them regardless of the policy. That could be for offensive discourse or a theory violation. If you want to make that â€œthree reasons,â€ go ahead. Topicality is a voting issue. It is not a reverse voting issue. The negative doesnâ€™t actually win topicality without demonstrating in-round abuse. In-round abuse can be proven by demonstrating that arguments to which you should have access were denied to you by the affirmativeâ€™s plan. You donâ€™t actually have to run and lose the arguments, but you do need to win that these were arguments you should have had access to, that they were important and that the plan denied you access. Counterplans need to be competitive. The counterplan must be better than the combination of the plan and counterplan (net benefits) or better than the plan alone IF the policies are mutually exclusive. As a policy maker, risk is important. Please use impact comparisons to weigh rounds for me. Probability, magnitude, risk and time frame are arguments that both debaters should use in rebuttals to weigh the round for me. Prioritize those that help you win and explain why they are more important. Some kritiks are legitimate arguments in policy debate. Others are not. If the kritik impacts the round at a policy level, it is clearly legitimate. Some of the philosophical or discourse assumptions behind a policy or its presentation need to be challenged with respect to the policy itself. Some kritiks may identify particularly nasty things your opponent has done in a round. These kritiks are legitimate. The rest should not be run in front of me. Iâ€™ll be happy to explain if you ask. The bottom line is that debaters need to respond to each otherâ€™s arguments in meaningful ways. However, there is a strong presumption against any argument which does not directly relate to the policy being discussed in the round, unless it is a compelling argument as to why your opponent is abusive either in theory (not playing fairly) or in discourse (is actually offensive). I will continue to defend the value of policy debate. To help the tournament run on time, Iâ€™ll submit a ballot before I comment. After that, Iâ€™ll be happy to disclose. The best education in debate happens in the post-round discussion and the more quickly that follows the end of the round, the more relevant the information is. I donâ€™t care about speed, per se. I do care about clarity. I know that some debaters care about speed. My policy is that the person who wants it to be slower â€œwinsâ€ that issue. So, if someone is too fast, simply say â€œslower please.â€ If someone says that to you, slow down. Have fun. Be kind. Learn a lot. Donâ€™t forget to smile or laugh. Remember, your opponents are here because they share your love of the event. We all dedicate huge amounts of time and passion. Respect that and them. (And, the last name is pronounced with a long O, like a bro.)

Brian Swafford - Northwest MO

n/a

Bryan Brooks - Hillsdale

n/a

CJ Hunt - McNeese State

n/a

Cami Smith - Boise State

Cary Chavis - Wiley

n/a

Chad Meadows - WKU

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

Chip Hall - CNU

n/a

Chiwoneso Tinago - William Carey

n/a

Chris Medina - Wiley

Chris Leland - CCU

Debate has always been and always will be an academic lab for the articulation of good argumentation.  I have competed, judged and coached programs at the university level in IE, CEDA, NDT and Parli.  As such I am not a novice to debate, but I am relatively new to some forms of theoretical arguments and especially the more recent lingo that surrounds them.  I have been out of coaching for 14 years, but have been putting into practice the debate skills in the public forum against philosophers, theolgians, cultural critics, politicians, free thinkers, etc.  So I have seen what debate does in the "real world."  As such I am not yet convinced that some of the culture of debate doesn't force us into a box that is really pretty particular to our little world.  I say that to say,  I am not opposed to T or "Kritique" (which I guess is the hip postmodern spelling) or any other theoretical arguments but I can say I would much rather see clearly articulated and communicated arguments that are well constructed and well thought out.  It is fair to say I have a much higher threshold for those types of arguments.  Debate, I recognize, is also about strategy, but not at the expense of solid argumentation.  Having coached CEDA and NDT and now Parli for the last couple of years, I can flow.  Have to use my glasses to see what I wrote, which is different from the good ol' days, but ...  I will say that the thing that has shocked me the most this year is the casual way in which language is thrown around.  I fully don't expect it at this tournament, but there is no room in academic debate (even with the idea of free speech in  mind) for foul language.  It is unprofessional and rude.  Might be considered cool for some, but it is not accepted in any of the professions for which we are training up this group to move onto in the future.  Otherwise, I am excited to be back in the debate realm the last couple of years.   Chris Leland, Ph.D. Asst. VP for Academic Affairs, Professor of Communication & Director of Debate Colorado Christian University

Christian Adams - Marshall

n/a

Christian Thompson - BGSU

n/a

Christy Bowman - Boise State

Clara Adkins - Marshall

n/a

Clint Jones - Transy

n/a

Dan Higgins - Heidelberg

n/a

Danny Ray - Marshall

n/a

Darren Valenta - West Chester

n/a

David Bailey - SBU

n/a

Deion Hawkins - Marshall

n/a

Derrick Reed - Morehouse

n/a

Duane Gundrum - Wiley

n/a

Emily Leber - AppState

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

Eric Halverson - Simpson College

Ernesto Arvisu - CSUSB

n/a

Gabbi Ray - Northwest MO

n/a

Garrett Hayden - Ottawa

n/a

George Talavera - Grand Canyon

Gina Jensen - Webster

n/a

Glorianne Schott - Simpson College

Hawley Williams - CWI

Howie Long - Boise State

Ian Smith - Transy

n/a

Jackson Miller - Linfield

n/a

James Jackson - TCC

n/a

James Hansen - Webster

n/a

Jana Hall - CNU

n/a

Janis Crawford - Butler

n/a

Jason Roach - Webster

n/a

Jason Edwards - GCC

n/a

Jawoine Hawkins - William Carey

n/a

Jaysin Spradley - Hofstra

n/a

Jeff Stoppenhagen - Boise State

Jeff Jones - AppState

Jennifer Talbert - William Carey

n/a

Jeremy Hutchins - Tx State

n/a

Jessica Furgerson - WKU

Jim Gatfield - CWI

I am a Comms judge. Make it your goal to teach me and your opponent something. This is a chief aim of debate. Approach debate as a conversation . . . not an opportunity to overwhelm your opponent. I prefer eloquence over speed.  Respect your opponent . . . respect the event . . . show me that you want to be here.    NPDA Debate I don't like K's. I don't vote on them. I view them as too generic and think they largely avoid an opportunity to explore a specific issue.

Jo Leda Martin - CCU

n/a

Joe Blasdel - McKendree

Joe Blasdel McKendree University Section 1: General Information 1. I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University.  After a three year hiatus studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so since 2003. 2. In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues).  I am very unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments. 3. On 'trichotomy,' I tend to think the government has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that they are topical.  While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debate, I am open to people choosing to do so.  I’m also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality. 4. If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised.  The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion.  If you’re calling multiple POOs, I will probably not be pleased. 5. I do not think the rules permit splitting the block.  Any responses in the LOR to MG arguments that were dropped by the MO will be considered new.  Additionally, it is rare that I will vote on MO arguments that are not extended in the LOR. 6. I’m not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then warranting them in the MO/PMR.  I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ‘new’ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ‘new’ PMR arguments. Section 2: Specific Inquiries 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given). Typically, my range of speaker points is 26-30, with an average of 28. 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I’m open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for competition and alt solvency than most judges.  I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical.  If they are not topical, I have a very low threshold for voting on topicality/framework. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K. 3. Performance based arguments… Same as above.  I’d be hesitant to run them with me as your critic if they are not topical/competitive. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary.  A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position that’s run – it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground.  I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework – I’m not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an ‘average’ threshold.  I don’t vote on RVIs. On spec, I have a ‘high’ threshold.  Unless there is in-round ground abuse, I’m probably not going to vote on spec.  I would only run spec arguments in front of me if you’re using it as link insurance for another position and the affirmative refuses to answer your questions. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition? All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay), but am growing more frustrated with tiny PICs and other arguably abusive CPs – so this trend may change.  I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized. 6. 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?)? All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework. 7. 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 tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise.  If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.

Joel Anguiano - EPCC

n/a

John Boyer - Lafayette

n/a

John DeBerry - GCTC

In NPDA I don't have a philosophical bias towards any issue on face.  Run what you think gives you the best opportunity to win.  However, please tell me why it’s a voting issue.  If you don't then you leave it up to me to decide why it’s important and you might not like my decision.  I don't have a problem with Topicality when warranted, but "stupid T" really annoys me.   Don't run topicality just to run topicality because you've been taught to always run topicality.  Remember topicality is essentially arguing that your opponents have broken the rules and you should not make that claim unless it’s warranted.  I will vote on RVI's on topicality if I think the t argument is stupid.  Finally, while I don't have any issues with the standard voting issues (i.e. Topicality, Solvency, Harms, etc.), I warn you again running some type of performativity case with me as your judge.  While I believe some of them have merit in their intent, most of the ones I have seen are simply attempts to skew the round to the point that there is no way for your opponent to win, or to make your opponent have to argue a very morally reprehensible position.  I have seen what the proliferation of these type of cases has done in CEDA and do not wish to see the same craziness come to NPDA.

Johnny Rowing - CWI

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

Jon Agnew - Boise State

Saved Philosophy: Last updated: 24-March-2018 I have been involved in competitive forensics for 13 years. I am cool with speed as long as tags for claims are not cumbersome and difficult to flow. I’m cool with just about any argument as long as it is well warranted. I won’t want to hear “genocide good” “rape good” or similar arguments. Moreover, I’m not sure of all the preconceived biases I have about judging debate. I know I am more inclined to prefer probability and timeframe arguments over magnitude. But overall, the game of debate is however you want to play it. Just play it well and play it by the rules. Last thing, as a critic at the end of the round I prioritize arguments that have been denoted in the debate via jargon or argumentation as most important. I always try and work through these arguments before working through the rest of the debate. What I mean by this is questions of: a priori, decision rule, RVI, framework, role of the ballot, role of the critic, theory sheets….I try and resolve these kinds of questions before resolving other substantive issues in the debate. Question 1 : What is your judging philosophy? Background: I debated 4 years in at Hillcrest High School in IF, Idaho. I did 3 years of LD, 1 Year of CX/PF, and speech. I debated Parli/IPDA for 4 years at Boise State and I.E.s. I have been an assistant coach at Boise State since 2013. And this will be my 13th year involved in competitive forensics. Other Background: <ul> <li>I will default Net-Benefits/Policymaker unless told otherwise.</li> <li>I try to be as Tabula Rasa as possible. I don’t want to involve myself in your debate. I don’t have any preconceived biases about what arguments or strategies should or should not be deployed in any given round.</li> <li>I will vote for arguments I do not ideologically agree with every time IF they are won in the round. </li> <li>I am relatively okay with speed. I have difficulty flowing overly cumbersome or wordy taglines. Plan texts, Interpretations, CP Texts, K alts, perms, T vios need to be read slowly twice OR I/your opponents need to be given a copy. I find it difficult to judge textual questions in a debate round when I don’t have the text proper written down word for word.</li> <li>I am lenient to “no warrant” or “gut check” arguments. I don’t want to do the work in your round. I do not want to fill in the blanks for your scenarios. In saying such I will always evaluate a developed warranted impact scenario over a generic one, IF the arguments are won in the round.</li> <li>I think offense and defense are necessary to win debate rounds. I am also relatively lenient on terminal defense. If you win the argument that there is absolutely no risk of a link or impact I will evaluate it strongly. I want to hear intelligent, sound, strategic arguments in every debate round. The aforementioned claim strongly influences my speaker points.</li> <li>My high school coach used to always say “debate is a game you play with your friends”. I identify strongly with the statement. In saying such, please do not put me in the situation where debate is not fun, where any individual (partner, opponents, myself) feels berated, and please do not deploy obscene/vulgar arguments.</li> <li>POO’s: please call them. I usually reply “under consideration”. I’m not lenient on new argumentation in the rebuttals. Honestly, I feel this is important. I tend to flow everything in the debate round. Even if the argument is new in the rebuttal. I feel it is important to call these arguments. I don’t know how well my paradigm works with multiple judges. But ya, POO are ok and encouraged to call.</li> <li>POI’s: please do not get excessive. Teams should probably always answer a question or two. I will give weight to in-round argumentation regarding “you should have taken a question” on any sheet of paper.</li> <li>Speaker points: I tend to give between 26-29.5 at tournaments. 30s definitely occur. So do speaker points below 26. I tend to evaluate these via sound, strategic, intelligent arguments. Delivery/style is not the most important factor for speaker points. I have never looked but I feel like I give higher speaker points than most.</li> </ul>   Case: I’m cool with any type of affirmative strategy (mini-affs, K affs, performance, comp-ad). However, I want to know how your case functions in the round. Framework/RAs are very important. Advantages must have uniqueness, link and an impact. Aff’s should solve for something. Plan texts should be read twice or I/opponents should be given a copy. If you are running performance or a critical affirmative I need to know how it engages the round and resolution. For example, if you are criticizing—topicality, language, semiotics—I need to know how to evaluate these arguments with your opponents. I find these types of debate engaging/fun to judge, but I have often been put into a position where I do not have a clean and accessible framework to evaluate the rhetoric and argumentation in round. Additionally, I have always felt somewhat icky inside when my personal identity or the competitors has been attached to the ballot. If this is important to the round. Framework is everyone’s friend. I want to be as much as a blank slate as possible.   T/Procedurals: I ran a lot of procedurals arguments in college. I feel in order for me to vote on this position I need a clear interpretation explaining how the debate should occur, a violation explaining specifically why your opponents do not meet your interpretation, I need standard(s) to detailing why your interpretation is good and/or why your opponents do not garner/violate them, and a voter(s) demonstrating why I should vote for the argument. Again, please read your interpretation/violation slowly twice or give myself/opponents a copy. I really really enjoy watching good T debate. And vote on T relatively often. Kritiks: my partner and I ran a lot of kritiks in college. I need a clear and accessible thesis. Arguments that tend to be stuffed into kritiks (no value to life, K Alt solves aff, X is root cause of violence) should be well developed. Please engage these arguments on the case debate as well. I am familiar with a lot of the K literature (POMO, Frankfurt School, Lacan). However, I’M NOT AN EXPERT. I think a kritik needs a framework, link, implications, alternative. I am a fan of good kritik debate. I am persuaded by well warranted impact turns to K’s or compelling arguments regarding how the K engages the assumptions that inform the PMC. Please do not prove the “K’s are for cheaters” club by deploying confusing/absurd, and blippy arguments. CP’s: I am not very familiar with the ins and outs of CP’s. Functional CP vs. textual CP debates are usually educational for me. I say that because, I again, am not nearly as familiar with CP debates then K debates. I am not biased on any type of CP theory. I will listen to all types of CPs (consult, agent, delay, multi-actor, multiple, PICS). In saying such, some of these types of CPs are subject to very compelling theoretical arguments about their fairness and educational merit. I think solvency is very important for CP vs Case debates. I like to hear arguments regarding how the CP/Case solves or does not solve each advantage or net/benefit debate. Therefore, if the debate comes down to case vs. CP/NB/DA…solvency is very important for weighing impacts. DA’s: need uniqueness, link, impact to be evaluated. Please explain why the status quo changes post the affirmative plan. I enjoy listening to strategic DA debates. Well-developed impact and link turn arguments make for lovely debate rounds. Defense and offense is usually important to deploy in any DA debates. I find the interaction of these arguments critical in deciding the round. Please explain these relationships in regards to impact calculus. Like I said earlier I tend to evaluate probable scenarios over their magnitude. Politics debates are fun to listen to. I like well warranted scenarios. Additionally, I’m not a fan of perceptual IR DAs (they tend to be under-developed and lack warrants) but nevertheless I will definitely listen to them. If you have any other questions please ask. My email is jonagnew@u.boisestate.edu

Jordan Compton - SBU

n/a

Jory Baker - Northwest MO

n/a

Joseph Packer - CMU

I competed and coached in policy debate for 11 years and coached LD for 3. Things to know 1. Reject the argument not the team is my default on theory issues. This means that absent a clearly articulated reason as to why a team should lose the debate I will not vote on theory. (Note: Yes this means even if the other team drops a random voting issue I will not vote against them if you do not provide clear warrants as to why they should lose the debate). 2. Winning topicality or any other theory issue requires more work than winning on a substantive issue. This is to say, if both teams go for substance I have to pick a winner, but if one team goes for theory I can assess that they have not surpassed the burden required to reject the other team. This does not mean that T and theory are unwinnable arguments in front of me. I think I am much more inclined to vote on T than the average LD judge I have encountered. In order to win you should clearly explain your interpretation, explain how the other team has violated it, explain why your interpretation makes for good debates, explain what the opponent does or justifies, and explain why that is bad for debate. 3. Negatives need to make choices in their second speech. I frequently find myself voting against negatives that should be ahead in the debate because they extend too much. This holds especially true when negatives go for a combination of theory and substance. To a lesser extend this is true for affirmatives as well. 4. Presumption goes to the status quo, which means that ties go to the negative (in the world of a counterproposal I lean aff on presumption, but the question is up for debate). 5. Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards by making smart, warranted, analytical arguments. 6. I lean affirmative on most counterproposal theory questions (conditionality, PICs, topical counterplans). The chances of me voting on a consultation counterplan are extremely low. Any counterplan or kritik that can result in the affirmative’s plan is highly suspect. 7. I don’t find many of the kritiks run in LD to be persuasive, but I think this is a function of not adapting to the time constraints and speech times of the activity. If you do read a kritik you should apply it to the affirmative’s case starting in the first speech. If you are only talking about your kritik and not how it interacts with the specifics of the affirmative case, you are unlikely to get my ballot. The more specific the kritik is to the topic or plan the better. 8. Be respectful to the other team.

Josh Watkins - Boise State

Justin Eckstein - PacificLutheran

n/a

Justin Rudnick - Ohio U

n/a

Kailey Angel - William Carey

n/a

Kathy Ambrose - Hillsdale

n/a

Keith Townsend - EPCC

n/a

Kelsey Dillon - CWI

Ken Newby - Morehouse

n/a

Kendall Harris -

Keven Rudrow - VSU

.

Kevin Bryant - Southern Miss

n/a

Kevin Doss - Lamar - Orange

n/a

Kiefer Storrer - UCMO

I default Policy Maker. I enjoy realistic impacts but if y’all want to get into competing terminal impact scenarios I wouldn’t be opposed to that. If you’re going to run theory or kritical positions (with the latter not being just a linear DA) impact out how I’m affected in the round as well as the debate community as a whole. On topicality abuse wise I’ll accept a healthy medium between proven and hypothetical abuse, so if you don’t want to waste two minutes of your speech running a non-unique DA to prove abuse you can just give me the flow of the argument. On the other hand, reasonability is a totally valid counter standard most of the time for me, so while T is definitely a debate to be had, again, there is a reason I default policy maker.   Speed is a non-issue, I can flow it fine, but I will say specifically for Parli (because there isn’t carded evidence) I’m not the biggest fan of levels that require double clutching and such…at that point I’m going to feel like you just canned out every word of your position and you’re reciting it instead of arguing it. Rapid delivery is cool, spreading is a legitimate strategy but I’d much rather have you go in depth on two DAs instead of running four or five that just aren’t as well articulated.   Experience wise, I competed in Kansas high school policy for four years, did four years of Parli in college, took a year off to judge parli/ld/forensics, and am now assistant coaching at UCM. I believe that debate is a pedagogical activity and that the most important parts of it will be the parts that bleed out into the real world. We are future politicians, lawyers, scholars, rhetoricians, and professors; so ideally all of us involved with this activity will take realistic, impactful ideas and bring them to fruition in the real world. And for those of us that are current or future coaches, I believe we should be striving to instill those real world changes in the future.   Have fun, be polite.

Kiera Wilson - Ottawa

n/a

Kim Runnion - Lafayette

n/a

Kristi Scholten - FSU

n/a

Lauren Bramwell - Boise State

Lee Nave - Ottawa

n/a

Leigh Cummings - Ottawa

n/a

Letha Quinn - NNU

n/a

Lisa Stoppenhagen - Boise State

Liz Kinnaman - Clark CC

n/a

Manda Hicks - Boise State

Mark Bentley - AppState

Mark Bentley, Appalachian State University Section 1: General Information I approach debate as an academic exercise with critical rhetorical implications. I vote on arguments, not people. I will not vote for a team based upon personal characteristics they were born with or somehow acquired. I do not consider myself capable of judging the merits of an individual's narrative, and I am not generally disposed to personal narratives (that I cannot verify, and am not willing to dismiss) used as competitive leverage to win a ballot. I believe the debate space should be about critiquing ideas, not attacking people. I really like specific, well run critical debates. They are my favorite, but I'm also totally good with non-critical arguments. So, if critical arguments are not your thing, don't feel like you have to run them in front of me or I won't vote for you. I vote for plenty of non-critical arguments. Likewise, just because you run a critical argument doesn't mean I'm automatically going to vote for you. I evaluate arguments in whatever framework I am presented with, as long as it's warranted (don't just tell me something is important, tell me why it's important). I usually do not vote on defense alone, and prefer offensive arguments on positions rather than just defensive. When weighing arguments, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and timeframe, but I will weigh them differently if you tell me why. I have a rather high threshold for spec arguments and need to see clearly articulated in-round abuse, or I will not vote on them. This usually manifests itself as obvious underspecified, groundshift-ready plan situations. Spec arguments generally function best for me as link insurance for other positions. Asking questions are a must when running spec arguments (also, as a general rule, answer at least some questions). Generally, the Neg gets 1 conditional advocacy and the status quo. I am willing to vote on conditionality with multiple conditional advocacies. However, even if an argument is kicked, its rhetoric has already been introduced into the round and I still consider valid link access to that rhetoric. I tend to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but like POO’s called when whoever’s giving the rebuttal thinks they’re getting away with sneaking new arguments in.  I tend to protect the PMR against arguments suddenly blown up in the MO, and the opposition from arguments suddenly blown up in the PMR. Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?           25-30. 27-30 is my typical range, 25 and below is for really bad speeches a/o abusive individuals. 2.  How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I definitely prefer critical arguments that are “grounded in the specificity” of the resolution, over generic, over-run kritiks (if your criticism is as important as you say, you can certainly link to and specifically engage with any res/arguments the other team runs). I will vote on permutations and theoretical objections. I also give weight to performative contradiction arguments as deficits to solvency (or however else you would like to use them). I get bored with highly generic kritiks. I will also vote on topicality for nontopical Aff K’s (again, if the issue is that important, it's also embedded in the resolution). That said, I really like critical arguments when they’re not generic and the ideas are clearly articulated. Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think it’s important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction the criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don’t drop or omit solvency of the criticism. Also, don’t give blanket blips of “alt solves all” because, no, it doesn’t. I understand that argument as a game piece, but if your advocacy is worth voting for you need to have more analysis than that. Use solvency as a way to justify the need for the criticism through analysis of what it actually does.   3.   Projects and performance based arguments… I don’t tend to find "performance based arguments" particularly persuasive, and aren’t really my thing. Unfortunately, I think the structure (meaning actual structure like speech times, speech order, ballots, win/loss, number of judges, etc.; not white, sexist, cis-centric, etc. structures) of the debate space and inherent competitive nature of the exercise is too constricting and self-defined to allow for "performance" solvency. The way "performative arguments" are often run makes it too easy for the other team to non-unique the "performance" with links to existing power structures/discourses/performances. I don’t buy arguments that your in-round "performance" solved for more than what it might have in the immediate context (if you advocate for suspending the illusion of the debate world). I also hold that the act of debating, criticizing, and advocating itself is a performance, and so you will need to do extra work to justify how and why yours is extra unique. I do think "performance" as critical metaphor can have access to rhetorical solvency, but it's harder for me to access literal solvency. For "projects": I have and will vote for "projects" that engage with the topic of the resolution and the other team’s arguments. I will not vote for a team based upon personal characteristics they were born with or obtained. Avoid debates about the personal characteristics of the people in the room. This leads to bad things for lots of reasons. As I've said, I am not in a position to be the arbiter of personal narrative validity, and really dislike being in that position. There is so much we don't know about everybody involved in this activity, I have no right to decide what somebody is/isn't and I don't think you do either. By all means, PLEASE indict rhetoric, but not individuals in the round. If you place me in a position to judge the validity of an individual's personal narrative, at best I will ignore your arguments putting me in that position. 4.   Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I tend to weigh topicality through competing interpretations (make them clear what they are), but a clear “we meet” by the Aff can also be sufficient if it’s obvious. I prefer specific ground abuse stories when voting on topicality, though they don’t have to always be “articulated in-round” abuse. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? I tend to view most counterplans as theoretically legitimate and like to leave it up to the debaters to determine what is or is not legitimate in the given round. I don’t like delay counterplans, and will not be likely to vote on a PIC when the resolution calls for a specific plan action on the part of the affirmative. I am open to voting for a PIC bad argument. Neg should also give CP status. 6.   Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Yeah, I don’t really care what you share...but that also doesn’t mean you don’t have to flow and just use the other team’s flows. Also, I don't think teams are necessarily under any sort of obligation to share their flows with the other team, but this can also be contextually dependent. 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?)? First off, you should definitely tell me which order I should evaluate and why. If you haven’t, this usually tells me you haven’t done your job. I usually evaluate K’s and T’s, then impact calculus. As stated above, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and timeframe. 8.   How do you weigh 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")? Again, if it gets to this point, you haven’t done your job and I won’t be real happy, and you probably won’t be happy with my decision. I don’t automatically weigh death more than dehumanization, but can go either way based on the context and arguments. Well warranted impacts are always preferred over poorly warranted ones.

Mark Turner - KWU

I have judged for a long time.  My children debated in high school, and I have judged since.  I mainly judge individual events. I look for the message being sent by the performer and look for consistancy and support.  I expect normal presentation skills.  I like to be entertained as well.

Mark Hickman - West Chester

n/a

Mark Marciniak - Northwood

n/a

Marty Feeney - Simpson College

Matt Delzer - Simpson College

Matt Reisener - Simpson College

Matthew Doggett - Hillsdale

n/a

Matthew Hendershott - BGSU

n/a

Matthew Warner - Hillsdale

n/a

Michael Marse - CBU

I am a traditional debate theorist.  I have coached and competed in Parli, NFA L/D, and CEDA for more than fifteen years.  I have been a DoF and taught Argumentation full time for 10 years. What I do not like: Kritiks - I have never voted for a K, because nearly every one I have ever heard is a non-unique DA dressed up in the shabby clothes of an intellectual argument.   Topical Counterplans - I have a resolutional focus, not a plan focus.  If the neg. goes for a topical counterplan, I vote in affirmation of the resolution regardless of who "wins" the debate. Speed - Going faster than quick conversational rate robs the activity of many of its educational outcomes, though not all.  It is good for winning in some instances, bad for education in many others.  Therefore I will allow you to go as fast as you would like, but I will vote quickly on any claim of abuse on speed.  Asking a question in the round like, "Do you mind speed?" in such a way as to really ask, "Are you going to be a stupid judge?" is going to annoy me.  The emperor has no clothes, many debaters are afraid to say anything for fear of looking stupid in rounds.  Same goes for most judges who are proud of their ability to flow quickly.  The best you can do if you spread in a round is to win with very low points. What I do like: Topicality Arguments - The deeper into linguistic philosophy, the better.  Have bright lines, don't kick-out of T without demonstrating how they have truly clarified their position since the 1st Aff. speech.  Otherwise, it is a timesuck and I will vote on abuse in those instances.  My opinion on T comes from my resolutional focus.  I don't believe it is good debate theory to argue that the affirmative plan replaces the resolution, since that would lead to more pre-written cases and a devaluing of the breadth of knowledge required to be an excellent citizen after graduation. Negative going for a win on stock issues - If it's a policy round and the negative wins (not mitigates, but wins outright) any stock issue, they win. Collegiality - I believe in debate as a tool of clarity and invitational rhetoric.  If you are mean, or deliberately use a strategy to confuse, you will lose.  Common examples are affirmatives not taking any questions to clarify on plan text in Parli, using unnecessarily academic terms without given adequate synonyms, etc.  If you win on the flow, but demonstrate unethical practices, you lose in life and on my ballot. To conclude: The proper metaphor for debate is not "a game", but is instead "a laboratory".  The laboratory is looking to achieve truth, and have proven methods for getting there.  We should be experimenting, and in some cases pushing boundaries.  We must also be able to deal with the failures that sometime come with those experiments.  The point of debate is not to win rounds, but to produce good people who know how to think and speak effectively after they graduate. Please feel free to ask and question to clarify these statement, or anything I might have missed.

Michelle Bennett - CWI

Mike Eaves - VSU

I am a tabula rasa judge. I debated CEDA for 4 years82-87. Was asst coach for CEDA at FSU for 4 years 89-93, national runnerups in CEDA nats, 1991 Coached CEDA for 7 years 93-2000 at vsu and NPDA since 2000 at vsu. I reward creative interp and good arguments. If you have questions, just ask. I flow specs, procedurals, and other traditional off case args. Aff case must provide equal ground so T checks back abuse. Counterplans are fine...inc PICS and other lesser know CPS incl delay, study, etc. I love political, econ DA..know your story and analysis.    I debated policy in high school and in college. While I coach parli now, I still judge h.s. policy rounds.   Specifics <ol> <li>Speaker points <ol> <li>25-29 usually.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Critical Arguments <ol> <li>I am open to procedurals, and critiques in the round. </li> <li>Framework and criteria will be key.</li> <li>I am open to performance and counter-performance. Debate is a game. Play it well. </li> </ol> </li> <li>Topicality. <ol> <li>I tend to be equal on T. Since there is no resolutions in advance, negative must have T as a check against abusive aff positions. I will vote on RVIs unlike some judges. I have no artificial thresholds on T or procedures.</li> </ol> </li> <li>I am a tabula rasa judge but can default to a policy maker if I am put in that position. <ol> <li> The last two rebuttals are key in parli debate. Please go only for the arguments you are winning, especially when on the negative.</li> </ol> </li> <li> <ol> <li>Speed is great if clear. I will tell you if you need to slow or get clearer. If you ignore me, then I wont get your argument.</li> </ol> </li> </ol> I love to think outside the box. Feel free to run postmodernism, CLS, or any philosophical position. I do not have artificial thresholds on procedurals or critiques.

Mike Beckham -

Najla Amundson - NDSU

n/a

Nancy Jackson - Marshall

n/a

Nichelle McNabb - Otterbein

n/a

Nick Stump - Grand Canyon

Niki Alderson - TCC

n/a

Noel Massarelli - JCU

My debate history is policy debate for four years in high school and three years in college. I did college LD debate for one semester. Ultimately I think the debaters are in charge of their own destiny and I’ll vote wherever/however you tell me I should. I like offense. I am willing to vote on defense, but unhappy about it. Good line by line argumentation is always awesome. Good analysis will beat just reading a card (a good card PLUS good analysis is even better). I prefer not to read cards after a round unless there is contention on what that cards actually says. I tend to have an expressive face, not much I can do to stop that. Use this flaw to your advantage! For example if I look baffled, then your argument makes no sense to me.   My policy experience makes me very comfortable with speed. That being said, PLEASE only speak quickly if your words are clear. Speak as fast as you are capable of, not as fast as you potentially could. Slow down during analytical argumentation, I find debaters speed through them and the details become muddled. My policy experience makes me very comfortable with speed. That being said, PLEASE only speak quickly if your words are clear. Speak as fast as you are capable of, not as fast as you potentially could. Slow down during analytical argumentation, I find debaters speed through them and the details become muddled. There are not many arguments that I do not like hearing. I like to think I would vote for anything. That being said, I’m a T hack. But don’t think that means I vote on T left and right. Don’t be afraid to run it if they aren’t topical, but poorly thought out T arguments won’t get you anywhere and might hurt your speaks.   The Kritik is a special animal, in my opinion. If you run the K like the NDT/CEDA people do I think you’re doing it wrong.  Keep your implications tied to policy and try to avoid flowery and long tags on evidence.  Be kind to each other. Ultimately this whole thing is a game and we’re here to have fun. Feel free to ask me any questions you like both before and after the round.

Norell Conroy - Boise State

I've been involved in forensics/parli for five years. I prefer real-world probability over magnitude in impact calculus, even when faced with systemic v. hypothetical if the arguments are well-warrented.  I think the k debate can be super interesting.  I will probably only vote on t if you demonstrate actual in-round abuse--most t debates are less interesting/important than others. Call points of order. Speed is fine, but to a point.  If I can't understand you, I will make it clear.  At that point, if you do not slow down so I can understand you, that is bad for you because I vote based on what is on my flow.  Also, if you don't say something, I won't write it for you--that is, I will (to the best of my ability) not intervene--however, I will hold you accountable if you make offensive claims for the sake of winning (i.e. anything advocating for things like genocide, rape, etc. because you think such an argument functions in a compelling way--in front of me, it doesn't)   Courtesy and civility are vital to this activity. You will lose if you are outwardly rude or uncivil.  Sass and humor are swell, being purposefully mean-spirited is not.

Pat Good - Cameron

n/a

Paul Wesley Alday - BGSU

n/a

Rachel Pollock - Muskingum

n/a

Raven Mineo - Transy

n/a

Rebecca Godsey - SBU

n/a

Richie Laursen - Clark CC

n/a

Robert Markstrom - McNeese State

n/a

Ryan Louis - Ottawa

n/a

Ryan Clark - BHSU

n/a

Sabrina Wittekind - WVUP

n/a

Sara Gronstal - EIU

n/a

Sarah Collins - Cameron

n/a

Sarah Hinkle - CC

Sarah Partlow Lefevre - ISU

I have been doing NDT/CEDA policy debate since 1991.  I debated for four years at the University of Utah, assistant coached for 6 years at the University of Kansas, and I have been the Director of Debate at Idaho State since 2001.   I am fairly open to any type of well explained and warranted arguments.  I like it when debaters provide a good meta analysis in rebuttals.  I can generally flow unless you are extremely blippy and very fast.  I like both policy and critical arguments.  I think the debaters should debate about the rules of debate.  So I am open to procedurals and framing arguments.  I want the rebuttals to write my ballot for me.  I also vote on defense but prefer offense.

Scott Jensen - Webster

n/a

Scott Thomson - Ithaca

n/a

Scott Wells - SCSU

n/a

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 Allen - Hofstra

n/a

Shanna Carlson - ISU

Background: I competed in parliamentary and LD debate for Washburn University for five years. I am currently the assistant debate coach at Illinois State University. I believe that the debate is yours to be had, but there are a few things that you should know: 1. Blippy, warrantless debates are mind numbing. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. This usually occurs at the top of the AC/NC when you are trying to be "clever." Less "clever," more intelligent. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence. 2. I don't really care about speed--go as fast as you want as long as you are clear and warranted. I will give you two verbal "clears" if you are going too fast or I cannot understand you. After that I quit flowing and if I do not flow it I do not evaluate it. 3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not like moral obligations as I do not believe that they are usually warranted and I caution you in running these in front of me. I do not believe that all impacts have to go to extinction or nuclear war, but that they should be quantifiable in some manner. 4. Run whatever strategy you want--I will do my best to evaluate whatever you give me in whatever frame I'm supposed to--if you don't give me the tools...I default to policy maker, if it's clearly not a policy maker paradigm round for some reason I'll make something up to vote on...basically, your safest bet is to tell me where to vote. 5. If you are rude, I will not hesitate to tank your speaker points. There is a difference between confidence and rudeness. 6. I am not the best with kritiks. I will vote on them, but you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative, and alt solvency (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like and how my ballot functions to get us there. 7. If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow. 8. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round. 9. Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. 10. I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision. Really, I'm open to anything. Debate, have fun, and be engaging. Ask me any questions you may have before the start of the round so that we can all be on the same page :)

Shanna Schultz - Tx State

n/a

Shari Maouri - Hillsdale

n/a

Shawnee' Biggerstaff - CSUSB

n/a

Sierra Ortega - Hofstra

n/a

Spencer Waugh - Simpson College

Spencer Orlowski - WKU

I view much of policy debate as a question of net- benefits which I do not believe is mutually exclusive with the stock issues. More specifically… I dislike solvency defense masked as a procedural. This doesn’t mean I will not vote on contrived procedurals, but it does mean I am likely to be persuaded by arguments focused on why they are not a logical reason to reject the affirmative.  It is important to note that standards are impacts to interpretations and abuse is just a standard, albeit a persuasive one.  Inherency should be on case by the way. Topicality is a voting issue, not because the rules say so, but because a non-topical affirmative is not a reason to vote for the resolution. As the negative read a definition or I will not be persuaded. Ks are great, just be familiar with the literature and be able to explain your alt and role of the ballot Please be nice. We are all here to learn. Solvency defense isn’t a voting issue unless you tell me why. Impact calculus is super important, do it, tell a story, tell me what to write on my ballot. Speaker points are arbitrary but generally based on strategic choices.  See Chad Meadows paradigm for further questions or just ask me in the round.

Stephanie Winkler - UK

Stephanie Fenner - UWF

n/a

Steve Hagan - McKendree

Sue Peterson - Chico

I primarily participated in CEDA/NDT debate as a competitor and coach for the last 20 years.  We made the move to NFA-LD four years ago and I haven’t looked back.  I consider myself to be open to most decision-making criteria, but I default to an offense/defense, cost-benefit calculus minus further instructions.  I do not enjoy adjudicating performance debate.  I like for affirmatives to have a plan text that clearly identifies the government action that is being advocated and then solvency advocates for that government action.  I like when the debaters clearly identify the key voting issues from their perspective and do impact analysis in those areas.  Simply said, I like for the rebuttals to “write my ballot” for me.  The best rounds are those with good evidence AND good analysis.  The worst rounds are those with neither of those things.  I love a good topicality debate that gets to the heart of predictable, educational and fair ground on the topic.  I also like good counterplan/disad debates that clearly identify the competitive points and focus the debate on that competition.  I am okay with theory debates, but I think they need to have a real purpose in the round (read – I don’t like cheap shot theory arguments as voting issues) and they need to have clear warrants for why I should vote on the them other than “It’s abusive”.  I have no problem with criticisms, but I feel like the limited speech time and having only two speeches usually results in an underdeveloped argument.  So, if you run one, be sure to consider that and try to develop it as an argument, not just repeat taglines.  Overall, be nice to one another, have fun, but most important, be smart! Because NFA-LD has an actual “rule” relating to speed of delivery, we should at least give that rule a “nod” in rounds.  So, just because I am fine with you talking fast in a debate, if your opponent or other judges on a panel feel that speed is a hindrance to their performance and states that out loud before the round, we should honor it.  My least favorite thing is listening to speed critiques or requests for others to slow down from someone who is talking relatively quickly – don’t be hypocritical.  I also think that clarity is a key component in these discussions.  Some people can talk fast and be totally understandable.  Others, not so much. Arguments that probably won't go well for you in front of me:  Performance, debate bad arguments and reverse voting issues on topicality.  Underdeveloped theory arguments.  Critiques that are contradicted by other arguments you are making in the round without some justification for that contradiction.

Susan Taylor - WKU

Susan Millsap - Otterbein

n/a

Susan Miskelly - Bridgewater

n/a

Susan Pahlau - CCU

n/a

Susan Millsap - Otterbein

n/a

Taylor Bruun - Boise State

Thomas Williams - William Carey

n/a

Tim Sheehan - Ivy Tech

n/a

Tim Schott - Simpson College

Timothy Bill - UK

Toire Winegar - Southern Miss

n/a

Tom Pinney - Northwest MO

n/a

Tom Serfass - Webster

n/a

Tom Preston - UNG

n/a

Tomeka Robinson - Hofstra

n/a

Vanessa Condon - SDSU

n/a

William Howe - TCU

n/a

Willow Moline - ISU

Zachary Shinall - UK

Zamzam Jama - Ohio U

n/a

Zina Brown - William Carey

n/a

jay bourne - cumberlands

Background of the critic: Debated policy 2 years in high school, CEDA and NFA LD in college, coached at Asbury College for 8 years, where we competed in IE, NFA LD, and Parli, and coached past 9 years at University of the Cumberlands, where we do mainly parli,  IPDA and IE's Rounds judged this year- 50 + Judging/ Coaching - 20+ years (CEDA 2 years, NFA LD 6 years, 15 years NPDA) Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I am a flow judge. I don't subscribe to the tabula rasa approach- I think that everyone has preferences and biases, overt or latent. However, I attempt to remove any of my personal beliefs from the debate round (try to have metaphorical horse blinders) and let the debate be what the teams construct during the round . Personally, I fit best with a gaming paradigm, where everything is pretty much fair within the basic debate framework and guidelines. I do believe that there are other formats to debate than just policy, so yes, I am open to the trichotomy. For me, resolutions of fact are a legitimate form of debate- although I prefer a detailed level of analysis more than an example war with that approach.. If teams want to take a resolution of fact with a policy res, and the other team clashes, then that is fine with me. Since I also have a background in CEDA, value debate is legitimate also. Policy is what I judge most often in rounds, and I am very comfortable with that format. Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making : Minimal in decision of win loss. Does factor into speaker points. I dislike cursing. Speed is not a factor for me with CEDA background, but I don't believe parli was a format meant to be done at CEDA speed- that it should be at least a bit slower. Ideally, parli can cover a variety of issues at a good clip and throw in a good joke or two whereby a general audience could understand most of what was said, save for procedural jargon.   Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: whatever provides clash is fine with me. Ideally, opp will have a lot of on case argumentation in their speeches, but sometimes gov frames the debate poorly, so the round makes more sense and can be more organized off case. I prefer it when gov teams don't ignore their entire case argumentation after the PMC. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: Kritiks are fine with viable alternative frameworks provided. I have voted on them a few times, but to be honest, it seems they often were run as a time suck or an attempt to snow the other team with debate jargon. I guess I am old school.   I really don't go for performance styles, or using debate as a platform to discuss an issue that may be of great importance to you personally but does not fit into the framework of the resolution. Any additional comments: <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:24.1pt; margin-left:.25in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 0in left .25in; text-autospace:ideograph-numeric"> 1.I prefer NOT to intervene- make my decision for me. Tell me how to vote. <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:24.1pt; margin-left:.25in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 0in left .25in; text-autospace:ideograph-numeric"> 2.If I nod my head during the debate, it means "I got it"- so if you want to move on fine- if not, fine also. Nodding my head does not mean I buy your position, just that I understand your argument. <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:24.1pt; margin-left:.25in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 0in left .25in; text-autospace:ideograph-numeric"> 3.I prefer nontopical counterplans 4.One of my majors in college was philosophy, so I prefer in depth argumentation. Give warrants, don't just blip responses 100% of speaking time. Tell me why your argument is better, impact it out.   5. Regarding POI's, I will give everyone plenty of time to make the arguments they wish, don't interrupt each other here.  Usually you will do best in defending yourself by exactly pointing out on flow where you think you addressed the issue or where you are cross applying previous comments made.

justin durbin - cumberlands

n/a

2015 Pi Kappa Delta National Tournament

Judge Philosophies

Ailey Pope - Wiley

Amanda Lovelace -

Amorette Hinderaker - TCU

Andrea Carlile - SDSU

Andrew Dykstal - Hillsdale

Andrew Moffitt - Marquette

Andrew Harvey - GCC

Andy Rapp - Northwood

Anthony Wachs - Northern

Ashley Mack - Southern Miss

Barbara Harmon - KWU

Barry Regan - Grand Canyon

Benjamin Unanaowo - William Carey

Beth Hewes - CSI

Bobby Ellis - William Carey

Brent Brossmann - JCU

Brian Swafford - Northwest MO

Bryan Brooks - Hillsdale

CJ Hunt - McNeese State

Cami Smith - Boise State

Cary Chavis - Wiley

Chad Meadows - WKU

Chip Hall - CNU

Chiwoneso Tinago - William Carey

Chris Medina - Wiley

Chris Leland - CCU

Christian Adams - Marshall

Christian Thompson - BGSU

Christy Bowman - Boise State

Clara Adkins - Marshall

Clint Jones - Transy

Dan Higgins - Heidelberg

Danny Ray - Marshall

Darren Valenta - West Chester

David Bailey - SBU

Deion Hawkins - Marshall

Derrick Reed - Morehouse

Duane Gundrum - Wiley

Emily Leber - AppState

Eric Halverson - Simpson College

Ernesto Arvisu - CSUSB

Gabbi Ray - Northwest MO

Garrett Hayden - Ottawa

George Talavera - Grand Canyon

Gina Jensen - Webster

Glorianne Schott - Simpson College

Hawley Williams - CWI

Howie Long - Boise State

Ian Smith - Transy

Jackson Miller - Linfield

James Jackson - TCC

James Hansen - Webster

Jana Hall - CNU

Janis Crawford - Butler

Jason Roach - Webster

Jason Edwards - GCC

Jawoine Hawkins - William Carey

Jaysin Spradley - Hofstra

Jeff Stoppenhagen - Boise State

Jeff Jones - AppState

Jennifer Talbert - William Carey

Jeremy Hutchins - Tx State

Jessica Furgerson - WKU

Jim Gatfield - CWI

Jo Leda Martin - CCU

Joe Blasdel - McKendree

Joel Anguiano - EPCC

John Boyer - Lafayette

John DeBerry - GCTC

Johnny Rowing - CWI

Jon Agnew - Boise State

Jordan Compton - SBU

Jory Baker - Northwest MO

Joseph Packer - CMU

Josh Watkins - Boise State

Justin Eckstein - PacificLutheran

Justin Rudnick - Ohio U

Kailey Angel - William Carey

Shawnee' Biggerstaff - CSUSB