FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

A.J. Markow - Portland State

n/a

Aaron Donaldson - Clark CC

I have enjoyed participating in the collegiate debate community since 2000. I have watched, coached, and judged primarily NPDA/PTE debate with some bits and pieces of novice NDT/CEDA and "World's" B/P thrown in. I think all debate activities are incredibly important and equally educational. In NPDA/PTE, I consider 25 speaker points (out of 30) as "average," 26-27.5 as "outround ready," 28-9 as "see you in the final" and 30 as outstanding. I do not typically give 30's to teams who do not create a welcoming and inclusive atmostphere, as I believe those aspects of our performances in-round are most important.   I try hard not to supplement justifications or warrants for or against arguments I engage as a judge.This means bad arguments that are not responded to can be exploited for a win, it also means dropped arguments that are underdeveloped in the constructive speeches may not get much weight in the rebuttals. It does not take much to develop the "arch" of an early argument, but one or two word phrases can quickly become suspect.   I believe procedural arguments are an important part of the "real world," that many parties will exploit these arguments and that for these reasons they are an integral part of debate education. I do not see much substantive value between debates about "the issues" and debates about debate, if anything I tend to lean towards the sides which argue that the rules to the activity that we play matter more than the imaginary worlds of our advocacy. I love a good T debate more than just about anything but I do not like 1-word arguments at the voter level of these pages. I think procedural arguments need to have clear consequences on the strategic decisions of the debate (this can include prep time) and that these consequences need to be articulated not only as reasons to prefer but also assesed as examples of why I should vote. I presume procedural arguments are strategic unless they are labled a-priore.   I believe critical or "kritikal" arguments are like any other argument. As with the procedural debate, if anything I tend to believe that the consequences for our performances, mindsets, and strategies in the educational activity we are all wrapped up in are more immediate than those of the imaginary world of our advocacy but those implications still need to be spelled out and clearly developed to win my ballot. As with procedural arguments I will assume these arguments are strategic unless they are labled as a-priore.   Counter-plan and/or Alternative debate (particular debates involving the theory and/or "status" of the C/P and/or ALT) is probably one of my weaker areas. Until I resolve that "blind spot" all I can do is offer fair warning.   I think rate of delivery has proven to be one of the most divisive and potentially abusive aspects of our activity. Teams who "weaponize" speed against new debaters or against those who, in my mind, are obviously struggling to participate risk losing the debate. If your opponents are fast I have no problem with fast debate - I will say "clear" or "slow" if I am struggling to follow. If they are not I don't mind so long as you are not excessively ignoring them, mocking them, or otherwise neglecting their attempts to participate. Most speed-bad arguments I have seen break down at the standard level, there is obviously no brightline, but more than anything I feel that debate should be inclusive and rate-of-delivery, among all else, jeopardizes that. Fast debate that is only repetitive can cost speaker points, fast debate that I feel is unneccesarily abusive can cost you the ballot.

Aaron Baker - Hired Critics

Abigail Rine - George Fox

n/a

Adam Testerman - Lewis & Clark

Background   Hi there!  I have competed in debate and forensics for over 10 years.  I participated in parliamentary debate during college, with two years at Southern Illinois University and two years at Texas Tech University.  I feel comfortable judging any “genre” of argument and have no real argument preference beyond the desire to see clash.  This is my second year coaching for Lewis & Clark College.    General Issues   It is my goal to involve myself in the debate round as little as possible.  I have no preference for any particular kind of argument and generally feel that almost every debate issue can be resolved in the round.  I will vote for arguments with warrants. I will try my best to synthesize your arguments, but I also believe that to be a central skill of effective debaters.  The only thing that I hate is awkwardness.  Please don’t be rude or overly confrontational with your opponents, because it makes me feel awkward and I will probably try to reassure myself with your excess speaker points.  I will vote for arguments I think are stupid 10 out of 10 times if they are won in the round.    Etiquette   Emphasize explanation early… don’t let your argument make sense for the first time in the LOR or PMR etc.  All constructive speeches should take a question if asked, and it’s strategic to ask questions.  Theory interpretations and advocacy statements should be read slowly and read twice.  It will be difficult to explain why fact or value debates aren’t horrible, so roll that way at your own risk.  Points of Order should be called, but I will also do my best to protect new arguments… don’t be excessive with them though [I’ll be vague about what that means, but see above for awkwardness.]  RVI’s have never been good arguments, read them at your own risk.  <a name="_GoBack"></a>I am not the best judge when it comes to speaker points.  I tend to average a 28-point something, but I don’t vary outside of that range much.  I am trying to adjust my scale, but fair warning that I’m not the judge giving everyone 30s.    Theory/Procedurals   I cut my teeth on procedural arguments in college, so I understand why they can be useful.  It is probably true that debates are less substance-driven when they become about procedurals, but that won’t impact my decision at all.  To vote on a procedural, I require an interpretation explaining how the debate should be evaluated, a violation detailing specifically why the other team does not fit within that interpretation, standards that explain why the interpretation is good, and a voter that outlines why I should vote on the argument.  PLEASE read your interpretation/definition slowly and probably repeat it.  I think bad T arguments are REALLY bad, but good T arguments are some of my favorite debates to watch, so… have an interpretation that makes some sense.    DAs/Advantages   DAs and Advs. Require uniqueness arguments that explain why the situation the affirmative causes is not happening in the status quo.  If you plan on running linear DAs, please spend time explaining how the affirmative triggers a new impact that is not present in the status quo [or makes a current impact worse.]  Defensive arguments are useful, but they often serve to make offensive arguments more impactful or serve as risk mitigation, as opposed to terminal takeouts.    I ran politics in a majority of my negative rounds and I coach my teams to read the position often as well.  So, I will totally vote on politics every time when it’s won.  That being said, I’m finding the position to be one my least favorite and least compelling these days.  The obscene nature of congress these days makes the position even more laughable than it was in the past [and it’s always been sketchy at best, without cards].  Read the DA if you’re a politics team, but there are almost always better arguments out there.    Critiques   Critique debates can be fun to watch, but only when the position is clear at the thesis level. If your shell argues that the K is a prior question or something like that, spend some meaningful time explaining why that’s the case instead of “shadow” extending an argument from the shell.  I am familiar with a lot of the literature, but you should argue the position as if I am not.  I really hate when critiques prove the “people who hate critiques crowd” right, by being excessively confusing and blippy.  Critiques are totally dope, but only because they have the potential to make compelling arguments… not because they are obtuse.    Framework debates are a waste of time a vast majority of the time.  I don’t understand why teams spend any substantive amount of time on framework.  The question of whether the affirmative methodology/epistemology/whatever vague term you want to use, is good or bad should be determined in the links and impacts of the criticism.  I see almost no world where framework matters independent of the rest of the shell.  So… the only K framework questions that tend to make sense to me are arguments about why it’s a prior question.  It makes sense that if the critique wins that the affirmative impacts are threat constructions that I’m not going to weigh the affirmative impacts against the position.  That’s not a framework debate though, that’s a question determined by winning the thesis of the position.    Critical affirmatives can be cool, but they also put me in a weird position as a judge sometimes.  If your affirmative is positioned to critique DAs, then I still want to see specific applications of those arguments to the DAs.  I need to see how the DA demonstrates your argument to be true in some specific way.  By that I mean, if the negative outright wins a DA, I would need to see why that would mean the affirmative shouldn’t lose early, often, and specifically.  The same is true of any set/genre of negative positions.    CPs   There are probably enough arguments on both sides to justify different interpretations of how permutation or CP theory in general should go down, that I don’t have strong opinions about many CP related issues.  In general, the CP/DA debate is probably what I feel most comfortable judging accurately and I think CPs that solve the aff are very strategic.  Multiple CPs in the round is probably bad for education and not strategic.

Adam Krell - Hired Critics

Cliff Notes -I try to keep myself out of the debate as much as possible. The greater the depth of analysis and warrant comparison provided by you, the better I’m able to achieve that goal. -Conversely, arguments with little depth and arguments that aren’t compared with your opponent’s make it difficult to achieve that goal. I’ll listen to any argument that you want to run, but I am comfortable gut-checking arguments if they don’t reach a minimal threshold of depth and sensibility.  -You should run the arguments that you feel the most comfortable running. I don’t think I have a preference for a certain type or style of argument over any other. I do, however, prefer arguments that are well-warranted and thorough, and you’ll be best able to do that by running the arguments you want to and like.  -The team that isolates the important issue(s) in the debate first and goes deepest on those questions generally wins the debate. -Be funny and civil. Don’t be unfunny and uncivil.  -The rest of the philosophy will detail the way I tend to lean about certain issues in debate, but again, my opinion really shouldn’t matter. If you want to use this info to cater to what you believe to be my partiality, you’re welcome to, but that’s in no way expected or required and you should feel free to do whatever you want. Specifics: Topicality -I default to a lens of competing interpretations, although I’m open to reasonability frameworks. Most reasonability frameworks are arbitrary, but if you can come up with one that isn’t or a warrant for why its arbitrary nature isn’t relevant, I’m game. -Standards should have impacts. It is irrelevant that your interpretation is more real world absent a reason why a real world interpretation is beneficial. -I’m open to creative interpretations of the resolution, but I think the best K affs still attempt to interact with the core resolutional question.  Advantages/Disads -I tend to prioritize the link level of the debate above all others. The probability of any future event happening is almost never certain, and thus the uniqueness cannot completely control the direction of the link. -I believe it is possible to have terminal defense against an adv/da. Offense is still your friend, but it’s theoretically possible to reduce the probability of a adv/da to zero. -Fiat means that I assume that the plan has passed. All arguments on the link level that assume that there enacting plan took some sort of special effort (horse trading, plan uses up too much political capital, etc.) are irrelevant, fiat moves through them. So, “Obama used up all his political capital passing plan and doesn’t have enough to pass X” doesn’t make sense, because he didn’t use any political capitol to pass it, it was fiated into being. But “Obama looks bad because of plan, popularity decreases, hurts his pol cap, means not enough to pass X” does make sense, because all these arguments take place after plan was fiated.  Counterplans -I generally default to determining competition functionally. I’m sympathetic to the goals of textual competition, and tend to dislike the CPs that textual competition exists to exclude (consult, delay, etc.) but think that requiring textual competition in a more free-form type of debate like parli is an unreasonable burden on the negative. So, I’m not likely to be persuaded to reject a CP because it’s not textually competitive, but you’re more than welcome to read a separate theoretical objection to the CP that I’m more likely to be inclined toward. -I wouldn’t say that I have a default as to whether I lean towards rejecting the argument and rejecting the team on CP theory. If the aff wins an impact on the standards debate that isn’t solved solely be rejecting the argument, then I’m perfectly comfortable voting the neg down on CP theory. But if rejecting the arg solves back for all the offense on the standards debate, I see no reason to vote the neg down when solely rejecting the CP would suffice. -I assume counterplans are conditional unless specified otherwise.  Ks -I’m open to any and all of them, but am almost certainly not well versed in the literature.  -I’m sympathetic to arguments that Ks which exclude aff impacts are kinda bullshit. Your K should be able to outweigh or turn the aff, and the aff impacts probably function in your framework anyway. -Framework should be a lens through which to view, evaluate, and weigh impacts. It should not be a voting issue. Theory -Standards should have impacts. The best theory debates include impact calculus and comparison between standards and counterstandards.  -CP theory generally doesn’t require a specific counter-interpretation. -Again, you should be doing the work to tell me if I should be rejecting the argument or the team.  Any other questions, feel free to ask. Either find me at a tournament or email at adam dot thomas dot krell at gmail dot com

Adam McKibben - Hired Critics

n/a

Anna Lorton - UP

Ben Reid - UT-Tyler

Ben Reid—The University of Texas at Tyler 1 year of bad high school LD in KCMO. 4 years of college Parli (and some LD), mostly at McKendree University. OVERVIEW When it comes to evaluating the substantive debate, I generally imagine myself as a policymaker. In an ideal world, the affirmative would defend the imagined implementation of a topical plan text, and the negative would defend either the status quo or a competitive (preferably functionally and textually) counterplan. That said, my role as a policymaker is subordinate to my role as an observer and participant in a game. Thus, absent the establishment of some kind of an alternative judging framework, I generally default to evaluating topicality, theory and other procedurals first. Beyond that, the substantive debate will be evaluated based on how it shakes out. While it goes without saying at this point, what you are reading are only my predilections and preferences regarding judging parliamentary debates. I do not want to impose my views about debate on anyone else unilaterally. That means you should do everything you can to make my decision calculus simple and clear. This is especially true if you’re out of my wheelhouse. I will work hard, but there’s a limit to my prowess that hovers somewhere around the point of “mildly clever”. Decisions are made based upon specific comparative impact and link analysis work done in the PMR and negative block. Unfortunately, I find that specific, logical impact analysis is often overlooked, and this makes me sad, because it's usually the most interesting and important part of a debate. Developmentally, my biggest influences were probably Cory Freivogel, Jeff Jones, and Kyle Dennis. These influences often varied by subject area, but that may well give you some insight into how I like to approach these issues. TOPICALITY Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. The affirmative does not get to win because they read a topical affirmative. Topicality is probably always a question of competing interpretations. I've yet to hear an argument for why reasonability is a preferable topicality framework, and I'm still not sure I've heard a logical explanation of what reasonability would even mean in this context. This means you need to do work on the standards debate. Standards are best debated like any other impact—this means developed stories late in the game. For those of you playing left of center—do your best to move in the direction of the topic. Despite the my unequivocal statement in the last paragraph, I can be persuaded that there is perhaps a reason not to be topical in the traditional sense (I would have voted for Emporia in finals of the NDT last year, for example), that struggle will be an uphill battle for you, not least because I often think of policy debate and parliamentary debate differently. As a general rule, play it safe, and see if you can get creative and do what you want to do while adapting your argument for relevance to the topic. SPECIFICATION Do not let (insert silly specification argument) be your A-strat. I think these arguments are largely anti-educational. If the MO is 8 minutes of spec, then something has gone horribly, horribly wrong, and nobody’s going to get much in the way of speaker points. I understand the utility of reading A/F/E-spec as link insurance for your CP/DA, and will (try) not (to) hold the fact that you read an LOC shell against you. If the affirmative unfairly shifts their agent in responding to the negative’s substantive strategy, then the negative will not be punished for going for spec in the block. This hypothetical example is probably the lone caveat to my distaste for this position as a judge. P-p-please don't do this to me.   CRITIQUES I'm not nearly as hostile to these positions as my competitive persona has lead y'all to believe. The reality is that I’m not hostile to these positions at all. It's true, I preferred to read DA/CP/Case strategies as a debater, and these positions are the ones I'm most knowledgeable about and comfortable evaluating. That said, I appreciate the educational and competitive value of critiques and want you to do what you do best and what's most strategic in the context of a particular debate. I think you should have specific link evidence in your shell. I’m not convinced that an alternative is a necessary component of a critical argument. Should you choose to forego using an alternative, then framing and role of the ballot questions must be clear, and instructional as to what the implications of a position are.  Should you read a critique that is inclusive of an alternative text, then the alternative should be clear, and utilize explicit, specific solvency evidence. The negative would do well to have specific blocks to common permutations prepared. You should probably know that in most cases, I'm not sure why the alt solves (and I often find that the perm solves about as well as the alternative), so you should make that clear (and make explicit differentiations between the solvency of the perm and the alternative). I believe the affirmative should be allowed to weigh case against the critique, which magnifies the importance of your alt. solvency evidence. As far as how the affirmative should respond—Cory Freivogel's expanded philosophy about answering critiques is generally the way I think about things. Too many otherwise decent affirmative teams lose K debates because the MG is preoccupied with answering the position line by line in a fashion similar to basically every other argument. This seems a waste of time. I like affirmative team's that try to engage the substance of the critique. I'm also a big fan of impact turning. The affirmative should not forget that they have an aff. For some reason, people need to be reminded of this. I want to be the very best judge that I can be. Unfortunately, we’re all going to have to deal with the gaps in my knowledge. While I cannot promise that I will make a perfect (or even necessarily a “right” decision all of the time), I can promise you that I will do everything I can to deliver a decision that is fair, impartial, coherent, and helpful. If it helps you at all, critiques of traditional IR theory are the Ks that make the most sense to me, so those are a good place to start. Be clear. Don't assume I've read your authors in the same depth you have, because I haven't. By now you’ve noticed that I devote more language to critiques than to any other section of my philosophy. Perhaps this is overcompensation on my part. I hope not. You should know that a number of “critical” issues are near and dear to me. I spend a lot of time thinking about privilege, race, sex, sexuality, gender, and social class. Justice is important to me. So I will reiterate the promise—I will do the best I can. DISADVANTAGES You should read them. Specific, intrinsic, highly probable, big impact disads with fast time frames are my favorite negative arguments. Reading them, reading them well, and going for them will make me happy, and that bodes well for you. COUNTERPLANS I tend to side with the neg in theory debates. Theory is most likely a reason to reject the position, not the team. The affirmative would benefit from reading disadvantages to the CP. You're probably better off not saying consult, delay or veto/cheato (though, if your solvency ev is good, I find consult less repulsive than the other two). Decisions in intense counterplan theory debates are tricky things in Parli. In policy, I default to thinking that the quality and specificity of your solvency evidence is the arbiter of legitimacy. Obviously in parli, this isn't possible. If the debate is going to be centered on questions of CP theory, then they should happen slower than most other debates. Like with topicality, interpretations should be read slowly twice to ensure precision. CASE DEBATE Good case debate is (I think) the most enjoyable type of debate to watch. If the negative has sweet, specific answers to the aff and a DA with good link evidence, they will likely win. Defending the status quo is a good idea. Anyone that tells you that the negative needs a counterplan to win is just straight up wrong. OFFENSE/DEFENSE Offense wins debates. I can’t deny this. That said, smart defense is better than stupid offense. I think your defense will legitimize your offense. It makes your offensive claims more appealing, and provides weight they might not otherwise have. I often reward debaters who make smart, defensive arguments an integral part of their strategy. I am quite willing to assess zero risk of something. A WORD ABOUT SPEAKER POINTS I haven’t done my due diligence in running down everyone’s speaks yet, but my guess is that I’m sitting slightly below average in speaker-point distribution. To this point, I’ve started from the assumption that an average speaker clocked in at 27.5, and have scaled up and down from that starting place in tenth-point increments. It seems that community norms have an average speaker earning slightly higher points than this. While I think this is just evidence that we ought to use some weighted system for in-bracket seeding and speaker-award distribution, I think it’s clear I’ve lost that battle. Because I don’t want to give the teams debating in front of me an unfair disadvantage, I will make an effort to find the community median, and adapt to it. Again, I do not promise precision or perfection, but I promise to try real hard.

Ben Cecka - Clark CC

My competitive background is purely in NPDA, of which I was a competitor in for just shy of 2 years at the collegiate level. I've been judging it for a cumulative 3 years, along with some experience in IPDA and BP/Worlds.   I consider myself tabula rasa as well as a flow judge, and I will pay special attention to your rebuttal. If you have a winning argument in a member speech, but fail to give it due attention at the conclusion, I will do the same. I will happily entertain any and all arguments (creativity should be rewarded), provided that you articulate them fully and, most importantly, tell me why I care (impact). I prefer rational and realistic arguments over fantasy, but don't let that preclude you from using some humor and having fun when possible. T, K, and various types of CP's are fine as long youclearly link and warrant them. With regard to speed, I will sympathize with teams that are struggling to keep up if a) I agree, and b) they voice that concern early in the PMC -- waiting until theLOC is too late. Lastly, Wheaton's Law matters.

Beth Hewes - CSI

n/a

Bill Newell - Willamette

n/a

Bill Neesen - Long Beach

Bill Neesen Cal. State Long Beach/IVC Years Judging Debate: 22+ Years Competed in Debate: 7 What School Competed at: Millard South/ OCC/CSU- Fullerton Section 1: General Information I think that debate is up to the debaters in the round. They the privilege of defining what debate should look like, but also the responsibility to defend that interpretation. I like Case debate (this is a lost great art), CP, DA, K and performance (but I really hate performance that is bad). I will listen to and vote on theory but you have to make it clear. Other than that I would say that debate is a game and I always play games to win and would expect you to do similar things. Also while I do not think that any judge can be truly non-biased and not intervene at all, I think intervention is a bad thing that the judge has a duty to try to resist as much as possible. Other things to think about: some people think that I am a hack for the K. While I have coached many great K people (or performance) I was a CP/DA/Case debater. This really does mean I love to see it all. I am a very fast flow. I hate lying in debate and would suggest for people to try to get facts straight. I do not vote against people who lie or make bad arguments (I leave it up to the other team to do that) but your points will reflect it. Well I do not mind critical arguments and think everyone can run them no matter the side. I treat them the same as every other argument. If they have a framework argument I will start there and see how I should frame the debate (and do not think I default crazy, many great debaters have won policy making in front of me). Once I decide how to frame the debate than I use it to evaluate the debate.  As far as contradictory K positions with counterplans I do not like it if the K works on a level of discourse as a reason to vote for the k. I have a hard time with the whole language is most important and what we learn in debate is best, followed up by someone using bad rhetoric and saying the other team should not use it. I do not just vote for it but I do find the whole you contradicted it so either you lose or the K goes away persuasive. I would give some warning before I talk about Crazy in debate. 1. There is a winner and a looser in each debate, just because you were doing something crazy does not mean you get to avoid it. I have very few things I get to do and I enjoy the power (I give winner, looser, and speaker points). 2. Bad performance is not only horrible to watch (which kills speaker points) it also is easy to turn if the other team know performance or makes simple logical arguments. This means that it needs to be prepped and practiced it is not normally something that just comes to you in prep and if it does you might want to resist it because they go bad on the fly. Having said all of it I have seen some amazing performances over the years and it was cool when they were good. I have an old school approach to T. I do not mind it and while it does not have to have in round abuse it is always better to have it.  To vote on it you need to win that there is a reason why what they did is bad and in the round the best thing would be to drop the AFF. As far as competing interps go I have a little rant. I do not know what else there is but competing interp. I mean both sides have their interp and the standards they use to justify it. In the end to win T you would have to prove your interp is the better one (hence the winning interp from the competing interps) and that topicality is a voting issue. I have no idea why people say t is about competing interps (because it always has been and will be) and I have no idea what that argument gets them in the round. I love counterplans. I have heard very few counterplans that are not pics (and they were really really bad). Topical counterplans are the best for debate and policy making because they are honestly the heart of most of the literature.  If you plan on kicking the CP I would put the status in the cp because otherwise you run the risk of the PMR getting angry about the kick and it is always messy for the judge at that point. Perms need to have text unless it is do both (because the text is literally both). Types of competition are interesting text seems a little weaker than functional but both can be good and lame too. I want to remind you here that even though I have told you about what I think about theory arguments I still vote on them all the time.  Even the silly argument that you only get one perm and it is always advocated (Yes cheesewright I am insulting you :P). I also think conditionality bad is a smart argument even if I don’t always get to vote for it. MPJ: My recommendation for teams is to pref me based on the people they are debating that weekend. I see people who are not fast or cannot handle the K (or defend policymaking) well and that is sad because they ranked me an A. You should rank me biased on what is most likely to win you rounds and I would never be offended by this.

Brenda Nelson - Lewis & Clark

Brian Simmons - UP

I consider my role as the judge in a debate round as being similar to that of a U.S. Supreme Court judge. Such a judge not only assess "who won" arguments between debaters, such a judge also assess the quality of arguments made "to the judge" simply becasue the arguments were brought into the round. That said, I strongly believe in the necessity for debaters to honor their opponent's arguments by directly clashing with them. I am impressed by debaters that demonstrate critical thinking--questioning assumptions, pointing out contradictions, showing how contentions don't meet stated values or criteria. I believe IPDA ought to be a highly communicative event filled with what Qunitillian might call "good people speaking well." That doesn't mean you have to talk to me like I am Forrest Gump, but it does mean that style matters. Finally, I believe there is a proper decorum and courtesy in any forensic context; be nice to each other!  FYI: My background: I was a policy debater in high school, a CEDA debater at Oklahoma Christian University, a CEDA graduate assistant at Pepeprdine University and now I coach IPDA at University of Portland where we previously competed in and I coached BP and NPDA.

Bryan Hunt - MHCC

Caitlin Zimmerman - PacificLutheran

n/a

Caitlyn Burford - NAU

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

Cami Smith - Boise State

Charles Kincy - Bellevue

~~(0) RESPECT THE INCREASED EQUITY CONSCIOUSNESS. Especially with your jokes and language. I don't want to ruin anyone's fun, but keep the humor harmless along lines of sexism, racism, and other frequent hotpoints of inclusivity. If you can't be "humorous" without trashing the feelings of others, then you suck at humor and should stick to business. If you feel at any point your opponents or I have acted in a way that is inappropriate, you have two options. You can immediately call a point of privilege, stop the clock, and we'll get it out in the open. That's especially important if the transgression was minor and probably unintentional, because it encourages us to talk about these things more. Or, if you don't feel comfortable with that, please explain the situation after the round to either the tournament director or the tournament equity officer/ombuds. (1) GROUND-LOSS AND ABUSE COMPLAINTS REQUIRE PERSUASIVE WARRANTS. You all know what's up in NPDA these days and you should expect anything. However, people get out of line, so you sometimes need some redress. (1a) The easiest way to warrant loss-of-ground claims is to run a speculative argument that you would've been able to run but for the loss of ground or abuse. For instance, if you're asking for a ballot on T because of loss of ground, read me the DA you should've been able to run. This allows AFF to concede a link to the DA if they're treading the line and allows the debate to proceed. If they're smart. (1b) If it's egregious abuse (eg. severe abuse of conditionality) calmly state your case and I'll evaluate it. The key thing to remember is you need to try to have a round anyway. If it's something involving social aggression (sexism, racism, harrassment, etc.), see point (0). (1c) Similarly, the biggest. pet. peeve. I have in NPDA is complaining about loss of ground in a pro-forma T argument and then reading 4 DAs with clean links. I know the game was played this way for years but I'm sick of it, and it's the kind of crap that ruins this event. STOP DOING IT. Penalty: If you do this, your opponents can simply say: "WE MEET and their DAs externally link" and I'll consider that adequate refutation of the T. (2) FRAME CONTROL IS THE NAME OF THE GAME. You’re not reading cards, so you need to project rhetorical confidence and power. You must not only tell me what issues are more important in the round, but you should also do this at the end of every non-PMC speech. (3) ESTABLISH THE FRAMEWORK BY STATING IT EXPLICITLY. This is easy--say “value is X, criteria is Y” or something similar. Opposition teams can either accept the framework and show why we should reject the topic OR provide a counter-framework and show why it is better. (4) IN REBUTTALS, ALWAYS ANALYZE CLASH OF FRAMEWORK OR IMPACTS. The easiest way to do this in the rebuttal is to crystallize the framework or impacts and say “we said this, they said that, we win because such and so.” If you need an explanatory overview, go for it. All else being equal, this will win you the round if the other team flubs it. (5) OFFENSE IS BETTER THAN DEFENSE. You can win on terminal D, but it shouldn't be your game plan. If you don’t go on offense, you won’t be able to weigh impacts. Further, you’re not reading cards, so standing for something is simply more persuasive than standing against your opponent. While I don't believe the policy debate notion of "presumption" applies to Parli, I will not vote Gov unless Gov has at least some surviving offense, which has the same effect as presumption. (6a) PRE-PROCEDURALS REQUIRE WARRANTS FOR PRE-PROCEDURALITY. You must explicitly demonstrate how the theoretical, procedural, or kritikal implications of your argument block access to your opponents’ impacts. (6b) USE WEIRD OR SILLY TACTICS AT YOUR PERIL... This includes things like performance, laughably silly stock politics DAs, RVIs, wacky existentialism Ks, K-Affs, plan-minus PICs, Ospecs, and other stuff like that. Sure I'll listen and flow it, but then I'll probably wrinkle my nose and drop you, because I'm old school like that. (6c) ...BUT I'M FAR MORE LIKELY TO ENTERTAIN THE UNUSUAL IN ROUNDS WITH BAD TOPICS.... If I feel the standard approach to your side of a topic is likely to force you to argue something absurd or offensive, I will give you a larger amount of latitude for nonstandard approaches. (Even though I will always intervene like this if I am aware of the imbalance, it's safer to point out to me that this principle should be in play.) A recent example is "USFGS mandate that blood donors cannot be discriminated against based on sexual orientation." Opposition teams are in the uncomfortable position of either advocating for discrimination or bad science if they are forced into the policymaker framework. K's and politics DAs are really the only ground they have, so I'm giving them a lot more weight. (6d) ...OR IF YOUR OPPONENTS ARE ABUSIVE. See point (0) on equity and point (1) on warrants. (7) SPEED DOESN’T KILL, BUT IT PROBABLY DOESN’T HELP. I’m probably about twice your age and don’t follow things nearly as well as I used to. A well-developed single argument wins against eight blippy and hard-to-follow ones. I’ll do the best I can, but it works better for all of us if you save your breath and show some quality of thought. (8) IF I SUSPECT YOU'RE MAKING CRAP UP, I WILL “GOOGLE IT”. I won’t entertain arguments that are patently absurd just because they are theoretically proper, and if the round comes down to a factual dispute, I will do as much research as I can in 5 minutes. If that doesn’t resolve it, I will consider the argument a wash. (9) SPEAKS. Speaks. I use something close to the last NPTE rubric. PMs and LOs start with 27. Members start with 27.5. Then you depart from there in 0.5 increments. Your speaks will be between 26 and 29 unless something highly unusual has happened. In novice or junior, these numbers measure your progress against the progress I expect from developing debaters (that is, it's much harder to get a 28 in March than in October). (10) YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? Seriously, you worry way too much about these things. If you want to know the detailed crap like whether I prefer functional or textual competition or junk like that, just ask before the round.

Chris Reinhold - Hired Critics

n/a

Chris Pierini - UWash

Background: I debated 4 years in high school, 2 years LD, 2 years Cross X. I debated Parli at UW for 2 years. I'm now head coach at UW and been coaching the team for 5 years. This will be my 15th year involved with debate. In General: ·         My flow is strict and speed is fine. ·         I default “net benefits” if no other framework is engaged. ·        Read any textual advocacy twice (PMC plan, perm, K alt, CP, T violation, ect) or have your partner give me and your opponents a copy of the text during your speech. The last thing I want to judge is a theoretical argument predicated off of text I don’t have word for word. ·         I’m willing to do a “gut check” on absurd arguments to protect the academic value of the activity. If Gov makes an argument that a country does not exist to no link a relations DA that argument is not going to fly. I want to vote for intelligent and strategic arguments. ·         Terminal defense: Sigh…..at some point I guess defense can win you the argument/round. A “we meet” on T or 0 solvency because of a plan flaw, come to mind. 0 risk of a link is just hard to prove. Defense combined with offense is a much easier way to win my ballot. In fact I think defense is undervalued in most debates. ·        If you and the other team have agreed to specific terms before the round like say “we will provide a written copy of CP text if they provide a written copy of plan text”. I must know about it before hand, those ethical debates are nearly impossible resolve. ·        I think debate is fun. Don’t put me in a position where it’s not fun.  ·         POO's: Call them but I'll probably just take them "under consideration".  ·         POI’s: You should probably answer a question or two. If a team can not engage your argument because it’s unclear (usually I’m thinking of a T violation or wtf the K alt means) and you refuse to answer a question….I'm probably going to give a lot a weight to any theory coming your way.  ·         If you have a question please ask, I’m more than happy to answer it. chris.pierini@gmail.com Section 2: Specific Inquiries  1.      Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? ·         26-29.5 standard range. ·         Points are awarded on the basis of strategic decisions made in round. ·         I will only go outside of this range if you are horrifically rude to me, your partner, or your opponents. 2.      How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? ·         The “level” at which the K operates is dependent on the framework. ·         Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? That’s for the debaters to engage or not. ·         Kritiks are like any other argument, they can be run poorly and they can be run well. ·         If you start throwing out hyper specific buzz words (especially in your alt text) OR a melding of 16 different authors it would be prudent to define/terms and explain your argument more than going for laundry list links and impacts. 3.      Performance based arguments… ·         I will evaluate every argument made in round.  Isn’t all debate a type of performance? ·         I will vote for performance based arguments…if you win the performance should win you the ballot.   4.      Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? ·         My threshold for pulling the trigger on a theoretical argument, I would not consider high or low. However, you must have all of the right components to warrant the trigger being pulled. Winning your interp and standards without winning a voting issue pretty much means I’m not voting for the argument. ·         Make sure you’re going for and impacting to the correct voting issues. You should probably have reasons why education/ fairness/ abuse/ jurisdiction/whatever is an impact-able argument. ·         I don’t require competing interpretations to vote for T but it’s probably helpful. ·         I don’t require in-round abuse but it’s probably helpful.   5.      Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? ·         CP’s they are an argument. ·         I have zero bias for CP theory. What arguments are run is purely a question of strategy. ·         I think solvency isn’t necessarily binary. You can solve better or worse in a lot of instances. This means CP vs Case solvency is really important for weighing impacts.   6.      Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) ·         Absolutely   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?)? ·         Theory (either throw out the argument or reject the team) then I do straight net benefits: K or/and CP or SQ impacts vs Case impacts….in general. ·         If your losing a K framework without articulating how your K operates in the Gov framework I’m probably going to reject the argument as it no longer functions in a decision making calculus. ·         If you have specific scenarios, I’ll do my best to answer them but with the variety of how arguments interact I can’t reasonably explain every permutation possible.   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")? ·         Without argument interaction, PMs and LOs will be punished in speaker points ·         I have absolutely voted for positions like DeDev which went for value to life outweighing the nuclear war deaths and voted against when the warrants were not present. ·         If things are so diametrically opposed with ZERO argument interaction then my gut tells me I would default Gov as the Opp hasn’t presented a compelling argument to reject the Gov case. This has NEVER happened to me. Someone makes an argument which demonstrates impact interaction which I will evaluate because at this point judge intervention has become necessary to resolve the debate. I will intervene using arguments on the flow not my own personal bias. Basically, the better warranted or more logical argument will win out. ·          I give a lot of weight to specific scenarios vs generic impacts for reasons of probability.

Colin Patrick - WWU

Colin Patrick WWU   Overview: I believe that the round is ultimately the debater’s to control. I will default to Net-benefits unless otherwise told to do so. The best way for you to win my ballot is to compare impacts in the rebuttal. Also, I would like a copy of all plan, counter-plan, perm texts. I’ve had multiple rounds this year where teams have referred to the plan text when making arguments and running procedurals/plan flaws off of misspellings and abbreviations on the written out copy. I feel that this is necessary in these hyper-technical debates. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given. Anywhere between 25-30, but usually around 26.5-28, unless something extremely offensive is said, or there is general meanness exhibited. 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 all K’s run by either side. That being said you will have an easier time winning my ballot if you properly elucidate on how your alternative solves. Unless otherwise told so, I believe that the Neg can run conditional contradictory positions. Performance based arguments… Again, I am open to all arguments, just be clear. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? In-round abuse is not necessary for me. The reason for voting on topicality should be made by the debaters. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? The legitimacy of a CP should be debated out. Unless otherwise told so, I believe the CP is conditional. If you want to lock the Neg into something, then ask a POI. Perms are always a test of competition. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Don’t care. 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?)? The order of argument importance should be set up by the debaters. 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 will default to Net-Benefits unless otherwise told to do so. If you want to win on a dehumanization impact, then argue why that is the most important. If you want to win on a nuclear war impact, then argue why that is the most important. If this is not done then I will probably have to intervene somewhere.

Courtney Walsh - Hired Critics

Dan Broyles - Pacific

n/a

Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia

Dr. Dan Schabot Lower Columbia College Years Debating: 5 total (1 years NFL LD; 4 years CEDA/NDT ) Years Coaching/Judging: 15 Total (2 years CEDA/NDT; 13 Years NPDA)   General Philosophy: Each team should make good (well supported and well-reasoned) arguments and clash with each other. I prefer 2 or 3 in depth positions to 5 or 6 blipped positions.   Specifics: Affirmative teams:  At this point in my judging life I am no longer interested in listening to debates that do not at least make an attempt to address the topic in the resolution.  You can run any position you want as long as you explain why what you are arguing deals with the topic.   Negative Teams:  I also feel that negative teams have the responsibility to address affirmative arguments as well as presenting their own.  Positions just run for the sake of filling time (such as generic T) have little weight with me.  Each position should be part of a coherent strategy to win.   Speed and Presentation:  If you feel the need to go fast that is fine.  However, running a bunch of positions just so you can go fast is useless.  Speed as a strategy (in and of itself) will not be rewarded.     RFD:  My preferences are listed above.  I have and will vote for just about any argument type. A team must clearly explain why their advocacy is superior to other team’s advocacy to win a round.

Daniel Williams - UNR

Darren Meaney - MHCC

Darrin Hicks - DU

n/a

Dave Matthews - Whitman

David Airne - U of M

4 years HS Policy; NDT 3 years and 1 year LD in college Coached HS Policy, HS LD, HS PF  NDT/CEDA, LD, IPDA and Parli for +10 years.   Upadated: January 2018 and also on Tabroom.com The quick overview to my judging is really simple. I judge things on what happens in the context of the round and it is up to those in the round to write that ballot for me. If you do not write it for me then you leave it up to me and I do not really want to intervene in the round, so write the ballot for me. So use the rebuttals to write my ballot. Asking me what arguments I like is silly, run what you want and if you are winning it then I vote on it. If you run things I happen to not like that just means you might have a higher threshold needed to win it, but if you are winning it then I vote for it. I typically default into a policy maker, but I am happy to vote wherever the round takes me. Finally, I will openly admit I do not give the highest of speaker points when compared to others (26-28 is pretty typical) but good debate warrants higher speaks when it occurs. Any specific issues you want to know about continue reading or just ask me since I am happy to tell you. However, note I teach, research, and publish in political communication (campaigning) and gender (masculinties, in particular). Those issues are difficult, at times, for me to step away from and while you are not debating against me as the juege, it can make it more difficult for me to evaluate the argument because it those issues are ingrained in my head and I see them in different ways that you may be arguing those issues (especially in Parli since we do not have access to evidence, but in evidence based forms that is different). That does not mean that you cannot run those certain positions, but they get a differnet listen than other arguments due to my work in the area. Framework: If you have a framework be sure you explain how it functions for me in the round. Remember, I tend to default to policy maker so without a clear explanation of it I will use that lens in the framework. So you have to tell me how the AFF/NEG views compete with each other. Critical Stuff: Never have had any problem with it other than I do not like them run poorly and I am not a fan of running them in the 1NC with other contradictory positions so that you can pick which arguments are your winners. It does need to be well developed and explained, especially in forms of debate where there is no evidence that I get to read after the round. Otherwise, feel free to run whatever critical arguments you want but be sure you explain how it compares to the AFF or NEG so I see how it operates in the world. Doing those things make critical arguments always great to hear. Traditional Policy Arguments: All are fair game. Be sure that you give me some way to evaluate the impact and show me how it relates to the AFF/NEG. However things like "RVI", or "T is a voter for fairness and education" do need some form of explanation. Your unsubstantiated claims are not going to work so well against one that is supported and explained. Parli specific notes--Points of order: You are welcome to call them, but just know that they are all under consideration and that is how I will answer to all of them. I tend to feel that me ruling on them has to potential to provide some unfair advantage for the team and it feels like a form of intervention since now you know how I "feel" about an argument so I just default to the under consideration answer to avoid that perception/advantage one side might get from the argument. Any specific questions you have please feel free to ask and I am more than happy to answer.

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.

Denis Sapranov - Regis

n/a

Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell

General information: I did LD in High School, CEDA in College and now coach NPDA.  I have been coaching for 8 years and have been involved in the activity for many more. I don't keep track of the specific number of rounds I have judged this year. More than 40. I am open to a variety of forms of debate.  Each round should take on its own form.  Any form or strategy is fine as long as everyone is the room can communicate.  I attempt to bring as little to the debate as possible although no judge can be totally tabla rosa. Arguments matter to me more than style.  I judge in a clear order. Kritik (if they are in the round) then procedurals (again, if they are present in the round) then case (government must prove that it is worth attempting plan) then weighing advantages against disadvantages.  Specific information: Topicality: I appreciate strategic interpretations of resolutions and will give a fair amount of room for the government to interpret the resolution.  They key is that everyone has some ground and some ability to debate.  I will also give a fair amount of room for novices to work on format and learn the rules.   Counterplans: CPs are great.  Condo is ok if well argued.  Disclose condo or no condo in the first speech.  My strong feeling is that it should not be about tricking the other team but going after a higher level of argumentation. I am not a huge fan of PICs. I would be open to argumentation on the issue. Points of Order are fine. The kritik: Kritiks are great--aff or neg.  Make a good, well-reasoned argument and have a reason for the K.  Then make sure to engage.  Theory: Great.  Go nuts. Disads: Cool.  Link them.

Dominic Lopez - UWash

Debate background: In high school, I debated 3 years of PoFo in Oregon. Then I debated for 4 years of Parli at UW. General things you might find useful: 1. Don’t lie. There are many ways to win debate rounds, there is no need to lie to win a ballot. That being said it will affect your speaks, so technique before truth. 2. I consider myself very politically aware. I’ve professionally organized ballot initiates in Washington and Oregon. Speaks: I normally give 26-29 with the majority being 27s. Normally give one 28 or 29 each round. Kritiks: I think methodologies matter. However, how they function in a debate round can be very problematic. I do not enjoy kritiks that do not have significant aspects of solvency for the alternative explained. Often time’s teams throw tag lines and buzz words around that are claims but not actual warrants for solvency. You would be well served to explain how the alt and framework function in the round and/or in the world of fiat in depth. DA/CP/On Case: This was my "style" when I debated. In a "straight up" debate, showing argument interaction and doing impact calculus are very important. I don’t want to do it for you and if you dont i'll probably default to probability. T/Theory: I think all aspects of debate are debatable thus competing interps are my default evaluation if nothing is given. Finally, if you are rude, inappropriate, or mean I will give you 0 speaker points or as low as Joe Gantt will let me. Being civilized is an essential part of keeping our community an inclusive place for everyone. Golden rule everyone, it’s not hard.

Drake Skaggs - Puget Sound

Background: I competed in parliamentary debate for four years for Whitman College on the national circuit. This is my first year as a coach. As a debater, I read a lot of politics and CP/DA strategies, blippy textual competition and T shells, and Neitchzx,.ej,we and Neoliberalism bad Ks. General Information:  I strive to be the kind of judge that I wanted in the back as a debater: flow-oriented, without proclivities for/against certain arguments, and willing to answer questions at the end of debates.  I am fine with speed and if I cannot flow you/understand you I will tell you to slow down or clear up.  I believe that debate is a game and you should use whatever tools are at your disposal to win the game.  You are best served going for strategies you understand and are capable of executing instead of complicated arguments that you think make you sound smarter. Debate to your strengths and you have a higher chance of picking up my ballot. Just because I read text comp and Neitchzizekwekljmk doesn't mean you should, especially if you don't understand the argument. One of the most important things for me is impact comparison and contexualization. At the end of the debate, I should have a good idea of what offense you are winning and why it is important. Discuss your impacts in terms of the opponent's impacts (i.e. DA outweighs and turns case impacts because...). While I will vote just as easily on generic strategies, specific strategies are better for education in debate and also much more interesting. I will reward you with better speaker points if I think your strategy is unique and interesting. I love warrant comparison. Tell me why your warrants are more specific, predictive, etc. in later speeches instead of just extending your partner's arguments. I will protect you from new arguments if I assess them to be new. If you think the other team is about to get away with a new argument and its critical to your strategy, go ahead and call the POO. I think debaters should slowly read and repeat all plan/CP/alt texts and theory interps for the judge and provide a copy to the opposing team if asked. Jokes are great and will get you extra speaker points. +.5 speaks if you make 3 good pokemon references in one speech (limited, of course, to the first 151 pokemon. -1 speaks for any reference to pokemon after Mew). Other favorite topics for jokes include anyone involved in the Whitman debate program, how bad/how much of a hipster James "First Place" Stevenson is, and how much Lubbock sucks. Speaker points range is subject to variance as a result of the above comments about jokes, but is generally between 27-29.5 Theory: If you are reading topicality and you think there is a chance you will go for it, you should slow down on your interpretation and read it twice, same when you’re answering as the MG. Far too often T debates come down the exact wording of interpretations and the LOC/MG was unclear/too fast for the judge to get every word. I will listen to your T debates happily, though I prefer to hear substance debate if it’s a viable strategy. I would say my threshold for voting on T is lower than many in the community; if you’re winning a controlling standard and effectively arguing why it’s the controlling standard, I have no problems pulling the trigger for you. I am amenable to all other theory arguments except spec unless you didn’t get a question, in which case you should read “you have to take a question” as a procedural instead, I’m much more likely to vote on that. It’s an uphill battle to win that one conditional counterplan is bad. Abusive PICS should have PICS bad/textual competition read against them. Kritiks: While I enjoy the K debate, I understand it better from a debate point of view than a literature point of view. I might even be worse read than Nick Robinson. What this means is that you need to be clear in the shell of your criticism, especially the alternative. Don’t assume I know what Heidegger says about Being, because I don’t. This doesn’t mean I’m stupid; I can grasp philosophical concepts as long as they are clearly explained. Real-world examples and big-picture moments will make me much more likely to vote for your K. When responding to the K, I think you are best off reading impact and alt solvency turns, and I love a good perm debate. Counterplans: CPs are good. Conditionality is fine. Make sure you have case-specific solvency. As an MG, make sure you create a substantial solvency deficit to the counterplan. I will assess that counterplan has durable fiat EVEN IF the aff reads arguments that say counterplan would never happen IRL (e.g., aff reads USFG should send Jimmy Carter somewhere, neg reads non-US organization should send Jimmy Carter somewhere, MG response "Jimmy Carter is usually associated with US policy and wouldn't travel with non-US organization" is not a responsive argument). DAs: DAs are good. Make sure your story is comprehensible coming out of the LOC shell; a good way to do this is to have summary phrases explaining the general thesis of the Uq/L/IL/Impx every step of the way if you think the DA is more complicated than normal. DAs that turn case are a good idea. DAs that are only competitive because of your PIC out of a tiny portion of the aff are a less good idea. I am in favor of more complete explanations of the status of bills in Politics scenarios, by which I mean I want you to tell me where the bill is (i.e. passed the House, in Senate committee etc.).

Esther Lattin - UP

Felicia Asbury - Humboldt

n/a

Forest Ledbetter - OSU

n/a

Gabrielle Guerrero - MHCC

Glen Frappier - Gonzaga

n/a

Greg Young - Humboldt

n/a

Hannah Pizelo - UW Bothell

Helena He - Willamette

n/a

Howie Long - Boise State

Jackson Miller - Linfield

n/a

James Boyd - USU

n/a

James Stevenson2 - Puget Sound

The rap sheet  -          My favorite parli judge is Tom Schally.  My goal in parli is to judge like Tom, but in half the time. -          Debate well.  Impact comparison, clash, etc. Read Schally’s novel/”philosophy” if you don’t know how to do that already. I don't care what kinds of arguments as long as they're tailored well for the topic and the opposing arguments.  I love it all. -          Tech over truth in general, but truth matters. True impact defense especially. -          Offense/defense mostly, but not absolutely. I’m totally a hack for defense sometimes. -          Specificity matters.  This is true in strategic terms (greater specificity inversely correlates with the responsiveness of your opponents’ args) but it’s also basically my guiding principle for resolving points of clash.  The argument that is more assumptive of the other argument tends to win.  -          Work and scholarly/academic merit matter.   -         "Net benefits" is not a framework interp. "Perm: do both" is a legit perm. "The USFG will do something" is not a correctly written plan text; "The USFG should do something" is.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdPgJ0ZN8eU

James Culver - Hired Critics

Background   I’ve years (CC). high would suits   General Issues   Let philosophy about   Like active my impact and involvement in the discourse.  Unless there is specific paradigm for impact calculus. On a somewhat related subject, this means the block and PMR need to weigh and compare arguments from arguments for you, which forces me to conduct an analysis that I think round how you tell me to.  If there are discrepancies as to which framework is preferable, you need to win the required arguments and     Theory/Procedurals   I own least in my view, allow for a more intricate policy discussion than the classroom. wish to intervene in rounds but advise debaters not to run RVI’s or position, debate to come first, you need to spend time on that sheet.     DAs/Advantages   Feel stylistic perspective, I prefer very tight structure.  I have found this makes and in many ways helps keep everyone on the same page.  The only impacts. explain how we get there not just assert it will happen.  If the other team it.  However, the time tradeoff of reading the DA only to have the impact best use of time.   If you, here is a tip that will help.  Defense wins championships (especially links have more time to establish the framework and weigh the impacts.   Critiques   While no problem with them being run.  That being said, in order to be teams.  1) Be clear in your framework to setup the criticism.  The more explanation. that teams would cover the solution to whatever social injustice was the you will likely face an uphill battle winning the K as the round progresses   CPs   I enjoy the CP debate and think it’s an obvious strategic tool.   That permutations or CP theory.  If you can win (and want to run) Plan- plus, of the directions of the round based on assumptions about which types   Speed   I think the community discussion involving speed is somewhat self-correcting. have no ideological objections to speed and imagine I will be able to are

Jeff Fisher - Hired Critics

Jennifer Conner - Pacific

n/a

Jess Reynolds - U of M

Background: 4 years H.S. policy, 4 years competing in parli at the University of Montana, 2 years coaching H.S. policy, 3 years coaching parli at Texas Tech University.   General Preferences:  Speed is fine and I am fine with pretty much any argument as long as it is well-supported.  As long as you give me good internal link stories and weigh the impacts for me, it should be fine.  If the debater’s don’t do that work, I default net benefits and try to weigh everything equally based on timeframe, magnitude, and probability (timeframe is less important to me, however, unless you’re talking about 1 day versus 100 years, for example).   Specific Preferences: 1. Speaker Points: average is 25-30, largely based on quality of arguments, usually only lower if the speaker is exceptionally rude or offensive. 2. Critical/Performance Arguments: I like critical arguments, just support them and for Ks I prefer you provide a really good alt.  Also I have voted for performance, but I am not a huge fan of it.  Just make sure if you run a performance in front of me, you do some work explaining it. 3. Topicality/Procedurals: I’m fine with T, I vote for it, it can be strategic.  Just please explain your voters; dropping fairness and education at the end of the shell makes it harder for me to weigh it.  I don’t require in-round abuse, but if there’s not, my threshold for voting for it is higher. I also vote for spec arguments, but if the majority of the strat is dropping every procedure you can think of into the mix, I am less likely to vote for the procedurals. 4. CPs: I’m fine with any kind of CPs and CP theory. 5. DAs: I like them a lot, but DA’s are less convincing to me if you need 10 internal links to get to impacts.  So, if it takes you that many to get to nuke war, maybe go for a different scenario. 6. Other stuff: call points of order if you want, I don’t take new arguments into consideration, but if you feel it could be unclear, call it anyway (just not every 10 seconds).  Please take at least one question in your speech, please repeat your plan text twice or give me the text, and I can’t think of anything else right now, so ask me about any other specifics.

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.

JoAnn Edwards - Ole Miss

n/a

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark

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

John Nelson - Boise State

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

Joseph Hykan - Whitman

TL:DR (skip it if you’re reading the whole thing) I think you can mostly do what you want in front of me.  I try to be objective, and I think I’m willing/capable of evaluating most all of the different strategies people like to go for.  I am not the fastest flow, the fastest debaters should slow slightly in front of me, I will attempt to issue verbal slows or clears as needed, but it’s difficult to do in round.  I place a very high value on depth and on argument interaction.  You must return to the big picture at some point, compare competing claims, discuss the importance of the arguments you’re winning, and weigh impacts.  I find I’m most likely to sit or to make a decision that one team is upset about when the work isn’t done in the block/PMR to put the pieces of my decision together for me.    I’m probably more amenable to voting on theory and to give heavy weight to defense than is the norm.  There are many critical affs that I like, but I do want a clear explanation of what the aff advocates/defends, and why that is a reason to vote for them.  While I really don’t like voting on cheap shots I do find it hard to just waive them away, so you need to cover your bases against all the little things.  I aspire to be an objective and hyper-detailed evaluator of the flow, and a judge that everyone feels comfortable doing their thing in front of, but I do have preferences/flaws/peculiarities and that’s what’s in the long version.  Updates New for Nationals -Regarding cheap shots (this is a significant change):  There are at least three rounds this year where I have voted on arguments I think were “cheap shots”.  Arguments with little warrant/analysis that are not very good, but when conceded change the outcome of debates (i.e. perfcon is a voter, you must give us a perm text).  I think so far this year I have been more willing to vote on these arguments than is the norm.  I think this practice is not in line with what I value in debate, and I want to handle these arguments differently at nationals. I’m going to be willing to dismiss arguments that don’t meet a minimum threshold of warrant/logic, especially if they were only very brief blips in the LOC/MG that were blown up later in the debate.  I can’t specify an exact threshold, and I still want to limit intervention, so it still is important that you cover your bases against these arguments.    - If I’m asking you for the order, I probably don’t actually care. I’m trying to politely tell you to stop taking prep.  -I think you should make the choice to either cede a debate round to have a conversation/forum/whatever, or you should contest the ballot.  I do not think it’s fair to ask your opponents to not engage in a competitive round, while still asking for a coin flip or otherwise hanging on to a chance of picking up the ballot. Experience I debated for four years in high school in Colorado, mostly LD.  From 2009-2013 I debated at Lewis & Clark in NPDA/NPTE. General philosophy I want you to have fun, and debate the way you like to debate.  I’ll evaluate the arguments made in the round within the framework offered, and hopefully resolve conflicting claims with comparisons and reasons to prefer that are articulated by the debaters. I want to limit my intervention in the debate, and I am not interested in imposing my own views about the truth of arguments or about what debate should look like.  However, I do have opinions about debate and about particular arguments, and I think it’s only fair to advise you of them.  Do not interpret any of the following as, “I won’t/will vote for x argument”, I still don’t plan to intervene; this is just an effort to share information and make this philosophy useful. Answers to common questions -Clarity/Speed.  I reserve the right to issue a verbal slow if you get too quick for me.  Honestly, if you are one of the fastest debaters on the circuit, you should probably go slightly below your top speed in front of me.  Especially if you are moving quickly between claims and leaving me little pen time. I also reserve the right to ‘clear’ you, although clear doesn’t necessarily mean you need to slow down.  If you were too fast or too unclear for me I will not spot you the argument, I will only evaluate what I have flowed.  -Regarding the K.  I like the K.  I tend to prefer, but not require, framework’s that include a clear interpretation, rather than a laundry list of method good/policy bad arguments that fail to tell me how to evaluate the round.  I think critiques are better when teams are clear and specific, and do not rely on author names or buzzwords.  I really don’t like when teams intentionally obfuscate what they are critiquing, or how the other team can respond.  I do not like Kritiks that are non-falsifiable, psychoanalysis K’s tend to be some of the worst perpetrators.  I believe that the most effective way to answer a K is by directly indicting the logic of the argument itself, and not relying on a bunch of generic perms/alt arguments, or framework.  Similarly I believe that the best K teams defend their arguments in the block, instead of trying to shift and run away from MG offense.  (obviously a strategic shift/collapse is good, but refusing to answer arguments that truly are sticky is not) I’ve said this in post-round almost every time I have watched a critique this year, so I’ll put it here too.  I do not think that Generic perm net benefits like the double bind, or juxtaposition, or generic alt arguments like “the alt is totalitarian” tend to be effective.  Good MOs have no trouble with them, and for these arguments to have real teeth you probably need to be winning other more central arguments against the critique.  I think you’ll be most likely to win my ballot by reading offense to the core of the critique, and contexualizing any of your more generic arguments as much as possible to the specifics of the kritik and the aff.    -K aff’s are fine too.  I’d prefer that they be germane to the topic (and in the right direction), but I’ll listen to your framework your and K of T should you choose to run them.  Clarity is particularly important on framework here.  What is your advocacy, and why does that advocacy mean that you ought to win the debate?  Clear interpretations that provide some level of brightline for me to assess who wins the round would be helpful too.     -Performance/”project” arguments.  (Sorry if these terms homogenize arguments in a way that isn’t ideal, but I need a way to refer to them).  These arguments are good, and important.  I want to support folks who want to run them.  That said I’m still working out exactly what I value in these debates, and how I feel about them.  Some bullet points of things I would prefer you do. -Be clear on what exactly your advocacy is.  -Explain clearly how the debate should be evaluated -I think setting up this debate in a way that allow opponents to engage on the method level is desirable -I won’t enforce this on my own in any way.  But I think there’s a strong case to be made that if your advocacy is totally unrelated to the topic that you should disclose it to your opponents in prep time.  I think forcing your opponent to prep for your performance and a policy aff generates a huge advantage for you, and renders parlis limited prep incoherent.  -Be clear about what your performance does and why that’s sufficient.  If you create real change tell me how and why that change is good.  If you simply expose problematic structures tell me that that’s sufficient. Answering Performance/”project” arguments.  I won’t say that there isn’t a framework shell that I would vote for, but you’ll have to be nuanced for that to get you anywhere.  I’m most likely to give high speaker points to folks who engage on the method level.  I will not be very interested in hearing you complain that this style of debate is inherently unfair. -Conditionality.  No strong feeling here.  But I will note that I believe many parli teams defend condo poorly.  I think ‘we’ll kick down to one argument in the block’ and ‘hard debate is good debate’, are especially bad arguments. -CP theory.  No big predispositions here. I think the more specific the interp/counterinterp, the better you’ll generally do on a position.  Generally speaking I’m open to hearing CP theory, but I think some allowances have to be made for the fact that parli has no back side rebuttal, and that the aff has a second-line monopoly on mg theory.  That doesn’t mean I won’t pull the trigger, but it means PMR second lines aren’t automatically golden, and that their quality has to be compared to that of the MO arguments and justified by the quality/depth of the mg shell.  -Text Comp: I’ll listen to it, but I think it’s just a lazy way of making Pic’s bad and other arguments, and not a coherent interpretation of what a competitive counterplan is.  Veto/cheato bad and delay bad: They aren’t autowins, but you’re in a very good spot. States: I think states is a far more abusive argument than people tend to believe.  PIC’s bad: I think this can be a very persuasive argument if the interp is specific to rounds in which the affirmative must pass the entirety of an existing bill.  -Regarding Spec.  I do not think these arguments tend to be any good.  They’re almost always normal means/solvency debates, which are not procedural/voting issues.  However I’m also not a fan of the trend of swearing at people for making these arguments and refusing to answer them.  Just read your answers. -Topicality.  These are fine debates, and I think people should go for them more often because they seem to frequently be answered poorly. I default to competing interpretations, and I think potential abuse is plenty.  I do not like arbitrary interpretations e.g. Military force means boots on the ground.  No it doesn’t.  Topicality is about the meaning of words in the resolution.  I think ground/education and fairness are poor standards as well, unless made in the context of the meaning of words in the resolution.  I think the Israel debate is fair and educational, but it’s obviously not the topical debate in every round.  The, uh… Trichotomoy? (is this still necessary?) I do not want to hear “value” or “fact” debates.  If you want to have to have these debates you probably should not pref me. -Speaker points. I plan on giving speaker points on the following scale; I think it will make me on the lower end of the spectrum, but I’m trying to limit that effect.             -26 Poor             -27 Below average             -27.5 average             -28 Above average             -29 Excellent             -30 Near perfect.     Bullet point things to know *New: I don’t like strategies where one team deliberately holds back on making their argument until the member speech (e.g. plan text in the PMC then sit down, than a new Nietzche shell in the mg).  I think these arguments are anti-educational, unfair, and really indicate a team is unwilling to have a real debate. I won’t intervene against these arguments, but I’ll be extremely compelled by responses indicating these strategies are unfair/uneducational/pointless.  -I find a lack of depth is a consistent problem in the debates I watch, including debates with very good teams.  If I am to consider an argument coherent, I need a clear claim, and a warrant, and an impact.  You must explain coherently the impact a claim has on the debate, or I will be forced to do that work myself.  A good example would be if an MG says on politics "Link Turn: Republicans like plan".  Unless the LOC link argument was "Republicans don't like plan" the mg needs to do more work contextualizing the importance of plan's popularity with republicans and explaining why that is in fact a link turn.   -Please slow down for theory interps, and repeat them. -Please also slow down for top level of politics disads, details really matter there too.  -Speakers must take and substantively answer a question if asked in the PM or LOC, and I will almost certainly vote on the procedural if you don’t (if there’s flex/cx the procedural ground is worse).  Generally speaking I like when people take and legitimately answer a few questions, but that’s tough to enforce. -You must give your opponent a copy of any and all advocacies.  And they shouldn’t have to wait for your partner to write it out, just have it ready before your speech starts. -I will protect against new arguments, but points of order are fine.  When calling points of order don’t be rude, excessive, or repeatedly wrong. -I am likely to give more weight to defense than I think is the norm.  If you’re really far behind on the link and internal level of a disad I’m not likely to just grant you ‘some risk’ and move on (absent you also being pretty far ahead on magnitude first impact calc). -I don’t consider arguments dropped if they are intuitively answered by other arguments in the round, although there is obviously some limit to what you can get away with.  Example: If someone drops a link turn on a china relations advantage, but extends the PMC link arguments as reasons why China loves plan, I think it is fairly clear that the aff has not conceded the debate about how china perceives plan.  The PMR can’t newly answer the link turn, but it’s ok to compare the strength/warrants/responsiveness of the turn and the link argument.     -The way we use the term dehum in this activity makes it largely meaningless, be specific about it if you want it to be important. -I have a pretty strong inclination to buy death > dehum, life is the internal link to value to life. -Etiquette: I love good natured banter, and I think tactful and respectful clowning/posturing is awesome.  I understand debate is a game, and one we want to win badly, but do not be a jerk.  Do not bully your opponents.  Do not be nasty, or personal.  If you’re debating a team that is much less experienced/capable than you, feel free to win handily, but do not excessively humiliate them or beat up on them.  -Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies.  If your opponent reads an illegitimate perm than your advocacy is competitive, but that is not a reason to vote for you..

Joshua Justman - NU

n/a

Judith Miller - Linfield

n/a

Julian Plaza - CC

Justin Munoz - MHCC

Kaleb Brooks - DU

n/a

Karina Ramirez - Hired Critics

n/a

Kat Sillonis - IDAHO

Keri Gray - ACU

I was a CX debater in high school and debated parli for two years.  I am now a graduate assistant for ACU debate team. I enjoy all types of rounds, but I do have a preference and more experience with policy debate. I look for well explained and thought out impacts that are not overly dramatic. Try to be as real and tangible as possible. I’m good with all types of arguments, but at the same time I prefer good arguments versus running things just to through your opponent off or waste time in the round. I’m good with speed, I would prefer you not to spread, but if you do then you need to work harder to make sure your arguments are clearly understood. Love humor and wittiness in debate rounds, absolutely will not be okay with disrespect and condescending tones towards your opponents. Just articulate well how the round is weighed and why you are winning and that will make the round great. Have tons of fun!

Kevin Garner (Hired) - Jewell

Experience: 1 year of NDT at University of Kansas; 3 1/2 years of parli at William Jewell College; 2 year parli coach at Texas Tech University; 6 years parli coach at William Jewell College.  Note: I have been out of the activity since the fall of 2015. I judged at one tournament since and kept up with the pace. Section 1: General Information - I am a flow critic who evaluates the round through net benefits unless told otherwise. If a distinction does exist between pre/post fiat, you should tell me how to weigh all the arguments. I generally do not find arguments that seek to prevent the negative team from competing compelling (i.e. "you can't run DAs, etc). I am fine with discursive impacts, but make sure all can access the round. You don't get to win simply because you are aff. I also do not like fatr/value debate and have a low threshold for voting on "Fact/Value bad" arguments. - I am frustrated by the trend of parli to reward unclear, blippy debates that lack substance. I give preference to warranted arguments and clash as compared to a dropped blip that was not developed. An argument is not one line! The above is especially true concerning impacts; a quick blip on “Resource wars = extinction” does not mean anything nor will I just assume the number of people who die as a result of your impacts; YOU MUST DO THE WORK! - I can flow a pretty fast pace, but there is such a thing as too fast and really such a thing as unclear. If I do not flow your arguments due to excess speed/lack of clarity, your fault, not mine. - I will give you a few seconds to get a drink and order, but I am frustrated with stealing prep. I may begin time if I think you are taking too long (you will know I am irritated when I ask you for the order). - You cannot perm a DA….period! - I believe that you should take a question if your opponent wants one concerning a new advocacy (plan, CP, alt text, and if perm is more than “Do Both”). - Slow down and read your plan texts/interps/counter-interps twice unless you plan on giving me a copy - If you say “x argument is for cheaters,” you will probably lose my ballot. There is a difference between claiming an argument is bad/should not be ran and making an attack against a team. If a team has cheated, that is to be determined by the tournament, not in round. - I do not understand rudeness. Being rude does not help your arguments and only gets me irritated. Sarcasm and banter are fine, but there are limits. Section 2: Specific Inquiries How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions. The aff/neg can run critical arguments; make sure you have a framework and alternative and be clear as to how I evaluate critical arguments with non-critical arguments. Also, dropping authors’ names and using big words does not mean the K is good; make sure you know what you are talking about or there is a good chance, I won’t. The alt should be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions. - I do not vote on Speed Ks (Update: There is a potential I could find this argument compelling, if framed correctly, when it becomes apparent that the sole purpose of using speed in a round is to exclude another team....but this is a stretch in most instances). - I will let teams debate out the legitimacy of contradictions. Performance based arguments… I will not exclude any arguments. Just make sure you have a clear framework to evaluate the argument and have an alternative Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I require you to win the argument and have a voter…. I do not require a counter interpretation; I just highly doubt you will win T without one Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? The opp should identify the status and if not, should allow the gov to ask what it is (without counting it as a question). The CP should also be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions about the CP. I will let the debaters debate out CP theory for PICS, perms, etc. 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 costbenefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? I default to the weighing mechanism established (so if you say net ben and I am not told when to evaluate T, I will evaluate it as a decision of cost/benefit instead of as an a-priori issue). In a round with T and Ks, teams would be wise to debate out which one comes first. 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 love the buzz terms “time frame,” “magnitude,” and “probability.” Debaters should use these. One million deaths will always come before an unwarranted dehum claim. Debaters should also tell me which impact standard takes priority. I also do not consider internal links, impacts. Telling me “the economy goes down” does not mean anything. Also how do I evaluate quality of life?

Kevin Stone - U of M

Making Decisions: My goal is to base my decision solely upon how the debaters argue I should decide; I avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible. I like to be placed in a paradigm by the debaters. This would be done by explaining what my evaluation process should look like and defending why that particular process would be preferable. When this doesn’t happen I will revert to what I see to be the most appropriate mechanism for making a fair decision (frequently a policymaker framework). I look primarily to the rebuttals in making my decisions (meaning you can’t split the block in that way) though I do trace arguments made in the rebuttal backward through the debate. Assessing Arguments: Dropped arguments still need to be placed within the context of the round and it is the responsibility of the debaters to explain what sort of impact the argument ought to have on my decision. I think it is necessary to supplement line-by-line argumentation with "contextualization." I feel that it is important to bridge the gap between arguments and the framework. I have strong viewpoints but I evaluate arguments based on the comparison of impacts made by the debaters. There are some arguments I probably would never endorse but I can’t imagine a debater ever making them ("rape is good" would be an example). Presentation Issues: This is your debate round rather than mine, as long as you are speaking intelligibly, there shouldn’t be a problem. Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: CPs- I subscribe to generally accepted counterplan theory. Topicality- I think T is probably where I am most likely to deviate from what has been said above. I focus on the standards debate on topicality. The definition and voters are important of course but it is my opinion that they are more like hurtles that must be jumped for topicality to be a viable position whereas the standards are where topicality is won or lost. Offense coming out of the standards and critical offense in particular seem to be underutilized methods of making topicality a wining position. Kritiks-I am fan of critical positions but I feel that many criticisms are little more than non-unique disads. This is not to say that a criticism can’t be effective if its primary function is as a case turn, I just feel that to fully exercise the potential of the line of argumentation the debaters must articulate a sophisticated framework that explicates the roll of the position as well as its relationship to the critic and the ballot. I think one personally held theory belief that may distinguish me from the community at large is a rejection of the pre-fiat/post-fiat dichotomy. Debate is a game and an impact is an impact.   Again, I can be placed, with successful argumentation in just about any judging framework, and if a team is winning that that should be the case. This puts some added pressure on the debaters though, and requires a fully thought-out "system." I am not one to ignore arguments, I am open to whatever you have to say as long as it fits into the framework you are having me use for the round (or that which I have reverted to in the absence of direction from the debaters. My primary goal as a critic is to provide fair judication of the debate round, and I believe this can best be done by being open to what the students want say, and is best maximized when debaters articulate a specific voting mechanism to me. This makes the rebuttals quite important. If you have questions prior to the start of the tournament please email me at kevin.cascadia@gmail.com, otherwise, feel free to ask me in person.

Kevin Kuswa - Whitman

HI all, I look forward to judging.  I value explanation and reasoning with an emphasis on argumentation as a form of education instead of trickery.  Ultimately, though, you should do what you want to do and I will follow your lead.  I have no inherent problems with very traditional legislative debate, very unorthodox performativity debate, or anything between the two.  Theory debate is always more appealing with examples and comparisons and I generally favor arguments with multiple warrants regardless of what genre those arguments occupy.  if you have reasons and analysis behind your arguments, you are in the right vicinity.  My background is in policy debate, but I am enjoying Parli debate and I do like the variety of topics and styles available.  The two most important concepts you should keep in mind for me are specificity and clash.  Please treat your opponents with generosity, respect, and kindness.   • Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year , etc . about 60 rounds judged this year, competed in policy. ) • Approach of the critic to decision - making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock - issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) • no Relative importance of presentation/communication skill s to the critic in decision - somewhat--argument comes first making • Relative importance of on - case argumentation to the critic in decision - making • depends on the neg. Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks • well-explained Preferences on calling Points of Order. no

Korry Harvey - WWU

Background/Experience I debated a lot (CEDA, NDT), and have coached and judged even more (CEDA, NDT, NPDA, NPTE, Worlds). I teach courses in argument theory, diversity, and civil dialogue, and I am heavily involved in community service. While my debate background comes primarily from a “policy” paradigm, I have no problem with either good “critical” debates or “persuasive communication”, and am willing to listen to any framework a team feels is justifiably appropriate for the debate.   I think that debate is simultaneously a challenging educational exercise, a competitive game of strategy, and a wonderfully odd and unique community – all of which work together to make it fun. I think debaters, judges, and coaches, should actively try to actually enjoy the activity. Debate should be both fun and congenial. Finally, while a written ballot is informative, I feel that post-round oral critiques are one of the most valuable educational tools we as coaches and judges have to offer, and I will always be willing to disclose and discuss my decisions, even if that may involve walking and talking in order to help the tournament staff expedite an efficient schedule for all of us.   Unique consideration I am hearing impaired. No joke – I wear hearing aids in both ears, and am largely deaf without them. I think most would agree that I keep a pretty good flow, but I can only write down what I understand. I work as hard as just about any of your critics to understand and assess your arguments, and I appreciate it when you help me out a little. Unfortunately, a good deal of my hearing loss is in the range of the human voice – go figure. As such, clarity and a somewhat orderly structure are particularly important for me. For some, a notch or two up on the volume scale doesn’t hurt, either. However, please note that vocal projection is not the same as shouting-- which often just causes an echo effect, making it even harder for me to hear. Also, excessive chatter and knocking for your partner can make it difficult for me to hear the speaker. I really want to hear you, and I can only assume that you want to be heard as well. Thanks for working with me a little on this one.   Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) Although I don't see absolute objectivity as easily attainable, I do try to let the debaters themselves determine what is and is not best for the debate process. Debaters should clarify what framework/criteria they are utilizing, and how things should be evaluated (a weighing mechanism or decision calculus). I see my role as a theoretically “neutral observer” evaluating and comparing the validity of your arguments according to their probability, significance, magnitude, etc. I very much like to hear warrants behind your claims, as too many debates in parli are based on unsubstantiated assertions. As such, while a “dropped argument” has considerable weight, it will be evaluated within the context of the overall debate and is not necessarily an automatic “round-winner”.   Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making As noted, clarity and structure are very important to me. It should be clear to me where you are and what argument you are answering or extending. Bear in mind that what you address as “their next argument” may not necessarily be the same thing I identify as “their next argument”. I see the flow as a “map” of the debate round, and you provide the content for that map. I like my maps to make sense.   That said, good content still weighs more heavily to me than slick presentation. Have something good to say, rather than simply being good at saying things.   Additionally, 1) although I think most people speak better when standing, that’s your choice; 2) I won’t flow the things your partner says during your speech time; 3) Please time yourselves and keep track of protected time.   Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making I find that good case debate is a very effective strategy. It usually provides the most direct and relevant clash. Unfortunately, it is rarely practiced. I can understand that at times counterplans and kritiks make a case debate irrelevant or even unhelpful. Nevertheless, I can't tell you the number of times I have seen an Opposition team get themselves in trouble because they failed to make some rather simple and intuitive arguments on the case.   Openness to critical/performative styles of debating See above. No problem, as long as it is well executed – which really makes it no different than traditional "net-benefits" or "stock issues" debates. To me, no particular style of debating is inherently “bad”. I’d much rather hear “good” critical/performative debate than “bad” traditional/policy debate, and vice versa.   Topicality/Theory While I try to keep an open mind here, I must admit I’m not particularly fond of heavy theory debates. I think most debaters would be surprised by just how much less interesting they are as a judge than as a competitor. I realize they have their place and will vote on them if validated. However, screaming “abuse” or “unfair” is insufficient for me. I’m far more concerned about educational integrity, stable advocacy and an equitable division of ground. Just because a team doesn’t like their ground doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have any. Likewise, my threshold for “reverse voters” is also on the somewhat higher end – I will vote on them, but not without some consideration. Basically, I greatly prefer substantive debates over procedural ones. They seem to be both more educational and interesting.   Parliamentary procedure While I have no problem with them, I tend not to follow much of the traditional stylizations or formal elements of parliamentary practice: 1) I will likely just “take into consideration” points of order that identify “new” arguments in rebuttals, but you are more than welcome to make them if you feel they are warranted; 3) Just because I am not rapping on the table doesn’t mean I don’t like you or dig your arguments; 4) You don’t need to do the little tea pot dance to ask a question, just stand or raise your hand; 5) I don’t give the whole speaker of the house rap about recognizing speakers for a speech; you know the order, go ahead and speak; 6) I will include “thank yous” in speech time, but I do appreciate a clear, concise and non-timed roadmap beforehand.   I lean toward thinking that “splitting the block”, while perhaps theoretically defensible, is somewhat problematic in an activity with only two rebuttals and often only makes a round more messy.

Kristen Stevens - WWU

Kristen Stevens Western Washington University Background 3 years policy, 1 year LD in high school. 3 years NPDA/NPTE style parli at Willamette University. I majored in political science and minored in philosophy. This is my 4th coaching for Western Washington University. General information and comments: - I will vote off the flow - The team that makes the most sense will probably win my ballot, so please, make sense. - I will default to a net-benefits framework unless told otherwise - Neither of us wants me to intervene, so please clearly tell me why to vote for you, and not for the other team - Please read all texts and interpretations slowly and twice - Please give me a copy of your plan/cp/alt text - Speed is generally not an issue, but if you’re one of the fastest debaters in the country, slow down a bit. I want to understand your aguments as you go, not just transcribe them. - Reiterating the thesis of each position throughout the debate will greatly benefit you. Do not assume that I totally understand your story coming out of the PMC/LOC. MO regional overviews are a beautiful thing. - Please prioritize and weigh impacts and evidence/warrants. - I prefer policy-oriented debates to K debates, but will vote for a K if you’re winning it (see below for specifics). I love DA/CP and good case debate relevant to the topic.    (From the NPTE Questionnaire) How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?             I am okay with critical arguments, and will vote for them on aff or neg if you’re winning them. However, I prefer policy-oriented DA/CP or case debates, and often find K aff versus K neg debates difficult to evaluate. I also much prefer critical affs that are topical, as opposed to, “we talked about x issue first and therefore win.” That said, if you’re at your best when reading a project, I will vote for you if you’re winning. Don’t expect to win your K on the neg if you haven’t tailored your links directly to the plan/aff during the PMC. If you fail to contextualize your argument to the aff and just read the generic links you thought up in prep time, I will probably end up voting on the perm. On either side please give me a clear interpretation of how to evaluate your arguments, and apply this to the arguments present in the debate (ie. indicate in rebuttals that your framework excludes x arguments). That said, I do not care for neg K frameworks that straight up exclude the aff and strongly dislike the specific role of the ballot arguments I’ve been hearing this year that tell me to vote for the team that best does something super specific that only one side is prepared to engage in. Instead, use those justifications to weigh and prioritize your issue in the rebuttals like you would normally.  Give me a little extra pen time for long/wordy alternatives (or give me a copy). Condo usually resolves any issues of “contradictory” positions, although the aff is welcome to make arguments about the implications of a “contradictory” neg strat. Generally, I think perf con arguments should be justifications for the perm. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?             I normally stay between 27.5-29.5, but I usually give at least one 30 per tournament. Being funny and making clever or creative arguments will increase your speaker points. Being rude, offensive, or exclusionary to other debaters, will decrease your speaker points. Performance based arguments…             Haven’t encountered these much as a debater or judge, so if this is your thing I might not be the best judge for you. That said, I will vote for a performance if you are winning it. Just please give me an interpretation for how to evaluate your performance within the context of the round. So if you want to tap dance during your speech time that’s cool, just make sure you tell me why that means you win. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?             Please read your interp slowly, and twice if you want to be sure I have it word for word. I think T is always a voting issue, and will default to weighing the argument under competing interpretations if not told otherwise. I will also assume T is an apriori voter unless told otherwise. Under a competing interpretations framework, in order to win T you must win an offensive reason as to why your interpretation is best. That means clearly connecting and winning at least one standard to the voting level. In round abuse is not necessary to win my vote, but helps tremendously. It’s cool if you want me to use another framework to evaluate T such as reasonability, please just explain what that means. Also voters such as fairness and education should be terminalized, and I prefer this out of the LOC. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?             As mentioned earlier, please read the text slowly and twice (or give me a copy). I think most questions of counterplan theory are up for debate. Personally, I think condo is good, but have no problem voting for condo bad. I will vote for PICS bad (or any other counterplan theory) if you win it, however I strongly prefer to hear substantive arguments over theory on the counterplan. Please specify whether winning theory means the other team loses, or whether that means the counterplan just goes away. I will default to the latter. If you are going to run counterplan theory, please don’t stay at the theoretical surface level. Prove that THIS particular use of the counterplan given the res and plan is bad. Also, tell me explicitly how CP captures case out of the LOC. I’ve been astounded at the number of debates I’ve seen in which this is never explained. Perms are tests of competition. Opp should probably specify status. If not, POIs should be used for clarification. If this is never established I will assume the counterplan is conditional. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)             Sure. 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?)?             Procedural issues come first. After that I will default to the impact analysis present in the round. Unless otherwise told, I will evaluate kritiks second, and then case/other impacted issues. 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")?             Death is of higher magnitude and thus outweighs dehum.  Other Issues: Delivery: I can flow a pretty good pace, but if you consider yourself to be one of the fastest debaters in the country, you should slow down just a little bit for me. If you’re not sure if you qualify in that category, then probably err on the safe side. Or come ask me – I’m usually wandering around trying to find snacks. I’m also pretty expressive as I judge so just keep an eye out. Also please don’t lose clarity for the sake of speed. It makes me feel bad when I have to yell “clearer” at people. Disads: Run them. Topic specific disads that turn case, or politics. I can’t say this enough, MO/LOR/PMR overviews that reiterate the thesis of positions will help me enormously. Your line-by-line analysis will make a lot more sense to me if I have a firm understanding of your posititons.    Spec: I will vote for it if you’re winning it, but POI’s probably check. Points of Order: I will do my best to protect, but call them anyways. Etiquette and Misc: No need for thank-yous. Speak however is comfortable for you – sit, stand, lay on the ground, whatever. Take at least one question in your speech. Don’t be mean to each other - I love this community and want it to stay strong.

Kristy McManus - WWCC

I have been coaching since 2010.  I competed for two years at the college level.  I took a long break from forensics but returned when working on my second Master’s Degree in Communication.  I am currently the DOF at Western Wyoming Community College. I try to remain as tab as possible.  It is your responsibility to dictate what the round will look like. I put a lot of weight on the flow.  I will not “do the work for you”. CP’s, DA’s, K’s – sure!  Strategy is key for me but all must be done well and show understanding through warranted argumentation. Tell me what to do.  This is your debate.  Where should I look and how should I vote.  Impact calk is a must. T’s are there for a reason – if you need to use them – you MUST.  Otherwise, they are a waste of my time. Be civil – if you are rude, I stop listening.

Kyle Dennis - Jewell

Name: Kyle Dennis School: William Jewell College     I record nearly all of the debates that I judge on my MacBook. During the debate, you will see me creating position/answer markers so that I can easily recall any portion of the debate during my decision. I have developed a basic system to govern the conditions under which I will review the recording— (1) if I think I have missed something (my fault) I will note the time in the recording on my flow, (2) if there is a question about exact language raised by the debaters in the round, (3) if there is a Point of Order about new arguments in rebuttals, (4) I will review the exact language of any CP/Alt Text/ Theory Interp. Outside of those circumstances, I typically will not review recordings.   This new process has had a couple of important impacts on judging. I don’t miss arguments. I will take as much time to review the debate afterwards if I believe that I’ve maybe missed something. It has made my decisions clearer because I can hold debaters accountable to exact language. It does, however, mean that I am less likely to give PMR’s credit for new explanations of arguments that weren’t in the MG. It also means that I’m more likely to give PMR’s flexibility in answering arguments that weren’t “clear” until the MOC. I don’t provide the recording to anyone (not even my own team). Within reason, I am happy to play back to you any relevant portions that I have used to make my decision.   If you have questions about this process, please ask. I encourage my colleagues to adopt this practice as well. It is remarkable how it has changed my process.   If your team chooses to prefer (or, in the case of the NPDA, not strike) me, there are a couple of promises that I will make to you: I understand that the debaters invest a tremendous amount of time and energy into preparing for a national tournament. I believe that judging any round, especially national tournament rounds, deserves a special level of attention and commitment. I try not to make snap decisions at nationals and it bothers me when I see other people do it. I know that my NPTE decisions take longer than I will typically take making a similar decision during the rest of the year. If you spend 4 years doing something, I can at least spend a few extra moments thinking it over before I potentially end that for you.    I flow on paper. I find that I am more connected to the debate and can deliver more complete RFDs if I am physically writing down arguments rather than typing. When I watch my colleagues multi-tasking while judging debates, I am self-conscious that I used to do the same thing. You will have my complete attention. I can also guarantee you that my sleep schedule at tournaments will not hinder my ability to give you my full attention. I have made a substantial commitment to wellness and, if I am being honest, I have seen/felt significant improvements in my life and my ability to do my job at debate tournaments. Once again, you will have my complete attention.   Finally, I can tell you that I have come to a point that I am unwilling to categorically reject any argument. I have voted for negative teams with a 1NC strategy of a K, CP, DA, and case arguments (who collapse to an MO strategy of the criticism only) more times this year than I ever thought I would. Smart debaters win debates with a variety of strategies—I don’t think that I should limit your strategy choices. The debate isn’t about me. If we can’t embrace different styles of argument, this activity gets very annoying very quickly.   If I get to judge you, there are a couple of promises that I want you your team to make to me: Please slow down when you read plan texts, theory interpretations or perm texts unless you are going to take the time to write out a copy and provide it to me. Please do not get upset if I misunderstand something that you read quickly (an alt, for example) if you didn’t give me a copy. I will review exact text language on my recording, if necessary.   Please do your best to engage the other team. I like watching critique debates, for example, in which the affirmative team engages the criticism in a meaningful way rather than reading common framework or theory objections.   Please make all of your interpretations on theory as clear as you possibly can. This isn’t exactly the same as asking you to read it slowly—for example, a PICS Bad debate should have a clear interpretation of what a “PIC” is to you. I have generally come to understand what most members of the community mean by “textual versus functional” competition—but, again, this is a theory debate that you need to explain clearly.    Finally, please do not assume that any of your judges are flowing/comprehending every single word that you’re saying at top speed. As long as I have been involved in this activity, the most successful debaters have recognized that there is an element of persuasion that will never go away. I think that the quickness/complexity of many of the debaters have far surpassed a sizeable chunk of the judging pool. I often listen to my colleagues delivering decisions and (in my opinion) many struggle or are unwilling to admit that portions of the debate were unwarranted, unclear, and difficult to understand.   I have often observed an undue burden to make sense of 2-3 second blips placed on critics by debaters—this activity doesn’t work unless you help me to understand what is important. I have the perspective to acknowledge that if a critic doesn’t vote for one of my teams, that there is something that we could have done better to win that ballot. I would simply ask that you dial back your rate of delivery slightly. Understand that there are times that slowing down makes sense to put all of the arguments in context. The most successful teams already do this, so I don’t imagine that this is a very difficult request.   Other notes: I flow the LOR on a separate sheet of paper. My speaker point range is 27-30. I don’t give out many 30’s, but I am happy to give quite a few 29’s. I will protect you from new arguments (or overly abusive clarifications of arguments) in the rebuttals. I will be involved in all aspects of prep with my team. Regardless of what I would disclose, for me, clarity is your best bet. I generally advise my teams to assume that your judges don’t know what you’re talking about until you tell them. I generally try to remove my previously existing understanding from the debate as much as possible.   TL, DR: I want to make the best decision that I can, given the arguments in the debate. If I’m going to end your NPTE, I will do so thoughtfully and with my full attention—that’s a promise. Make the debate about you, not me. I love this activity and all of the people in it. I make a conscious effort to approach decisions (especially at nationals) with respect for the activity and the people in the debate.

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 Hamar - NU

n/a

Larkin Madden - Hired Critics

n/a

Leah Moore - Lower Columbia

Leah Larson - PacificLutheran

n/a

Lilly Huynh - Pacific

n/a

Linda Meaney - MHCC

Lindsay Bing - Portland State

n/a

Lindsay VanLuvanee - Hired Critics

n/a

Liz Kinnaman - MHCC

Lori Welch - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Mack Sermon - USU

n/a

Matt Gander - Whitman

Matt Gander Judging Philosophy  I will listen to any argument you want to read with an open mind attempt to reconcile its conclusions with the arguments presented by the other team. I will reward arguments that engage the substance of the resolution and demonstrate thorough research. The most important part of debate is having fun, so you should do whatever makes that happen for you.  As a general disclaimer, I have not done debate research since March. My news reading has been confined to the Huffington Post IPhone app and random news articles on Facebook. In college I studied History, Political Science, with a minor in Art History. I am currently a Masters candidate in the UO Conflict and Dispute resolution. I am most confortable with debates surrounding international relations, the American judicial system, the EU and political philosophy. I know a lot of random stuff from debate, but you should understand that a large part of my scientific knowledge base has been formed/corrupted by John McCabe. You can get into deep science/tech debates, but don’t expect me to be able to resolve them on their technical merits. Sorry. That being said, there were very few debates in college that I thought were beyond my ability to generally comprehend. I think you should be able to explain anything, but understand that going too far in one direction leaves you vulnerable to my ignorance. Feel free to ask before the debate.  I stole this from Zach Tschida because I think is perfectly phrased and get to the heart of how you will win my ballot.  As a rule, I appreciate debates and debaters that exhibit: 1. Nuance. I enjoy nuanced strategies, nuanced execution, and nuanced comparison between arguments (both in terms of line-by-line on each position and between different arguments). Ultimately, I am more persuaded by arguments that present a nuance that complicates the way the other team has portrayed the world. 2. A clear distillation of complex thoughts. As a rule, I believe that a speaker’s ability to convey and explain an argument is indicative of their understanding of that argument. Consequently, I think that a successful debater should be able to simplify potentially convoluted ideas in a manner that resonates with the audience. 3. Humor and civility. It is refreshing to see a debate that reminds me that this is a collegial activity in which all participants dedicate a significant amount of time and effort. I understand that it is difficult to balance civility and humor and I hope you will err on the side of humor. Please be nice. I understand if there are some teams/debates where that isn’t going to happen, but I think debate should be a place where everybody feels welcome to express their opinion. I would much rather you engage the other team productively than see you rub their face in the dirt. Debate is fun largely because you make friends, being overly adversarial is not conducive to making friends. I assure you that being mean will only hurt you chances of winning in the long run.  Speed I think speed is appropriate and beneficial to many debates, but it also detracts from many debates. Use your own judgment, but I would much rather hear 6 great answers to a position than 10 underdeveloped ones. I also don’t think you should use speed as a form of exclusion. Feel free to spread out any team ranked in the top 60, but I will be very upset if you use speed to confuse a team that you are probably going to beat anyway. I think this also holds true for strategic decisions, if you want to read 6-7 off against a decent team; I have no principled opposition to that. However, I doubt 6-7 off is conducive in a preset debate against two new debaters. Given the way I debated, I have very little room to tell you that you shouldn’t good too fast, but I can say from experience that it is not right for all debates.  T I think the affirmative team should attempt to be topical. Predictability, fairness and education are all good values to strive for, but I don’t think they need to be enforced as strictly as many other judges on the circuit. I think topicality is like apple pie and hand grenades close is good enough for me. I think debate theory is an important theoretical framework to understand the general responsibilities of each team, but I am not compelled by the argument that one side should lose because their arguments don’t conform to your ideal version of a debate. I will default to a framework of reasonability, but I am more than confortable voting down people that go beyond my interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable interpretation of what somebody can/should do in debate.  Framework  I really enjoyed debating the criticism and think it is an argument that should be in every team’s toolbox. I generally found that critical debates were most interesting when they attempted to interact with the topic and the arguments presented by the other team. However, I will be very reluctant to ignore the arguments presented by the other team purely on the basis that they are presented within a problematic framework. I think it is important to engage arguments on their own terms and attempt to create the best synthesis between competing truth claims because it is very difficult to win that your opponents arguments are entirely false.  Critical Debate  My reading of critical literature is spotty and you should not rely on me to understand the literature base surrounding your argument. I think good critiques in parliamentary debate attempt to directly engage the advocacy of the affirmative. I will be very reluctant to use your framework arguments as a stand-alone reason to reject the affirmative. Links are important, but there is no reason you can’t substantively engage the knowledge presented by the affirmative. I also think there are many debates and topics that conform poorly to critical debates. I prefer critical affirmatives to critical negative strategies. CP I think CP’s are good. I don’t think they have to be run unconditionally and I am unlikely to vote for PIC’s/Condo bad. I am more interested in theory arguments that speak specifically to the strategy presented in relation to the topic and the debate at hand. I don’t know how I feel about multiple conditional CP’s or strategies that overburden the MG, but like most theory arguments this will be an uphill battle. I think textual competition is irrelevant.  DA/Case Debate I have a warm spot in my heart for a good DA and case debate. I think parliamentary debate is primed for these types of debates, if they become small in the second half of the debate and reflect good research. I think Will Van Tureen was giving the most innovative LOC’s last year because every time I watched him he threw down hard on the specifics of the advantage and buttressed these arguments with a smart DA. I tend to think politics debates are silly, but it will be much more compelling for me coupled with good case arguments. These types of debates reward speakers that consolidate and compare impacts. Read whatever you want. I like link and internal link debates the most.  I tend to believe that new cross applications in the rebuttals are new arguments. There are some arguments that may be phrased in a manner that applies across specific pieces of paper. Contextualizing those within the entire debate is not problematic, but ideally the MG is doing that work. I want you to call points of order, but I will be very non-verbally expressive if I think you are calling too many. Also if you are calling POI’s to rattle your opponent, I will take it out on your speaker points.  Have fun and feel free to ask any questions.

Matthew Hogan - UNR

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

Matthew Compton - Hired Critics

Melissa Franke - SeattleU

n/a

Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Miranda Morton - Whitman

Miranda Morton Section 1: General Information   In High School I was a mediocre LD debater. I went on to 4 years of Parliamentary debate at Whitman College ending in 2013. I was the MG/LO I studied history at Whitman, now I work in the craft beer industry. See how far a degree can get you? ALERT: Although I was around debate quite a bit during the last four years, I have only judged at one tournament (L&C) in the 2013-2014 season. Beyond that one tournament, I have only watched myself loose rounds on YouTube. FOLKS, that means I have only judged ONE college-level debate tournament EVER. The following is a meager attempt to guess what I care about as a judge. Feel free to ask me any questions not answered here! Specific Inquiries    Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? <ul> <li>I would guess between 26.5 and 29.8. But alas, I could be shocked higher or lower.</li> </ul> How do you approach critically framed arguments?   <ul> <li>Critical debates are best when they are nuanced, clear, and interact with the specifics of the topic or affirmative. Critical debates that are messy and generic are upsetting.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I am inclined to think that the affirmative gets to weigh the impacts of the AFF against the impacts of the K unless told otherwise. Given that inclination, I think it is a pretty smart idea for a K to try and internally link turn the affirmative. Or solve the case with the alt. Or, you know, the neg could answer the case.</li> </ul>   Can affirmatives run critical arguments?   <ul> <li>Sure, run whatever you would like.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>OPINION: Affirmative Ks sometimes use the element of surprise, not debate skill, to win. That does not mean that I am against them. What it does mean is that I am somewhat open to a negative that suggests, either though argument or through theory, that a topical plan passes in the world of the K.</li> </ul>    Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   <ul> <li>Definitely.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li> I assume this question is really asking about the number of “worlds” I think is acceptable in a debate round. The question of conditionality comes later, but generally speaking I believe that the world of the SQ, the world of a negative policy action, and the world of a K are all open territory for one negative strategy. Of course, this is up for debate, and seems like a surefire way to link into your own criticism.  </li> </ul>   Performance based arguments…   <ul> <li>Are rarely as thought provoking as I wish they were. They seem exceptionally difficult to evaluate, and necessitate a VERY clear framework. See my comments on AFF criticisms for more thoughts on the element of surprise.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I debated at Whitman College. Take that as you will.</li> </ul>    TOPICALLITY   What do you require to vote on topicality?   <ul> <li>Ugh. I can count on one hand the number of T debates I thought were interesting. And most of those were only good because I got to be in the same room as Zach Tschida’s hair.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li> In round abuse is the most likely way to get me to vote for you on topicality and not be ticked off about it.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I think reading topicality well will put your chances of winning close to 50-50 with me. Even in the best T debates, I find debaters do not give a frame to evaluate impacts… So I never have any idea if education or ground or whatnot is most important.</li> </ul>   Do you require competing interpretations? <ul> <li>Yes. I can’t think of a case where I wouldn’t require competing interpretations, but I’m sure it’s out there.  </li> </ul>  Counterplans –   PICs good or bad?   <ul> <li>PICs are strategic.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Consult counterplans are probably cheating unless there is a very good reason, rooted in the lit, that consultation is valid.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Tiny PICs tend to make debaters feel smug. I don’t like smug.</li> </ul>   Should opp identify the status of the counterplan?   <ul> <li>Yes.</li> </ul>   textual competition ok?   <ul> <li>Up for debate. See info on Perm texts and functional competition.</li> </ul>   functional competition?   <ul> <li>Yes please. The right of the AFF to perm with just “do both” should check non-functionally competitive but textually competitive counterplans. Boy is that a mouthful.</li> </ul>   Perms: <ul> <li>A perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. </li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I think “Perm: do both” is fine in the place of perm text. If your perm is more nuanced than “do both,” don’t say “do both.”</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>It’s great when teams explain how the perm solves the AFF and NEG, It’s even better when there is independent offense to the perm.  </li> </ul> Issues regarding counterplan status: <ul> <li>Conditionality is up for debate. I read multiple conditional advocacies all the time when I debated. But when other people did it, I would get all huffy and angsty. Why? Because it makes the NEG’s job a tiny bit easier, and the MG’s job much harder.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>While I do not have a set-in-stone threshold for number of conditional advocacies, I do think that the quality and strategic utility of each one diminishes after 2 (maybe 3).</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Does anyone actually know what dispositional means? There are enough different interpretations of this status that it is worth explaining if your position is going to be dispositional.  </li> </ul>   Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) <ul> <li>Sure, but they don’t have to.</li> </ul>  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?)? <ul> <li>The negative should (almost) ALWAYS collapse to EITHER theory or substance by the end of the debate, preferably in the MO. This keeps the debate smart, and keeps me from having to do the calculus mentioned above.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Otherwise: I automatically assume a NB framework unless I am told not to</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I revert to this order if no order is given: <ul style="list-style-type:circle"> <li>Proceedurals</li> <li>The impacts of the K versus the impacts of the case. I would not consider the K before the case unless I am explicitly told to.</li> </ul> </li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I hope this never comes up.  </li> </ul>     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")? <ul> <li>Diametrically opposed claims: I have no problem throwing out arguments that do not meet a basic threshold of understandability or fact. If both claims are semi-logical, I will generally evaluate the analysis of the claim’s effect on the debate over the number of warrants behind each claim.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Impacts: I would pick the best explained, most logical impacts. In this situation I could also see myself being very moved by claims in the later speeches about how the plan solves the impacts to the disadvantages, or how the SQ or CP solve the advantages.</li> </ul> Things not covered: POOs: <ul> <li>I’ll protect within reason to the best of my abilities. That doesn’t mean that you can’t call them. It’s your debate, and if it makes you feel better to point them out, please do.</li> </ul> Talking Pretty/Looking Pretty: <ul> <li>Speed and Clarity: I will do everything in my power to keep up with you. It is a rare case that speed is a reason I do not catch an argument. If you are not clear, however, it is likely I will miss something.</li> <li>Clothes: are important. Wear them.</li> <li>I always thought standing up helped me speak loudly, clearly, and quickly. But you can do what you’d like.</li> </ul>

Neil Cheesewright - IDAHO

Neil Cheesewright – Judging Philosophy Years Competing in Debate: 9 Years Competing in Parli: 3 I competed in debate all through high school and college. For 4 years in high school and 2 in college I did Policy debate exclusively. I transitioned to Parli for my last years in college. After college I was an assistant coach for a couple of years, and it has beet a couple of years since I did that. If you haven't figured it out already, it has been a few years since I have participated in the activity in any capacity. This means primarily that my ear is not as trained as it once was to the speed of modern debate. If you want to speak quickly, and you want your arguments on the flow, please be clear. When I was debating, I enjoyed creative argumentation. I primarily ran Disadvantages and counterplans and the case arguments that were more or less required in my district. However, when the opportunity presented itself, I loved running new arguments, and often the crazier the better. From your standard marxism K to silence, and from embracing madness to rejecting the politicization of debate, I loved it all. That said, I did not win all of those rounds, in fact I remember losing most of them. But I will not vote you down for running off the wall arguments, but I do require that you win them before you win the round. I think that the round is yours. You will make of it what you will and it is not up to me to dictate the arguments that you run. If you are comfortable with T/DA/CP, then by all means, that is what you should run, and I will try to evaluate it as fairly as I can. The round will end with one winner and one loser, and as such, your arguments should probably speak to this. If you want to win the round, then you should tell me why your arguments win. If you want to dance, then dance, but if you want your dance to win the round, you better be able to tell me why it should, and alternatively, the negative better be able to tell me why it shouldn't, and why their arguments should win them the round. Since my years as an assistant coach, I have been a seasonal worker, mostly guiding rafts down the rivers of Colorado. I have not engaged in any significant way in the world of academia, and though I miss it sometimes, I find the intellectual engagement of the natural world to be as stimulating as that of academic study. This may or may not temper your judgement of how to treat me as a critic, but as my current life has tempered the way I see things, maybe it will give you an indication of how to view me as your judge.

Nick Mauer - Hired Critics

Nikki Hanson - Boise State

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.

Omar Guevara - Weber

n/a

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.

Rachel Menashe - Willamette

n/a

Ray Utech - Hired Critics

I debated for Lewis and Clark starting back in 2002 and then coached for a couple of years at LC from 2007-09.  Since 2010, however, I have not been consistently involved in NPDA, but have judged the occasional tournament.  I am comfortable with all styles and speeds, while using speaker points to place a focus on clarity and argument construction. I am a strict flow judge and will not let any personal opinions about arguments (either their over-all form (i.e. spec, T, K, etc.) or their content impact my evaluation of them in the round.  Any relevant point you wish me to consider should be directly articulated in the round. As such, I place a large premium on your ability to cover all arguments on the flow, no matter how absurd or tangential.  However, I do expect clear warrants for any claim/impact and if your opposition can demonstrate that your argument does not have a warrant it can be devastating.  I will mention that when I was a debater and regular critic I did have a strong preference for critical arguments on both sides, but certainly do not evaluate them preferentially in-round. However, I understand their theory and construction quite well so don’t be afraid to test out your chops in front of me. If you have any specific questions for me before the round please do not hesitate to bring them up.

Robert Trapp - Willamette

n/a

Robert Margesson - Regis

n/a

Roger Copenhaver - ISU

Experience: I competed in debated for 7 years. Three years in high school (policy), 1 year at Oregon (CEDA/NDT & NPDA/NPTE) and 3 years at Idaho State University (CEDA/NDT). I have qualified to the NDT in policy and cleared at most tournaments my senior year. I am now an assistant coach at ISU as I am finishing up the last few classes for my undergrad. All, all of this really means is that I feel very competent in my ability to evaluate a debate.  I debated at Oregon with some combination of Liz Featherston, Megan Gaffney, and Cameron Thurber while being coached by Tom Schally, Sarah Hamid, Ben Dodds, and Will Chamberlin. These people all had an impact on how I understand NPDA/NPTE debate.    A few parli things:  1.) Conditionality is probably fine. Negatives should probably get the status quo or a competitive policy option or an alternative the tests the AFF for a variety of different philosophical reasons.  2.) I flow the K on one piece of paper. It is one argument. Not 7.  3.) Point of orders are silly. I can flow and decide what is a new argument and what is not.    More about me: I believe that a balance between tech and truth is important in debate. I tend to see and evaluate debates at a very meta level. Winning a larger framing question in the debate is important to get my ballot. After judging college debate for a little over a semester now, I have realized the larger meta questions debaters have forwarded are how I filter my decision calculus.    After much consideration, debating back and forth, and even sitting in a few clash of civ debates, I finally came to the conclusion that the only argument (other than overtly offensive arguments/comments) I will not listen to is framework. I think teams that go for framework show a lack of willingness to engage people in the community who come in with not only interesting, but also important knowledge and perspectives that policy teams dismiss as irrelevant or unimportant. Framework was never an argument that I had to go for, nor does it seem necessary for any of the other people who are genuinely interested in what these K teams are talking about. Creativity and innovation are what make this community unique. We are at the point of debate where teams are going to read a variety of argument based in critical theory and talk about their identity. Reading framework will not change this. I don't think that anything will change my opinion on this for now. Using my identity in debates helped me learn more about myself, become a better advocate for queer issues, and also has helped me help others in the community.    That being said, even though I will probably be struck by many policy teams in the community, I value and find policy throw downs important, educational, and entertaining. If you are willing to be flexible, engage K teams, and do your policy business when it's time, then I will be more then excited to judge you. I think what makes CP's competitive and legitimate is open for debate. The more specific your strat is, the better.    Speaker points: My range is typically between a 27.5-29.5 - This means that the average debater who is still making major mistakes is going to get a 27.5. If you show skill and are only making small mistakes, you will be in 28 range. If you are exceeding expectations, you will be in the 29 range. If you give one of the best speeches I have ever seen in debate you might get a 30 or close to it.

Ryan Kane - Lewis & Clark

Sara Seyller - Clark CC

I have enjoyed participating in the collegiate debate community since 2007. I have participated in, coached, and judged NPDA, IPDA, and BP debate. I think any form of debate is both fun and educational!! While I enjoy sharp, pointed styles I am averse to disrespectful treatment of competitors, and find that it detracts from the whole of the debate.   Overall, in each form of debate I am well versed in rules and expectations and hold firm to them.  They are there for a reason and ought to be respected.  This does not mean I lack flexibility, but it does mean that outright violations will be noted in nowhere else but in speaker point awards. In many ways I consider myself a hybrid, I am a flow judge with a speed govern of just short of ludicrous speed (IE spittle running down face as they gasp for air every few minutes), but I also appreciate arguments that use persuasive rhetoric and style rather than reliance on an excess of words to win solely by tabulating dropped arguments. As far as Procedurals, liked or otherwise, is becoming an important if not critical component to debating in NPDA.  As such, I am open to all forms of arguments so long as they are connected to the case, it doesn’t take much to make it applicable.  I am not a big fan of winning on dropped arguments alone unless the drop so large that the gaping hole left is enough to sink the case.  I leave it up to the competitors to set the rounds as they see fit.  In IPDA and BP there is a heavier reliance on style and persuasion rather than procedurals.  As such, I tend to be less about detailed flows and more attentive to the connections made both within the cases and through clash provided connected to the opponents case.  In these rounds, the devil is in the details.  I am most appreciative of competitors that can connect to the people in the room by explaining how it might impact us, why it matters to us, or the harms and benefits we would be exposed to should something occur.  Ivory tower syndrome, arguing so far up in the building that it become abstract concepts of competing theory, is extraordinarily hard to do given the time frame and is more often isolates competitors and judges from the argument rather than including them.

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 Cheesewright - IDAHO

I spent four years debating in parli for Lewis & Clark. It feels like many years ago - and I have not been even somewhat involved in the academic debate community since then (I watched a high school policy debate in 2011, and judged one college parli tournament in 2009).  I like a good clear debate. I do not expect to see any arguments in particular - but I do like to hear arguments with which you are having fun; if you’re enjoying what you’re arguing, we’ll all have a lot more fun.  There are a few things that you most certainly should do:  -provide me terminal impacts to all arguments -do a lot of work in your rebuttals to tell me the story of why you win. Make the rebuttal speech very clear -make arguments -be respectful of everyone in the room -dress as you would like   Some things should not be done:  -speak in an unclear manner -ignore prompts by me, or your opponents, indicating that you are unclear or too fast   I am happy to watch a debate of any variety. I encourage you to ask me questions in advance of the round. I will attempt to impose as few expectations on your strategy as possible. I do very much enjoy debate with good clash. And warranted arguments.

Sean Wang - Lewis & Clark

Shayna O'Dea - Hired Critics

Simone Walter - Lewis & Clark

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

Stephen Moncrief - WWU

Statistics (2012-present): Median speaker points: 27.8 AFF/NEG split: 50% AFF, 50% NEG over 70 open division prelim rounds Tournaments judged this season (2013-2014): Jewell, Bellevue, Lewis & Clark, UPS, Linfield, Mile High Tournaments judged last season (2012-2013): Jewell, Bellevue, Berkeley, Lewis & Clark, UPS, Mile High, WWU, PLU, Whitman, NPTE, NPDA Debate Background: 2.5 years of coaching NPDA at WWU (2010-11, 2012-present) 3 years of NPDA  (2007-2010) 3 years of high school policy debate (2004-2007)   Education Background: M.A., Political Science, University of British Columbia (Vancouver, BC, Canada) B.A., East Asian Studies & Political Science, WWU (Bellingham, WA) My research background is in security studies, with special focus on civil war and terrorism. I have virtually no background in critical approaches to the social sciences. I was trained to understand conflict and cooperation from a rationalist (as opposed to a constructivist) perspective. Overview: I aim to be as transparent in my decision-making as possible, and during my RFD, I will identify the specific arguments that informed my decision and explain my understanding of them. I am not very shy about admitting that I don’t understand an argument as you have phrased it. Everybody in this activity has gaps in their comprehension of some positions, and that is true for me too. I promise you my best effort at understanding and fairly evaluating your arguments. In return, I expect your best efforts at delivering them. I feel comfortable with the stylistic and strategic trends of contemporary parli. I have no problems with speed or extinction impacts. With a few exceptions (see below), there is no argument that I will not listen to. Of course, I have my biases and opinions on technique and strategy, so what follows is a modest attempt at describing my dispositions as a critic: My Proclivities:  To do well in front of me, remember two words: CAUSAL MECHANISMS. This means that your internal link and impact arguments need to be clear, linear, and well warranted with relevant empirical analysis, as opposed to plausible-ish chains of claims you threw together in prep. USE EXAMPLES. I think that relevant historical examples to illustrate past patterns of individual and/or institutional behavior are under-utilized in this activity. Your use of historical evidence will help me understand your positions much better than I might otherwise. EXPLAIN INCENTIVE STRUCTURES. Positions that describe a clear model of how actors can be expected to behave based on material incentives are very helpful to me, and are more likely to win. CITE SOME SOURCES. Knowing where you got some of your information can often help me understand the context of your claims. I think we have a terrible tendency to take facts out of context in this activity, and some of our debates end up inane as a result. Citing the work of authors when you borrow from their ideas greatly enhances your credibility in front of me. I look more favorably on smart defense than poorly warranted offense. I think that during my first year out, I was too quick to give credence to under-warranted arguments simply because they were phrased as offense. That was unfortunate, and I'm now comfortable giving badly warranted offense considerably less weight than really smart defense. I flow rebuttals on a separate sheet and follow the extensions/cross applications from the constructives. I listen to the rebuttals very carefully, so you should take great care to isolate your voting issues and explain them clearly. Arguments I will not vote for:  In some ways, it seems like this activity has an odd way of gauging which arguments are acceptable and which are repugnant. For example, “war with China good” seems to be prevalent, but “classism good” is not okay. So I will say this: I will not vote for any argument (even one run in irony) that suggests that the domination of one person or group by another is acceptable, especially if that domination is based on immutable physical characteristics, gender identity, or some other element of social location. More concretely, I will never vote for things like “racism okay” or “patriarchy good." Also, I will not vote for RVIs on procedurals. Behavior external to your in-round strategic decisions that will negatively impact your speaker points: STEALING PREP. It does not take 30 seconds to set up a podium or organize your flows. There are usually only about six to eight relevant sheets by the time the member speeches start. Dig deep and apply your organizational skills. If you fill up more than 15 seconds with paper shuffling or forced-sounding banter, I will just start your time for you. Also, if you are more than five minutes late to a round, I will drop you and turn in my ballot.  HOSTILITY. I really appreciate teams that are polite, and I like good-natured humor in the round. Snark, bullying, and other forms of discourteousness make the experience uncomfortable and unpleasant. NOT TAKING A QUESTION. You should allow the other team to ask at least one question during the constructives. More Specifics: Impact prioritization: death > dehumanization, absent excellent warranting to the contrary. I find the tendency to categorize as "dehumanizing" any impact short of death to be immensely annoying. Critical debate: time for an update on this issue. Last year, I voted for the criticism approximately one out of every three times the NEG went for it. I have found myself voting for criticisms less and less frequently, often because the mechanisms by which the alternative solves are too vague for me to feel comfortable evaluating. Although I pursued critical debate as a competitor, I have no formal training in critical theory/culture studies, and put simply, my interest in critical debate is declining relative to my interest in topic-specific disad/counterplan debate. Of course, if you choose to read a critical position in a round I'm judging, I will do my best to understand it to the fullest extent possible. To that end, here are some things that will increase the likelihood of your success with a critical strategy:  Excellent critical debaters phrase their arguments clearly and succinctly, show the intuitive appeal of their position, and specify its observable implications. While I think that the AFF should be able to weigh their case against the criticism, I also think that if the NEG has to defend their framework and their representations, the AFF should be held to the same standard. I'm not persuaded by "Ks are for cheaters"; if you represent political interaction in a particular way, you should be held accountable for those representations. For example, an AFF with a colorful array of balancing scenarios should be able to defend the assumptions underlying realist visions of IR. I prefer an alternative that goes beyond "Reject the AFF". I think you should have to defend a different and reasonably well-defined course of action, and you should have a significant solvency contention that explains how your alternative works. If I don’t understand what your alternative means, you are unlikely to win. If you are interested in pursuing a critical affirmative, I am certainly open to that. In my experience, critical affirmatives usually need a detailed series of arguments explaining how to understand the position in relation to the resolution, since critical affirmatives often appear untopical on face. Counterplan debate: I recognize that conditionality has become common, and that trend is unlikely to reverse. I am fine with conditionality, although I will certainly evaluate theoretical objections to condo. I am much less sympathetic to theoretical objections to dispositionality. I suppose that, ideally, counterplans would be both textually and functionally competitive. I have no strong feelings on the value of textual competition, although I am disinclined to vote for delay and consult counterplans. Please have a text of your counterplan prepared for the other team. I would also appreciate one, although it is not a necessity and I understand that your prep time is very limited. I believe that my understanding of permutations is pretty mainstream: alegitimate permutation is limited to all of the plan text plus all or part of the counterplan text. Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies Theory & Procedurals: These positions are fine, but consider yourself forewarned: I find these debates incredibly boring, and evaluating competing theory arguments is not my strength. Slow down when you read your interpretations, and explain very clearly to my why your interpretation garners your standards, and explain why your counterinterpretation is competitive. Also, please impact your procedurals with voters, and explain the voters with some depth. "It's a voter for fairness and education" is not helpful. Explain to me why I should care about something like fairness, which is both hard to quantify and impacted by a variety of other variables. Points of order: I am confident in my ability to identify new arguments in the rebuttals, and I will shield you from them. However, you should feel free to call points of order when you feel that an argument is new. More than two or three is usually excessive and becomes tiresome.

Stephen Kenyon - Hired Critics

n/a

Steve Woods - WWU

Debate Background: 14 years at WWU Coaching since 1987 overall (K-State, Florida State, Vermont, Wm. Jewell) Overview: I tend to default to a policy maker framework. However, I am open to a variety of paradigms if explicitly introduced and supported in the debate.  As such, I do NOT automatically dismiss an argument based on its "name" (DA or Kritik for example), BUT I do put a premium on how well the argument fits the context of the round.  Often, policy arguments are incredibly generic and poorly linked to the PMC, and critical approaches may be well linked and appropriate (and vice versa).  So, concentrate on the substance of the issues more than the "type" of the argument.  I can tolerate high rates of delivery, but clarity is your responsibility. I also find that high rates of delivery are a cover for a lack of strategy rather than a strategy.  If you go fast, have a reason.  Specifics: Topicality--I tend to give Govt extensive leeway on topicality. Proceduerals/Spec arguments--must be more than plan flaw issues and show real in round abuse. Solvency--I do weigh case versus off case, so Solvency is a part of the overall decision factor.  While it may be tough to "win" on solvency presses and mitigation, good case debate is useful to set up the link directions for the off case arguments/case turns. Disadvantages--HAVE TO BE LINKED to Plan text.  Generic positions tend to get weighed less likely. Counterplans--Issues of competition and permutations neeed to be clear.  I don't need perm "standards" and the like, but clear delineation between the policy options is required. Critical--Acceptable if well linked and relevant.  I tend not to be impressed by appeals to philosophical authority.  Team introducing has an obligation to make argument understandable. How to get High Points: Be polite and collegial to your opponents.  Use clear structure (labeling and signposting).  Have a good strategy and display round awareness.  Generally strong substance is more rewarded than speaking performance.  However, the combination of both is appreciated :)  Good rebuttals and clear strategic choices that make the RFD your work instead of one I have to concoct will help you.  Humor and good will are always appreciated as well. Strike or No Strike? I feel that I am pretty tolerant of a variety of styles and approaches.  I have a policy background but have coached parli for 13 years, so I have seen a lot of different styles and approaches,  I try to be tabula rasa to the extent both teams seem to be in agreement for the paradigm for the round--but do reserve the right to be a "critic of argument" when issues are left unresolved by the debaters, but I do try to limit intervention in those cases to a bare minimum.

Steve Pointer - Gonzaga

n/a

Sunny Lucich - CWI

Tim Lortan - UP

Tim South - Boise State

Tom Schally - Puget Sound

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.”

Travis Juetten - George Fox

n/a

Trond Jacobsen - Oregon

Name: Trond E. Jacobsen_______ School: University of Oregon____ 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 consider the opportunity to debate and to judge debate to be  extraordinary privileges and I hope and expect that debaters treat the  moment with a seriousness of purpose and consideration for the activity  itself and for others in the activity. Debate should be fun and I do  like humor, but, on balance, I prefer debates where the participants,  including the judge, are engaged in an intellectual activity focused on  understanding the world for the purpose of considering what kinds of  changes to that world are appropriate rather than a mere game or excuse  to travel and visit with friends. Debate is not *only* a game for me  and those who treat it as such may find speaker points affected.  • My experience as a competitor and coach is extensive (Oregon, Alaska,  Vermont, Cornell) but until this year that experience was entirely in  CEDA-NDT debate and mostly some years ago.  • Treating people fairly and with respect is my most important value and I will  react to offensive behavior and am responsive to arguments that lesser kinds  of offensiveness should have ballot implications.  • My flow is reasonably strong (still) and is the focus of my decision- making. • My experience and strength as a competitor and judge was in finding,  using, and attacking evidence. In its absence I nonetheless expect  people to make arguments grounded in literature and it is acceptable to  give some reference to where your information came from and why it is  better for current purposes than where their information came from.  • You may hear me interacting during the round, for instance, I might say  “clearer” or “slower” or “louder”. Sometimes I give other kinds of feedback  and those who are observant may benefit. It is normal for me to be focused on  the flow rather than watching debaters. However interaction and adaptation  and some eye contact are important. • You are smart, so be smart. Think about what you are doing. Understand what  you are doing. Know what you know and know what you do not know and be  honest. Have a strategy and execute that strategy. Don’t pretend Senator X  opposes the plan when she doesn’t or you don’t know or you can’t prove it. • Anything contained in this philosophy that conflicts with NPTE/NPDA rules is  void. 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)? 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical  In a typical round the worst speaker will receive 26-27 and the best  speaker will received 28.5-29.5 on a 30-point scale. arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Anyone person or team can run critical arguments they find compelling  and they understand. I am under no obligation to vote for them unless  they win them and win that winning them wins them the debate. While certainly debatable, I tend to think poorly of contradictory  strategies and reward varied, nuanced, but cohesive argument  strategies. 3. Performance based arguments… All arguments are performance-based. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing  interpretations? I strongly dislike topicality in all but the rarest of instances.  I never feel good voting on topicality. I punish people who run  topicality in a cavalier way. When I vote on topicality it is because  the negative has provided a compelling definition and interpretation,  both of which are rooted in some appreciation of the relevant context  (e.g. what are field-specific interpretations, terms of art, etc.) and  have clarified meaningful in-round harms.  5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual  competition ok? functional competition? All counterplans are potentially admissible however some things about  them are required: (1) clear text, clearly delivered, especially the  “plan” part of the counterplan; (2) the counterplan competes with  the affirmative plan: It is a reason to reject the affirmative plan  (or advocacy) and not just a better idea. This means that when all  arguments are considered, the counterplan alone is better than the  plan (i.e., net beneficial) and better than all of the plan plus some  portion of the counterplan (i.e., the perm is not net-beneficial). Neg should identify CP status. I tend to dislike conditionality, am  ambivalent about dispositionality, and resolutely disinclined toward  multiple counterplans.  Nearly any potential scope of action or, range of actors, deserves  consideration depending on the strength of argument by their advocates.  Every kind of process CP, agent (from states to no states to all states  to other states), every kind of PIC, anything really is potentially  acceptable provided it meets the requirements described above. In my ideal counterplan debate, the negative introduces one counterplan  that is well-considered, consistent with other arguments, rooted  (outside of the debate) in some literature base, germane to the  affirmative discussion, and is fully developed during the debate as an  alternative, competitive course of action. I will need help to understand why textual competition is not a  pathetic argument. For one, it is a type of functional competition. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Knowledge is good and shared knowledge accumulates non-linearly. I  would prefer teams share flows rather than debate in ignorance. 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?)? This question is impossible to answer in a principled way because  debaters always make some argument about ordering or weighing, I hope  explicitly, but always at least implicitly. I can answer with respect  to how I perceive judging patterns (whether these are mine or me  voting on others’ patterns is an interesting question): I rarely vote  on topicality so, that is moot. Other procedurals would tend to get  evaluated first, provided they are well developed and explained. For  instance, I hate plan-spec arguments but if they are well argued and  impacted then they might trump other considerations. The rules and  fairness are important in general. People tend to argue that critiques should proceed plan consequences  (whether because it is pre-fiat, or personal advocacy, or whatever) and  so I tend to vote in accordance with that norm. I think it reflects a  profoundly limited conception of fiat and its role in the debate and  often undersells both the value of policy analysis and the role of  “critiques” in policy-making and policy analysis. Part of my job when judging is to identify explicit or  implicit weighing or ordering based on arguments introduced  by the debaters. I will work to do that before defaulting to  my preferences. These impressions are based on years as a  participant but with those years in the past until this year. 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")? Answer essentially the same as in #7. All impacts should be made concrete through powerful argument and analysis. For me this can mean that dehumanization is a very real  impact, very concrete, more so than a probabilistic risk of a war  resulting in an indeterminate number of deaths estimated to some  rough number. On the other hand, dehumanization can be flowery rhetoric used to hide from the real world consequences of one’s  advocacy. Tell me which description fits your impact(s).

Tyler Griffin - Bellevue

Una Kimokeo Goes - Willamette

n/a

Whitney Schmidt - CWI

Will Van Treuren - CU

Experience: I debated for four years in high school policy and four years in college parli. I have coached CU for four years and a high school team for one. I enjoy the activity of debate immensely and see my role as a judge to keep my biases out of the round and let you play the game how you see fit. I will happily listen to traditional debate, the K, theory, performances, anything you want to do, and try to evaluate the arguments objectively and within the context of the debate. Here are my current preferences/biases formed over my time in debate. They are guidelines; you can convince me any of them are wrong (i.e. you still have to win that multiple conditional advocacies are bad, there are good reasons for them): Multiple conditional advocacies – I tend to believe multiple conditional advocacies are abusive to the affirmative. Frameworks that procedurally exclude offense – (like ‘aff can’t weigh their case because fiat is illusory’) are not particularly persuasive to me. If a framework question is unresolved I will default to thinking of myself as a policy maker and of the teams as advocates for the policies they are defending.  Alternate frameworks often lack a way to compare impacts (e.g. what is a methodology or ontology DA?) and I will compare the world of the alternative to the world of the plan in terms of articulated consequences (impacts) without filter unless you provide a clear decision criteria for what impacts to include or exclude. Case debate – I think the state of case construction and the level of case debate in parli is bad. Most cases I have seen in the last two years of judging have had internal contradictions/tension that were not exploited by the LOC. I reward clever case argumentation, and wish it would be a larger portion of LOC strategies. In particular smart defense in conjunction with a case specific disad or turn will often be more demonstrative of intelligence and clever strategic thinking (to me) than reading several counterplans and resolving aff offense with conditionality (same goes for smart defense coupled with a few clear pieces of offense against a CP, K, DA or whatever). Impact calculus – I assess internally consistent arguments that clearly articulate incentive structures (check out Stephen Moncriefs excellent philosophy for more) for various actors as far more probable impacts/links/uniquenesses. If your scenario is not internally consistent in some clear way, I will treat it with inherently lower probability. As an example, an aff with a really well constructed single advantage can often outweigh poorly warranted LOC disads (even if they are otherwise undercovered) by virtue of how important being able to construct the causal chain and incentive landscape for the actors is post your link for me. I will vote on RVIs if they are entirely unanswered, but my threshold here is very high – I think RVIs are stupid. I hold no bias for or against specification arguments.  I default to competing interpretations but think that the aff can easily win reasons why they are bad and/or their interp is good enough. In round abuse is not necessary. I think that PIC’s encourage strategic and in depth debate. It will be hard to convince me that they are bad without a more nuanced argument about functional and textual competition. I am a fan of most counterplans that are not veto-cheato style, but can more easily be convinced that plan contingent counterplans are abusive. My default ordering for argument evaluation is procedural then all other arguments equally unless arguments about the sequencing are made (i.e, impact filters, ontology precedes something, etc.). You can change my default. I think death is probably worse than dehumanization and that body counts are a more effective way to get my ballot then nebulous claims about dehum. However, I think that teams can seriously improve on impact calculus and more complex weighing of dehum versus death or probability vs. magnitude could be fertile ground to win an otherwise unwinnable debate. Style and speaker points: The only stylistic thing that I think merits inclusion is that I dislike arrogant or mean debaters. Intensity is encouraged but very easy to do that without being rude. I like to reward clever decision-making and technical prowess more than eloquence or being funny (but those things will help you as well). If you are not taking the debate seriously I will not enjoy judging you, and while I will try to make sure that doesn't impact my decision, it will likely influence speaker points. Critical/performance arguments: I am happy to listen to critical or performance arguments by either side. I think that a clear framework for my role as a judge needs to be established and that the alternative have explanation. I have backfile knowledge of many criticisms but am not deep on the literature so your arguments will have to be explained. I think that affirmatives under utilize ethics or critical style advantages and enjoy the strategic options they introduce into the debate. Being ‘contradictory’ with other negative positions doesn’t seem like a problem in a world of conditionality. Contrary to my reputation as an anti-K hack I frequently vote for criticisms but I have never voted for Baudrillard and Nietzsche (not to say that I won’t, just a word of caution).

Will Gent - Puget Sound

Will Gent Debate Coach, Puget Sound   Background: 2 years of college policy debate and 1 year of parli at Puget Sound.4 years of HS policy in Oregon. Majored in International Relations.   This is by no means comprehensive. I’m not sure how many parli tournaments I’ll be at this year, but I’ll try to update it as the year goes on. Any questions, just ask.  Apologies to both the reader and Heath Ledger if this paradigm comes across as 10 Things I Hate About You.   General: I think debate is about hard work. If you disagree, do us both a favor and down pref me. If you’ve put a lot of time, research, and effort into a specific position or kind of argument, chances are you’ll be much better off going for that argument in front of me rather than adapting to whatever it is you think my notion of debate is. That being said, I do have certain biases that arise from my debate background or my academic interests. This philosophy will hopefully help illuminate some of them.  Some big picture stuff: <ul> <li> Impact comparison. At the end of the day, you need to be telling me what offense you’re winning and why it’s important. Do this through detailed impact comparison and analysis. Start this as early as possible. I       will reward you if this goes beyond the boilerplate timeframe, magnitude, probability.</li> <li>Arguments must have a claim, a warrant, and an impact. “This instance of dehumanization is the internal link to all violence” does not qualify.</li> <li>I’ll try to be expressive while judging. If I can’t understand you, I’ll yell clear a couple of times. The onus, however, is on you; if it looks like I’m not actively flowing, you should increase your clarity.</li> <li>Given my relatively little experience in parli, I may not agree with all of the activity’s conventions or rules. I’ll try to outline specifics below, but it’s important that you keep that in mind.</li> </ul>   K’s: Before you read a critique in front of me, ponder the following questions: who are the major authors behind your critique? Have you read a major work by one or more of these authors? (By major work I mean a journal article, book etc. Sorry – that Joe Allen backfile that’s been in dropbox purgatory since his Carroll College days does not count). If you answered “I don’t know” or “no” to either of these questions, please do not presume that I want to be subjected to your personal insights about capitalism. (If you answered with a witty Joe Allen joke and you enjoy speaker points, please share it with me). As a rule, I will not be particularly lenient when it comes to filling in the holes in your argument. Now that that caveat is out of the way, I think that critiques are strategic options and I prefer they be as topic-specific as possible. Even without topic areas or a stable resolution, I expect your links to be both nuanced and also relevant to both the rez and the aff. While I enjoy the k, you should know that I have a relatively limited exposure to critical literature; if you assume that I’ve read and put a lot of thought into your particular critique, we’ll both feel disappointed at the end of the debate. Don’t take this to mean that just because I haven’t read A Thousand Plateaus (Sorry, Stevenson2), you shouldn’t go for Deleuze in front of me. Instead, throw me a lifejacket.  The most compelling critiques are those accompanied by a wealth of examples and nuanced explanation – I may not have read your author, but if you give me something to latch onto, we’ll both be better off. Lastly, critiques should be impacted in terms of the affirmative. Without an explanation of how the alt and the k impacts relate to the aff, I’m liable to vote on either “plan is a good idea” or the perm.   K Affs: Watch out for that pesky counterplan that solves your aff and doesn’t result in Romney winning!   CP’s: Call me Emma Lazarus, I want to hear all of these. Advantage counterplans or PICs, it makes no difference. Hell, if you think you can beautifully execute a likely cheating strategy, read Consult and Delay in front of me (note that there's a difference between this and reading Consult/Delay because you couldn't come up with an actual strategy). CP’s should be as specific to the topic and to the aff as possible. These debates almost always come down to risk of a solvency deficit versus risk of a disad, so bring case-specific solvency or bring nothing at all. Permutations are forever and always tests of competition.   DA’s: Yes, please. Best with case-specific links and when paired with an appropriate CP. I especially like the politics disad and anything related to IR. I never understood teams that read a preponderance of UQ on disads (or advantages, for that matter). All you need for a uniqueness point is a fact or a statistic and the right amount of spin. There’s no need to read me the CIA World Factbook. Persuasive disad turns the case arguments are devastating and are frequently undercovered by the PMR.   Theory: I err negative on most theory issues and presume that theory is a reason to reject the argument (exceptions discussed below).  Teams should try to have interpretations on theory but I do not require them; a list of reasonable arguments why PICs are good is as sufficient as some contrived interp. -          CP theory: Counterplan texts should be textually-competitive (or at least the text should be able to be written in a textually-competitive manner. I.e. “The fifty states except Alabama should” is as sufficient as “Alaska, Arizona… and Wyoming should”). Delay, Consult etc. are likely illegitimate, but the aff will still need to win the theory debate in order for me to reject these arguments. -          Conditionality: I think it’s good. Despite 7 years in debate, I do not know what dispositionality is. This is not to say that I will refuse to vote aff on theory; if condo is your most strategic PMR option, it would be a fool’s errand to go for anything else. Just know that it might be an uphill battle. While I’m neg biased on conditionality, condo is probably a more of a reason to reject the team. For example, let’s say the neg reads 1 CP and 1 K and the aff decisively wins the condo debate. In such a case, only rejecting the CP that the neg had no intention of going for does not rectify the abuse on conditionality.     T: I’ll default to competing-interps. As a 2A who lost on T quite a lot (not to mention the increasing hyper-specificity of parli resolutions), I imagine I’ll have a high threshold on topicality. The neg needs to show how the aff’s counter-interp results in ground loss or abuse. This does not mean that there needs to be in-round abuse for me to vote on T. T is always a voting issue.   Asinine dogma: <ul> <li>CX, POI’s, and dual-use prep time: These should be used to ask strategic questions. If you use CX to kill time or if you ask “what was the 3rd answer on the DA”-type questions, I will severely tank your speaks. CX and POI’s are binding. Special shout-out to POI’s: you should probably take one and I do not care about protected time.</li> <li>POO’s: Keep these to a minimum. Sometimes POO’s are productive and further the debate. Sometimes POO’s are strategic. Oftentimes, POO’s are none of these things. If you don’t think I can flow, why did you pref me?</li> <li>Speaker points: By and large, I concur with Jimmy McMillan. However, I don’t think that teams should be punished simply for preffing me. I’ll try to adjust my points depending on the tournament I’m at (i.e. getting a 30 at the NPTE should be significantly harder than getting a 30 at the Northwest Warmup). For the most part, I expect my speaks to be within a range of 26-29. I’ll evaluate speaks based on execution, argument quality, and ethos.</li> <li>1AC Framework: If you're going to read one, read a specific, limiting interpretation. Read offensive reasons why that interp is good. Saying the words "net benefits" and then continuing on to inherency is insufficient, irksome, and a waste of your speech time. </li> <li>Advocacy statements and texts: Precise plan, CP, and alt writing is important. All plans, CP’s, and alts should include a written out copy of the text to give to your opponents (and to me, if I ask for it after the round). All of these texts must be grammatically correct, complete sentences. Perm texts – unless your permutation is particularly convoluted and/or nuanced, there’s no need to write out a text. We should all know what “do both,” “non-mutually exclusive,” and “all other instances” mean. </li> <li>The LOR: The LOR should be full of three things: impact comparison, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqJFIJ5lLs">Gladiator moments</a>, and ass-covering. What pieces of offense do you need to win in order to win the debate? Contextualize those. Where was the MO’s analysis the lightest? Beef it up. </li> <li>Jokes: Please tell them. Tell them in a way that is relevant to the debate. Tell them about other people in the debate community. Tell me inside jokes. Tell me jokes about sports, politics, and/or Nigel. Know where the line is and try not to cross it.</li> <li>Negotiated impact turn debates are highly encouraged.</li> <li>For the love of god, do not make this debate a spec debate. </li> <li> </li> </ul>

Zach Tschida - Hired Critics

n/a

2013 Steve Hunt Classic