FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Amber Manning - Tigard

n/a

Ameena Amdahl-Mason - Clackamas

I competed in policy debate in high school, APDA in college, and I have been coaching all forms of debate, but primarily parliamentary, policy, and LD, since 2001. To me, your jobs as debaters is want to provide me with compelling reasons why you should win the debate, including organized refutations and voting issues in your final speech. I keep a rigorous flow, so organization, including a clear organizational system of lettering or numbering is important. Line-by-line refutation as well as overviews and underviews can provide clarity to the debate. CX:  I would consider myself a tabula rasa judge, as much as that is possible. I feel comfortable with any line of argumentation, including theory and kritiks. However, I do not appreciate rudeness, including cursing, either between or among teams. Generic argumentation, weak links, and time sucks are not appreciated. I enjoy judging policy, especially when new and interesting ideas enter the debate. LD: I feel comfortable with any line of argumentation, as long as it clearly linked to the topic being debated. I prefer philosophical argumentation in LD, rather than more policy style argumentation. However, I do judge a lot of policy debate, so I am capable of evaluating a policy oriented round. Parli:  I will evaluate what I hear in the round, not what I wish I had heard, so if there are things that need to be pointed out as fallacies, etc., please do so. I am not a fan of topicality/definitional debates in parli, unless the affirmative's definition is extremely skewed. PF: I don't flow PF, because I don't believe it is intended to be flowed in the same way as other debates. Otherwise, everything above applies.

Brandon Merrell - Lakeridge

Brandon Merrell<o:p></o:p> Two Notes:<o:p></o:p> 1) This philosophy was written for policy debate, so not all sections apply to LD, Public Forum, Public, etc. Thus, if you have specific questions that extend beyond the purview of this philosophy, ask me before the round.<o:p></o:p> 2) I realize that I am a fairly expressive judge – sometimes this is because of the arguments being made, sometimes it’s because of something entirely unrelated. I can’t really help my reactions, and I don’t know if there's any reason I should try to check them anyways. Debate is a public activity and feedback from the audience seems a reasonable component of that process.<o:p></o:p>   Approach to Judging:<o:p></o:p> With the exception of certain fundamental beliefs, which are clearly outlined below, I'll do my best to fairly evaluate any clearly-defended and impacted arguments. This philosophy explains how certain arguments make more sense to me than do others, but even if you quote from this directly you won't automatically win an argument; you still need to explain, debate, and defend your position. As a default, I determine based on arguments in the round whether the topical plan presented by the affirmative is preferable to the status quo or a competitive option. If you want to change this decision structure, then you should do so explicitly by providing an alternative rubric with which I can evaluate the debate. If the other team accedes to it or fails to prove it less desirable, I’ll use it.<o:p></o:p> Argument Evaluation: First, although most issues should be debated out, the caveat is this: if your strategy relies on contradicting fundamental tenets of debate, then I'm not the judge for you.There are others, but some of the basics are: rules and time limits should be obeyed, both teams have access to fiat (though there are various limits on its specific application), the death of the activity would be bad, and affirmatives should defend a topical plan (though they can justify it in different ways or argue their representations, etc. are equally or more important than the effects of the plan). Second, although I attempt to judge fairly I do not claim to be "tabula rasa." Judges should evaluate arguments, and I feel comfortable doing so. If a statement does not rise to a minimum threshold of coherence and explanation, you shouldn't expect to win the round on it as I am likely to disregard it. At the very least, I will be sympathetic to the suggestion that I consider the argument insufficiently important to independently merit the rejection of the other team. Third, you must make arguments to win a debate. Those arguments must be clear enough - both in structure and explanation - that they allow your opponents a fair chance to respond. Do not interpret this as an invitation to engage in "race-the-bottom" rounds by claiming abuse where none exists; there's a difference between an argument that is misunderstood and an argument that is deliberately evasive. Suffice to say that I think it is admirable when people are clear about what they defend and I am annoyed by those who play chicken with their arguments. Finally, an argument must include a claim, warrant, and application. This is the difference between the claim that “the economy is weak now” and the argument that “the economy is weak, as evidenced by high unemployment” (with an accompanying statistic, the relevance of which is explained). Sometimes your evidence will include hard numbers, sometimes you won’t, but whenever you make an argument your evidence should cite a logical warrant to substantiate the claim. Once you’ve made an argument, you should then apply it to another statement in the round such that the interaction between them is obvious. New arguments: Cross-applications are not new arguments if they already interact with the scenario toward which you're applying them. For example, if the 2AC answers a SPEC position by explaining that the judge should err affirmative on procedurals, it isn't new to cross-apply that argument to another procedural in the 2AR. The argument was already in the round, and (regardless of the sheet of paper on which it appeared) it already informed how the judge should evaluate all procedurals. I don't even think it's a cross-application; it's really an extension of an argument that already intuitively applied. Conversely, if the 2AC responds to a US-China war scenario by arguing that the two countries are economically tied and thus will not escalate hostilities, a 2AR application of that argument to a US-Russia scenario would be new. Even if the 2AR can apply the generic analysis that economically-tied countries won't allow conflict to escalate, they would need to show why it's applicable to the new scenario by explaining how Russia and the US are bound economically. That analysis would be new (it's basically a new link to an argument that previously only applied elsewhere). Thus, even if the generic cross-application was tolerated it wouldn't do you any good because absent a (new) link the argument would be unwarranted and irrelevant. These are obviously gray issues, so you should point of order if you think it's a close call. Either way, your best bet is to explicitly explain how arguments interact beginning in the early speeches and thereby avoid this discussion altogether. Obviously if you cross-apply an argument, the other team's responses to that argument are also evaluated. Argument comparisons in the rebuttals are not new, but the facts you're comparing need to be present in previous speeches. You’re obviously even better off if the comparisons emerge earlier, but given time pressures it’s presumptuous to assume this is possible. Suffice to say, I allow comparison between arguments and prioritization of positions in the rebuttals – that’s the point. As long as you are drawing comparisons, evaluating strength, or suggesting preference (rather than creating entirely new material), you’re probably fine. Finally, I don't consider an argument "conceded" if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech, regardless of where the ink is placed. Links and Impacts: I think the strength of the link is most important when evaluating a disadvantage. For example, if the uniqueness arguments are very strong, then the disad requires a high-magnitude link to trigger the impact. Conversely, if a disad is "brinkish," then although the negative has to win a smaller link they also need to distinguish the plan from the conditions that caused the brink. This is particularly true of major impacts. Global warming, for example, is probably already occurring in the status quo – thus, to argue it effectively a team should strive to explain what amount of warming exists now, when it will begin to trigger their impacts, what percentage of that problem the plan will address, etc. You should also ask yourself whether it is necessary for the plan to solve warming permanently or whether it would be sufficient to delay by 30-50 years the terrible impact it would incur. The latter is often just as useful with the benefit that it is more realistic, but for some reason we seem driven to talk about impacts in the black and white terms of certain extinction and absolute solvency. I certainly don’t require you to approach impacts in a more "honest" way, but I will likely be more impressed if you do. Finally, I think many teams make "risk of a link" arguments when they are really saying "we only have uniqueness." Uniqueness is almost never absolute, so it neither controls link direction nor allows you to assert the existence of a link if none exists. Although uniqueness describes the probability of a particular chain of events occurring, the link is what triggers the action. Thus, you must win a link, control its net-direction relative to defense and link-turns, and then explain why the link is sufficient to trigger your scenario before you can assess your impacts. Terminal defense exists. Additionally, there are often cases in which some risk of an impact technically remains but is rendered so insignificant that it bears minimal relevance in my decision-making.  Theory: I'll vote on theory if told to do so, but you should warrant these arguments well if that's your strategy because I am easily persuaded that rejecting an argument is sufficient to solve the impact to most theory debates (except on questions of status, obviously). I think theory should be used to protect yourself from unfair strategies, rather than as a tool to give your 2AR an out. In short, theory should prevent abuse rather than be abused. You should make theory arguments that are assumptive of your specific strategy. A tailored defense of a specific position is likely to serve you well against a generic “____ bad” black. I also generally think that the "gold standard" for argument legitimacy is specific evidence. This is obviously difficult to assess in parli, but there are instances in which it is applicable. For example, if a major political issue is being debated in Congress and one party has proposed an alternative which is essentially your PIC, when your opponent says 'PICs bad' I can be easily persuaded by an explanation of how your CP is a real-world policy alternative to the plan. Similarly, arguments about how CP solvency arguments need only be reflexive in quality with those of the affirmative are appealing to me. In general, I tend to believe that PICs that focus the debate to substantial elements of the plan are good, while those that rely on "normal means" for competition are not. I’m also highly sympathetic to the argument that affirmatives should not be required to engage specific PICs when the aff is required to defend the entirety of a highly-specific and narrow resolution without much room for parametrics. This is true both because the plan is inherently predictable given such a topic (and thus the negative shouldn’t be forced to solve the affirmative in order to respond to it), and also because narrow topics deny the affirmative the flexibility to pick their plan or sufficient time to prep answers to predictable counterplans. This should be obvious, but competition is determined by mutual exclusivity and net-benefits. I don’t think you need to go further than that, but as far as textual and functional competition are concerned (mechanisms for assessing mutual exclusivity), I think counterplans should ideally be both functionally and textually competitive but have a lenient interpretation of what textual competition constitutes. In short, I think we allow texts to be abbreviated for the sake of efficiency but that the unabbreviated forms should be compared when assessing competition. Thus, if the plan text is "All 50 states should do X," I believe the CP "All 50 states except Florida should do X" can be considered textually competitive although it seems to merely add words to the plan. This is because the unabbreviated plan would write out all 50 states if written in its entirety, while the unabbreviated CP would list all states but Florida and would therefore be textually competitive. When pressed, the negative is obviously still required to explain why their text is or would be textually competitive if written in its entirety. The fact that such minor rephrasing can alter competition is another reason why I dislike textual competition, especially given the lack of precision inherent to the writing of texts without prep time. I'm happy to hear condition and consult arguments, especially if you have a specific lit base. If you have questions about this, feel free to ask. Kritiks: Note: Against a good team, I think the K is generally on the wrong side of the framework debate, the wrong side of the permutation double-bind, the losing side of whether the alternative will accomplish anything, and is at best tied on whether a discussion of critical theory yields better education than an analysis of policy choices. However, I also believe that most parli teams are bad at answering the K and recognize that it can often function as a good strategic option. Thus, if you're confident in your preparation and feel that this is your strongest argument then you should feel free to read it in front of me. I'll still evaluate the round based on arguments made within it, but you should be aware of my personal opinions and predispositions. Specifics: Ideally, I shouldn't need to understand the deeper nuances of your kritik as long as I know how it interacts with the other arguments in the debate. I'm happy to listen to and vote on all manner of criticisms, but I'll warn you that I'm not particularly well-versed on much of the literature beyond its usage in debate. I also attempt to avoid doing any work to reconstruct the meaning and/or utility of arguments that were not coherent to me when they were made in the round. Thus, providing a clear explanation for your argument is probably more important than trying to impress me with your cultural studies vocab list.  Negatives should have specific links, clearly stated implications, and strong answers to perms. You should also lay out a clear alternative. Affirmatives tend to lose to kritiks in front of me when they don't aggressively answer and engage the alternative or when they forget to leverage their case. Negatives lose to critical affs when they fail to explain how their arguments (framework or otherwise) interact with the claims of the 1AC. I am highly susceptible to arguments that allow the aff to be weighed alongside the K.  Ethical imperatives are fine, but if you drop / badly lose a major impact then I will have a hard time finding your argument persuasive. You're much better off putting at least some defense against other impacts, even if you have flaming "ignore other consequences" arguments.  As far as performance goes, you should keep your clothes on but otherwise I consider almost anything to be a valid argument as long as you win your framework. That said, I often don't enjoy performance as done in high school; I find the debate to be shallow and annoying and vastly prefer other arguments. Regardless of what you tell me, I also won’t automatically find your performance more persuasive than any other well-developed and logically-presented argument. Indeed, if you don't explain it, then I will find it far less persuasive. Topicality / Procedurals: Topicality: Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. Any affirmative that does not defend a topical plan loses. Topicality is a question of competing definitions. Within this framework, it should be obvious that if you do not “meet” any interpretation within the round it is difficult to vote for you. The standards are explanations of why a given definition is good in the context of the topic, not why the use of a definition would be good for debate or why it would be better in a particular round. For example, standards might argue that a definition is used by experts in the field or is more precise and more relevant to policymaking than your opponent's definition, etc. To win topicality, the affirmative should win that they either meet the negative’s definition or meet a definition that is at least as good as that of the negative. The automatic result of an affirmative plan not being topical is the loss of predictable ground and topic specific education, but the negative team should attempt to explain why those arguments (as well as the fact that topicality is a rule of the game) are sufficient reasons to vote. If the negative wins that their interpretation is marginally better in a highly specific way, they need to justify why that minor distinction should be rewarded with the ballot. Alternatively, affirmatives should argue that although being topical is required, there are multiple definitions of a word and minor distinctions in quality may not be sufficiently important to merit rejection. Explanations about how the affirmative still provides ground or education are not counter standards in support of a definition but simply explanations for why the judge could still vote affirmative even if the plan is not topical. Because they are not justifications in support of a definition, these arguments bear minimal relevance in determining which definition should be preferred, but do explain why a judge may not need to vote against a team even though their plan is not strictly topical. Finally, remember, the in-round benefits of using a definition are irrelevant if that definition is arbitrary, inaccessible, or inappropriate. For example, even if the affirmative won that there were a plethora of educational benefits and reciprocal ground claims that could be accessed via a debate about sanctions, it would be irrelevant if they failed to win that "sanctions" were an appropriate definition for a word or term in the topic. Specs: I think that most SPEC arguments are silly and generally lack a resolutional basis for their justification. I’m also persuaded by arguments that affirmatives should simply accede to the negative’s choice in determining the normal means scenario for the plan, at least insofar as the suggested scenario is reasonable. Also keep in mind that I think PICs should be limited to explicit mandates of the plan, so don’t count on a SPEC + “normals means” PIC strategy in front of me unless you’re prepared to defend it both during the round and during my decision. Presentation / Speed: I reward substance over style. It will annoy me if your arguments are blippy or under-warranted, particularly on theory. I reserve the option to reduce speaker points if you are exceptionally rude or threatening to your opponents, but this would require extreme behavior as I fully appreciate good-natured heckling. I flow reasonably well, and I'll try to prompt you should speed or clarity become an issue. I would prefer if you attempt to engage your opponents rather than rely on speed as means of excluding them. Tag-teaming is fine in CX. Miscellaneous: Plans / Fiat: Fiat happens immediately. Neither counterplans nor affirmatives should mess with this. Because fiat happens immediately, politics links that are based on the process of the plan (delay, using capital on the plan, focus, horse-trading etc.) don’t make sense to me. Politics links based on the outcome of the plan (changes in capital or popularity based on response to or perception of the plan) are better. The plan cannot be rolled back, either with the same actor or another actor. It is enduring, it is durable, and it is permanent. Permutations are tests of competition. That’s all they ever are. Intrinsicness:<o:p></o:p> Intrinsicness arguments (not against perms, against positions) are silly. If you need me to explain why, I’ll take you back to 1992, but in short they’re a way to claim that “the link might not necessarily happen,” despite the fact that your opponents have made logical arguments for why it would. You can argue that the action of your plan would result in changes or reactions that would solve your opponents’ argument (those are called link-turns and no-links), but you cannot fiat (either directly or artificially) the implementation of additional steps beyond the plan’s original mandates. Also, this is debate – you’re better off answering their arguments (and defending your own) than trying to sidestep them. Rebuttals:<o:p></o:p> Good rebuttalists (and hence successful ones) resolve arguments. This means identifying pressure points on the various positions in the debate and making arguments about why your cards / warrants / analytics are stronger than those of your opponent. Simply extending arguments absent comparison leaves it up to me to decide which is "better," and you probably will not be happy with how I resolve that question without your guidance. Even concessions must be impacted. Any argument that does not directly answer or eventually resolve the question, "For whom am I to vote, and why?" is irrelevant, conceded or not.  Teams are at a major advantage in front of me when they make evidentiary or quality-of-warrant comparisons themselves. Be honest, but explain to me why your warrants are more specific, more encompassing, more appropriate, more recent, more qualified, more predictive, more empirically accurate, etc. than those of your opponent. If one team does this and the other doesn’t, then the former is far more likely to win the round. To be persuasive, you should be honest about how the debate has progressed. I grow tired of debaters who insist that they are somehow winning every argument. Admit your own weaknesses and recognize the strengths of your opponents - it makes you seem more credible. I think defense is the most underutilized tool in debate. Debaters tend to focus too much on their impact and not nearly enough on how / whether it is accessed.  Other:<o:p></o:p> Presumption is toward less change relative to the status quo. I don’t mind if you use the beginning of your speech time as prep time – it’s your time to do with as you wish. If you choose to do this, I’ll stop time mid-speech while you give your roadmap before you resume the remainder of your “speech” (because roadmaps aren’t timed anyways). RVIs are for people who cannot debate and for judges who cannot think. Have fun. That’s ultimately why we’re all here.<o:p></o:p>

Cathy Cleaver - Lincoln

Dinesh Kumar - Westview

Don Steiner - Wilson

Ell Olson - Lake O

n/a

Hiro Nukaga - Tigard

n/a

Jane Leo - Lincoln

Jennifer Gruter - Clackamas

Jenny Owen - Lincoln

Previous debate and practical experience: High school policy debate (1977-1981); legal career; past seven years judging all forms of debate, individual events & Student Congress in Pacific NW for 15-20 tournaments/year as well as 2-3 ToC Tournaments/year; and, six years of coaching a large, comprehensive speech and debate team. I value and thank debaters for pre-round research and preparation, but I view the actual round as the place where even more is required, namely: Engagement, clash, aggressive advocacy/defense of positions, respectful behavior and proportionality. Use of canned arguments, kritiks and counterplans without specific links into the actual debate fail even if they are entertaining, well planned and/or superior to the alternative. I prefer the substance of the debate over the form. Taglines make flowing easier, but do not warrant claims nor constitute extensions of arguments per se. I try to flow all of the debate but not robotically. I aim to judge competitors on their round at hand, not on all the arguments that could have/should have been made, but were not. I do not view the ballot as my chance to cure all that is wrong in the world though I wish it were that easy. I offer a caveat: Rude or malicious conduct are ill-advised. I will default to the rules of that form of debate (to which I will refer if they are called into question) as the base for my decision within the context of debate before me.

Joe Provencher - Lake O

n/a

June Gerst - Century

n/a

Justin Richter - Lincoln

n/a

Justin Munoz - Tigard

n/a

Katie Kantrowitz - Silverton

n/a

Kehl van Winkle - Thurston

Keisha Shippey - Silverton

n/a

Kyle Vorderstrasse - Silverton

n/a

Liz Fetherston - Thurston

You can find my philosophy and my decisions from last year in this google drive: tinyurl.com/debate-rfd TL;DR: I debate for UO. You won't go too fast or be too technical for me, but it's your game, so play it however you want.  I recommend you still read the part about impacts in the philosophy.   Please email me at thurstonforensics@gmail.com if you have further questions or need clarification.

Ms. Custer - Clackamas

Patrick Johnson - Westview

Real world arguments win- theoretical/improbable impacts do not Comparative impacts critical for a win Topicality is legit, again, only for real world probability CLASH! and signpost where your arguments clash with opponents AND why your impact is more significant No tagteam when prohibited Speed is not your friend when I'm judging, if you have firmly established your contentions and have time, then spreading ok w/o speed

Sarah Lindenthal - Century

n/a

2012 Sprague Invitational Debate