FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Brittany McKinley - Hired

n/a

J Scott Rodriguez - Hired

n/a

Aaron Zamora - Pepperdine

Adam Austin - Sac State

Adam is in his first year of graduate school and still new to debate. He has been working hard on this process, attending lots of tournaments and observing, but still has limited experience judging. He flows fairly well, but you should still take it pretty slow and be sure to explain your arguments in depth, particularly impact comparisons.

Alexander James - Palomar

Alley Agee - Utah

General overview: I consider myself a very open judge. I do not care what you run, as long as you do it well and justify it. I vote for the team that gives me the easiest out without or with minimal intervention. The only position I will not vote for out of principle is the argument that I personally have to affirm with my ballot that debate is meaningless. Arguments that ask me to personally affirm some philosophical position with my ballot also do not sit well with me. I think these types of positions do violence to the critic (or have no solvency, probably this one). So, keep my name or the phrase “the judge” out of your advocacy and solvency and you should be fine. Additionally, I usually prefer topical affs, though what counts as topical for me is pretty broad—make some link arguments or impacts specific to the resolution and you’re probably topical. This is because I think part of the unique education that you get from parli debate comes from changing topics. Even if you want to talk about your critical aff, considering the topic specific implications, link stories, or just general ways your critical position relates to the topic gives you a new way to think about that critical aff and probably does more for your education. This being said, I certainly have no problem voting up non-topical affs, and I’ve done it plenty of times. But I’m going to be swayed by theory with a good education voter a little more easily than other critics. Finally, the part that everyone says in every philosophy—be courteous, acknowledge your privilege or position of power and don’t exert it, respect your competitors and the arguments they make, and be respectful of me. If you don’t do these things I can assure you your speakers points will reflect it. If you want to know more specifics, you can keep reading. Experience: I competed in NPDA all four years of undergrad with appearances at two NPTE tournaments. This is my third year coaching college parli, and my second year at the University of Utah. Critical arguments and K’s: Run them. I love a good K debate. However, I do find them harder to judge if they get messy. This usually happens when the links are not clear, the team does not understand their lit, or the alt and alt solvency aren’t clearly explained. This becomes particularly problematic when both teams run critical positions. I will like you and your K more if you have topic specific links or implications. See my comment above about non-topical K affs. This season, I’m becoming increasingly more frustrated with sloppy alternatives that do not solve or make sufficient arguments about solvency, so you should take time on your alt and alt solvency in prep time. Framework/methodology always come first for me in K debates, whether its K on K or otherwise. Spend time telling me why your framework and methodology is best in comparison to the other team’s framework/methodologies. Additionally, don’t forget to deal with the links page.  **This doesn’t mean that you have to run critical positions in front of me. I actually really dig a good straight up debate, increasingly more so because I rarely get to see them. I don’t think teams use the DA/CP strat as often as they should.**  Theory/T: Also fine. I do not believe that in-round abuse has to have occurred to vote on T, mostly because I’m not really sure what in round abuse vs. potential abuse actually means (though you can certainly make arguments about that). I believe that T is a position just like any other position. If you win that sheet of paper and you tell me why that sheet of paper means you win the whole round, then I will vote for you. This goes for all theory positions. In general I think if you’re going to win T or any other theory position in front of me then you need to collapse down to just that position. If your theory position is really a priori, then you don’t need anything else to win the debate. Usually, I think you should only run theory to get you something in the round, i.e. to protect your links. (But just because they no link your DA doesn’t mean you automatically win T).  Speaker points: I give speaker points ranging from 26-28 points. My average this semester has been around a 27.5. I determine speaker points based on the arguments you make and strategy. A killer MO collapse will get you a 29/30. An LOR that doesn’t stick with her MOs collapse will lose points. If you are mean or rude I have no problem giving you 0 points. Seriously, I’ve done more times than I can count.  General Practice: Be smart and make good arguments. Tell me why you should win the debate. I like it when my RFD is literally a quotation from one of the rebuttals. I’ve bolded this because too often debaters forget to contextualize the round in the rebuttals for me. I think the constructive speeches are you just laying the groundwork for you to make your actual argument in the rebuttal. Clear voters are key. Finally, debates should start smaller than where they began.

Alyssa Sambor - Palomar

Amanda Ozaki-Laughon - Concordia

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

Andrea Berning - Glendale CC

Ashley Nuckels Cuevas - PLNU

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

Barry Regan - Grand Canyon

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brandon Flecther - Long Beach

Brandon Fletcher <a name="x-California_State_University_Long_Beach"></a>California State University Long Beach   I think that debate is a space for you to debate however you would prefer to debate. I do not have major preferences with style, and would prefer that you do not try and adapt to what style you think I would prefer, and instead make the arguments that you think give you the best strategic chance to win. While there are particular things that I like and dislike in specific debate rounds, I would prefer that you debate in whatever manner you feel most comfortable.   Also I have a very real learning disability that generally impedes my ability to evaluate arguments and make decisions at the same speed as other critics on the circuit. I will take longer, and may very much be the last one making a decision in certain rounds, but that does not mean that I am worse because I take more time to render a decision. I will not be hassled to make a hasty decision for the convenience debaters are impatient, so if this is a problem for you, please strike me.   That said, no one is 100% objective in evaluating debate rounds, here are some general notes about the way that I evaluate debates:   <ul> <li>By default I evaluate a topical plan versus the status quo or competitive policy option or competitive alternative advocacy. If you want me to change this, explicitly tell me how you want me to view the debate round</li> <li>I only evaluate arguments that are made in the constructives and extended in the rebuttals. If you want an argument as a strategic option, extend it in MG or in the MO/LOR. I will also protect against new arguments in the rebuttals.</li> <li>Each argument needs to have a minimum threshold of coherence and explanation and I am fully comfortable disregarding an argument that is blippy and nonsensical. For example, claiming you win on timeframe is not an argument. Claiming you win on timeframe because economic collapse and ensuing great power wars happen before global warming destroys the environment is an argument.</li> <li>If you want to win theory, read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. If there is confusion or if I do not get your interpretation, I may ask for a written copy after the LOC.</li> <li>Impact calculus wins debate rounds. I leave it up to you to compare the probability, timeframe, magnitude and reversibility of impacts and tell me which ones to prefer and why. The more work and explanation you do, the less I have to do, and the less I will fill in the gaps to render a decision.</li> <li>Generic arguments don’t bother me so long as they are executed well. If you’re really good at the Cap K, 50 states/courts and politics or something, I wont be angry if you decide to read that in front of me and can win it well.</li> <li>I’m generally not expressive when I evaluate debate round, and that doesn’t mean that I dislike you, but instead should be taken as my general demeanor. Unless I look extremely happy or extremely angry, don’t take my facial expressions to mean that you’re doing anything really bad or really good. I generally just look apathetic when watching debate rounds, so don’t take it as a bad thing.</li> <li>To evaluate theoretical issues I rely on violations that are made in round. For those unable to read between the lines, I am not likely to vote on disclosure theory, as I have no way of evaluating whether a violation did or did not occur.</li> </ul>   As I said before, I would prefer you to read the strategy that you think is the most strategic, and that will give you the highest chance of winning the debate round. The following should not be seen as a permanent set of rules that I utilize to evaluate debate rounds, but instead general predispositions that I have on issues in debate:   <ul> <li>I love seeing a well-developed case debate. A strong, well warranted DA, paired with some strong case arguments, is one of my favorite debates to evaluate.</li> <li>Critical affirmatives should be topical, and if they are not I need a good reason why you shouldn’t have to affirm the topic.</li> <li>I do not like personalized advocacies that rely on weaponizing the experiences of debaters in the round against each other.</li> <li>Clash of civilizations debates awesome, and I very much enjoy judging them.</li> <li>Condo is good, as long as it isn’t abused to an absurd degree. One condo advocacy is almost always fine, two is stretching it depending on the context, and I am highly sympathetic to condo bad if there are three or more advocacies in the debate round.</li> <li>That said, I think just about anything is theoretically up for debate and will not automatically reject anyone for any type of strategy that they would like to read.</li> <li>Most counterplans are also fine. I don’t have an ideological problem with consult, PICs on any topic, etc. But you should be prepared to defend the theoretical legitimacy of the strategy you’ve read.</li> <li>In general, I very much love evaluating theory debates. I may change this later in the year depending on how many theory debates I actually have to evaluate by the time nationals rolls around, but I’ve always loved reading and going for theory arguments, and as a critic I highly appreciate a well developed theory debate.</li> <li>I have a strong love of critical arguments and I think that they perform an important in debate rounds, but do not randomly hack it out for the kritik. Don’t assume because I have a reputation for loving Nietzsche that it means I will auto vote for you if you read that argument.</li> <li>Don’t be an asshole. Seriously don’t be rude. If you’re face crushing another team, you don’t need to continue speaking at 300wpm, and if you’re hitting a new and not experienced team, you probably don’t need to eliminate their access from the debate round to win. This does not decide whether you win the debate round, but I will not hesitate to eviscerate your speaker points.</li> <li>I don’t like offense impact turns. I would prefer not to hear a debate round with rape good and genocide good read as arguments, and will be highly receptive to the other team telling you that you’re wrong. Brandon Fletcher <a name="x-California_State_University_Long_Beach"></a>California State University Long Beach   I think that debate is a space for you to debate however you would prefer to debate. I do not have major preferences with style, and would prefer that you do not try and adapt to what style you think I would prefer, and instead make the arguments that you think give you the best strategic chance to win. While there are particular things that I like and dislike in specific debate rounds, I would prefer that you debate in whatever manner you feel most comfortable.   Also I have a very real learning disability that generally impedes my ability to evaluate arguments and make decisions at the same speed as other critics on the circuit. I will take longer, and may very much be the last one making a decision in certain rounds, but that does not mean that I am worse because I take more time to render a decision. I will not be hassled to make a hasty decision for the convenience debaters are impatient, so if this is a problem for you, please strike me.   That said, no one is 100% objective in evaluating debate rounds, here are some general notes about the way that I evaluate debates:   </li> <li>By default I evaluate a topical plan versus the status quo or competitive policy option or competitive alternative advocacy. If you want me to change this, explicitly tell me how you want me to view the debate round</li> <li>I only evaluate arguments that are made in the constructives and extended in the rebuttals. If you want an argument as a strategic option, extend it in MG or in the MO/LOR. I will also protect against new arguments in the rebuttals.</li> <li>Each argument needs to have a minimum threshold of coherence and explanation and I am fully comfortable disregarding an argument that is blippy and nonsensical. For example, claiming you win on timeframe is not an argument. Claiming you win on timeframe because economic collapse and ensuing great power wars happen before global warming destroys the environment is an argument.</li> <li>If you want to win theory, read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. If there is confusion or if I do not get your interpretation, I may ask for a written copy after the LOC.</li> <li>Impact calculus wins debate rounds. I leave it up to you to compare the probability, timeframe, magnitude and reversibility of impacts and tell me which ones to prefer and why. The more work and explanation you do, the less I have to do, and the less I will fill in the gaps to render a decision.</li> <li>Generic arguments don’t bother me so long as they are executed well. If you’re really good at the Cap K, 50 states/courts and politics or something, I wont be angry if you decide to read that in front of me and can win it well.</li> <li>I’m generally not expressive when I evaluate debate round, and that doesn’t mean that I dislike you, but instead should be taken as my general demeanor. Unless I look extremely happy or extremely angry, don’t take my facial expressions to mean that you’re doing anything really bad or really good. I generally just look apathetic when watching debate rounds, so don’t take it as a bad thing.</li> <li>To evaluate theoretical issues I rely on violations that are made in round. For those unable to read between the lines, I am not likely to vote on disclosure theory, as I have no way of evaluating whether a violation did or did not occur.</li> <li>   As I said before, I would prefer you to read the strategy that you think is the most strategic, and that will give you the highest chance of winning the debate round. The following should not be seen as a permanent set of rules that I utilize to evaluate debate rounds, but instead general predispositions that I have on issues in debate:   </li> <li>I love seeing a well-developed case debate. A strong, well warranted DA, paired with some strong case arguments, is one of my favorite debates to evaluate.</li> <li>Critical affirmatives should be topical, and if they are not I need a good reason why you shouldn’t have to affirm the topic.</li> <li>I do not like personalized advocacies that rely on weaponizing the experiences of debaters in the round against each other.</li> <li>Clash of civilizations debates awesome, and I very much enjoy judging them.</li> <li>Condo is good, as long as it isn’t abused to an absurd degree. One condo advocacy is almost always fine, two is stretching it depending on the context, and I am highly sympathetic to condo bad if there are three or more advocacies in the debate round.</li> <li>That said, I think just about anything is theoretically up for debate and will not automatically reject anyone for any type of strategy that they would like to read.</li> <li>Most counterplans are also fine. I don’t have an ideological problem with consult, PICs on any topic, etc. But you should be prepared to defend the theoretical legitimacy of the strategy you’ve read.</li> <li>In general, I very much love evaluating theory debates. I may change this later in the year depending on how many theory debates I actually have to evaluate by the time nationals rolls around, but I’ve always loved reading and going for theory arguments, and as a critic I highly appreciate a well developed theory debate.</li> <li>I have a strong love of critical arguments and I think that they perform an important in debate rounds, but do not randomly hack it out for the kritik. Don’t assume because I have a reputation for loving Nietzsche that it means I will auto vote for you if you read that argument.</li> <li>Don’t be an asshole. Seriously don’t be rude. If you’re face crushing another team, you don’t need to continue speaking at 300wpm, and if you’re hitting a new and not experienced team, you probably don’t need to eliminate their access from the debate round to win. This does not decide whether you win the debate round, but I will not hesitate to eviscerate your speaker points.</li> <li>I don’t like offense impact turns. I would prefer not to hear a debate round with rape good and genocide good read as arguments, and will be highly receptive to the other team telling you that you’re wrong. Brandon Fletcher <a name="x-California_State_University_Long_Beach"></a>California State University Long Beach   I think that debate is a space for you to debate however you would prefer to debate. I do not have major preferences with style, and would prefer that you do not try and adapt to what style you think I would prefer, and instead make the arguments that you think give you the best strategic chance to win. While there are particular things that I like and dislike in specific debate rounds, I would prefer that you debate in whatever manner you feel most comfortable.   Also I have a very real learning disability that generally impedes my ability to evaluate arguments and make decisions at the same speed as other critics on the circuit. I will take longer, and may very much be the last one making a decision in certain rounds, but that does not mean that I am worse because I take more time to render a decision. I will not be hassled to make a hasty decision for the convenience debaters are impatient, so if this is a problem for you, please strike me.   That said, no one is 100% objective in evaluating debate rounds, here are some general notes about the way that I evaluate debates:   </li> <li>By default I evaluate a topical plan versus the status quo or competitive policy option or competitive alternative advocacy. If you want me to change this, explicitly tell me how you want me to view the debate round</li> <li>I only evaluate arguments that are made in the constructives and extended in the rebuttals. If you want an argument as a strategic option, extend it in MG or in the MO/LOR. I will also protect against new arguments in the rebuttals.</li> <li>Each argument needs to have a minimum threshold of coherence and explanation and I am fully comfortable disregarding an argument that is blippy and nonsensical. For example, claiming you win on timeframe is not an argument. Claiming you win on timeframe because economic collapse and ensuing great power wars happen before global warming destroys the environment is an argument.</li> <li>If you want to win theory, read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. If there is confusion or if I do not get your interpretation, I may ask for a written copy after the LOC.</li> <li>Impact calculus wins debate rounds. I leave it up to you to compare the probability, timeframe, magnitude and reversibility of impacts and tell me which ones to prefer and why. The more work and explanation you do, the less I have to do, and the less I will fill in the gaps to render a decision.</li> <li>Generic arguments don’t bother me so long as they are executed well. If you’re really good at the Cap K, 50 states/courts and politics or something, I wont be angry if you decide to read that in front of me and can win it well.</li> <li>I’m generally not expressive when I evaluate debate round, and that doesn’t mean that I dislike you, but instead should be taken as my general demeanor. Unless I look extremely happy or extremely angry, don’t take my facial expressions to mean that you’re doing anything really bad or really good. I generally just look apathetic when watching debate rounds, so don’t take it as a bad thing.</li> <li>To evaluate theoretical issues I rely on violations that are made in round. For those unable to read between the lines, I am not likely to vote on disclosure theory, as I have no way of evaluating whether a violation did or did not occur.</li> <li>   As I said before, I would prefer you to read the strategy that you think is the most strategic, and that will give you the highest chance of winning the debate round. The following should not be seen as a permanent set of rules that I utilize to evaluate debate rounds, but instead general predispositions that I have on issues in debate:   </li> <li>I love seeing a well-developed case debate. A strong, well warranted DA, paired with some strong case arguments, is one of my favorite debates to evaluate.</li> <li>Critical affirmatives should be topical, and if they are not I need a good reason why you shouldn’t have to affirm the topic.</li> <li>I do not like personalized advocacies that rely on weaponizing the experiences of debaters in the round against each other.</li> <li>Clash of civilizations debates awesome, and I very much enjoy judging them.</li> <li>Condo is good, as long as it isn’t abused to an absurd degree. One condo advocacy is almost always fine, two is stretching it depending on the context, and I am highly sympathetic to condo bad if there are three or more advocacies in the debate round.</li> <li>That said, I think just about anything is theoretically up for debate and will not automatically reject anyone for any type of strategy that they would like to read.</li> <li>Most counterplans are also fine. I don’t have an ideological problem with consult, PICs on any topic, etc. But you should be prepared to defend the theoretical legitimacy of the strategy you’ve read.</li> <li>In general, I very much love evaluating theory debates. I may change this later in the year depending on how many theory debates I actually have to evaluate by the time nationals rolls around, but I’ve always loved reading and going for theory arguments, and as a critic I highly appreciate a well developed theory debate.</li> <li>I have a strong love of critical arguments and I think that they perform an important in debate rounds, but do not randomly hack it out for the kritik. Don’t assume because I have a reputation for loving Nietzsche that it means I will auto vote for you if you read that argument.</li> <li>Don’t be an asshole. Seriously don’t be rude. If you’re face crushing another team, you don’t need to continue speaking at 300wpm, and if you’re hitting a new and not experienced team, you probably don’t need to eliminate their access from the debate round to win. This does not decide whether you win the debate round, but I will not hesitate to eviscerate your speaker points.</li> <li>I don’t like offense impact turns. I would prefer not to hear a debate round with rape good and genocide good read as arguments, and will be highly receptive to the other team telling you that you’re wrong.</li> </ul>

Brittney Mckinley - UCLA

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!

Charlie Cheon - UCLA

n/a

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Chris Skiles - Cal Poly SLO

Chris Byrd - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Clare Hamblen - Claremont

n/a

Col Andy Grimalda - Concordia

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

Corey Bruins - Hired

n/a

Courtney Gammariello - Biola

Dan Giles - USC

n/a

Dana Miyashiro - PLNU

David Finnigan - Hired

n/a

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Elly Garner - Hired

n/a

Emily Shaffer - NAU

Emily Shaffer NPDA Judging Philosophy   Whatever Caitlyn Burford said. But also:   I believe the debate space belongs to the competitors and shouldn’t be dictated by what I used to run as a debater. You should run what you’re best at and/or what you care most about. I don’t believe in rules, which means you’re going to have to justify your procedural arguments (probably applies more to LD than parli). I am comfortable with whatever position you want to run. Speed is fine, as long as it isn’t used as a tool of exclusion. Give me a clear weighing mechanism, and I will vote where you tell me to vote. Most of my judging philosophy is contextual to the round being run. You should be kind to your opponents and conscious of the language you’re using in round. Unless otherwise told I will prioritize animal life over human life.

Frank Cuevas - Hired

n/a

Gina Iberri-Shea - USAFA

Haley Courtney - PLNU

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

Ian Greer - UCLA

Name: Ian Greer   School Affiliation: University of California, Los Angeles   Education: Graduating in June with a degree in Communication with a heavy emphasis on rhetoric and law, currently preparing for the LSAT and shopping for law schools.   Background: I gained some experience in debate and mock trial in high school, after which I served four of the best years of my life in the United States Marine Corps. After the military, I went to community college and debated in the NPDA circuit for two years. Currently I am an assistant coach for the UCLA Debate Union.   General Philosophy: Debate, in my opinion, is a regulated verbal battle, and I fully expect to see fists flying and blows clashing (metaphorically of course). I cannot emphasize enough how much I love clash and contention, and thus greatly prefer solid substantive argumentation over weak but numerous points. I would like to think that I come into a round as unbiased as one can be, and am willing to hear out any and all arguments so long as they are clearly presented and well formed. I greatly prefer arguments to be impacted out, although I am not a fan of everything ending in nuclear war, genocide, or the next great depression (although if they are legitimate results, go for it!). Rather than show tenuous links to abhorrent atrocities, I prefer you make your impacts realistic and thoughtful. I am a fan of humor and wit, though keep it above the belt; ad hominem arguments, vulgarity and general rudeness will categorically receive a loss of both my vote and of speaker points. I enjoy narratives, with debaters skillfully painting a picture of how marvelous the world will be if their plan is implemented, or how terrible it will be if their opponents plan is employed. Lastly, I personally slightly prefer logos (appeals to logic) over pathos (appeals to emotion), although please do not let that dissuade you from using the latter.   Spreading: I feel that speeding and spreading is a tactic that defeats the purpose of debate and is best left to auctioneers, however I will not categorically vote against it if neither side voices an objection; however, please slow down or speak clearer if your opponent asks you to. Furthermore, it is in your best interest that I flow all of your arguments, and thus it would behoove you to speak at a pace at which I am able to flow. If I say “clear” and you do not slow down, I may not be able to flow some of what you are saying, which may negatively impact your case.   Trichotomy:  I am familiar with Aristotle’s “Rhetoric” and the standard tricot lines stating that “we prepared for X and they are running Y”, and I understand that having the gov run in a direction other than the one you predicted can be troublesome, but I believe that opp points prepared for one type of claim can still be applied, albeit with some doctoring, to any other claim type. I believe one of the qualities of greatest import to a skilled debater is adaptability, and that a debater should be able to think on the fly so as to still present to me a well thought out and thought provoking case. That being said, I would prefer if gov teams not stray from the intended resolution format and instead debate the resolution as it is meant to be debated. Don’t be abusive; if gov turns “Nature is more important that nurture” into a policy, I will more than likely side with the opp. To summarize, opp: please don’t run tricot unless absolutely necessary, gov: please don’t make it necessary.   Topicality: Similar to tricot, I am not a fan of T. I feel that I can decide on my own whether the gov has strayed too far from the topic, and do not need the opp to spend valuable time laying out a prefabricated argument as to why the gov is not topical. I am willing to give gov teams some leeway, but if an interpretation is wildly unpredictable or abusive I will vote opp. Opp teams, run T if you absolutely must, but I would greatly prefer that you simply leave the issue to my discretion. If gov is not topical I will vote against them, and if they are topical and you run T you have just wasted valuable time you could have instead used to persuade me to vote for you.   Kritiks / Critiques: I dislike K as much as I dislike spreading, if not more so. I feel that by participating in organized debate you have implicitly made an agreement to argue the resolutions laid out by the tournament, and if you take umbrage with the notion of fiat, the wording of a resolution, or the particular ideologies promoted therein, you should express your opinions after the round has ended. You may run K if you absolutely feel you must, but I will more than likely not grant adherence. Instead, I would greatly prefer you argue and clash on the given topic and prove to me that you are the superior debater, regardless of your personal feelings towards the resolution presented.   Counterplans: I am fine with and enjoy a good counterplan so long as it is mutually exclusive. Opp, please ensure that your CP does not uphold the resolution, as you would simply be giving me more reasons to vote gov.

Irene Yi - Claremont

n/a

Isabel Robinson - UCLA

n/a

Jared Anderson - Sac State

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

Jason Jordan - Utah

*I have fairly significant hearing loss. This is almost never a problem when judging debates. This also doesn't mean you should yell at me during your speech, that won't help. If I can't understand the words you're saying, I will give a clear verbal prompt to let you know what you need to change for me to understand you (ex: 'clear,' 'louder,' 'slow down,' or 'hey aff stop talking so loud so that I can hear the MO please'). If I don't prompt you to the contrary, I can understand the words you're saying just fine.   *make arguments, tell me how to evaluate these arguments, and compare these arguments to the other teams arguments and methods of evaluating arguments. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to place me within. I have very few, if any, normative beliefs about what debate should look like and/or ‘be.’    *Unless I am told to do otherwise, on all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments.

Jennifer Lu - USC

n/a

Jess Ayres - NAU

Joe Sindicich - CSUF

n/a

Joe Laughon - Grand Canyon

John Patrick - Cal Poly SLO

If you don't suck, you'll probably win rounds. Just sayin'.

Jon Sonoda - Hired

n/a

Josh House - Cypress

Background: I competed in NPDA/NPTE debate at the University of Wyoming from 2000-2004. After that, I coached Parliamentary debate at Purdue University, CSULB, and then Pepperdine University for the next 7 years. From 2012-2015 I was the DoF at Central Wyoming College and I came to Cypress College as the DoF this year. Over the past 4 years as a DoF I've run programs that offer many other events in addition to Parli and I haven't really traveled the nationally competitive Parli circuit in that time so much as I've gone to local, full-service tournaments. I honestly don't know how I think NPDA should look right now. I am willing to hear anything I guess, but I'm increasingly convinced of a couple of things: 1. Traditional policy-style Parli seems a bit like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I love CP-DA debates, and I've fallen behind on the K/methods/etc debate in the past few years so I feel less confident evaluating those debates just because of my relative lack of experience. I feel much more comfortable judging a CP-DA debate on the topic, but that comfort simply is not the most important consideration right now. 2. We need really clear and accessible strategies to function as a meaningful, effective force for positive change in the world right now. I want to understand your position even though I haven't heard the argument before, and I want to know exactly how what you do or what I do benefits the world right now. I think in the past this kind of perspective has been used to dismiss K teams, but... TLDR: I want to be clear that I'm basically saying here that I'm fairly* certain I'd like to see critical debate from both sides, and I would hope you are willing to meet me at my level of understanding (I mean, look, if I'm on a panel and you punt me I won't be offended) and that you can explain your position in a way that I can teach to my non-forensics students and the friends and family I have across the country in various rural and urban areas.  *I am willing to be talked out of this, which is why I use the qualifier fairly.

Joshua Kisbye - USAFA

Justin Perkins - Palomar

My name is Justin Perkins, I am the assistant coach at Palomar College, where I am primarily responsible for the Individual events but am also heavily involved in the Debate events including Parliamentary Debate and NFA-LD. I have competed in Competitive Forensics for 4 years in High School for Oceanside High and 4 years in College for Palomar College and California State-University Los Angeles, primarily in Interpretation events. I majored in Performance Studies and am inclined academically and intuitively with the message and the performer-audience relationship in all its critical perspectives. I think persuasion is magic, and I challenge you to prove it otherwise. I have been coaching since 2006, and have been judging debate since 2007. I judge about 50 rounds a year, if not more, I don't really keep count. I also judge that many and more in Individual Events. I'd like to get as close as I can to cohesive way to view and judge all forensic performance, for after all, every event seeks to persuade its audience, and each does so in a subtly similar yet beautifully different ways.   Everything is debatable. I view debate as a fun and complex game of serious, academic inquiry. I view myself as a referee of said game, and am inclined to allow the players to decide the outcome on the field of play. However, I am persuaded by debaters exercising and explaining what they know that I know that they know, you know? That means explain everything to the point of redundancy. My brain is mush by the end of a long tournament. I like criteria based arguments, meaning that all warrants should frame the data supporting your claim in the context of the criteria agreed upon in round.   With that said, I'll get one thing out of the way, because I forget to say it most of the time; If you have any position that is fun, experimental, controversial, out-of-the-box, or non-traditional, I may be your best chance to win it. This means I'm willing to listen to anything; there is nothing you can say that will automatically lose my ballot or automatically win my ballot. I will fight to remain objective and not weigh in on my decision until the final second has expired and will try as I may to write, record, and weigh everything levied in the round.   This leads into the first question that debaters usually have; speed and structure. I don't find speed to be a particularly appealing way to persuade an audience, and debaters usually out pace their structure to the point of incomprehensible stammering, but hey, it’s your round as much as it is mine. I will, upon verbal agreement in the round, verbally call out “clear” for you to speak more clearly, “Speed” to speak more slowly, and “Signpost” if I don't where you are. Feel free to adhere to these cues at the expense of speaker points and possible arguments that might influence my decision. Don't “cross apply” or “pull through” arguments, especially just incoherent numbering/lettering systems, please restate and analyze and then weigh why you're winning under the agreed upon criteria.   I enjoy the procedural debate as long as it is a witty, intellectual exercise of logic. I weigh offense on the procedural in the time trade off and don’t really recognize “reverse voters” for numerous reasons. Therefore, I don't really appreciate arguments that waste my time and energy just to be kicked, and am inclined to listen to why that is bad. I weigh good, practical arguments more than dropped, fallacious arguments unless really encouraged to do so. The best way to not lose a procedural is to not violate procedure in the first place. I love positions that interrogate structures of power, and criticize aspects of society at large. I embrace the Kritik, but also traditional forms such as DA/CP and other inventive double binds. I don't discourage the practice of fact and value debate, in fact, I consider the degree of difficulty in running those cases to be higher, but don't really find the Trichotomy to be a persuasive position to argue unless the other side loses it. All resolutions are fact AND value AND policy, not necessarily one or the other. I will entertain as many points of order as you call. You may state your point, and I will entertain a response from the other side, before finally giving you a brutally honest decision to the best of my ability and will encourage my fellow judges on panels to rule on important, big round arguments in rebuttals at their discretion. It is a team activity, but I will only weigh arguments made by the speaker, feel free to repeat partner prompts or pass notes. Give me your best and have fun, I'll be giving you mine and having more.

Kasey Graves - PLNU

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

Keith Green - Biola

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

Kim Garcia - UCLA

n/a

Lauren Sublett - Glendale CC

• Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.) - 4 years of collegiate Parli debate experience, 5 years of collegiate forensics experience - 2 years forensics coaching experience - 15 rounds judged this year to date • Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stockissues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) As a critic, my approach to decision making is tabula rasa. I will vote on procedural arguments that are well articulated and include articulated abuse, and will look here first. Second, I will look to voters and/or role of the ballot arguments and vote off of my flow. I will not intervene unless absolutely necessary, your job as a competitior is to show me where to vote. • Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making Communication skills are key. I don't mind speed, as long as arguments are still coherent and well articulated. Please don't mistake speed for skill. As far as partner communication is concerned, I will only flow words that come out of the assigned speaker's mouth. Please do not puppet your partner, you have a partner for a reason, and I would love to hear what they have to say. Please practice decorum in round, this is not a place to be rude. • Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making  On case argumentation is key, both offense and defense should occur from both teams in order to gain my ballot. If on case argumentation is dropped and becomes a voting issue, my ballot will reflect the drops as a voting issue. • Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks Procedurals and couterplans are acceptable as long as they are warranted and show abuse (procedurals) and kritiks are fine as long as they are clearly articulated and include both: 1. Role of the Ballot and 2. Alternative Please make sure counterplans: 1. are mutually exclusive and competitive 2. Counterplans should also include a unique advantage and/or disadvantage • Preferences on calling Points of Order Don't mind points of order if they're actually new arguments (not new examples), I will rule on Points of Order if possible, Points of Order in rounds that include a judging panel will be taken under consideration. Finally, let's have some fun!

Marlin Bates - Pacific

ection 1 – General Information Dr. Marlin Bates University of the Pacific Years judging LD:  I judged your coaches. Years coaching:  I coached your parents. Decision calculus:  I will generally decide where and how I am instructed to decide by the debaters themselves.  I am generally open to any arguments.  However, in my old age, I have determined the following: <ol> <li>This is a communication event.  Communicate. Speed is discouraged.  I am fully capable of flowing any speed demon.  However, I choose not to. </li> <li>Cross-examination is binding & important.  You should address your questions and answers to the critic, not each other.</li> <li>Be polite and have fun.</li> </ol> Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters.  Please be specific and clear.  This may include your background, delivery preferences and general thoughts on paradigms (stock issues, policy maker, tabula rasa, etc). Section 1 – General Information Dr. Marlin Bates University of the Pacific Years judging LD:  I judged your coaches. Years coaching:  I coached your parents. Decision calculus:  I will generally decide where and how I am instructed to decide by the debaters themselves.  I am generally open to any arguments.  However, in my old age, I have determined the following: <ol> <li>This is a communication event.  Communicate. Speed is discouraged.  I am fully capable of flowing any speed demon.  However, I choose not to. </li> <li>Cross-examination is binding & important.  You should address your questions and answers to the critic, not each other.</li> <li>Be polite and have fun.</li> </ol> Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters.  Please be specific and clear.  This may include your background, delivery preferences and general thoughts on paradigms (stock issues, policy maker, tabula rasa, etc). If someone wants to run a procedural, I will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round.  As with ALL arguments, I have no pre-existing prejudices. In general, I think critiques discussed at high rates of speed are antithetical both to the event and to the subject matter under discussion, but, as I just said, I have no biases to vote for or against them. Stand up when speaking.

Marquesa Whearty - Palomar

Martha Zavala Perez - Pepperdine

Megan Boyd - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Michael Middleton - Utah

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

Michael Dvorak - Grand Canyon

Nandeet Mehta - UCLA

n/a

Nick Russell - Long Beach

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

Nick Russell - CSU Long Beach

n/a

Nick Stump - Grand Canyon

Rich Charlie - Hired

n/a

Richard Ewell - Concordia

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

Richard Regan - Grand Canyon

Rob Layne - Utah

As an overview, I have been competing in and judging debate rounds since 1993.  I competed in policy debate, was in deep outrounds at NPDA, and was competitive in NFA-LD. I have been a primary prep coach for all of the teams that I have directed or assisted with including Willamette University (before they cut their NPDA program), Texas Tech University, and the University of Utah. With over 20 years of experience in debate, I have watched debate formats change, transition, replicate, and reform.  I’d like to think that I am a critic of argument, where the rules of the game matter.  That doesn’t mean that appeals to authority are sufficient, but feel free to assess these conceptions of debate as part of your audience analysis.   Some general notes: (As a competitor, I always hated reading a book for a judge philosophy so here are the bulletpoints).   <ol> <li>Compare warrants between contrasting arguments.</li> <li>Compare impacts using words like “irreversibility,” “magnitude,” “timeframe,” “severity,” and “probability.”</li> <li>Use warrants in all of your arguments.  This means grounding arguments in specific examples. </li> <li>Make sure your permutations contain a text and an explanation as to what I do with the permutation.  My default with permutations is that they are simply tests of competition.  I don’t typically believe that permutations get you out of a disad (shielding the links) or that you capture a counterplan win you when the perm.  If you have a different conception, make an argument to convince me how your permutation should work.</li> <li>Use internal and external structure like Subpoint A 1. a. i. instead of saying “next” or stringing arguments together without breaks.  I try to keep a careful flow, help me do that.</li> <li>Be cordial to one another. There’s no need to be mean or spikey.  I get that it’s an event that pits a team against another and debate can feel personal…but there’s no need to spout hate.</li> <li>I take a careful flow…if you’re unclear or not giving me enough pen time don’t be upset when I ask you to clear up or slow down a touch.  Let me have time to flip the page.</li> <li>Allow me to choose a winner at the end of the round.  I don’t award double wins or double losses.</li> <li>Have voters and standards attached to procedural arguments if you want me to take them seriously.  “We meets” and counter-interpretation extensions are your friends.</li> <li>I will protect you from new arguments in the rebuttals. There’s little need to call superfluous Points of Order.  If you call them, I’ll take it under consideration.</li> <li>Have an alternative attached to your criticism or at least explain why you don’t need one.</li> <li>Be on time to the round. Already have used to the restroom, gotten your water, found your room, etc.  I will follow the tournament instructions on lateness, regardless of prelim or outround. Please don't come to the round and then go to the bathroom, please relieve yourself before prep begins or during prep.  </li> <li> Compare standards if there are competing interpretations present.</li> <li>Connect the dots between different arguments to illustrate how those arguments interact.</li> <li>Kick arguments in the opp block to go deeper on selected arguments.  Going for everything tends to mean that you’re going for nothing.</li> <li>Know the difference between offensive and defensive arguments. I still think arguments can be terminally defensive as long as it’s explained.</li> <li>Avoid extending answers through ink. Answer opposing arguments before making key extensions.</li> <li>Extend arguments/case via the member speeches to have access to them in the rebuttals.</li> <li>Not everything can be a turn. Please avoid making everything a turn.</li> <li>I do think that you can cross-apply arguments from other sheets of paper in the rebuttal.  It’s not like paper is sacrosanct.  If the argument was made in a prior speech, then it’s fair game.</li> <li>Enjoy the debate round. I’m not going to force fun on you, but not everything has to be so serious.</li> </ol>     Speaker points: I typically give speaker points from 25-30. My average is a 27. 30’s from me are rare, but they are occasionally given. You likely won’t see more than one 30 from me at an invitational tournament. At NPTE, I’ve typically given out 3-4 30’s. I expect that most debaters at the NPTE will likely be in the 27-29 range.   Critical Arguments:   I tend to enjoy critical arguments as long as they’re well explained. Framework your argument (Role of the ballot/judge and/or interpretation about what you get access to) and provide an alternative (tell me what the world post-alt looks like and have solvency grounded in examples). Affirmatives can run critical arguments. If you’re running arguments that are incongruent with other arguments, you should likely have an explained justification for doing so.   Performance based arguments: Please don’t ask me to sit in a circle…have a discussion…rip up my ballot…get naked…or do anything that most folks would find mildly inappropriate. I think that debate is a performance. Some performances are better than others. Some performances are justified better than others. If you prefer a framework of a certain type of performance, make sure your framework is well articulated and warranted.   Procedurals:   I require an interpretation, a violation, and a voter. You should probably have standards for why your interpretation is better than other interpretations. I don’t require competing interpretations, but it can be a useful tool. I don’t require in-round abuse, though it will help to prove why your interpretation is preferable.  I have a low threshold on procedurals.  Folks do wanky stuff…explain why your version of debate is preferable and why that means I should vote for you.  I am skeptical of MG theory arguments and will hold them to a higher standard than I would LOC theory.   Counterplans I think folks should tell me why they get access to their counterplan in the LOC. I might have a very different conception of a PIC than you do (for example, PIC’s are plan inclusive counterplans, which mean they include the entirety of the text of the plan). I think opp’s should identify a CP’s status to avoid procedural args like conditionality. Permutations should be explained. I want to know how you think they function in the round. My default status for a won permutation is that I just stop looking at the CP. If you have a different interpretation as to what I should do with a permutation, you should articulate my options.

Rob Ruiz - La Verne

n/a

Rohan Nagpal - Claremont

n/a

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

~~I have been coaching and judging Parliamentary Debate for approximately 15 years, since it became popular in Southern California.  I started coaching IPDA last year, but have not judged it this year.  I have also coached and judged British Parli in China. As far as Parli is concerned, I have a lot of issues, so here goes: ïŠ Parliamentary debate is and has been a "communication" event. We are at a speech/debate tournament. I expect communication skills to be used as effectively as possible, and that we are following our disciplines' research that supports first impressions and good communication to be effective persuasive methods.  Therefore, stand when speaking.  When your partner is speaking, only discretely pass a note to them.  Never, speak for them.  I would also like to have you stand for Points of Information, and politely call out, Point of Information.  If you raise your hand, the speaker many times cannot see you. It is not "rude" to interrupt the speaker, it is part of parliamentary debate guidelines.   The debaters in the round, should be telling me, "what the most important criteria is in the debate".  I am listening and analyzing your debate according to what you, "the debaters", tell me what is important.  Therefore, your criteria for the debate should be very clear, and you should be reminding me throughout the debate why I should vote for your team. I would like to say that I am open to all positions/arguments and strategies. However, due to the current trends in parli debate, it probably isn't true for me.  What I don't like is whatever the current "trend" is.  What I mean by that, is that we see trends and for a year or two everyone follows that style.  I teach argumentation, and I know that there ARE 3 types of resolutions:  FACT, VALUE, AND POLICY. If you pick a resolution that is a fact resolution, it should be run that way, etc.  There are fact and value resolutions.  They may be more challenging, but they exist. Of course, you can argue that the team has incorrectly identified what type of resolution it is.  That is part of the debate. Also, there will be metaphors in these debates, and they could be in the form of a fact/value or policy. You need to identify this in your debate.   In a policy round, I do prefer stock issues format, rather than the current trend of comparative advantage. I also expect a complete plan. For the opposition, I expect you to listen to the affirmative case, and argue against their positions as directly as possible, rather than come in with your own case, that has nothing to do with what the government case is arguing.     Speed has no place in parliamentary debate.  For me, it has nothing to do with your judge being able to "flow" the debate.  It has to do with you being a competent communicator, in the real world.  If you can talk eloquently, with good enunciation skills, then I'm fine with you talking relatively fast, without it being a problem.  I don't believe a judge should have to yell out: "clear".  An audience should not have to tell the speaker, that we can't understand you.  Jargon should be used sparingly.  We are at a national tournament, where not every region uses the same jargon.  Therefore, don't assume we know your jargon.  Quickly, briefly explain your terms. Having said all this, you will have your own beliefs about me, as a judge.  I would like you to know that I love parliamentary debate, and have been judging for as long as it has existed in the western states.  I love to hear real world issues debated directly in front of me.  I hope you are up to this incredible experience and challenge of arguing real issues.  Enjoy!

Ryan Ramos - Hired

n/a

Sam French - Hired

n/a

Samantha Strong - USC

n/a

Sean Hansen - Biola

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

Seth Fromm - Glendale CC

Seyeh Mohammadi - UCLA

n/a

Shane Flanagin - UCLA

Name: Shane Flanagin   School Affiliation: University of California, Los Angeles   Education: B.A. in Political Science (American Politics and International Relations concentration), currently pursuing my Master’s in International Relations with an emphasis on politics in the Middle East (If you want to hear the details, ask; otherwise I’ll spare you the details).   Background: Competed for UCLA in BP/World’s style debate in college, with some Parli experience in high school. I currently work as the assistant coach for the UCLA Debate Union.   NPDA Judging Philosophy   General Philosophy: First and foremost, I prefer to think of myself as a communication-style judge, that is to say that I prefer clear, thoughtful, well-articulated arguments over how many lines of argumentation you can bring to bear. That being said, speed can be a problem for me with some speakers. I enjoy creativity in debate and believe that the rush for greater and greater speed by teams is killing it. If your opponent asks you to slow down or speak clearer, I expect you to accommodate that request.   Put time into your lines of argumentation and argue them persuasively, and you’ll be fine; try to simply overwhelm the other team with arguments and you’ll likely not like my ballot.   Specific Points:   - Not a fan of T, run it if you absolutely must; but I would greatly prefer that you argue the case in front of you and trust that I will realize whether a team has strayed wildly off topic. That being said, if you are the first speaker, make sure you present a reasonable interpretation of the motion, or you will lose. Use your best judgment and try to leave equitable ground on both sides of the case.   - CP’s are fine as long as they are significantly distinct and exclusive of the Affirmative case.   - I’m not of the opinion that all disadvantages need to end with nuclear war, or even any people dying. Systemic impacts, linear disadvantages, and moral arguments are fine with me. I prefer depth of analysis to blippy high magnitude assertions.   - Questions: --I still believe that you must take one question in each constructive   - Etiquette: Be respectful, no excuses. Feel free to be passionate, but don’t attack or bully a fellow debater. This includes remarks or non-verbals during another speaker’s time.   Evaluating Rounds: Policy maker/ Net benefits, unless instructed otherwise in a compelling fashion by a team. I love weighing mechanisms, but will entertain generally any argument/strategy in the context of the round.   Finally, don’t shorthand your arguments, or make me do your work for you (i.e., explain your sources/theories/etc. as if to a layperson and not a policy expert). As well, I only count complete arguments, if you leave out the warrant or link or impact,  it won’t weigh heavily, if at all, in my decision.

Shannon Prier - Concordia

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

Shelby Ryann Dolezal - Notre Dame

BG: I am currently a third-year law student and the senior coach at the University of Notre Dame. This is my second year as a parli coach and judge. As an undergrad, I was a parli debater for the University of Montana. High school LD and a little policy. I have only judged a handful of rounds this year. General: You should already know this, but be sure to structure your arguments correctly, roadmap (off time), and signpost. Tell me where you are on the flow. Approach to decision-making: Tabula rasa. I only know what you tell me. Tell me what framework to use and how you’re winning within that framework. Make my job easy, write my ballot for me. Presentation skills: As long as I can understand you, I don’t care about your presentation skills in my decision-making. I probably won’t look up from my flow. Speaker points: I primarily consider 1) organization, 2) quality of argumentation, 3) clarity of communication, and 4) presentation skills. And this should go without saying, but I expect everyone to treat everyone else with respect.  Procedurals/CPs/Ks: I do not think it is my role as a judge to dictate what arguments you make. Make any arguments you want, but be sure to tell me how those arguments work in the round and how they should be weighed vis-à-vis other arguments. With that being said, don’t assume that I or your opponents are familiar with whatever K you run (I’m probably not). Make the K accessible to your opponents. Importance of on-case arguments: You decide what your strategy is. But do I typically find on-case arguments persuasive? Yes. Points of Order/Points of Information: Use when needed and don’t abuse. If you want me to disregard a new argument coming out of a rebuttal, you need to Point of Order. I only know what you tell me. Speed: I have no moral opposition to speed. However, I have only judged a handful of rounds this year and they have all been very slow, so unfortunately I am out of practice with flowing speed. I will try to keep up and yell “clear” if necessary.

Shiloh Rainwater - Mercer

Shiloh Rainwater – Mercer University   Background: I competed in parliamentary debate for roughly 5 years at Pepperdine University and Los Rios Community College. I am currently pursuing my JD at Emory Law School in Atlanta, GA.   Overview: I think that debate is an academic game and that virtually any strategy/argument is permissible in that game. I generally have no absolute predisposition toward any argument, and will attempt to objectively analyze the debate as you present it. With that said, I think debate should be hard and educational. I prefer policy arguments, and nuanced strategies tailored to the topic/round are usually better than generic ones. Unless you instruct me otherwise, I will default to a utilitarian/consequentialist framework to evaluate the round. Other thoughts and preferences:   Speed: Speed is not an issue, so long as you’re clear. I think that speed—when used properly—is critical to both breadth and depth of analysis and education, and is therefore productive. It would be enormously difficult to convince me otherwise.                                                       Topicality: Topicality is a critical check on abusive affirmatives and a key tool to ensure a stable locus for the debate—T is thus always a voting issue. Absent any explication of an alternative framework, I will default to competing interpretations. Reading T is not abusive, nor is it genocidal or oppressive; it is simply a gateway to actually engaging in a productive discussion.   Other Procedurals/Theory: I like/will vote for these arguments, although my threshold is somewhat higher than for T. Specification is hard to win absent proven abuse, i.e. the aff no-linking your position, although I am by no means wholly opposed to any spec argument. There are too many theoretical arguments to discuss, but I find some positions particularly compelling and read frequently as a debater: These include vagueness, objections to multiple worlds, multi actor fiat bad, and “take a question” arguments. In general, you should have an interpretation, standards, and impacts as well as a framework to evaluate these arguments.   Counterplans: Conditionality is theoretically defensible, as are advantage counterplans. Counterplans should generally be both functionally and textually competitive. All generic strategies (PICs/consult/delay/etc.) are fine, as are theoretical objections to these strategies—as a reference point, I read XO/politics almost every neg round my final year. Multiple counterplans are fine, but I am open to hearing/voting on “multiple conditional advocacies bad.” New counterplans in the block are abusive.   Disadvantages: Disad/CP strategies are probably where I’m most comfortable. Any and all disads are fine, including politics. You should spend time on the uniqueness debate and especially the link, which is almost always vastly under-covered. Impact calculus wins debates.   Kritiks: I rarely read kritiks as a debater, but that is not to say that I dislike them or that I will not vote on them. You should assume that I have not read your literature (I was a poli sci major) and that I know nothing about your authors (because I probably don’t). In general, however, I dislike generic Ks (e.g. reading Cap or Nietzsche every round). And above all, whether you’re running a project, performance, or traditional K, your framework and advocacy should be abundantly obvious—as mentioned in the overview, absent instructions to the contrary, I will evaluate your arguments through a utilitarian/consequentialist lens.   Advocacies and interpretations: All advocacies should be repeated at least once. Textual advocacies should ideally be written down and shared with the other team (and possibly the judge(s)?). Slow down when reading topicality/theory/procedural interpretations, and repeat them once if they’re especially complex or long.   Disclosure: Teams should not be compelled to disclose their strategies prior to the round. This argument is incoherent and has no place in parliamentary debate. Topicality is the correct strategy for answering abusive and unpredictable affirmatives.

Sonia Concepcion - La Verne

n/a

Tim Milosch - Biola

Timothy Vaughan - Notre Dame

Vasile Stanescu - Mercer

Name: Vasile Stanescu School Affiliation: Mercer University Education: Ph.D. from Stanford University  Professional Background: I worked as a professional magician for a year to pay the bills after my undergraduate degree. Currently, I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and DoF at Mercer. I love my current job but, if I'm honest, the first job was a definitely cooler.  Debate Experience: I won some stuff in policy debate. Some of it was kind cool at the time but, you know, Myspace was also kinda cool at the time. I assume no one still cares. Don't worry; I'm qualified.     Judging Experience: I have judged over a hundred rounds of both parliamentary and policy debate.  Short version:  When I debated in policy debate, I could "name" the black debaters. When we competed at Wakeforest (a policy tournament) this year, we had two rounds of two black debaters against two black debaters judged by a black judge. That would be impossible at virtually any of the national parli debate tournament we attended; there aren't that number of double black debaters; there are not always that number (-2-) of black judges. It is not the case that "debate" is inherently "a white activity"--as I've heard in rounds--it is the case that "parli debate" remains predominately white. If policy debate can change, why can't we? Why can I still "name" all the black debaters--and judges--in parlimentary debate?   I Hate "Performance" Debate: Please stop pretending like you are a person in Congress, parliament, or a “policy maker.” In contrast, I do appreciate it when people genuinely speak about their actual lived experience both within and outside of the debate community. I think the debate space would be a better (as well as a more socially responsible) space if people stopped performing, role-playing, and acting like Congresspeople and started being honest and sincere. I think that debate currently does a very good job of training both lawyers and politicians; I think that we have enough lawyers and politicians. I think this space could more effectively be used to start to train activists, ethical thinkers, and scholars. How would debate look different if our goal was to train the most effective activists instead of the most effective trial lawyers? What would we value? How would we judge? What would we want to change about this activity? What would you want to do differently? If debate could be anything, how would you remake it? I Love Speed: For me, things cannot change quickly enough: Ferguson, Eric Garner, the prison system, climate change, factory farms, wealth inequality, TRUMP so many things. I’m a former policy debater; I can understand people at any speed. However, talking at a speed that anyone can understand will probably help all of us to bring along these changes a great deal sooner. PICS are OK: Also selfies. Really any way that you'd like to film or record a round is OK with me. I think that the debate space has to be opened up. If you make a powerful performance about what needs to change, everyone should have a chance to see it. Right now how many people come to see a round?  Maybe a few dozen if you're incredibly lucky? And it's a final round? The first video when I googled  "funny cat antics" had 32,401,857 views. (Seriously; here’s the link: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tntOCGkgt98">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tntOCGkgt98</a>). How many times have you been in round where you heard some argument about changing people through the in-round advocacy?  And there were five people in the room? If you actually want to start to make a difference: talk in a way that people can understand, film the rounds, put them online, and reach out to people. I don't care how you run counter-plans. Of course, if people don't want to filmed--for whatever reason--that's fine too. Consent is king.  Perms are OK: Really any hairstyle. What is not OK is sexism or, really, any type of discrimination. You know that women and minorities join this activity a higher rate than white men? But the reason that we don't see more of them is because they quit? Why they quit is complex, but, at least in part, it stems from issues such as unnecessary and off-putting jargon, intimidating speed and speech patterns, having to pretend to be "policy makers", and, perhaps most importantly, feeling that they cannot talk about their actual experiences even when the topics they are debating are about these very experiences.  Can you imagine any experience more alienating than not being able to talk about your own experience with racism on a topic actually about racism? Or not being able to talk about your experience of sexual harassment even on a topic on sexual harassment?  If you need numbers, I chose this one article (among many, many others. It's slightly old but specific to the NPDA.): "Much research in the collegiate debate community has centered on investigating sex as it compares to win/loss records or speaker points (Hensley & Strother, 1968; Bruschke & Johnson, 1994; Hayes & McAdoo, 1972; Rosen, Dean, & Willis, 1978).  These studies generally indicate that female participation is lower than male participation overall, and female participation in outrounds is not representative of overall female participation.  Fewer females compete than males, and even fewer women than men break into national outrounds.  In fact, some studies (Logue, 1986; Friedley & Manchester, 1985) have found female participation in NDT and CEDA to be as low as 20% and 30% respectively. Stepp and Gardner (2001) collected ten years of demographic data from CEDA national tournaments.  They found that over the ten years female and minority participation was increasing slightly.  However, the rate of success for female and minority groups stayed the same, and this rate is much lower than the rate of white males." This specifically applies to the NPDA: “Clearly, NPDA as an organization is unable to retain female debaters.  NPDA needs to discuss why female debaters are leaving the activity in such great numbers.  Recruitment does not seem to be the problem.  In fact, if the same amount of female novice debaters who competed this year stayed on for four years of competition, then the demographics of NPDA would be nearly equivalent.  Thus, individual debate programs need to be mindful of not only reaching out to local high schools to recruit females but also focusing on retaining the females that they already have.”   And:   “It is clear that NPDA is overwhelmingly Caucasian, and individual programs and coaches do need to do a better job recruiting minority students in order to promote racial and ethnic diversity within NPDA.  However, it is not clear why minority students do not advance at the same rate as non-minority students in outrounds at the national tournament.  Since minority students tend to have the same or more experience on average than non-minority students, minority students may not be advancing because of discrimination within the organization.”   (Jennifer H. Parker, forensics coach at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, “Female and Minority Diversity Within NPDA: An Examination of the 2002 National Tournament;” 2002) If we want to keep the debate space as friendly as possible to straight, white males from upper-class backgrounds, there is--literally--nothing that we need to change. T is always a voter: Well, technically, he missed a couple of years in the 80’s. But, for the most part, Mr. T is all about civic virtue. What doesn’t make me want to vote for a team is when people run "Heg good" for the 50,000,000th time in debate and then claim that the "performance" team is unfair because it "hurts education."   Or when a team runs an economics DA claiming that marginal spending on an obviously good social program will lead to nuclear war; then claims that debate teaches "real world skills."   Nor am I fan of two white "bros" drinking red bull and running a critical race argument (wilderson) against a team that is actually composed of people of color. Please do not run a critique of sexism against a team composed of two women of color because they used one word you didn't like on a topic about sexual violence. Also please do not run a critique of anthropocentrism as passionately as possible in front of me and then, immediately, eat hamburgers after the round. (None of these are hypothetical examples; all of these have actually occurred in front of me ).  Please reflect (beforehand) on these types of decisions.  Please reflect before you treat others’ suffering (minorities, women, animals or others) as only a type of toy, strategy, or commodity that you can marshal and use  to win another debate round but does not, in fact, represent something you believe in or commit yourself to trying to change or eliminate in your own life or in the wider community of debate.      Final items the form tells me that I have to include: “Preferences on calling Points of Order:” Please pronounce it with a thick British accent. Placing your hand on your head is highly encouraged. Extra speaker points will be given for any debater who wears a large white wig. In other words: Sure? However, please reflect on the performative nature of college undergraduates acting like they are in British Parliament and shouting specialized jargon like “the severance permutation justifies the inround abuse on conditionality for the counterplan” while speed reading like an auctioneer through Latin phrases, Continental philosophy, and "Brink" updates about the Bond market. Please remember: a person reading a poem about their actual experience with racism is not the person who is making this space exclusionary. “Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:” I rate it at 7.3 (on a ten point scale). Above counter plans but below Foucault critiques. Roughly equal to the “bright line” standard on topicality. While not a prima facie burden, as a tabela rasa critic, I have to weigh it under a principal of odi profanum vulgus et arceo. In other words, I have no preference about this or any of these other preset questions. Run whatever type of critique, counterplan, “stock issue” that you like. I have no preferences, whatsoever, on any of this; I'll even vote on trichotomy (it's happened).  However, what I am trying to communicate, is that I think, all of these, are entirely the wrong questions to be asking.  What I will say is: Why not run a “performance” or a “project” yourself? If debate isn’t the space that people can talk about their experiences with racism, sexism, or marginalization where should they have a chance to actually be heard? Think about how many times they/you have already been told that. And, if you are going to prima faciely exclude all of these voice/people/experiences—why do you think that this activity still matters? Is that the kind of space you want to create with your time and your energy? Here’s the thing: Hopefully, we will dedicate a large chunk of our lives to making this the spaces around us reflects our beliefs and values. The debate community, itself, should be a place for us to start: that's my judging philosophy. I hope that none of this seems disrespectful to anyone in any way. That is not my goal. I have spent over a decade in this activity; I value it and I treasure. It is because I love debate that I think that the activity (in both policy and parli) needs deep and fundamental change. Come show me how it should be done.

Wenduo (Wendy) Zhang - CUP(BJ)

n/a

Ziegler Evan - Hired

n/a

2016 Sunset Cliffs Classic