FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Judge A - Tufts

n/a

judge TBA 1 - UVM

n/a

Judge TBA 2 - UVM

n/a

Judge 1 - Patrick Henry

n/a

Judge 2 - Patrick Henry

n/a

Judge 3 - Patrick Henry

n/a

Aaron Donaldson - Humboldt

n/a

Aaron Dicker - Morehouse

n/a

Abi Smith - Pepperdine

Allison Foust - Regis

n/a

Amulya Shanker - BerkeleyBP

n/a

Andy Christensen - ISU

n/a

Angie Tinker - PacificLutheran

n/a

Anh Phan - SeattleU

n/a

Anna Sun - DU

n/a

Antony Manokhin - Vassar

n/a

Aundrea Rivera - SeattleU

n/a

Austin Thoma - Wyoming

n/a

Ben Simila - NU

n/a

Bexley Brown - URDU

n/a

Brady Fletcher - URDU

n/a

Brandon Small - Vassar

n/a

Brent Northup - Carroll

n/a

Brian Marombedza - BerkeleyBP

n/a

Brian Schrader - UM-FLint

n/a

Brittani Farrington - Wheaton

I was a policy debater in high school and then debated 2 years open parli for Wheaton College. I'm familiar with standard position types and am not opposed in principle to voting on any type of argument. Procedurals are fine; Kritiks are also fine, though both teams should be crystal clear about their frameworks (especially with how to weigh distinct theoretical positions against each other). I'm not opposed to speed in constructive speeches (though, when giving intricate analyses, it can be counter-productive), but in the rebuttals, emphasis should shift toward crystallization: for example, "we're beating them on the following three arguments," followed by a numbered list, sounds like a helpful organizing framework. Finally, be courteous and respectful to opponents, especially when asking/receiving points of information!

Cade Mallett - UCLA

n/a

Calvin Horne - Pepperdine

Cameron Soliz - USC

n/a

Christopher Padilla - La Verne

n/a

Cidney Fisk - DU

n/a

Commander DeathGlare - STJ

n/a

Connie Leonard - USAFA

n/a

Corey Patton - SeattleU

n/a

Daniel Parod - Rocky

n/a

Dave Zimny - Los Medanos

~~ZIMNY, DAVE – Los Medanos College, Pittsburg CA BACKGROUND:  I earned my master’s and doctoral degrees in political science from Yale University and have taught college courses in the social sciences for 40 years, so I should be fairly familiar with the factual and argumentative foundations of most parliamentary debate resolutions.  I was a high school and college policy debater before there was such a thing as collegiate parliamentary debate.  This is my third year as an intercollegiate judge.  Over the last two years I have judged approximately 100 tournament rounds, including 16 preliminary and two elimination rounds at the NPDA National Championship Tournament. JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:  I am a noninterventionist; I will not reject or accept any substantive argument on the basis of my own knowledge or values.  In the absence of well supported voting criteria from either team, I will vote on the stock issues.  I firmly believe in supporting assertions with evidence, even in parliamentary debate.  Examples and hard data will go a long way toward persuading me.  I prefer adherence to the trichotomy; if you choose to argue a value proposition as policy, be sure to justify your choice. PRESENTATION:  Debate is a speech activity.  Unclear locution and garbled syntax will definitely cost you speaker’s points, and they could cost you my vote if I’m unable to understand your arguments.  Speed generally doesn’t bother me.  If I can’t follow your speech, I’ll let you know by saying, “Clear, please.”  I will always try to rule on points of order rather than taking them under consideration, to minimize uncertainty for both teams.  Prompting your partner is allowable, but excessive prompting will reduce speaker’s points.  I have no objections to sitting while speaking.  As with any competitive activity, good sportsmanship will be much appreciated, and a touch of wit will definitely garner you more speaker’s points.  I will award 24-26 speaker's points for competent presentation, 27-28 points for above average presentation, and 29-30 points for outstanding presentation.  I will never award fewer than 20 points. PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS:  I am open to topicality arguments, critiques and counterplans based on logical analysis of the Government’s case, but I frown on generic arguments of all kinds.  I will treat topicality as an a priori voting issue, but I will vote on actual, not theoretical, abuse.  I am more open to assumption and reasoning-based critiques than to language critiques. DEBATE THEORY:  Below are my personal opinions on some issues of debate theory.  I will never apply these preferences preemptively without actual argumentation by the teams themselves.  I’m there to listen to your advocacy, not make your arguments for you.  That said, debaters that I judge should be aware of my opinions.  I am generally “old school” – substantive arguments hold my attention; “metadebate” bores me.  I believe that: A counterplan may be either an actual alternative to the Government’s plan or a means of arguing competitiveness and opportunity costs.  If a counterplan is conditional or provisional, the Leader of the Opposition should announce that fact as soon as the counterplan is revealed. The Opposition should not present a topical counter plan.  I have no objection, however, to plan inclusive counterplans. The Opposition should enjoy exactly the same fiat power as the Government. Argumentation begins with the enactment of the plan or counterplan.  Neither team should base advantages or disadvantages on contingencies that precede enactment – e.g., particular voting alignments or bargaining in legislatures that might be required to enact a plan.  “Fiat turns the link.” The Opposition should not "split" its 12-minute constructive/rebuttal block, with the Opposition Member's constructive presenting new arguments and the Leader's rebuttal responding to the Member of Government's constructive.  This practice puts an undue burden on the Prime Minister's rebuttal. PLEASE NOTE:  I don’t claim to be familiar with all the recent developments in debate theory.  If you’re not sure about my knowledge of a particular theoretical argument, please ask me before the round begins. Debate is competition, but it’s also an educational and social experience.  Let’s all have some fun!

David Register - Bard

n/a

David Romanelli - Loyol Chicago

David Romanelli School: Loyola Chicago   Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. I have been judging for 22yrs (Old CEDA, NDT, CEDA/NDT and now Parli). I think the resolution is the focus of debate. If the government team does not support the resolution I have a very low threshold for voting opp.  I like a well-organized flow. I prefer line-by-line debate. I prefer well developed arguments to warrantless tag line debate. I am not a fan of K debates unless the wording of the resolution demands it (the resolution is the focus of the debate).  I do not think performance debates make sense in this forum. Speed up to a point is fine (slow down on plan text, theory dumps etc.). Debaters should adhere to the guidelines of their institution and that of the host.       Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.   1.       Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?                                 There is no specific answer for this. I go to a variety of tournaments. At better tournaments I see better debaters who often get higher points.   2.       How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?                                 Contradictions can cost you the debate if the other team knows why. K affs are generally not welcome unless the resolution demands it. That does not mean that the impacts have to be war etc.…. You can and should make arguments about how impacts should be evaluated. 3.       Performance based arguments… No thank you.     4.       Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I have no problem with T. There are a variety of ways you could win it. That being said, most will not. You need to explain how it works and answer their arguments. A well explained definition and violation with clear standards is the key to my ballot on T.   5.       Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? C/P status is conditional unless explained or asked about (I would ask). Net benefits are my default for competition.   6.       Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) I really don’t care, just don’t waste time.   7.       In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?                                 If we get to this neither team has done a very good job and you get what you get. T and K’s would most likely come before ads/das.   8.       How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? If this happens neither team has “won” the debate and I am now forced to intervene. No one is going to be happy including me. I have no set way to decide these issues. Lots of dead bodies normally = victory. I promise nothing here though. It’s your fault if you don’t weigh things out. As noted above, the debate doesn’t have to be about a body count.

David Keller - KSU Debate

n/a

David Steinberg - Miami

n/a

Derrick Reed - Morehouse

n/a

Duncan Crowe - Vermont

n/a

Duncan Crowe - UVM

n/a

Elizabeth Avunjian - UCLA

n/a

Elouise Cram - CLEM

n/a

Emilio Horner - STJ

n/a

Eric Sargent - DU

n/a

Erin Poll - Vermont

n/a

Friend 1 - Willamette

n/a

Galileo Perricone - BerkeleyBP

n/a

Garrett Macdonald - DU

n/a

Geoff Klinger - DePauw

n/a

George Fitzpatrick - Tx State

n/a

Griffin Klemick - Wheaton

n/a

Haiyan Wu - Miami

n/a

Hannah Reyes - La Verne

n/a

Helen Morgan-Parmett - Vermont

n/a

Helen Morgan Parmett - UVM

n/a

Hunter McFarland - Wyoming

n/a

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.

Isaac Lichlyter - Ole Miss

n/a

Jacob Witt - NU

n/a

Jaime Wright - STJ

n/a

Jake Hoberg - Duke

n/a

Jan Hovden - Bates

n/a

Jean-Michel Habineza - Pepperdine

Jefferson Yahom - URDU

n/a

Jennifer Hsu - DU

n/a

Jenny Jiao - Duke

n/a

JoAnn Edwards - Ole Miss

n/a

Joe Koehle - KSU Debate

n/a

John Swayne - NU

n/a

John Schultz - Alaska

n/a

John Patrick - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

John Henry Murdy - CLEM

n/a

Jon Denzler - Regis

n/a

Jordan Manley - CLEM

n/a

Joshua Kisbye - USAFA

Josiah Peterson - TKC

n/a

Judge A - Cornell

n/a

Judge B - Cornell

n/a

Judge F - Cornell

n/a

Judge B - HWS

n/a

Judge A - HWS

n/a

Judge A - PDP

n/a

Judge 1 - Colgate

n/a

Judge 2 - Colgate

n/a

Judge 3 - Colgate

n/a

Kaleigh Smith - HPU

n/a

Kasey Gardner - Los Medanos

Gardner, Kasey Los Medanos College   Experience: 9 years of Parliamentary Debate (Moorpark/Western KY/LosMedanos)   In order to enhance your clarity you should use examples, theory, or well warranted analysis. The above being said I find myself not voting for a lot of performance or super generic critiques (cap, state) but that doesn’t mean I don’t think they can be defensible.  Feel free to use whatever positions and arguments that you wish in front of me and I will do my best to evaluate them fairly and honestly   Speed is typically not an issue as long and you are clear and make sense. This argument applies equally if you are not fast but unclear as a whole.  I will probably look at you with an inquisitive look if you are going too fast, unlikely but possible.   I appreciate being told how to evaluate arguments especially if they are on different planes (critical, case, theory, ect.) Standard tools of impact calculus are paramount as well; such as magnitude, timeframe, and probability.  I encourage the use of other methods or analysis too, irreversibility or systemic impacts as well.  What I am not interesting in is hearing bad dueling oratory about which –ism is the root cause of problem.  Be more specific.   I’ve found myself being very disappointed with the consistent use of generic strategies instead of any critical thinking.  Debating the case is a lost art that should be found.  I will evaluate your fism/states counterplan, but it’s not that great of an argument and the affirmative should defeat you on it.   Examples are the lifeblood of Parliamentary Debate.  Please use them!!  You should call points of order in front of me.   There are a few things I don’t find persuasive; excessive prompting and tooling of your partner, rudeness to the other team on a personal level as opposed to the argumentative level and not getting to my round on time. I will enforce the tournaments forfeit rule judiciously.

Kate Hall - PacificLutheran

n/a

Katherine Snow - PacificLutheran

n/a

Ken Newby - Morehouse

n/a

Kenneth Go - Hawaii

n/a

Kevin O'Leary - Washburn

Kevin M. O’Leary, Ph.D. Washburn University (Topeka, KS) Section 1: General Information MY BACKGROUND: I started debate in 1982 and was very fortunate to debate with Alan Coverstone for all four years in high school in Illinois.  After high school, I ended up at SIUC under Jeff Bile and debated in CEDA, before the merger, for four years.  I went to graduate school at SLU and started coaching CEDA.   I took some time off from coaching once back at SIUC (for the doctoral program) and after that I started coaching again fulltime in CEDA/NDT, post the merger.  That lasted for four years.  Then in 2003, I came to Washburn as the DoF where we dabbled in policy during my first year before moving over to NFA LD as well as NPDA parliamentary debate.  For the last several years, Washburn has been exclusively focused on NPTE/NPDA parliamentary debate. “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here. . .”  Too true. “He held the keys to the Kingdom and the world couldn’t do him any harm.”  Interpret the resolution and/or activity as you wish.  Do what you want to do.  Be happy with that and care (a little) less about the win.  If you do, you have already won.  Maybe have a politics, but definitely have an ethic.  Be straightforward with your opponent in terms of what ground they have under your interpretations and doings. Advice doesn’t get any better than Scott Deatherage’s, does it?  The key to winning a debate will always be locating and developing your relationship to the tipping point for the round, which is always a matter of choice and highlighting on your part.  Highlight the support you have for the claims that matter the most in terms of the tipping point that you have identified.  Explain why the tipping point you have identified is the one that matters most.  Directly clash with the arguments and support from your opponent that could upset your central claims there.  Refrain from editorializing—just debate already, and debate from the position of giving your opponent’s arguments their full due.  Invest in impact comparison and calculation so I can do something with your winning arguments that decidedly favors you at the end of the debate. “You’re not a punk, and I’m telling everyone.  Save your breath, I never was one.”  I have no strong leanings in terms of genres of argument.  They all have their place, and that highlights, in my opinion, a central point.  Make your arguments context specific, which requires you to think about the context or setting that we’re in, articulate a vision of that, and then make arguments for why your arguments are the most appropriate given the context or setting.  That is the key for procedurals, K’s, on down the line.  “Observing in any given case...” “Are you having fun yet?”  Please be kind to and take care of one another as well as our host’s space and the activity.  Best of luck! Section 2: Specific Inquiries  1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 26-30 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Discourse based arguments are compelling; so too methodology arg’s.  Aff’s can run critical arg’s/cases.  Opp. can have flexibility in their arg’s in the LOC (maybe later, too). 3. Performance based arguments… It’s all good, I suppose.  They can certainly be done well.  Isn’t it all a performance?  Why the elipses here? 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? Standard, violation, reason to vote.  In-round abuse isn’t necessary, but it’s a good thing to demonstrate.  Competing interp’s are good, but I am not sure they are necessary. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? PICs are generally a-okay by me.  Opp. should probably id the status of the CP if asked. I’m personally drawn to textual comp., but functional comp. can be won fairly easily, too. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)? Yes. 7. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? Discourse arg’s, then procedurals, then cba of advantages and disadvantages and/or methodology. 8. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? Death over dehumanization.  Tangible or concrete scenario (even if less quantity of impact) over the highly unlikely or vague (e.g., under-explained) (even if larger quantity of impact).

Kim Pineda - La Verne

n/a

Kushin Mukherjee - Vassar

n/a

LeaDan Yee - HPU

n/a

Lindsey Dixon - CLEM

n/a

Lisette Robbins - HPU

n/a

Marie Arcidiacono - Los Medanos

~~Judging Philosophy: M. Arcidiacono Affiliation: Los Medanos College Years Judging: 3.5 Rounds Judged: 80-100 (rough estimate) Background of the Critic: I competed in Parliamentary Debate while attending California State University, East Bay. I have been coaching parliamentary debate since Spring 2011 at the Community College Level. This year I have judged approximately 30-45 rounds of parliamentary debate (I don’t keep track, this is a rough estimate based on the number of tournament my team has attended). Both of my degrees are in Communication/Speech Communication with an emphasis in Interpersonal Communication, which may or may not matter much in the round, but information for you nonetheless. On Decision-Making: I attempt to be as much of a “tabula rasa” judge as possible. I do NOT like to bring my background knowledge on a topic into the round. If I know that what you are saying is factually untrue, and the other team does NOT call you on it, I will let it happen (even if I don’t like that you’re not presenting factual information) because I try to also be a “non-interventionist” judge. Occasionally, I will have to do work for both teams, and if that happens I am a) not happy about it and b) probably going to put in my own viewpoint and background knowledge into making the decision and no one wants that. Tell me where to vote, tell me how to vote and tell me why to vote there. I do not want to have to do work for anyone in the round. I love CLEAR impact calculus in the Rebuttals. If I am weighing the round on N/B you want to make sure you’ve shown me how your AD’s/DA’s tie back to the weighing mechanism and how your impacts clearly outweigh your opponents impacts on Timeframe, Probability, and Magnitude. Of these, I tend to look at the order of importance in the following manner: Probability (if it’s not probable that your impact will actually happen, I won’t vote for it over another impact that probably will), Timeframe (if the impact occurs sooner than your opponents that matters, we live in the here and now, not the far, far away distant future), and then Magnitude. Speaking of Magnitude of your impacts, let me take a second to get on my soapbox: It really bothers me when teams try and impact out to Dehumanization and there is NO legitimate link to Dehumanization and/or they use the term Dehumanization wrong. Seriously, dehumanization does not occur because I didn’t get to cast a vote one time, or I didn’t get a new laptop. Dehumanization is a process that occurs over time via repeated acts against your humanity. I like when teams run actual Dehumanization arguments, not arguments that just magically lead to Dehumanization. On whether or not Dehumanization is worse than Death as an impact: You had better convince me with clear examples that one is worse than the other because you’re asking me to pick from the lesser of two evils here. On Stock Issues/On-Case Arguments: It is extremely important to me as a critic that as an Aff team you uphold The Burden of Proof in the round and meet your Prima Facia Burden. It’s actually a big pet peeve of mine when Aff teams just jump into the Plan Text without providing ANY type of Background to the round. I understand that you can provide the Background points in the Uniqueness of your Advantages, but I personally do not like having to wait that long to know what’s going on in the SQ that’s so bad that you are advocating for change. The sooner the better. I want to have clear cut Solvency articulated following the Plan Text as well. If you’re Plan doesn’t solve the problems in the SQ then I will vote on the Solvency Press. I like hearing Solvency Press arguments, however, if the Aff can convince me that they have Risk of Solvency of their Harms I will not vote on the Solvency Press. That “Risk” is a big factor for me. If there is even a 1% chance they can solve the Harms I will throw out the Solvency Press argument. I want warrants from both sides here though. FIAT: I believe that the Aff team does have the power of FIAT in the round—to an extent. Yes, you can FIAT that the Plan will happen, but I also believe that there are times and resolutions where the Opp team can argue, successfully, that FIAT is illusory. These arguments are AWESOME to listen to when they are run well. If you want to try it out, I’m your judge. On Counter Plans: I like Counter Plan argumentation. I believe that Opp teams can run Counter Plans and win the round. Just make sure that you have convinced me, without a doubt that your Counter Plan and the Plan are Mutually Exclusive and specify HOW the Aff cannot PERM your Counter Plan. One of the biggest things I want to see here once you have convinced me that the Counter Plan cannot be Perm’d is how the Counter Plan de-links out the Dis-Advantage AND provides an Advantage that the Plan cannot link to. Aff teams: If you want to PERM the Counter Plan I need to have clear cut argumentation on why you can do both and not be Extra-Topical. The Counter Plan should NOT be topical, but you can always run a Plan Inclusive Coutner Plan. Conditional/Provisional Counter Plans are fine to run, but the Leader of the Opposition needs to make that known ASAP when running the Counter Plan. On Procedurals: 1) The Tricot: I firmly believe that there are three (3) types of debate and that each type of debate is relevant and provide us with educational value. I will vote on a Trichot argument as long as it is a) warranted and b) ran well. Aff teams: If you want to win a Trichot argument you need to convince me without a doubt that debating the topic through a different resolution type is BETTER than the originally intended resolution. This argument is an aprioi issue for me as a judge. 2) The “T”: I used to really dislike the “T” because so many Opp teams ran it improperly and were too vague. That being said, I don’t mind the “T” when it is ran properly and you clearly lay out your Standards and Voters and provide specific reasons to warrant your Standard/Voter. If you are claiming “ground loss” or “loss of education” you need to tell me exactly what ground you lost and/or what education you specifically lost. Vague arguments here will NOT work in your favor. Aff teams: I love when you know you’re topical and you knock out the “T” and offer me a Reverse Voter. I love the Reverse Voter and I will vote for the Aff if they run this Voter well.  It’s highly under-utilized. I will vote on the “T” as an apriori issue. 3) The “K”: If you want to run a “K” in the round then by all means, do so; just make sure you have the theoretical framework clearly articulated. Do NOT assume I have a background in the theoretical framework, even if I do, I will NOT inject my personal background knowledge into the round. That being said, if you use a theory I know well you want to get it right. I am very interested in hearing Critical/Cultural Arguments and Gender/Feminist Arguments. Sidebar: Language “K’s” are awesome. I think there are some definite times where teams use offensive terms in rounds and I appreciate when a language critique is ran. If you run this well, I will vote for you. On that note: If you refer to people in ways that are deemed “offensive” or “politically incorrect” I will dock your Speaker Points. On Points of Information/Order: 1) You can call as many POI’s as you want and you can take as many as you want. My one pet peeve (and this will hurt your Speaker Points) is when you say, “I’ll take you at the end” and then don’t. That’s rude. If you won’t have time for it, let them know right away. If you have SO much information to get through that you don’t have time, you might not be using the right time management skills in the round. 2) Let’s all make sure that POO’s are handled correctly. I will rule as often as a possible without holding up the round. If I rule “under consideration” that means you should proceed with caution when it comes to your argument. You can call as many POO’s as you want in the Rebuttals—it’s your debate to win, or lose. On Structure/Sign Posting/Roadmaps: Clear structure is very important in the round—especially if you are trying to bring up the rate of delivery in the round. I like a nice, concise roadmap IF you are going to follow it and if you don’t follow it that’s frustrating so you had better signpost. If you are going to follow the EXACT same order as the speaker before you then you can just say, “Same Order” and save us all some time. I will not time your roadmap, but don’t think that’s an excuse to squeeze extra prep time. You get 30seconds maximum. On Speed/Spreading/Partner Prompting/General Delivery: I am NOT a fan of spread speaking in parliamentary debate. I will give you one warning if your speaking rate has gone past my threshold and after that I will stop flowing. Debate is a speaking performance and thus, should be presented in a way that a majority of people (i.e. non-debaters) can follow and spread speaking does not do this. Speed as an exclusionary tool is also frowned upon. If the other team asks you to be “clear” or “slow” more than twice you need to adapt to that and/or risk being labeled as “exclusionary,” and potentially losing my ballot. Note: If I stop flowing in the round because of excessive speed your ballot is in trouble. I do not mind if you prompt your partner. Just remember, that if you want it to get on my flow it needs to come out of the speaker’s mouth. I DO mind if you sit while speaking. This is a performance and speaking activity and that requires standing and speaking. If you choose to sit down and speak that might hurt your Speaker Points. Let’s all remember this is an educational activity and is essentially a GAME. Yes, there are big awards involved, but that is not a reason to be rude to each other in the round or overtly aggressive. There’s no need for big, over the top theatrics or yelling in the round. Foot stamping, hitting the lectern, etc. are frowned upon. Let’s keep it civil and as polite as possible. On Speaker Points: I usually give out points in the 25-28 range when speakers are above average. I try to not score you lower than a 21, but that has happened before. Ways to earn a score lower than 25: You have excessive filler words (uh, um, like, but, etc.), you are rude to the other team in the round, you are rude to me in the round, you disrespect speed warnings, your phone goes off (and it’s not your timer). If you want to score higher than a 28: You need to be an exceptionally strong speaker with clear articulation, assertiveness, politeness, and limited to no filler words. I like to give out scores higher than 28 when they are earned so give me a reason to award you a 29 or 30! Lastly: Have fun. Debate should be fun. If debate isn’t fun, you aren’t doing it right. If you want to get me to laugh in the round or earn some brownie points, throw in a couple solid references from the movie, “Mean Girls.”

Mark Schmutzler - Carroll

n/a

Matt Javier - BerkeleyBP

n/a

Matt Lavery - AU

n/a

Michael Harvey - USAFA

I enjoy a thoughtful debate without pre-canned arguments. I will attempt to flow everything. Even if an argument appears rather inane, please address it even if it's brief. Please show courtesy to each other.I am not overly fond of critiques, but will listen.

Mileena Mares - ISU

n/a

Miranda Zigler - Vermont

n/a

Nate Graves - ISU

n/a

Nathaniel Carlsen - Bard

n/a

Nicholas Taffs - Carroll

n/a

Noha Ayoub - USC

n/a

Qiang Zhen - Miami

n/a

Randall Martinez - Miami

Judge Philosophy<o:p></o:p> Randall Martinez<o:p></o:p> University of Miami<o:p></o:p> Assistant Coach<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Though I'm relatively new to the NPDA circuit, I've been coaching policy debate at the high school and collegiate level for the last decade. I've coached and judged at five NPDA tournaments this year and have coached teams that won two of those tournaments (Ga. Tech & DSR-TKA). <o:p></o:p> In terms of my judging style, I tend to default to a flow heavy policy maker type framework. I'm comfortable with all argumentation styles, though I do have a soft spot for good politics DA's and custom tailored Counterplans. I tend to prefer that the Aff actually talk specifically about the topic, and not create a squirrely type of position. It doesn't mean I'm not open to Kritiks and critical approaches, it just might take a bit more of a selling job in the rebuttals to get me to jump on board. Also, especially with Kritiks, the link story is absolutely crucial. I'm not a fan of links of omission, you actually need to do some work at this level to win my ballot. Also, have an alternative! It doesn't have to be a great alternative, but at least spend the extra couple of seconds to make sure it's there.  <o:p></o:p> I think framework and theory are important for debate. I enjoy the meta aspect of the debate, but in order for me to vote you up on theory, there needs to be proof of in round abuse. Also, when discussing framework, especially if you're going to go for critical positions, it's really important to include a discussion about the role of the ballot. I have voted on Topicality in the past, though rarely. I appreciate the quality of a good Topicality violation, but I hate the argument as a timesuck and do give weight to "RVI's" placed on topicality by the Aff. <o:p></o:p> Presentation and communication skills are important, but in my opinion, secondary to the actual argumentation. I believe debate is a game, and I use the flow to determine who played the game better. <o:p></o:p> In terms of Points of Order, in the rebuttal speech feel free to point out "new" arguments but don't be excessive with that liberty. I really miss the cross examination aspect that is absent in the NPDA format, so use the points of order in the constructives to create a bit of that head to head conflict, and not just to fluster the opponent. <o:p></o:p> Last point, there are two things that I need to see in rebuttals to give your arguments weight. First, I hate intervening so I need you to specifically point out and highlight your voting issues as you go down the flow. I think this practice is most effective when there is a voting story attached. Second, there needs to be a weighing story in the rebuttals. Go back to basics here and use the impact calculus with timeframe, probability, and magnitude to create a cohesive weighing story. <o:p></o:p>

Rico Hilliard - USAFA

Robert Trapp - Willamette

n/a

Sally Nanez - LMU

n/a

Sam Schwartz - Brandeis

n/a

Sarah Leeper - LMU

n/a

Scott Thomson - Ithaca

n/a

Sean Hansen - Pepperdine

Shane Puckett - LA Tech

n/a

Shelby Jo Long - Rocky

n/a

Sonia Concepcion - La Verne

n/a

Steve Johnson - Alaska

n/a

Steve Doubledee - Washburn

Debate is a game of strategy and persuasion. Those who can strike the perfect balance between these two will always win my ballot. Things I prefer... 1.I prefer debaters embrace the topic... Topic specific Aff, DA, K, CP, Politics-(specific links), Case, T, Specs etc...are all appreciated. I also understand sometimes you have to run a critical aff via poor ground for the Aff.If you like running identity based arguments I am probably not the judge for you but I will listen. 2.I prefer debaters give impact analysis via timeframe, probability, and magnitude. I will always privilege high probability small impacts over low probability big impacts. 3.I prefer debaters not attempt to speak at a rate they cannot handle. Things I demand... 1.I want a written copy of all texts Plan, CP, Alts, Perms etc... if overly complicated...if plan is the rez then no need. 2.Be kind to each other. If you are rude it will hurt your speaker points. I am not a big fan of cursing in debate rounds. Theory thoughts...All theory arguments are fine. Below is my only "theory pet peeve". Conditional strategies are fine but should be justified through the lens of Aff/Neg flex. So many times debaters want to list off all the advantages of conditional strats but fail to justify why they deserve the right to conditionality in the first place---Aff/Neg flex is how you do so. If the Aff has high flex--(meaning a lot of possible Affs, bidirectional resolution etc...) then the Neg probably has some good justifications for why they need the reciprocal right of conditionality to counter the Aff's use of parametrics.. If the Aff has low flex--(meaning one possible Aff) then the Neg probably will have a harder time justifying why they should have the right to conditionality....Seems like a PIC would be better in this instance. peace dd

Student E - Brown

n/a