FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Ashley Givens - MH Hired

n/a

Bob Becker - Northwest

As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round.  I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so.  To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues.  Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important.  All of that said, I am not an information processor.  I am a human being and so are you.  If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance. When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose.  I think there needs to be resolutional analysis to justify affirmative choices.  Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions.  Left to my own devices, I will evaluate procedurals (topicality), then look to disadvantages and then case. I’ll evaluate kritiks wherever you tell me to place them in the order of things. I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast.  I will tell you if I can't understand you.  Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying.  Above all, be professional. This activity is fun.  That’s why I’m here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well. I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. I’m fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. “We don’t like the resolution” doesn’t cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some “contradictory arguments good” answers. Performance based arguments need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you don’t tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I don’t require competing interpretations. I think PICs are abusive, but that doesn’t make them bad. If they are so awful, you ought to be able to beat them. There are theoretical arguments to be made as to why they are bad, as well as why they are good. Make some arguments. I think the opp should, at least as a courtesy, identify the status of the CP and explain what that means. Mostly I think textual competition of perms is all right but, if pressed, probably an aff will want to show that it is functionally competitive as well. As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says “one million deaths” and the other says “dehume,” but doesn’t explain why dehume is worse than deaths, I’ll vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then I’ll vote for dehume. I think I’m telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.

Carlos Tarin - Utah

Broadly, I consider myself to be fairly straightforward in my approach to debate.  I think the best debates happen when teams actually engage the issues invoked by the resolution, rather than getting bogged down in pointless meta-theoretical exercises.  I am open to a variety of perspectives, but will generally default to a policy-making paradigm that evaluates net benefits unless I am given a reason to do otherwise.  If you want to run more creative positions (critical or otherwise) I’m okay with that as long as I am given a rationale that substantively articulates the importance or worth of those arguments.  Basically, don’t play games with the round for the sake of playing games; warrant your positions and give me a clear way of evaluating the claims you are making.  I am okay with some speed, but generally don’t appreciate spreading (and, in all fairness, I probably won’t catch everything if you’re going crazy fast).  I try to stick to the flow as much as possible, but if you arguments aren’t clearly labeled or are rushed, I’ll eventually give up trying to follow along.  Tell me where to go on the flow and where I should be (cross)applying arguments if necessary.  Things I generally don’t like: counterplans, topicality (unless there is demonstrable abuse happening in round), convoluted theory arguments (of the debate variety; I dig philosophical arguments), time sucks, rudeness. Your chances of winning my ballot will be greatly improved if you: clearly give me reasons why I should vote for you in rebuttals, weigh impacts, provide actual clash, win frameworks.  Miscellaneous: I’m usually pretty nice with speaker points (just don’t be a jerk).  Points of order are fine, but don’t go overboard.

Chelcy Gibbons - Pacific

n/a

Chris Sheid - WWCC

David Dickinson - Snow

n/a

Fred Ebert - Northwest

Years Coaching Parliamentary: 6 Most Important Criteria: I tend to look at the argument as a whole. That being said, I'll listen to and evaluate a wide variety of strategies with an open mind. If at the end of the round, your strategy solves most in regard to the topic, that's where my vote will lie. Expectations of Decorum: I expect people to be respectful of each other. Having some good fun is fine but being mean to each other isn't. I expect the seated partner to be mostly quiet while the standing partner is speaking. Notes are fine but adding to the speech is not. Predispositions: As I said earlier, I will listen to a wide variety of strategies and positions with an open mind. I get pretty annoyed with 'time-suck' strategies such as an unfounded T. If you are going to ask me to vote on procedurals, please follow it all the way through. In the event that you want to run a K, don't do it unless you really understand what's behind it Speech/Jargon/Technical: I flow reasonably well. Speed is fine as long as what you are saying is clear and understandable. Don't try to dazzle in the round with excess jargon. I understand what you are talking about but if it doesn't add to the debate, I'm left un-impressed.

George Talavera - Concordia

“The following information is probably relevant in some capacity if you find me in the back of the room.”  -Bear Saulet   Experience: 4 Years of Parli Debate: IVC 2 Years CUI 2 Years.   TLDR: I debated all of the types of debate during my time as a competitor; you should feel comfortable going for whatever you want.   Theory: Of all of the different facets of debates I find theoretical debates to be the most fascinating. You should have an interpretation and a violation that clearly explain the thesis of your claims. Your claims should be supported by impacted standards that explicate what fairness or education looks like via the violation. I generally believe that resolving issues about the rules are a perquisite to evaluating other portions of the debate. All of that being said, I think that theory debate exists as a space where debaters get to challenge one another’s actions and choices through a channel of fairness and/or education.   Counterplans: “I tend to assume that counterplans are a very useful strategy available to the negative. I am not predisposed against conditional counterplans, and frankly I'm also not predisposed against multiple conditional counterplans. Do not mistake this with an unwillingness to vote for condo bad if you can’t justify your instance of condo.”  -Joe Allen   Offense/defense:  “Defense is the most underutilized tool in debate.  However, I still believe that the uniqueness controls the direction of offense in nearly every instance.  This does not mean that you cannot nullify the disadvantage or reduce its risk with effective defense, but I do not believe that you will win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate.  There are two scenarios where I think you can win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate: (1) The impact to the disadvantage is systemic.  Poverty exists in the United States.  If you win that the plan increases the economy and decreases poverty, then this is a tangible, offensive impact.  (2) If you add a systemic impact as a part of your link turns.  If you lose the uniqueness debate on helping the economy where the impact is nuclear war, you will not win offense.  However, if you contextualize your link turn with an argument that any increase in the economy helps reduce poverty, then you can theoretically make the link turn an offensive argument.  Argument comparison is necessary in all debates, but I cannot stress how important they are in nuanced debates like I just described.” -Kevin Calderwood       Politics: I don’t want to exclude you and your choices of what arguments you can run but I WOULD REALLY PREFER YOU NOT READ THESE DA’s in front of me.   DAT K DEBATE THOUGH: “I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link and what is the impact, how does that team resolve the impact? Functionally all the framework page does is provide impact calculus, it just explains ahead of time which impacts should be evaluated and which shouldn't so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation and if you really want to make me happy that ROB will be your FW interpretation. Beyond that, I prefer kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the world from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to define some of those concepts on a thesis page of some sort. Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. If you're reading framework arguments about the resolution being a springboard then your interpretation of how to be topical should be different, right? Beyond that affirmative kritiks still need to read links, which should link to the topic or activity directly. Teams that want to have performance debates: Go for it. Read some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify. Teams that don't want to have performance debates: I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while most of those are theoretical and frameworked arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of the performance and thesis of their claim at some point.”  -Zach Moss

Grant Tovmasian - MH Hired

n/a

Ian Summers - Utah

My background is primarily in individual events, both as a competitor and as a coach. My only debate experience was doing policy and public forum in high school, which was over ten years ago. I come from an extemp background so I will understand and appreciate well-developed and explained arguments, but I do not like spreading and am rusty on debate jargon. I will evaluate rounds based on the soundness and internal logic of arguments more than esoteric terminology and tactics.

Isaac Mayeux - Cedarville

Isaac Mayeux Judging Philosophy   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 debated for two years with Cedarville University from 2006 to 2008. I’m an English professor now, so I like stories. I also enjoy literary theory, so I’m familiar with some of the theorists people use as the basis of their kritiks. This is my first year as a judge, and I’ve been to Mile High, Webster, Wheaton, and Loyola so far.   Tabula Rasa is probably the most important concept to me as a debate judge. I don’t plan on voting anyone down because I find their argument morally repugnant. It’s the job of the debaters to tell me why or why not a certain position is morally acceptable. Aside from the basic rules of NPDA, such as protecting from new arguments during the rebuttal speeches, I view everything in the debate round as a set of conventions and preferences. As such, I’ll listen to, flow, and vote on just about any argument. For example, I have voted on counterplans that I felt were abusive because the affirmative did nothing to show me why the counterplan was abusive. Within the framework of the NPDA rules, do whatever you want; just be polite to others.    Speed should be fine. I’ll tell you if you’re going too fast or if you’re unclear, but I've judged a number of high-level rounds and I haven’t done this so far.   Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.   Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given.   I tend give 26-27 points for speeches that I think are decent. A 28 signifies a really good speech, while a 29 means the speech was excellent. If I give a 30, I probably think this speech was nearly perfect; a 30 is probably also a funny speech.   How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?    I appreciate a well-run kritik, but I probably won’t vote on it without solid examples of how the other team bites the K. I see no reason why the affirmative couldn’t run a critical argument, whether it’s a kritik or a critically framed affirmative. I do think it’s a problem if a negative bites its own K, but I wouldn’t vote on that without the affirmative making that argument and supplying examples of how the negative bites. Overall, I’d say that the negative should do their best to put arguments on case without biting their own K. For instance, if part of the K is that impacts are bad (I’ve heard this with Camus, Baudrillard, and maybe Becker), the negative team should probably avoid using impacts in the round.   Performance based arguments… I personally would probably rather not see performance-based arguments, but I’m open to them nonetheless.   Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?    I would be willing to vote on topicality as long as the negative proves that the affirmative can’t uphold the resolution with its interpretation. Proving abuse makes that argument much stronger, of course. I don’t see how I can vote on T without an example of what the interpretation should have been, so competing interpretations seem rather important.   Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?   PICs are typically fine, but I have seen cases where a PIC is somewhat abusive. For instance, if we’re talking about a bill in congress with hundreds of pages and you remove a single page, then that might be a problem. Identifying the status of the counterplan is generally a good idea. Functional competition is inherently important. Textual competition is less important to me. If a counterplan isn’t textually competitive and it causes abuse, then the affirmative can make those arguments about why I should vote on abuse.   Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)   As long as both teams agree, I’m fine with it.   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?)?   I would use the ordering laid out in this question: procedurals, kritiks, and then case.    How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?   I don’t think arguments have inherent weight. Arguments weigh no more than what the debaters make them weigh in the round via rhetoric. For example, if the PMC has a decent economic advantage but no one talks about it ever again in the following speeches, then that advantage stops mattering to the round. I’ll probably give the most weight to whatever arguments are most discussed. When looking at opposing claims, I’ll lean towards whomever has the best narrative. I don’t favor concrete impacts over abstract impacts or vice versa, but I expect debaters to tell me specifically why an abstract impact like “dehumanization” is particularly important compared to a concrete impact like “one million deaths.”

Joe Allen - Concordia

Generic information: I do not wish to impose my views on the activity through my ballot. What I mean by this is that I think you certainly ought to debate in front of me in a fashion consistent with what you're best at--and allow me to adapt to you. I fundamentally believe that nearly all aspects of debate are negotiable, and certainly a multitude of different kinds of strategies can be fun to watch and fun to do. I believe those who insist on debate conforming to their view of the activity are narcissistic and don't get the point. I also think that the notion of the inevitability of intervention does not remove the responsibility to evaluate issues in a fair and honest fashion--in fact it strengthens this obligation. I will do my best to make decisions which are not informed by my predispositions but rather a serious evaluation of the issues as they were debated. My burden of striving for non-intervention will not prevent me from passing judgment. This ought not be confused. I will make a decision based on judgments I make (clearly) but I will not be dishonest about the objective flow of the debate in order to cater to my own debate ideals. I am a debate nihilist (you might say), I begin with the assumption that what you can do in debate is only limited by your imaginative capacity to justify your argumentative choices. There is no strategy that I didn't try as a debater--who would I be to tell you that you can't do the same? Specific information: Despite my strong belief that our predispositions should have no effect on the outcome of our judging, I must admit that I obviously do have predispositions about this activity. I've spent enough time doing it, and even more time thinking about it, that I am not a clean slate. I'll put my slate away for the sake of fair deliberation, but here's a glimpse of what my slate looks like.  Topicality: Unless argued persuasively otherwise, I default to assuming that topicality is both a voting issue and an issue of competing interpretations. I truly believe that affirmatives who make a good faith effort to support the topic (even if for a very abstract or nuanced reason) are the most strategic. Even some of the most strategic critical affirmatives I've ever seen affirmed the topic. I suppose a good general rule is that if you're not trying to be topical, you should have an exceptionally good reason why. I have never heard a definition of reasonability in my entire life that made more sense to me than competing interpretations (doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility). I believe that the specificity of the standards and how effectively they are compared (T debates are impact debates like everything else) is often the decider.  Counterplans: I tend to assume that counterplans are a very useful strategy available to the negative. I am not predisposed against conditional counterplans, and frankly I'm also not predisposed against multiple conditional counterplans. Do not mistake this with an unwillingness to vote for condo bad if you can’t justify your instance of condo. Surprisingly perhaps, I also am not strongly against counterplans which don't compete textually (particularly if they are authentically within the scope of the topic). The reason I think textual competition is usually a good limit is precisely because most counterplans which textual competition limits out are those which detract from topic education. If yours doesn't and you can justify your counterplan you're fine. If you say there's a textually competitive version of the counterplan I will know if you're lying (just so you know). It's really all about what you can justify. The quality of your solvency evidence is generally a great indicator of how smart your counterplan is.  The kritik: We shouldn't be afraid to have kritik debates because they serve as a way of making sure that our assumptions can be justified. That being said, our assumptions can be justified, and I appreciate people who do in fact engage critical teams and make an effort to defend the perspectives which inform their arguments. A few uphill battles critical debaters might find with me are that I often think critical framework arguments do not particularly limit the affirmative very much. There is no part of debate that isn't already a performance, and there is no part of debate that isn't already representational. It's about the desirability of those representations. Another roadblock critical debaters might find with me is that I have no problem signing off on topicality or evaluating the framework debate against the kritik. I'm not opposed to framework if you cannot justify the way your kritik is framed. If they're responsible for their representations why aren't you? I don't like the fact that kritik debaters uniquely have to have a sheet of paper justifying the existence of their argument right out of the gates, but if you cannot win that your argument should exist I think you should find a different argument. I also am a sucker for sophisticated and clever permutation arguments. Perhaps this is why I think the best kritiks are topic specific and turn the case.  Theory: I think theory serves a vital role in regulating debate trends, like a filter. Sometimes a strategy is a winning one precisely because it's not crafted in a fashion that is fair. Sometimes a strategy is antithetical to education to a degree that merits its total exclusion. Again, these questions are answered best through a framework of competing interpretations where sophisticated impact calculus happens at the level of the standards debate. If you can justify it, you can do it. Theory debates are one of the best tests of whether or not you can justify your given strategy. For this reason, I take it seriously and think it should be evaluated first. I will not evaluate it first only in the circumstance where you lose the priority debate (which sometimes happens). My default assumption is that fairness and education are both good, and keep the activity alive. This does not, however, remove the obligation to demonstrate why something is theoretically objectionable to a degree that merits the ballot. I also tend to fall further on the potential abuse side of the spectrum than the real abuse side. Just because you don't perform abuse (in the sense of how much of their strategy has in-round utility) does not automatically mean the way your strategy is positioned is suddenly educational or fair.  Disads: A well argued disad can be a beautiful thing. If you can't outweigh the case, read a counterplan that pairs well with your disad. If you want, read two. You could also surprise me and debate the case effectively (I will appreciate this). I do not dislike politics disads, but those which do not have any real link specificity annoy me a bit. Sometimes the politics disad is the right choice, sometimes it's not. Depends on the topic. The greater the specificity and applicability the happier I'll be. I love a well crafted topic disad. If your disad authentically turns the case, then I'll probably be inclined to thinking it's a good disad. Be prepared to debate all levels of disad uniqueness (not just top level) including link uniqueness, internal link uniqueness, and impact uniqueness.  Things that really annoy me:  1) Process disads. If your disad relies on the process of the plan passing, rather than the outcome of the plan, I will not like your disad. If you say things like "the plan will be horse-traded for x" or "the plan will move x off the docket" I will be utterly dissatisfied with your lazy and bankrupt disad. To be clear, it is the job of the aff to identify how absurd your disad is. I will not hesitate to vote for shitty process disads if the aff fails to correctly answer them, but it'll make me feel bad about myself and the state of debate. 2) Theory debates which begin in the PMR. Sometimes really egregious things happen in the block. In this case, I may very well vote for theory which begins in the PMR. Example: the negative splits the block. However, I am more often than not wildly uncomfortable with theory debates in which the negative has no opportunity to contest your argument. The best example I can think of here is that the MOC should take a question. My intuition is that you get the last word, and so you should have the upper hand in dealing with these situations without putting me in an awkward position. This is one of my least favorite debate arguments.  3) Spec arguments or T arguments which have no resolutional basis. If your spec argument has no basis in the topic, or requires the aff to be extra-topical in order to meet your interpretation, I will think it's a bad argument. E-spec is a good example of such an argument. This is especially egregious in instances in which T arguments have no basis in the topic since T is supposed to be explicitly premised on the language of the topic.  4) Floating pics. Alternatives should not include anything resembling the plan. They should especially not literally include the plan text. If they do, and you do not win the debate on perm: do the alternative with appropriate theory arguments about how nonsense it is for the alt to include the plan I will be pretty sad. The negative should have to make alt solvency arguments in order to demonstrate why the alt solves the aff, and the aff should be entitled to argue that the aff is a disad to the alt. If the alternative does not enable this debate to occur, it's more than likely theoretically bankrupt. I would hope that the aff would identify this. A good question to ask the LOC when they read their alternative is whether or not the plan can pass in a world of the alternative. 5) Incorrect permutation strategies. For every silly nonsense counterplan which shouldn't exist, there is a solid permutation text which makes such counterplan look pretty silly. I really appreciate it when the aff correctly identifies the appropriate permutation, and conversely, I really don't like it when the aff fails to problematize bad counterplans with the appropriate permutation. I am not principally opposed to severance or intrinsic permutations, but appropriate applications of them have a high degree of difficulty. Theoretical objections to them are a reason to reject the permutation, not the team, unless argued persuasively otherwise. 6) Failure to offer impact comparison. It is up to you to ensure that the debate is resolvable in a way that doesn't require me to compare things myself. I will always decide debates based on what occurs in your own words. I will not put the pieces together for you. I will not assume your position to be a priority if you fail to demonstrate this for me. Impact calculus is the centerpiece of how you can accomplish this.  7) Failure to identify things which are theoretically bankrupt. What bothers me the most about asinine strategies is when I'm put in a position to have to endorse them with my ballot, and I absolutely will if you fail to allow me to do otherwise. It is your responsibility to filter out irresponsible debate trends with sound objections to them. Take your responsibility seriously so that I don't have to make decisions which I know endorse things which are not good for the activity.  Summary observations: I suppose my views on the ideal strategy are almost always informed by the topic. The best K's turn the case and are topic specific, and the same can be said for the best disads. The best counterplans have very quality solvency evidence and a sensible net benefit. The best critical affs affirm the topic and discuss issues pertinent to the topic literature. There's always a good strategic option for a given topic, and it's up to you to find it. I will not be a hindrance to that process. Whatever you think is situationally best given the strengths of yourself and your opponent should be what you go with. I'll adapt to you. You'll probably debate better when you do what you're best at. Almost all debate is fun, it should be a question of what's the most situationally strategic option. One last thing: I am a very expressive judge. 9 times out of 10 you will know what I think of your argument. I will shake my head at you if you say something really absurd, and I will nod for arguments that I agree with. I can't really control this very well (I've tried). On very very rare occasions I will verbally declare an argument to be silly during the debate. Do not take me too seriously. I vote for silly arguments when I would be intervening otherwise, and not all smart arguments are round winners. If it's very difficult for you to deal with non-verbal reactions to your arguments or this is very distracting for you, don't pref me. I literally could not possibly be less interested where I end up on your pref sheet.

John Stanley - North Central

Josh House - Cypress

I have tendencies but I'm not entirely robotic and my views are not perfectly static across time and space. If I change in a major way I’ll let you know. I tend to prioritize substance over style. That's not to say that I discount style entirely, and your delivery can certainly influence my understanding of what you have to say, but I'm not ever voting based on what you're wearing or just based on who sounded more polished. I tend to prefer structure in your delivery, and I prefer it if you watch my nonverbal reactions and adjust accordingly when appropriate. That is to say, if I’m confused or lost I try not to keep that to myself, and I’d appreciate it if you make some attempt to un-confuse me sooner rather than later. I tend to want to vote in debates based on how the debaters tell me I should vote and to try to keep my personal feelings about a topic out of my decision. That is, I try to stick to the flow and I try not to intervene. I tend to view voting on Topicality (and procedural issues more generally) in Parli as something that is in opposition with that last tendency. The Gov team gets about 20 minutes to figure out what a topic means and what they’re going to say. As long as their interpretation of what the topic means makes sense I tend to think that the Opposition team should debate them on that interpretation. To be clear(er), I will vote on Topicality but I am very sympathetic to “we meet” arguments and I absolutely require articulated in round abuse (not potential abuse and not prep-time abuse). In LD or other activities where the topic stays the same over time I’m much more likely to vote on Topicality and to listen to reasons why I should choose the “best” interpretation of the topic. I would love to talk to you more about this if you’re interested. Oh yeah, I tend to want you to run a policy because I think it usually makes for better, more educational debate. I tend to think that if the alternative on your K has to include the words “Vote Opp to…” it’s a good sign that I don’t really need to vote Opp to accomplish what you’re after. If your Alt solvency rests on changing the minds/actions of people in the real world (not via fiat) then I expect an explanation of how it works starting with the people in the room and extending as far as our influence reaches. Otherwise don’t tell me that my voting Opp will end capitalism or the patriarchy and expect me to fill in the gaps on how that happens. I tend to forget to give time signals because I’m busy writing things down. I will usually at least have a timer, it’s just that I forget to look at it as you go, so if you time yourselves or have somebody in the audience help out that’s usually to your advantage. I tend to want people to enjoy this activity, to seem like they’re enjoying this activity, and to help others to enjoy this activity. I tend to react pretty negatively to behavior that is exclusionary, rude, or mean. I would be happy to add clarification on items of interest on request.

Julian Plaza - CC

Kevin Calderwood - Concordia

Quick Notes ---I prefer policy arguments.  ---You must take at least one question in every constructive. ---All advocacies in the debate are unconditional. ---All texts should be written down for the other team and repeated at least once. ---Framework is never a voting issue; it's a lens to view the rest of the debate. ---Topicality is always a voting issue, and is never genocide.  Spec arguments are never voting issues.  Permutations are tests of competition. ---I vote negative more times than affirmative.  ---I will err affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory (delay, consult, conditions, normal means, textual competition etc.).  Ask, and I am sure I can clarify this for you. ---Although I do not have a predisposition towards these arguments in debate, I find that capitalism is typically the best and most fair economic system, and that the forward deployment of American troops and the robust nature of American internationalism generally make the world a better place.   Additions to my philosophy (2014-2015): ---I tend to think that teams should not have to disclose.  My teams would prefer not when asked to disclose.  ---I believe it would be unwise to read delay counterplans in front of me.  ---I am flowing on paper from now on.  I find that it keeps me more engaged in the debate.  I might not have a complete record of the round, but research demonstrates that the ability to comprehend concepts greatly increases when taking notes by hand.  ---Teams that provide a warrant that connects their claim with their data are more likely to be successful.  This is really basic, but I think it is something that is done poorly at the moment.  Telling me that a minimum wage increase would reduce GDP 2% does not tell me why the reduction would occur.  Too often we are missing this key element of basic argumentation.   Additions to my philosophy (2013-2014): ---Be responsible and use the restroom before the end of prep time.  This means you use the facilities on YOUR time, not after prep time expires when you get to the room.  ---In critique debates, I would prefer that the MG answer the critique in either the same order, start someplace and work your way through, or just read your arguments as a frontline.  I flow the critique on one sheet of paper.  For example: answer the framework, links, impacts, and then the alternative; OR, answer the alternative, framework, links, and then the impacts; OR frontline your arguments (1: Alternative does not solve, 2: Link turn, 3: Fiat good, etc.). ---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 of 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”. ---I still believe that you must take one question one question in each constructive.  However, for me to vote on the (true) procedural that “you must take a question”, you must make a “good faith” effort to actually ask a question.  This would involve verbalizing that you have a question, and the other team categorically refusing to answer a substantive question about the debate.   Additions to my philosophy last year (2012-2013): --I like teams that spend a significant amount of time lighting up the case in the 1NC.  --I still think that I err affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory, but I have grown tired of the textual versus functional competition debate. I think that the legitimacy of counterplans I tend to dislike (process, delay, anything that changes the nature of fiat) is better resolved through objections specific to the counterplan in question (i.e. delay bad, etc.) ---I think teams spend too little time on the link story and spend too much time developing their impacts. This isn't to say that I don't think that having a developed impact story is important, but very little of it matters if the extent of your link is "GOP hates the plan, next..." ---I think that systemic impacts are underutilized, especially in economy debates. Recessions are bad.  Unemployment is bad.  These events have a life long effect on your physical and mental health that is ignored in debate in favor of improbable impact scenarios like resource wars, etc. ---I think that fairness is the most important impact for me to consider when evaluating theoretical issues (including topicality).  It is very difficult to convince me that education should come before fairness.  Not being topical does not lead to the collapse of debate, but for me, this is first and foremost a competitive activity, and thus I am most persuaded by claims about fairness.   Background: I am entering my thirteenth year of either competition or coaching in academic debate.  I have judged hundreds of debates in almost every format.  However, my approach to judging parliamentary debates is quite different, based mainly on structural differences.   As an undergraduate I studied international relations, and would classify myself as a liberal hegemonist (I believe that the United States should use its expansive power to establish free markets, promote democracy, and maintain peace).   In graduate school, I studied presidential rhetoric, with a focus on environmental communication.  I wrote most of my term papers dealing with the environmental justice movement, climate change rhetoric, democratic social movements, and Monsanto’s crisis communication strategies I will default to judging the round as a policymaker, and I generally prefer these debates to critical ones.  However, the best debates happen when debaters argue what they are best at.  If this means you are awesome at performance, then you are more likely to win than if you stumble through a CP/DA debate.   Working hard is the easiest way to win in front of me.  This means working hard in your preparation before the tournament and during the debate.  I expect you to be well read in the arguments you are running.  Lazy debaters are more often than not those that intentionally obfuscate the debate to confuse their opponents.  I reward hard work, and it’s really not difficult to identify those that work hard. I use should a lot in my paradigm.  This is a list of my preconceived notions, intended to help guide you in winning my ballot.   All of these considerations are how I think debate ought be, not what it is, so, they are obviously up for discussion. Offense/defense: Defense is the most underutilized tool in debate.  However, I still believe that the uniqueness controls the direction of offense in nearly every instance.  This does not mean that you cannot nullify the disadvantage or reduce its risk with effective defense, but I do not believe that you will win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate.  There are two scenarios where I think you can win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate: (1) The impact to the disadvantage is systemic.  Poverty exists in the United States.  If you win that the plan increases the economy and decreases poverty, then this is a tangible, offensive impact.  (2) If you add a systemic impact as a part of your link turns.  If you lose the uniqueness debate on helping the economy where the impact is nuclear war, you will not win offense.  However, if you contextualize your link turn with an argument that any increase in the economy helps reduce poverty, then you can theoretically make the link turn an offensive argument.  Argument comparison is necessary in all debates, but I cannot stress how important they are in nuanced debates like I just described. Framework: I find these debates boring and overly dogmatic.  Framework is a lens to view the rest of the debate; a filter for the judge to determine which impacts should come first and what their role is as a critic.  Framework, by itself, is never a voting issue.  It consists of three parts: (1) an interpretation of what your framework is; (2) what the role of the judge is (i.e. policy maker, intellectual, etc.), and (3) competing modes of impact calculus (i.e. utilitarianism, methodology, ontology, etc).   Debates are not won or lost on framework.  If you lose the framework debate, but win that the plan breaks down capitalism (link turn), or that capitalism is good (impact turn), you will still win the debate.  I find arguments like “fiat does not exist” quite sophomoric.  Most arguments placed in framework are really just hidden link/impact/alternative arguments that have no place in the framework debate.  Losing one framework argument most likely will not lose you the debate.  In fact, it is not necessary to have your own framework or even answer the other team’s framework to win.  Overall, I generally dislike “clash of civilization debates”, and prefer debates on the more substantive aspects of the criticism.  Critiques: I voted negative on the critique last year quite a bit.  I am much more versed in critical theory now, but if your argument is something you do not think I would be familiar with, take care, slow down, and be sure to explain everything a little bit better.  I have found it much easier to understand things the first time I hear them as a judge, but it’s still an important consideration.  I am not in the “alternative doesn’t matter” camp.  Having a real world alternative is important, especially if you do not win framework arguments regarding language and discourse.  If you win those types of framework arguments, then alternatives that rethink/reconceptualize/problematize the status quo are more persuasive.  Critique debates are more likely won by isolating that the critique impacts/alternative solve the root cause of the affirmative impacts as opposed to winning a silly framework argument that unfairly seeks to exclude the other team.   Counterplans: A counterplan or good case arguments are necessary to win.  Counterplans should be unconditional.  You should write a copy of the counterplan text for the other team.  You should take a question about the text of your counterplan.  Your counterplan should probably not mess with fiat (delay, veto/cheato, consult, etc.)  I believe I will generally err affirmative on counterplan theory in parliamentary debate (this is different than policy debate where the affirmative has more pre-round prep time, in-round prep time, and a literature base that limits down the number of predictable counterplans).   With that said, I am very much in the textual competition camp, largely concerning issues of fairness.  Case specific/topic specific counterplans are more effective, but I certainly understand the utility of agent/actor counterplans.  Permutations: A legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan.  Intrinsic and severance permutations are bad unless you win their legitimacy through a lens of textual competition.  Permutations should never be advocacies.  Multiple permutations are fine because there are a finite combination of legitimate permutations. Disadvantages: This section will focus mostly on politics because I do not have issues with any other disadvantages (that I know of).  Politics is generally boring and not well researched.  Links that are based on the process of the plan (i.e. focus, delay, using political capital) make no sense since fiat assumes the plan happens immediately.  Links based on the outcome of the plan (i.e. popularity, backlash, gaining political capital) are legitimate.  Defense is very important against politics disadvantages since they most likely contain small risk/high magnitude impacts.   Disadvantages alone are unlikely enough to win a debate, but those that both turn and outweigh the affirmative case are preferable.  Theory: All theory positions should have a stable interpretation, violation, reasons to prefer, and voting issues.  I find most theory in parliamentary debate to be behind the times (no negative fiat, permutations should be advocacies, etc).  If it has an interpretation/is an advocacy you should read it more than once to ensure that I have it written down.  I will not vote on a speed criticism except in the event that you are markedly better than your opponents and are using it as a tool of exclusion as opposed to a strategic tool.  Reverse voting issues are for lazy debaters. Topicality: This argument is probably not genocide.  It should be a voting issue.  I will judge this debate either through an evaluation of the standards debate or through a lens of reasonability.  Your interpretation should be grounded in a definition from the literature (or a dictionary) and should not be just an “interpretation” of the topic, like “back down = must be the WTO”. Specification: These debates are better conducted through a discussion of what normal means is.  Instead of defaulting to lazy debate by simply “out teching” another team on theory, you should engage in a substantive debate about what the most likely normal means mechanism of the plan is.  This is what we call a link.  I will vote on these arguments, but if you look at any policy backfiles and memorize those answers I do not see myself voting on these ridiculous arguments. Speaker Points: I will give you between a 25-30, unless you say/do offensive things (i.e. racist/sexist/homophobic, etc. language).  I start at a 27.5 and work my way from there.  My average was somewhere right around a 27.8 for the year. As a final note, I really hate cheap shots.  I also dislike having to decide debates on dropped arguments.  Most parliamentary debates are won or lost on the technical aspect instead of the substantive aspect.  I think this is unhealthy for the activity as a whole, and I will reward debaters who are willing to engage in the debate at hand instead of cowardly sidestepping in favor of a cheap shot.  I can’t stand “knocking” and find it completely disruptive.    Have fun, respect your opponents, and work hard.

Kristy McManus - WWCC

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

Kyle Cheesewright - IDAHO

“All that you touch   You Change.   All that you Change   Changes you.   The only lasting truth   Is Change.   God Is Change.” –Octavia Butler, “Parable of the Sower.”   Debate is a game. Debate is a strange, beautiful game that we play. Debate is a strange beautiful game that we play with each other.   I love debate. It’s the only game that exists where the rules are up for contestation by each side. There are some rules that aren’t up for discussion, as far as I can tell, these are them:   1/ Each debate will have a team that wins, and a team that looses. Say whatever you want, I am structurally constrained at the end of debate to award one team a win, and the other team will receive a loss. That’s what I got.   2/ Time limits. I think that a discussion should have equal time allotment for each side, and those times should probably alternate. I have yet to see a fair way for this question to be resolved in a debate, other than through arbitrary enforcement. The only exception is that if both teams decide on something else, you have about 45 minutes from the start of the round, to when I have to render a decision.   Pretty much everything else is open to contestation. At this point, I don’t really have any serious, uncontestable beliefs about debate. This means that the discussion is open to you. I do tend to find that I find debates to be more engaging when they are about substantive clash over a narrow set of established issues. This means, I tend to prefer debates that are specific and deep. Good examples, and comparative discussion of those examples is the easiest way to win my ballot. Generally speaking, I look for comparative impact work. I find that I tend to align more quickly with highly probable and proximate impacts, though magnitude is just so easy.   I tend to prefer LOC strategies that are deep, well explained explorations of a coherent world. The strategy of firing off a bunch of underdeveloped arguments, and trying to develop the strategy that is mishandled by the MG is often successful in front of me, but I almost always think that the round would have been better with a more coherent LOC strategy—for both sides of the debate.   At the end of the debate, when it is time for me to resolve the discussion, I start by identifying what I believe the weighing mechanism should be, based on the arguments made in the debate. Once I have determined the weighing mechanism, I start to wade through the arguments that prove the world will be better or worse, based on the decision mechanism. I always attempt to default to explicit arguments that debaters make about these issues.   Examples are the evidence of Parliamentary debate. Control the examples, and you will control the debate.   On specific issues: I don’t particularly care what you discuss, or how you discuss it. I prefer that you discuss it in a way that gives me access to the discussion. I try not to backfill lots of arguments based on buzzwords. For example, if you say “Topicality is a matter of competing interpretations,” I think I know what that means. But I am not going to default to evaluating every argument on Topicality through an offense/defense paradigm unless you explain to me that I should, and probably try to explicate what kinds of answers would be offensive, and what kinds of answers would be defensive. Similarly, if you say “Topicality should be evaluated through the lens of reasonability,” I think I know what that means. But if you want me to stop evaluating Topicality if you are winning that there is a legitimate counter-interpretation that is supported by a standard, then you should probably say that.   I try to flow debates as specifically as possible. I feel like I have a pretty good written record of most debates.   Rebuttals are times to focus a debate, and go comprehensively for a limited set of arguments. You should have a clear argument for why you are winning the debate as a whole, based on a series of specific extensions from the Member speech. The more time you dedicate to an issue in a debate, the more time I will dedicate to that issue when I am resolving the debate. Unless it just doesn’t matter. Watch out for arguments that don’t matter, they’re tricksy and almost everyone spends too much time on them.   Before I make my decision, I try to force myself to explain what the strongest argument for each side would be if they were winning the debate. I then ask myself how the other team is dealing with those arguments. I try to make sure that each team gets equal time in my final evaluation of a debate.   This is a radical departure from my traditional judging philosophy. I’ll see how it works out for me. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. For the record, I have strong opinions on just about everything that occurs in a debate round—but those strong opinions are for down time and odd rants during practice rounds. I work to keep them out of the debate, and at this point, I think I can say that I do a pretty good job on that account.   I just thought of a third rule. Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I thought speeches are. If you tell me what speaker points I should give you, I will listen, and promptly discard what you say. Probably.   For the sake of transparency: My personal gig is critical-cultural theory. It's where my heart is. This does not mean that you should use critical theory that you don't understand or feel comfortable with it. Make the choices in debate that are the best, most strategic, or most ethical for you. If your interested in my personal opinons about your choices, I'm more than happy to share. But I'll do that after the debate is over, the ballot submitted, and we're just two humans chatting. The debate will be decided based on the arguments made in the debate.   “[Y]ou can’t escape language: language is everything and everywhere; it’s what lets us have anything to do with one another; it’s what separates us from animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so on.” -David Foster Wallace, “Authority and American Usage.”   Old Philosophy A Body's Judging Philosophy Debate has been my home since 1996— and when I started, I caressed Ayn Rand and spoke of the virtue of selfishness.   I am much older than I was. These days, I am trying to figure out how subjectivity gets created from the raw material of words and research.   I have no interest in how well you can recite the scripts you’ve memorized. Or at what speed.   I will not be held responsible for adjudicating your bank balance. And I will not provide interest on your jargon. I will listen to your stories and I will decide which story is better, using the only currency I am comfortable with: the language of land, and the words that sprout from my body like hair.   I remember the visceral intensity of the win and loss, and the way that worth was constructed from finishing points. I am far too familiar with the bitter sting of other names circled.   I think that the systemic is far more important than the magnitude. Politics make me sick. And I know that most of the fun with words, has nothing to do with limits, because it’s all ambiguous. And nothing fair.   These days, I read Deleuze and Guattari, and wonder what it means when classrooms are madhouses. And all that remains is the affect.

Malynda Bjerregaard - Snow

Maurianna Shelbourn - Utah

I do not have any competitive debate experience but I do come from a speech and communication background. I enjoy critical theory and performance and am very open to their use in rounds. Primarily I am looking for teams’ strength and quality of argumentation. I want to see you take the time to warrant your claims.   It is unlikely for me to vote on procedurals unless there is very clearly demonstrated abuse. I tend to get frustrated when time is spent here unnecessarily.   In rebuttals I am looking for you to address the impact calculus and provide arguments that explain why one impact should outweigh another.   I believe debate should be accessible. This means I am not a fan of excessive speed and like to hear clear, articulate delivery. While I am learning the structure and terminology of debate I also appreciate minimal use of jargon. I will take notes but I do not consider myself to be a flow critic.

Michael Dvorak - NAU

<ol> <li>Please describe your background and experience with debate.</li> </ol> I am fairly new to collegiate debate. I competed in both LD and Policy in high school but for the past four years I was primarily involved in individual events with a few parli rounds of competition during my career. I am currently a Graduate Coaching Assistant for NAU. During my (thus far) limited judging experience, I tend to vote with the more logical argument(s) that was presented. I will vote based on what is said in round unless competitors miss a crucial piece of evidence that trumps their argument that competitors should know about. I don’t want to hear arguments that are outlandish (I won’t vote because you say nuclear war happens if we raise taxes on cigarettes), but I will think outside the box so long as you provide me with sound reasoning to think that way. While I don’t mind speed, make sure I can understand you through watching my feedback. I am looking for high quality, well thought out arguments to judge on. I don’t want to hear arguments that you don’t think or want to win simply because they are a “time-suck” on your opponents. If you have any other questions about my paradigm I will attempt to answer before round if you ask.

Nicholas Butler - ASU

n/a

Ryan Guy - Chico

Guy, Ryan California State University, Chico   Me: <ul> <li>Debated NPDA for two years after transferring to Humboldt State.</li> <li>Fourth year coaching speech and debate at Chico State</li> <li>I also teach Rhetorical Theory, Argumentation, Research Methods, Group Communication, Intercultural Communication, and Public Speaking</li> </ul> The Basics: <ul> <li>Debate is a game. Play it well.</li> <li>I’m fine with the average levels of speed in NFA-LD and Parli.</li> <li>Procedurals are fine and can make for good debate.</li> <li>I okay with the K. That said do it well or I will be annoyed.</li> <li>I default to net-benefits unless you tell me otherwise</li> <li>Tell me why you win.</li> </ul>   General Approach to Judging: I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments you all have epic failed. Organization is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around—if necessary—but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps. I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it. If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some time during the tournament.     Specifics: Speaker Points: Other than a couple off the wall occurrences my range tends to fall in the 25-30 range. If you do the things in my “General Approach to Judging” section your speaks will be higher. Topicality: Hey Aff…be topical. T debates are awesome if you can break free of the boring generic T debates we seem to hear in every round. I’m cool with the “test of the aff” approach but please be smart. I’ll vote on T, just make sure you have all the components . I’m unlikely to vote on an RVI on T but it is not completely impossible. Critiques: I enjoy critical theory…that being said I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you persuade. Make sure your alternative solves for the impacts of the K. So far in my time as a coach/judge I have not seen an Aff team run critical arguments well. If you think you are the team to show me how it’s done I’m down to listen. Just make sure you run them in a way that is still topical. Weighing: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I’m in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Side Note: In NPDA I hate when the LOR just repeats what the MO just said. I got it the first time…why are you winning? Speed: I think in general speed can be good for debate. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can’t do that and go fast slow down. If someone calls clear…please do so. Side Note on NFA-LD: I get that there is the anti-speed rule that everyone ignores. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call “clear.”

Sarah Hinkle - CC

Savannah Sandburg - MH Hired

n/a

Shannon LaBove - Rice

Shannon LaBove MA, JD ADOF Rice University Judging Philosophy   Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.) I started debating at age ten when I could not see over the podiums in Junior High LD and loved it...still do.  I competed LD in High School, Parli in college (I was in NPDA-90’s style with hands on the head questions) and have coached a combination of  Parli, IPDA and NFA-LD for 12 or so years for a combination of NPDA, PRP and PKD. Needless to say I understand that there are many styles of debate and consider myself a Tab/Flow judge who likes to evaluate the round presented. I am very keep it simple and give me a place to vote.  Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) I do have what many call an “old school” debate preference which includes the following: Don’t Like: <ul> <li> I don’t do flow work for debaters. If you want it flow it through. </li> <li> I don’t like bad law. If you don’t know it don’t get complicated with it. </li> <li> I don't like performance. This is not to say I don't see it as a valid mechanism this is to say it is not my preference in a round to watch.  </li> </ul> Do Like <ul> <li> Clash-don’t just dismiss and assume I know the position. I like link and clash work. </li> <li> Easy decisions-tell me where and how you want me to vote. </li> <li> Run what you would like-I try not to be interventionist  </li> <li> Aff to define round-Will buy a trichotomy/framework issue if it is blatant and abusive. </li> </ul> Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making I don’t mind speed but am a stickler for organization and clarity. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making I like Clean case/off-case structure and for things to be run correctly.  For me the Aff has Burden of Proof and the Opp to refute. Clash on case is great and preferred but will vote off/critical. Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks No real preference here but you have to link up to round. Generic without clear link does not fly well with me. Preferences on calling Points of Order. If you see it call it. Anything else feel free to ask. I look forward to watching great debate!

Taureanna Shimp - Chico

robert e g black - CSULA

I competed in IEs and debate for four years and started coaching/judging last year. I like speeches to be clear--i.e. tell me where you're going at the beginning, tell me where you've been at the end, and you better have gone there in between. I competed in every event--interp more than platform or limited prep--at least once and have judged them all as well. So, do what you want to do within the usual guidelines and entertain and enlighten me and you will do well on my ballot. For interps specifically, I have been known to value performance over message, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a point to the piece you're doing and why you're doing it. As far as debate goes, I try my best to go by the flow which mean a) speeding is not in your best interest because if I cannot keep up and your argument doesn't get onto my flow it won't help you in the end, and b) I will accept most any position you present. Still, I don't like standard generic DAs; for example: politics--I think any Plan fiats away most, if not all, political capital arguments. Since I do try to go by the flow, I also will not usually dismiss automatically new arguments in rebuttals--I want you to catch them and call a point of order; if you can't catch it, I don't want to do the work for you. I prefer you have fun more than be technically perfect, that you make sense more than you fit the strict framework of debate. But, honestly, doing the latter can seriously help the former and, if you're doing it right, you should be able to do both.

2014 Utah/Long Beach IE/LD Swing, Part 1