FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Ben Dodds - Oregon

Name: Ben Dodds School: Oregon Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. 2014 NPTE 100% rewrite -- read me even if you know me I think honesty in philosophies is one of the best ways to advance the activiy. Let me be perfectly clear what I am trying to accomplish by writing this: I want to be the top preferred judge at every tournament that I go to. I have judged every NPTE since 2009, and attended each since 2006. Seriously, I want to judge all the debates, all the types of debaters, and I want to judge seniors one last time before they go save the earth. I enjoy nothing more than seeing people at nationals when they are at the top of their game. I will stay in the pool until the tournament ends, Oregon debaters left in or not. That is a promise that may be relevant to you filling out your form, I'll stay till the end like a hired judge.  While, there are people that I don’t think I am an ideal ordinal #1 for, I work really hard to make sure that I get better at whatever flaws are the reason for that, so give me a shot to be your #1. I will proceed to explain why I think I am a good judge in most all debates, and why you may want to consider me for your ordinal #1. The exact question: 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 – I did policy debate for the majority of my career. I ended with a few years of parli at Oregon. I think flowing is a very important judging job that I try very hard at. I will use my flow as the official scorebook. I think letting the debaters use their arguments to win is important, so I try very hard to keep my own thoughts out of the debate. However, where there are thoughts that I think are better served by the debaters knowing them, I will let them know them. In my opinion, the number one reason I should be your number one judge is that you will know how I feel about your arguments far earlier than other judges will let on. I will try my absolute hardest to make sure I have communicated to you what I am thinking about your arguments as you make them. I will use verbal and non verbal communication to get this information communicated. This season I have:  Asked for things to be repeated, asked for acronyms to be broken down, asked for things to be written, asked for people to be clearer, asked for people to be louder, asked for people to have more distinct tags, given people obvious signs to move on or told them to move on, and used other obvious nonverbal to verbal communication like: laughter and smiles, head shaking, exaggerated nodding and knocking, and even flat out telling folks that “I don’t get this, explain it better”. Do not be astonished if I ask you a question like that mid speech. I do all of this because I love you all and love good debates. I want to you be in my head with me the whole debate. I don’t think it is valuable for you to invest 25 min in something that I can’t vote on because I couldn’t hear. Similarly, I don’t want anyone spinning their wheels for 20 min when I got it in two. So, I really want to be your top judge, and should be because you will not have a question about where I am at during a debate, but if you would rather debate in blissful ignorance, I’m not your person. Also, there are things that I will not pretend to know about the world. I took the classes I took. Learned whatever I learned, I remember whatever I remember, but not more than that. There are issues that you, as undergraduates, know more about than I do. If there is a confused look on my face or I seem to asking for more explanation a lot, you have hit on something that I don’t understand. You should not just read this argument to me, it should be clear to you that you have to teach it to me. These two things are not the same. Your ability to know the difference is the greatest skill of all. Reading the audience and dialing your message to their knowledge base. If you have not educated me well enough on your magic fission technology, don’t get mad at me for voting on the argument that it won’t work. Still sound like magic to me, that’s on you. Any judge not willing to admit that there are things that they do not know about the world is lying to themselves, and to you. Strike them, pref me, and teach me your argument. I flow things in columns. I prefer to flow from the top of one page to the bottom of it. I'll be on the laptop, so '4 pages or 1 page' is up to you. 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)? 27-30 I have given 10-20 30s in competitive debates of consequence in my career. Most of them are at NPDA/NPTE. Every year there are one or two people spitting pure fire that weekend, so no, I am not the "never seen perfect" type. Debate is subjective, while there might not have been a perfect speech yet; I have seen people debate without a flaw that was relevant to the debate many times. If that is you: 30. Beyond that, I will say that reward good choices higher than pretty choices. I’d rather watch you explain the double turn for 3 min and sit than explain it for two and then go for your DA for two. I don’t like contradicting arguments being advanced in rebuttals, unless there is some explicit reason for it. I won’t floor people at 27 or lower unless they are repugnant, and as articulated above, you’ll get to know from me verbally before I let you just bury yourself in bad. It is very unlikely that you will get poor speaker points from me, because I will let you know what you are doing that I like mid debate. I am like the bowling bumpers of non-verbal communication. You should be able to score pretty well here. 2.         How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Anyone can do whatever they want. I think this is the right forum for debating about things with claims, warrants, and impacts. I am not scared of arguments based on the titles or format that they are delivered in. No on can make any argument without a claim, warrant and impact. If you have those three things, I don not care what you title it, how you structure it, or really anything more about it. You do you. As I stated above, I don’t like hearing contradictory arguments advanced in rebuttals, as by that time, I prefer to hear one strategy that is consistent being advanced, but I will hold out for a well-explained reason that contradictions are ok. Not my favorite, but certainly a winnable argument, just like all arguments are and should be. If you claim that contradictions are ok, and have a warrant and impact, you have made an argument. If you win the debate over that argument, you will win that argument. If you win an argument, I will filter the debate through that won point. 3.         Performance based arguments… Do whatever you want. I think I would be a good judge to try new things with. I have voted for all manor of performance debate as it has come into parli. I have seen parli evolve from the K being a fringe argument to performance being acceptable. I understand the theory that is in play in this debate as well. I am down to vote for either side of every issue on this discussion I am your judge for a new performance that Ks debate, but you’d better be ready to answer debate is good, because I am your judge for that argument too. I reject the notion that the argument framework: Ks cheat, or the argument framework: fiat is bad, are all that different. Just two sides of a coin, I am totally into watching a debate about those two things against each other. I’ll also entertain Ks vs performances, performance affs vs. performance negs, or whatever other arbitrary dichotomy you have to make between schools of thought. They are all just claims, warrants and impacts to me. 4.         Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I require a full shell to vote on T. The neg needs to prove they have an interp that should be preferred, that the aff does not meet that, and that I should vote on T. I will default to that interp until there is a counter interp and/or an argument that says that I should not evaluate interps against one another (reasonability). I will default that T is a voting issue until the aff convinces me otherwise. However, no, I do not require “in round abuse”, because that is arbitrary. Competing interpretations debate resolves this entirely, if that is how T is evaluated, then the interp is good or bad in theory, not practice, ergo, in-round abuse is irrelevant. If the aff wins reasonability, and has an interpretation of their own, that is usually a good enough out. Now, don’t get confused, the reasoning for arguments about in round vs out of round have a place, its just in the reasonability debate, not just drifting in the ether of T is not a voter. Competing interps might be bad because they don’t force the judge to evaluate in round abuse over potential abuse. See, just a claim, warrant, and impact, placed somewhere relevant. I think case lists make good topicality standards. That encapsulates your ground and limits claims well. This works for the AFF and NEG. 5.         Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? This question is silly. You all determine all of these things for me. Do I have opinions on these issue, yes, and I will list them here, but they are hardly relevant to the debate, because theory is not a hard issue for me to just listen to you debate about and vote on. This is totally up to you in the debate, I promise I have voted on the exact opposite of everything I am about to say about how I feel about theory. PICS – Arbitrary distinction. Can’t be good or bad if it is actually impossible to define. This argument usually boils down to complaints like you should not get that CP, or you should not get that many CPs, both are ok arguments to me, just not likely a reason why PICs are good or bad. There is likely another, better theory argument that your claim, warrant, and impact would fit under more intuitively. Perhaps the problem is that the CP is only a minor repair (CP - treaty without one penny)? Perhaps the problem is that the CP is competing through an artificial net benefit that only exists because of the CP (CP - aff in 3 days)? All arguments are conditional unless otherwise specified. While the neg should state this, and I could vote on the claim (with good warrant and impact :P); "vote AFF, they did not specify the status". Or better maybe, "err AFF on condo bad, they didn’t even specify." This form does not ask my opinion on the actual statuses of CPs, but you are getting them anyway. I don’t believe that conditional advocacies are bad. This is the status I think is best: an advocacy that is competitive should have to be advanced. If there is a perm, the NEG should be able to concede it to make their CP go away. A non-intrinsic, non-severance perm to an advocacy is 100% the same argument as no link. If the AFF and NEG advocacies can exist together without repercussion, the NEG advocacy is testing no part of the aff, and is irrelevant. However, this is just my opinion, you do whatever you want. I have, and will vote on condo bad. If it has a claim, warrant, impact, it’s a winnable argument. If the impact to the voter is reject the team, so be it. A legitimate permutation has all of the aff and part or all of the neg advocacy. I will not insert my opinion on that meaning that the function or text of the CP in your debate, again, that is for you. My opinion is that text comp is an arbitrary tool made up to limit otherwise unfair feeling CPs that debaters have not been able to defeat with the appropriate theory arguments. Text comp and PICS bad are actually basically the exact same argument. They both arbitrarily eliminate a bunch of CPs to try to rid debate of a few. Artificial net benefits are bad is the argument that both of these poorly conceived arguments are trying to get at. You should not get the save a penny CP, but that is not a reason that we must use text comp or that we must reject CPs that include the plan in them. That is a reason to reject save a penny CPs, they are just hard to define. There is the rub on all theory, interpret the rules to restrict the exact set of argument that you intend to. 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?)? This question is just sad. It should read, if the debaters you are watching fail to debate, how will you choose? Well, here goes. I will order things: some Ks, some theory, other Ks, some AFFs, other theory, DAs and other AFFs. Don’t do this to me. Either make it clear that you all think the debate should be ordered the same, or debate about the order of these thoughts. If you let me choose, you have not completed the debate, and the decision will be based on something arbitrary, like me ordering issues on my own. 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")? I won’t. I also don’t think the things listed are as abstract and concrete as the question leads on, nor are they necessarily diametrically opposed. In any case, this question, as phrased, is another example of something you should not do to me. Either, make it clear that you all think the debate should be ordered the same, or debate about the order of these thoughts. If you let me choose, you have not completed the debate, and the decision will be based on something arbitrary, like me ordering issues on my own. I think both of the things listed in the question, death and value of life, are important. I could be compelled to separate them based on number of people affected. I could be compelled to separate them on the time the impact occurs. I could be compelled to separate them based on the likelihood of each occurring. I could be compelled that one of these impacts is reversible while the other is not. I could be compelled that one affects other policy choices while one does not. If there was none of that for me to sort it, I would say death is bad, because that is what I think. If you let the debate get down to what I think, rather than something you said, you failed.

Benjamin Mann - Pacific

Brief version: I take my role as a critic very seriously. My goal is to judge in the most fair, neutral, and open way possible through a careful evaluation of the flow and strategic decisions made by debaters that avoids judge intervention and minimizes adaptation under the framework the debaters provide (or fairly resolve said framework if it is contested). Because I care about this activity and love to see competitors on their game, I enjoy judging a lot and strive to be the best critic I can be.   I believe you should debate in the most comfortable and strategic way for you. I’m open to and experienced with a variety of arguments, including advantages/disadvantages, kritiks, counterplans, performance, procedurals and critical affirmatives. I would much rather have you debate the way you like rather than alter your strategy because you have me as a judge. I don’t necessarily prefer certain types of arguments over others: the best debates come from people running the strategies they want.   Everything else is more specific but elaborates this general theme as well as my experience with the activity. Feel free to keep reading, but I realize time is often tight.   2015-16 updates: -My philosophy is fundamentally the same as last year. I realize it’s a novella, but I aim to be thorough, clear, and predictable as a critic, so I decided to avoid too much condensing. I also did some rearranging to put the most important parts at the top. -Added a small section at the bottom specific to NFA-LD. While everything before it is parli-specific, relevant aspects apply. -Regarding trichot: I personally find policy debates significantly more educational and easier to evaluate than fact or value, and I believe advocacies can be derived from fact/value resolutions. That being said, I respect competitors who want to have those debates and will do my best to assess them as fairly as possible, as well as any theory for or against trichot. -I find that extensive judges’ responses to points of order tend to heavily alter the rest of rebuttals. Still call them: I’ll hear the point and response, but I will need time on the flow to do a fair assessment of newness. Expect to hear “under consideration” unless I am very certain, in which case I will say “point well taken” or “point not well taken”. -2014-15, I judged at: Jewell, (both halves) GGO, Lewis & Clark, Reno, UOP, Mile High, (both halves) NCFA   This is my second year out of competition and my second year and final year coaching while pursuing my Master’s in Communication as a Graduate Assistant at the University of the Pacific. I competed for a year of high school Lincoln-Douglas debate followed by four years of college parli for Lewis & Clark from 2010-14 on the national circuit, with the team name Lewis & Clark HM my senior year. Overall, I competed in over 50 college parli tournaments and in my time as a competitor ran several different types of debate arguments, from politics to Foucault. From 2013-14, I also worked as a high school speech and debate coach, extensively judging both CX and parli.   The rest of this philosophy is divided into two parts: general notes and more in-depth discussion about my views on particular arguments.   General notes: -I do not aim to steer the direction of the activity with my ballot or use it to force people to debate in a certain way in front of me. -I approach theory in a neutral way, including conditionality, PICs, and textual competition. In other words, these procedurals are neither autowins nor dead in the water: I will evaluate them via competing interpretations unless an alternate criterion is offered and prioritized. Under competing interpretations, I examine which definition or interpretation is the best internal link (via the standards debate) to the impacts of the procedural through the arguments made by debaters. -Unless an alternative framework is offered, I default to a net-benefits evaluation of the round that examines the advantages against the costs between the hypothetical, post-fiat implications of the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option. This evaluation considers the risk of timeframe, magnitude, and probability, but does not necessarily prioritize one over the other: if impact prioritization is made by debaters in rebuttals, I will alter my evaluation of impact framing devices accordingly. -My speaker point average is 27.5. Things that will buoy your points include: argument and speaking clarity, strategic decision-making and collapse, argument diversity, strong warrants, aff-specific links, efficient time management, and comparing, resolving, and prioritizing warrants and impacts in rebuttals. Things that will hurt speaker points include: rudeness and personal attacks, dropping key arguments, needless repetition, counterfactual and warrantless claims, excessive cursing, going for too much, and lack of thesis level work in rebuttals. -I was trained to follow quick debaters while competing and similarly can flow fast debates as a judge. I will yell “clear” if your enunciation isn’t comprehensible to me, and will yell “slow” in the event that you are going too fast for me to flow. Generally, this should not be a problem, however… -Please slow down or repeat plan/counterplan/alt texts as well as interpretations for procedurals. Slowing for the thesis level of kritiks or the top of complex politics disadvantages is also preferable to help me understand the nuance of the position. -Though I competed extensively in IEs as well, that does not inform how I approach parli. The two activities have very different norms and expectations, so only debate in a “speechy” way if that’s how you want to debate. -Offense is generally more valuable in debate insofar as it gives me reasons to vote for you, but strategic defense can do a lot, especially if impact framing prioritizes probable impacts. -Unless told otherwise, I evaluate permutations of advocacies as tests of competition. -“Perm do both” is a sufficient perm text, but means I will evaluate the texts of the two advocacies in their entirety together. Thus, alts including “vote negative” are probably not the best places to read these kinds of perms and “do the plan and…” perm texts would work better. -Unless otherwise specified, I will assume affirmative advocacies are unconditional and negative advocacies are conditional. -I will not vote teams down on this basis unless theory is read and won by the other team, but my knee jerk reaction is that all constructive speeches should take at least one question unless CX is offered and a copy of an advocacy text should be provided, or have the text repeated. -Only call points of order if you feel an argument is close. I will protect against blatantly new arguments in rebuttals and it is not in your best interest to call points of order for arguments clearly on the flow in an attempt to get the rebuttal off its game. -While I’m fine with some partner prompting, I will only ever flow what’s said by the debater giving their speech, so they’ll need to repeat what’s prompted. -It’s in your interest to make extensions in member speeches, however brief, (e.g. extend the entirety of the advantage) of PMC/LOC arguments to avoid messy points of order in rebuttals and force me to evaluate the newness of extensions. -I’m here because I love this activity, community, and judging. Debate’s a fun and incredible limited time offer with a great group of people: please don’t misinterpret my tendency to be serious and aloof as apathy or condescension. At the same time, while I can be a silly person, I leave that at the door when judging rounds. My aim for RFDs is to clearly articulate my decision calculus and also to offer feedback of the round from my perspective as an educator.   My views on specific arguments are below:   Topicality I value T as both a viable strategic tool and an important check against abuse. If I’m not told otherwise, I will examine T a priori and default to competing interpretations unless a different criterion such as reasonability or a kritik of topicality is explained and prioritized. Under competing interpretations, I examine which definition is best via the standards debate for the impacts of topicality. As a result, I will consider potential abuse unless arguments are made against it. T is fundamentally a question of the best definition: it asks whether you should have links to an argument in the first place, not whether you’ve been no-linked out of a position. Good T debate includes a nuanced definition that’s clear out of the LOC, a coherent violation, compelling standards, and voters. I enjoy internal collapse for teams that go for T or answer it in the PMR, leveraging a few standards and prioritizing either fairness or education. While I will listen to RVIs, I generally think they’re not particularly strategic or compelling arguments. Arguments such as effects topicality or extratopicality are fine as either standards or standalone procedurals.   Other Procedurals As mentioned above, I’m neutral on other theory positions and tend to believe abusive techniques in debate (as well as the question of whether the technique is abusive in the first place) can be resolved in-round through these arguments. The deeper, more nuanced interpretation, the better. I similarly look for clear standards and impacts for these procedurals and also evaluate them under competing interpretations absent another framing device provided and explained. In answering these procedurals, I tend to think people can be too dismissive or defensive in MG standards, so offensive reasons why your interpretation is preferable will get you far.   Kritiks Strategic K debate solves, gets to the root cause of the aff, or provides a framework that precludes a standard evaluation of PMC arguments while beating back the perm and other offense. I enjoy K debate and am familiar with a lot of the classics (Nietzsche, Cap/Marx, Fem IR, etc) but am always open to different Ks or new spins of old favorites. Going a little slower through more obscure K literature is preferable so I can capture the argument. I do think that Ks can be too eager to find something to criticize while giving an alternative that resolves little offense or isn’t a good idea in the first place, and tend to think disadvantages to alternatives or impact turns are underutilized. I’m also not a fan of Ks designed to be confusing out of the LOC so the MG mishandles responding to them; it’s better to have a clear argument from the get-go you’re willing to defend. Perms and offense, including disads to the alt and either link or impact turns, as well as leveraging the aff or giving a different framework, are some strategic ways for the MG to engage the K. While I’ll listen to them, I’m less persuaded by K frameworks designed to moot the entirety of the PMC: whether or not they’re granted post-fiat implications, I tend to think the aff should be able to weigh the representations of their speech. Finally, please signpost clearly when going through different parts of the K, especially in rebuttals.   Counterplans Clever counterplans that capture the aff and avoid specific offense, such as strategic PICs, can be a thing of beauty, though as mentioned, I’m open to MG theory against them. As a result, run delay, veto, and other counterplans of that variety at your own risk. Please slow down or repeat CP texts. Without specific theory and under a standard framework, I believe that all CPs need to compete through net-benefits as a more desirable policy option than the aff or the perm. This means the CP need not be mutually exclusive: it becomes a question of whether the permutation should be done, verses whether it can be done. Clear explanation of the CP’s solvency mechanism is also essential: don’t name a nebulous bill that apparently solves the aff without any details. Aff teams that utilize solvency deficits, offense against counterplans, permutations, or theory to respond are well-equipped against these arguments.   Disadvantages/Advantages Nuanced uniqueness, deep warrants, specific links, and clear, varied internal link/impact modules can turn these good arguments into great ones. I’m familiar with a lot of generic disadvantages, such as politics, relations, and business confidence and understand their utility, but they become much more compelling when they’re tailored to the aff, especially on the link level. Teams often read a laundry list of econ/relations/etc uniqueness that accurately portray the state of affairs, but don’t give a clear trajectory on how something being low actually leads to collapse or give explanation in how the aff offsets this trajectory. Extinction level impacts are part of the game and I understand their utility, but also believe there should be an explanation of how you reach these impacts rather than blipping “extinction” or I’ll hold them to a high level of scrutiny. Small, systemic impacts are underutilized in debate and can be compelling, especially for teams that tell me to prioritize probability in rebuttals. For very specific positions, such as politics disadvantages, thesis-level clarity and slower explanation in the beginning is preferred to help me understand your argument. I also think that affirmative teams too often structure advantages on solving the status quo without shielding them against predictable counterplans. Brief source citation builds legitimacy to warrants, especially when warrant accuracy is brought into question by the other team and since cards aren’t used in parli. I enjoy internal collapse on these arguments as well. Rather than simply extending these arguments in rebuttals, final speeches should explain, compare, and resolve both warrants and impacts. Lastly, I think LOC arguments on-case are underutilized and can often be the best sources of clash. Neg teams can be quick to assume the solvency of their counterplans or Ks while missing big chunks of the aff.   Performance I want teams to run the arguments they enjoy, benefit them strategically, and are personally important to them, and I absolutely believe that performance-based arguments are good for this activity. If it’s supplemented with a robust defense of your approach should the other team brings it into question, I’ll follow the argument under the framework you provide. This being said, I am extremely uncomfortable with performance-based arguments that demonize or engage in personal attacks against programs, critics, or debaters without an extremely good justification. I would much rather see performance-based arguments that address important issues rather than target or scapegoat individuals or hurt the activity, but if those strategies are integral to your advocacy, please do them with extreme caution and understanding of their implications. I also think that neg teams can be too easily spooked by these arguments or deem them unwinnable when a lot of strategies, including compelling counteradvocacies or PICs can be extremely effective.   Critical Affirmatives Similar to performance, I think that teams should run the arguments they want to run and I will work to evaluate them fairly under the framework provided, or resolve the framework debate if two interpretations compete. Aff teams don’t always have to engage in rounds through utilitarian, net-benefits calculus and there are many topics where that approach isn’t advantageous. Unless told otherwise, I will evaluate impacts through the lens you provide.   Special Note on the LOR The LOR is easily the most misunderstood and underutilized speech in parli. At its worst, it can be a retread of the MO, but at its best it can do a ton for negative teams. Though I protect against new arguments in rebuttals without theory on splitting the block, smart LORs differentiate from MOs by giving thesis level explanation, unwrapping and re-explaining offense, and preempting PMR strategies. The LOR can only turn the dial more toward neg teams and make it harder for the PMR to turn it back.   NFA-LD Relevant aspects of parli apply. I assess postfiat implications as fairly as possible and do not have particular argument preferences. -I will fairly evaluate any rule violations or theoretical objects, but am open to impact turns against these. After all, sometimes there are things more important than the rules. -I generally will not need to see cards after the round, but reserve the right to ask. -Please time yourselves and monitor your use of prep. If you need a minute to get something on a flash drive, that’s fine, but try to be swift. -Generally I am more persuaded by carded evidence, but this ought to be explained and prioritized over other cards and cardless warrants. -I am inclined to believe that SOURCE, DATE warrants a full citation, but will fairly consider theory against it. If you have any additional questions about my coaching philosophy or decisions, I’d be more than happy to communicate with you via email at benwmann@gmail.com or by talking to me at tournaments. Happy competing!

Caleb Rawson - CCU

"My background is that I competed in parli for multiple years in college and now do some assistant coaching on the weekends while I get my PhD in Business. I’ve been told I am a very expressive judge so feel free to utilize that to your advantage. I hold to a very ideological view of debate, especially that access to debate (both as a competitor and as an audience member) should be open and non-discriminatory. This manifests itself in some of the following points.   -Courtesy. Both teams need to not only be polite with their words, but also with their nonverbal signals. If an opponent asks a question (and they should ask, and you should answer) be polite with your answer. Dramatic sighs or eye rolling will result in a significant drop in speaker points.   -Speed. Having debated I know that a fast speaking speed can be beneficial. However, your speed must be at an understandable pace for everyone in the room (including audience members). I will not flow anything I cannot understand and I will not call “clear” or tell you to slow down. If you talk fast you must pay attention to my nonverbals (i.e. do not read directly from a page at a fast pace and expect me to flow everything). -Probable Cause. Impacts, K’s, and abuse must be probable, not just possible. -Generic Politics Argument and Resolutional K’s. See above point. I don’t care if you “feel” the resolution is discriminatory or unfair, you must prove that it is. -Use rebuttals to actually refute your opponents and show why you win instead of using them like a constructive speech. That’s why debate has rebuttals in the first place…. I like to have fun as a judge and I like my competitors to have fun."

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.

David Airne - U of M

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

Dayle Hardy-Short - NAU

Dayle Hardy-Short - Northern Arizona University Saved Philosophy: Background: I have not judged NPDA parliamentary debate this year--I have judged BP and Lincoln-Douglas. So my flowing is a little rusty. On speaker points, I look to such things as analysis, reasoning, evidence, organization, refutation, and delivery (delivery being only 1 of 6 considerations I made for speaker points). Thus, I virtually never give low-point wins because if a team "wins", then it has done something better than the other team (i.e., like had clearer organization or better arguments). Generally: Generally, I am open to most positions and arguments. I expect the debaters to tell me what they think I should vote on, and why. I appreciate clash. I will not do the work for the team. I believe that the affirmative/government has the responsibility to affirm the resolution and the negative/opposition has the responsibility to oppose the resolution or the affirmative. Such affirmation and opposition can appear in different forms. I feel pretty comfortable in my understanding of whether or not something is a new argument in rebuttals, and I will not vote in favor of new arguments--just because someone extends an argument does not mean it's new, and just because someone uses a new term does not mean the argument is new (they may be reframing a previously-articulated argument based on additional responses from the other team). I prefer debates in which debaters clearly explain why I should do what they think I should do. This includes explaining use of particular jargon and/or assumptions underlying it (for instance, if you say "condo bad", I may not necessarily understand in the heat of the debate that you're talking about conditionality versus something you live in; similarly I do not understand what “fism” is—you need to tell me). Do not assume that simply using a particular word means I will understand your argument (argument includes claim, explanation, and evidence of some kind). Please consider not only labeling the argument, but telling me what you mean by it. I will listen as carefully as possible to what's going on in your debate (I will try to adapt to what YOU say and argue). Do your debate, make your arguments, and I will do my best to weigh them according to what happened in the debate. I am not arrogant enough to think that I get everything on the flow, nor am I arrogant enough to claim that I understand everything you say. But if you explain important arguments, most of the time I can understand them. At least I will try. Topicality is a voting issue for me, and I listen to how teams set up the arguments; I consider it to be an a priori argument. I have an extremely wide latitude in terms of what affirmative can claim as topical within the scope of any given resolution. I don’t like T arguments that are ONLY about so-called abuse (indeed, I do not find them persuasive). I prefer that you focus on why the affirmative isn’t topical. Thus, I prefer in the round you explain why something is not topical (standards, alternative definitions, etc.), but you do not need to articulate abuse (which I define as "they're taking ground from us; they’ve ruined debate; or similar arguments”). I guess it does seem to me that if a case is truly non-topical, then it almost always follows that the position is unfair to the negative--as long as the negative came truly prepared to debate the topic. Thus, the negative does not need to belabor the point--say it and move on. I will assume your counterplan is unconditional, and if you think it should be otherwise, please explain and justify that position. With an articulated counterplan, then my job becomes to weigh the best advocacy with regard to the resolution. Please provide me (and the other team) with an actual CP plan text, so I can consider arguments about it as they are made (I really do prefer a written plan text, or please repeat it 2-3 times so I get it written down correctly). I certainly am not opposed to permutations, but please have a text that you can show me and your opponents. I am not opposed to critiques nor performance debate, but please be very very clear about why they should win and what criteria I should use to evaluate them and/or weigh them in the debate as a whole. Abstract impacts should be clearly demonstrated and explained, and concrete impacts need to have similar weight. A final note on speed and civility. I don't have particular problems with speed, but clarity is essential--clear speakers can speak very quickly and I will get the flow. I believe that debate is an important activity, both as an intellectual exercise and as a co-curricular activity in which we get to test classroom learning in a more pragmatic way (application and reductio ad absurdum), including communication skills and the extent to which arguments can go. The way we behave in rounds often becomes habit-forming. So show some respect for the activity, some respect for your opposition, and some respect for the judge. I'll try to keep up with you if you'll treat me like a human being. I will think through your arguments if you will give me arguments worth thinking through.

Grant Campbell - Hutchinson CC

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.

Jordan Christiansen - Hutchinson CC

n/a

Joseph Evans - El Camino

~~About me: I have been involved in forensics for 10 years. I debated HS LD for 2 years, and then 4 years of college parli debate at UCLA. I coached at CSULB while in graduate school, and I am now currently the assistant coach at El Camino College. I view debate as a game of intellect, and therefore I believe that any method of debate is viable when used as a strategic ploy to win. I will try to list my views on the major themes within debate. The way I evaluate the round: I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the eyes of a policy maker. Unless I am told otherwise, I tend to fall back on Net Benefits. This means that I will evaluate the arguments based on how clear the impacts are weighed for me (probability, timeframe, and magnitude). I will however evaluate the round based on how you construct your framework. If (for example) you tell me to ignore the framework of Net Benefits for an ethics based framework... I will do so. On the flip side, I will also listen to arguments against framework from the Neg. You win the framework if you provide me clear warranted arguments for your position, and weigh out why your framework is best. Speed: I am usually a fast debater and thus I believe that speed is a viable way of presenting as much evidence as possible within the time alloted. I can flow just about anything and I'm confident that you can not out flow me from the round. That being said, I value the use of speed combined with clarity. If you are just mumbling your way through your speech, I won't be able to flow you. While I won't drop you for the act of being unclear... I will not be able to get everything on the flow (which I am confident is probably just as bad). Counter Plans: I will listen to any CP that is presented as long as it is warranted. In terms of CP theory arguments... I understand most theory and have been known to vote on it. All I ask is for the theory argument to be justified and warranted out (this also goes for perm theory on the aff). Topicality: I have a medium threshold for T. I will evaluate the position the same as others. I will look at the T the way the debaters in the round tell me. I don’t have any preference in regards reasonability vs. competing interps. You run T the way your see fit based on the round.  Additionally, I have an extremely high threshold for "RVIs". If the neg decides to kick out of the position, I usually don't hold it against them. I will vote on T if the Aff makes a strategic mistake (it is an easy place for me to vote). Kritical Arguments: I believe that any augment that is present is a viable way to win. Kritical arguments fall into that category. I am well versed in many of the theories that most critical arguments are based in. Therefore if you run them i will listen to and vote on them as long as they are well justified. I will not vote on blips as kritical arguments. Framework: I will listen to any alt framework that is presented ( narrative, performance, kritical Etc.) If you decide to run a different framework that falls outside the norm of debate... you MUST justify the framework. Evidence: Have it (warranted arguments for parli)! Rudeness: don't be rude!

Joshua Harzman - Pacific

Name: JOSHUA CARLISLE HARZMAN School: U. PACIFIC   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’m a former debater so run whatever you want; however you want. My voting paradigm is tabula rasa until you tell me otherwise. Please be kind to one another. After you maintain competitive equity, do whatever is necessary to win.     Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.   <ol> <li>Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?</li> </ol>   27-29----To get the 30, you must clearly be the best debater in the room. I do not give 30’s every round.   <ol> <li>How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?</li> </ol>   You may argue whatever you want, but be able to defend it. If you claim in-round solvency or impacts, you better warrant those claims. Affirmatives have equal access to these types of arguments. For contradictory positions, again, be able to defend your representations if opponents choose to read theory.   <ol> <li>Performance based arguments…</li> </ol>   Give a framework for how I ought evaluate and I prefer arguments that allow your opponent access to the representations, however, I understand this is not always the case.   <ol> <li>Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?</li> </ol>   I require a definition, competitive standards, and voting impacts. If you give a standard, (don’t explain what predictability means) explain how your interpretation better upholds said standard (explain how your definition is better for a predictable debate). I think reasonability calls for judge intervention but if that’s how you want me to vote then make the argument.   <ol> <li>Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?</li> </ol>   All types of counter-plans are fine – until the affirmative tells me otherwise. All permutations are fine – until the negative tells me otherwise.   <ol> <li>Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)</li> </ol>   Yes, if they want to.       <ol> <li>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?)?</li> </ol>   The debate will answer this question. No one argument is theoretically “before” another until the debaters tell me as such. If T is A-Priori and the K framework comes before the 1AC, then I would evaluate theory, followed by methods, and then impacts. If T isn’t A-Priori and the Case gets weighed against the K, I’ll vote as such.     <ol> <li>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")?</li> </ol>     AGAIN, ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN INSTRUCTED TO VOTE OTHERWISE: Quantity > Quality Extinction > Torture Genocide > Dehumanization

Julian Plaza - CC

Kenny Hopkinson - Hutchinson CC

n/a

Krystal Fogle - ACU

I am a graduate student studying communication and rhetoric.  In debate rounds, I am looking for well developed, clear arguments with strong warrants.  I am new to the world of debate and am learning with every round.  As I learn, I appreciate speakers who adapt by speaking clearly, and not speaking so rapidly that I lose you.  I believe you should be free to run whatever you think is best for the round, however, I expect that you will clearly signpost.   Because critiques/criticisms are complex and my be difficult for me to follow, run them at your own risk and over-explain the theory and your arguments to me.

Loretta Rowley - Utah

I am primarily an individual events coach. I did not compete in, nor do I coach debate. I have taught and continue to teach argumentation courses and thus, I prefer slower delivery and well-developed arguments. Essentially, I am not well-versed in debate jargon so don't assume that I will have the exact understanding of your version of debate theory. That said, I can follow and assess any debate as long as the competitors explain themselves fully and weigh their arguments.

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.

Megan O'Byrne - Hutchinson CC

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.

Miriam Betlemidze - Hired

Robear Maxwell - Oregon

I debated for El Camino College, Concordia University and Texas Technical University during a 5-year college debate career. This is my second year coaching, first at Oregon. Speaker Points: I believe speaker points to be largely arbitrary and completely subjective. I also consider the distribution of speaker points to be largely exclusive (given to more "known" debaters for example, or for inside jokes) Everyone assumes I always give 30s but in reality I give 30s to anyone who gives a speech like that they've devoted the hard work it takes to be competitive in debate. I was a successful national circuit debater IMO and during my first year out I found it hard to justify giving the people who I myself battled in NPTE or NPDA elims 29s or 28.5s. Speaker points became even MORE arbitrary to me when I saw judges that couldn't link turn a disad cleanly to save their life, give MG's who just executed a clean strat something like a 28.3. If you practice hard at debate and read smart arguments, I will most likely roll out a 30. TOURNAMENTS DON'T EVEN PREFERENCE JUDGE VARIANCE IN THE ACCUMULATION OF SPEAKER POINTS, Wack....   Critical/Performance Arguments: I find myself voting for the pomo-generator more often than not but the fact that I refer to it as the pomo-generator should tell you something. I went for a K in about half my rounds during my career and I've also actually read a lot of philosophical lit so I do think I have a good understand of these argz, I just think these debates end up being fairly vacuous in a 40 minute parli round and devolve in to K on K debates which are nasty and gross. But if that's what happens that's what happens. I think it's a bit silly when debaters use terms that rooted in the lit and don't explain what they actually mean because I feel like I'm intervening when Team A is spreading through a Derrida 1NC and Team B says in the 2AC this is made up bullshit that doesn't make sense and in the block Team A explains that it actually does and defines the overall thesis of each arg in the block. This used to be called "whoopsie debate" and is generally a sucker punch to me. It's not like it really matters if a team wins with shitty whoopsie debate they do, I guess I am just putting this part in my philosophy because I have to be honest.   DAs/CPs: Unlike hippies who don't care about politics or the real world I like politics Das. I read about that stuff for fun so I actually tix debates. I don't like liars so don't tell me someone like John Shimkus is key when he isn't, that's the fastest way to lose your 30 and I don't care if you're the second coming of Marten King. Popular to what people believe I don't vote against people that read CPs. I don't instantly vote on No Neg Fiat. Like any other issue in the debate round though if someone reads No Neg Fiat and you don't have a competitive counter interp (does one exist?) or some other arg against theory you will lose. I default to a plethora of process counterplans (consult, delay, veto cheat hoe etc) to be shitty but I won't hold that against you unless you lose theory.     Theory: I often find that teams don't go for theory at times when it's their only option. That's sad. I don't really like reasonability argz as they are articulated in the status quo so I think you best be ready to articulate a clean counter interp in debates in front of me. I think they should be read twice OR slowly once. I think all theory is up for debate seeing as how theory is a made up scholarship anyway.   Overall None of my personal opinions on debate matter, the round is up to you. I attempt to become a robot who votes on the most well warranted, significant en route to an impact that matters the most per the impact calculus of the debaters.

Sarah Hinkle - CC

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!

Steve Farias - Pacific

Steven Kalani Farias – University of the Pacific PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY   Updates: My threshold to vote on theory has decreased. Proven abuse is not a necessity on T, though it is preferred. Also, my thoughts on role of the ballot has changed under my section for K's.   TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round; however, theory I generally have a high threshold for voting on except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.   Section 1: General Information-   While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY IF PROBABILITY MEANS ANYTHING BESIDES A DROPPED, BLIPPED INTERNAL LINK—which I think it does.   I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips don’t ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say “I didn’t get that”. So please do your best to use words like “because” followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.   Section 2: Specific Arguments   “The K”- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that K’s without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves. NEW: In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provied a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how should perform that role will be ahead on Framework. For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Also, please do not make myself or your competitors uncomfortable. If they ask you to stop your position because it emotionally disturbs them, please listen. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not. I believe you should be able to run your argument, but not at the expense of others’ engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.   Topicality/Theory-  I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competeing definitions and a question of abuse in my book. Not either or. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an aff who was not abusive, if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T. To win, I also think you must either pick theory OR the case debate. If you go for both your topicality and your K/DA/CP I will probably not vote on either. Caveat-  I think that negative teams should remember that a contextual definition IS A DEFINITION and I consider multiple, contradictory definitions from an affirmative abusive (so make Aff doesn’t meet its own interp arguments).   In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized interpretations to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win my ballot on theory.   Counterplans- CP’s are the best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team (or at least some alternative advocacy). It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with. I do not think that “We Bite Less” is a compelling argument, just do not link to your own disad. In terms of perms, if you do not in the end prove that the Perm is preferential to the plan or cp, then I will simply view it as an argument not used. This means if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the CP should be rejected as an offensive voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the Alt. is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links.   Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.   LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY   Section 1 – General Information   Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 6 years coaching experience (3 years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale)    General Info: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round; however, theory I generally have a high threshold for voting on except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.    Section 2 – Specific Inquiries 1. How do you adjudicate speed?  What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?   I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debater’s lack of clarity you will say “clear” (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debater’s excessive speed, I expect you to say “speed.” In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to “report” me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.    2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you don’t find yourself voting for very often?   I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.    3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:   Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achieveable at the end of the debate.    4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue   Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons i should ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all therory arguments are voting issues.    5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?    Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.    6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months   Yes   7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?   I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.    8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?   No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.   9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?   You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way you tell me too. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.    10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?   My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.   Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!

Steve Clemmons - Oregon

Steve Clemmons University of Oregon Rounds Judged in 2013-14 30ish   Experience: HS policy and LD, 4 years CEDA and NDT (before the merger) one year NPDA Coaching Experience College: First year at Oregon, 12 years at Santa Clara, 4 years at Macalester I have coached NDT LD, Mock Trial and parliamentary Coaching Experience DOF HS: Skyline, the Harker School, St. Vincent, Presentation HS Coaching Experience HS: Leland (CA) New Trier (IL), Hopkins (MN) Logan (CA) Richmond-Kennedy (CA) If you are reading this, I am really wondering why you are not doing NDT/CEDA.  You have just prepped in a prep room with your coaches and teammates, looking at your backfiles.  This is not a criticism, it is just an observation.  Chances are you want me to judge this like it was a policy round, but you are not in a policy round.  You are not reading evidence that I can evaluate, you are not arguing the quality of sources, you are asserting claims and hoping that I have knowledge about your kritik or your politics scenario.  The rounds that I have judged have reminded me of tagline debate.  Here are things I am not down for <ol> <li>Tag line debate where you read five words and expect that to resemble an argument</li> <li>Any of the isms.</li> <li>You claiming something that we both know is not true, like saying someone dropped something that has a bunch of ink next to it.</li> <li>Ignoring the topic.  Make me believe that you took the topic into account before you take us on some fanciful critical debate, or your CP or Affirmative advantage that is not realistic.</li> </ol> Things to know about how I evaluate rounds <ol> <li>I use the full range of speaker points.  I am totally empowered to give you a 5.  I haven’t given anything lower than about a 22 this year, but I use the whole scale. </li> <li>I prefer arguments that are about the topic, both Aff and Neg.</li> <li>I believe in some level of checking claims in the debate.  If you have some article that you read in prep time, refer to it.  I will evaluate the truth of the claims in cases of conflicting statements by looking at the referenced materials.  Do you have to read a card?  No, but let’s be honest…you probably should, which refers us back to why are you not doing policy or LD?</li> </ol> 1) I have a crippling case of SPS, or slow pen syndrome. I have seen too many debates were I feel excluded from the discussion at hand. Debaters ask for the shells and then they are passed back and forth between the debaters, but not through the judge. My pen speed is fine for most rounds, but the rounds where debaters try to push their limits are too fast for me now, mindlessly blipping through topicality or PIC answers and I just have blips I have to recreate into an argument. Now that I flow on my computer, things are better, but not entirely perfect. Your speed (or better yet, your stunning lack of clarity) still can be an issue.. which brings me to... 2) Most arguments presented are incomplete thoughts. One of the problems where SPS creeps up in on procedural issues. The phenomenon usually is started by the negative with short, underdeveloped theory arguments. The affirmative is usually just as guilty with a variety of brief “We Meet” blips that turn out to be 5-7 word sentences. I just don’t evaluate those arguments anymore. It is not my job to piece together the round by calling for the shells, evaluating the definitions and re-interpreting what the argument morphs to in the last rebuttals. I FIND THIS IS VIOLATED THE MOST!! If going for theory arguments like ISPEC and ASPEC are your bag, then you need to do the work in explaining the argument, not just assume that because I come into the round with native knowledge on the subject, that I am going to apply it for you. My teams run these arguments as well, and if they don’t explain it, then you should vote against them as well. When I tell you how I voted, you only have yourself to get upset with. 3) I SEARCH FOR THE EASY RATIONAL WAY OUT. I am not a lazy judge, but I think that clever teams find ways to win my ballot with easy to grip on, reasonable sounding stories in the last rebuttal. If that means that a reverse voter on something is it, then by all means take it. Remember, it still should meet the test above. It should be well thought out, developed rationale on where and what the abuse is and have an explained voting issue. Policy and Parliamentary debaters should steal something for Lincoln Douglas and use criterion/criteria and describe why your arguments filter though some framework and why your opponent’s arguments don’t. This should be topped off with why this means I should vote for you. 1)Topicality. Refer to incomplete arguments. I find that I rarely vote on topicality because the debate on this issue is usually pretty shallow and underdeveloped. Most teams just exchange blocks on the issue and it is dumped into the 1NR’s lap to deal with. If you plan to utilize topicality as a strategy in front of me, it should have a little heft to it. The reason why the case is non topical should be easy to understand. I am going to want to have a reconfiguration of what the topic area looks like after your interp of the resolution. Potential for abuse is usually not persuasive to me, because in the rounds that I normally judge, people rarely look to what happened in them, and I am not a debate guru that others look towards when evaluating the resolution. What could happen and what did happen are two different things. A word to the Aff : Shallow argumentation applies to you as well in the criticism of debate and topicality. 2) Kritiks. I am a big fan of consistency with your kritik and the rest of your argumentation. I think that I get typecast as a kritik hack, mainly because when I was a debater, we had a critical lens when looking at the resolution and debate as a whole. That view would slowly be growing incorrect. I really like discussions about the topic. My problem evaluating them is that most debaters assume that I come with an understanding of the argument, then they hope that I will apply my knowledge to complete the puzzle. I won’t do that, as I feel it interjects me into the debate too much. Your critical arguments should be easy to digest and have a theme that ties into whatever the Aff might be doing. The argument that the Aff uses the state, for example is not an explanation of the link to the Aff project. I am looking for a justification/link to the kritik from the Neg. Some other questions that should be answered is the question of the role of the judge in the round when faced with a kritik. This gets back to the question of criteria. Is the kritik post or pre fiat? What happens to the world of fiat when looking at the kritik? Is this criteria question a means based or a teleological/consequentialist question?  This obviously applies to critical Affirmatives as well.  I like debate about the topic at hand. I think that debate has gone too far from its roots. I have sympathy for a team that came to debate about the resolution and are prevented from doing so, because of a myriad of other issues that are not really germane to the topic. It has gotten to the point where I feel kritiks almost have to be resolutional in nature, or at least there should be a clearly defined link to something the Affirmative has said or do to trigger the impact. To ask a debater to defend the inherent racism that exists in society or the activity is counterproductive, and I give latitude for a team pointing that out. I am all for the intellectual exercise, but can we all just agree that is what it is? I am not one to believe that change can really be started from a debate round at some random tournament. 3)Political DA’s. I like them, but I think that they are not argued well enough. Everybody has lexis cards that talk about what the current climate is with TPA or the midterm elections, that is not the true problem with Politics debates. My problem comes with the internal link part of the debate. Nobody really ever talks about what causes the different policies to pass or not to pass. What are some of the reasons that the political process works the way it does? Why when President Obama passes some policy does he get either political capital or loses some capital. Take it father than winners-win or winners-lose. Develop the reasons why that is the case, and read some evidence about that issue as well. 4)CP’s. I prefer that the text be written out, both by the Negative and any permutations by the Negative. The little extra work by both sides makes it easy to judge textual competition on the CP. I can be persuaded to listen to functional competition justifications on the CP as well. Similar to topicality, I think that most theory in the CP comes out too fast for adequate adjudication on the issues. The team that usually wins on the theory is the team that takes the time out to explain their arguments. I fall on the side that CP’s are a form of advocacy by the Negative and that they should stick with them. They are part of the negative policy rationale. That is not a hard and fast rule, but it is one that I default to, without justification otherwise. 5)Overviews. I rarely flow them because they are usually generic pre-written out by the coach drivel that comes out too fast to truly be persuasive. An overview should set out the framework that I will be using to evaluate the round and it might refer to some evidence that makes that point. If you chose to read evidence in the overview and plan to refer to it again during the speech sometime, you might want to warn me about that. 6) Speaker Points I reward debaters who do some of the following things A) Dare to have a case debate on the Neg B) Clear, understandable speed, with extra love for debaters who pause a sec to allow page turning, and who don’t have wasteful overviews that really do not set up the actual framework C) Include the judge in the debate. Assume my participation in the round. Give me reasons why I should vote your way. Have a criteria D) 2AC’s that just don’t blip through the theory debate and actually explain their arguments. I prefer Depth in argumentation. Be right and have a few justifications, instead of throwing a lot of excrement on the wall and seeing what sticks. Speed mostly seems a reason for covering up a weakness, instead of building up a strength. My base starts at 24 and doing the things explained above will get you higher points. I find that I average about 26.5 as a base for my points. The scale usually extends from a top of 29 ( I have given out a few 29.5’s) to 25 ( I have given out some well deserved 23’s this year) Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? This is answered above.  I use the whole range and high of 29 low of 22 this year. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Again, this is answered above.   Performance based arguments… Above.  Should have a resolutional based link, or even better a link to the happenings in the round. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? The usual things I think people would do on a T debate.  Have some basic standard, clear violation of what the Affirmative did, prove how you were abused by this interpretation in the round and why I should vote on it.  The rest is up for debate. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? This is mostly for the debaters to haggle over.  I think that PICs should have clarity on what the net benefit is that would distinguish the CP from the case.  No, the OPP should not identify the status of the CP, because the Government should have done that during the speech. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) I have no problem with sharing.  But, the issue becomes the teams not sharing with the judge.  If you can come to an agreement on the arguments and it differs on my flow, what you think might not be relevant to how I decide the round. 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?)? Again, this is what you would call being a good debater.  This is what should be in the final rebuttals.  I am open to persuasion on the ordering of the voting issues, but will default to the procedurals being handled first. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? However I feel on that particular day.  Debaters who do not do the previous two questions during their speech will usually be the debaters that will get 22-25 speaker points.

Ted Guttman - USAFA

Trond Jacobsen - Oregon

Name: Trond E. Jacobsen_______ School: University of Oregon____ Section 1: General Information  Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist  the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not  clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the  NPTE. • I consider the opportunity to debate and to judge debate to be  extraordinary privileges and I hope and expect that debaters treat the  moment with a seriousness of purpose and consideration for the activity  itself and for others in the activity. Debate should be fun and I do  like humor, but, on balance, I prefer debates where the participants,  including the judge, are engaged in an intellectual activity focused on  understanding the world for the purpose of considering what kinds of  changes to that world are appropriate rather than a mere game or excuse  to travel and visit with friends. Debate is not *only* a game for me  and those who treat it as such may find speaker points affected.  • My experience as a competitor and coach is extensive (Oregon, Alaska,  Vermont, Cornell) but until this year that experience was entirely in  CEDA-NDT debate and mostly some years ago.  • Treating people fairly and with respect is my most important value and I will  react to offensive behavior and am responsive to arguments that lesser kinds  of offensiveness should have ballot implications.  • My flow is reasonably strong (still) and is the focus of my decision- making. • My experience and strength as a competitor and judge was in finding,  using, and attacking evidence. In its absence I nonetheless expect  people to make arguments grounded in literature and it is acceptable to  give some reference to where your information came from and why it is  better for current purposes than where their information came from.  • You may hear me interacting during the round, for instance, I might say  “clearer” or “slower” or “louder”. Sometimes I give other kinds of feedback  and those who are observant may benefit. It is normal for me to be focused on  the flow rather than watching debaters. However interaction and adaptation  and some eye contact are important. • You are smart, so be smart. Think about what you are doing. Understand what  you are doing. Know what you know and know what you do not know and be  honest. Have a strategy and execute that strategy. Don’t pretend Senator X  opposes the plan when she doesn’t or you don’t know or you can’t prove it. • Anything contained in this philosophy that conflicts with NPTE/NPDA rules is  void. Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Please describe your approach to the following. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical  In a typical round the worst speaker will receive 26-27 and the best  speaker will received 28.5-29.5 on a 30-point scale. arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Anyone person or team can run critical arguments they find compelling  and they understand. I am under no obligation to vote for them unless  they win them and win that winning them wins them the debate. While certainly debatable, I tend to think poorly of contradictory  strategies and reward varied, nuanced, but cohesive argument  strategies. 3. Performance based arguments… All arguments are performance-based. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing  interpretations? I strongly dislike topicality in all but the rarest of instances.  I never feel good voting on topicality. I punish people who run  topicality in a cavalier way. When I vote on topicality it is because  the negative has provided a compelling definition and interpretation,  both of which are rooted in some appreciation of the relevant context  (e.g. what are field-specific interpretations, terms of art, etc.) and  have clarified meaningful in-round harms.  5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual  competition ok? functional competition? All counterplans are potentially admissible however some things about  them are required: (1) clear text, clearly delivered, especially the  “plan” part of the counterplan; (2) the counterplan competes with  the affirmative plan: It is a reason to reject the affirmative plan  (or advocacy) and not just a better idea. This means that when all  arguments are considered, the counterplan alone is better than the  plan (i.e., net beneficial) and better than all of the plan plus some  portion of the counterplan (i.e., the perm is not net-beneficial). Neg should identify CP status. I tend to dislike conditionality, am  ambivalent about dispositionality, and resolutely disinclined toward  multiple counterplans.  Nearly any potential scope of action or, range of actors, deserves  consideration depending on the strength of argument by their advocates.  Every kind of process CP, agent (from states to no states to all states  to other states), every kind of PIC, anything really is potentially  acceptable provided it meets the requirements described above. In my ideal counterplan debate, the negative introduces one counterplan  that is well-considered, consistent with other arguments, rooted  (outside of the debate) in some literature base, germane to the  affirmative discussion, and is fully developed during the debate as an  alternative, competitive course of action. I will need help to understand why textual competition is not a  pathetic argument. For one, it is a type of functional competition. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) Knowledge is good and shared knowledge accumulates non-linearly. I  would prefer teams share flows rather than debate in ignorance. 7. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will  use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost- benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? This question is impossible to answer in a principled way because  debaters always make some argument about ordering or weighing, I hope  explicitly, but always at least implicitly. I can answer with respect  to how I perceive judging patterns (whether these are mine or me  voting on others’ patterns is an interesting question): I rarely vote  on topicality so, that is moot. Other procedurals would tend to get  evaluated first, provided they are well developed and explained. For  instance, I hate plan-spec arguments but if they are well argued and  impacted then they might trump other considerations. The rules and  fairness are important in general. People tend to argue that critiques should proceed plan consequences  (whether because it is pre-fiat, or personal advocacy, or whatever) and  so I tend to vote in accordance with that norm. I think it reflects a  profoundly limited conception of fiat and its role in the debate and  often undersells both the value of policy analysis and the role of  “critiques” in policy-making and policy analysis. Part of my job when judging is to identify explicit or  implicit weighing or ordering based on arguments introduced  by the debaters. I will work to do that before defaulting to  my preferences. These impressions are based on years as a  participant but with those years in the past until this year. 8. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims  are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? Answer essentially the same as in #7. All impacts should be made concrete through powerful argument and analysis. For me this can mean that dehumanization is a very real  impact, very concrete, more so than a probabilistic risk of a war  resulting in an indeterminate number of deaths estimated to some  rough number. On the other hand, dehumanization can be flowery rhetoric used to hide from the real world consequences of one’s  advocacy. Tell me which description fits your impact(s).

Vasile Stanescu - Mercer

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

Yvonne Clark - Hired

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.

2015 Utah/Long Beach IE/LD Swing, Part 2