FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Krell - WWU

<ul> <li>Background of the critic: I competed for WWU for 4 years, and coached for them 1 season.  I have been to about 5-6 tournaments this season.</li> <li>Approach of the critic to decision-making : I do have more familiarity with policy making, but understand that many different frameworks may be employed. The key is the clarity of the framework and appropriateness for the round-not only related to subject but also the other teams positions. I strive to tabula rasa in terms of biases, but am not willing to do work for unclear or undeveloped ideas.</li> <li>Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making: Good arguments are best, but obviously communication skills matter, However I prefer smart to beautiful.</li> <li>Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: It matters if you make it matter. Often times there are significant interactions between case and off case that need developed, but also understand how defenses of the SQ may be critical to overall strategy. Token case arguments have little weight, but developed into a coherent strategy weighed in the round clearly they have more value.</li> <li>Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks: Be smart. Procedurals should be round specific and show in round abuse. Counter plans need to be competitive but neutral on the topicality aspect of them. Don't assume I have read the literature for your Kritik. If I am going to vote for it I need to understand it at the thesis level and how it works as an argument.</li> <li>Preferences on calling Points of Order: I will try to protect but understand if you call them.  </li> </ul>

Alaina Hull - Carroll

n/a

Ben Norberg - Northwest

I competed in collegiate parliamentary debate for two years which included two trips to NPDA. Over the past four years since, I've judged several local and a handful of regional tournaments. I'll start on style and presentation – it's important, but not the end-all-be-all of the round. I see it more as personal enrichment for the debaters rather than a ballot guarantee. However, if you're like me and appreciate debate community just as much as competition, practice civility and be cordial to me and your fellow competitors. On speed – it's excessive if you hyperventilate. I'll flow the whole round to the best of my ability. If I miss a warrant (for example), I'll write a question mark next to the argument where it belongs, and it will have less weight at the end of the round. On the meat of the debate – Framework! I'm most familiar with net benefits. I'm open to a variety of arguments – T, fine. Ks, great. CPs, definitely – but I need you to direct me on how they function in the round. T specifically does not necessarily require proven abuse, but if it's an independent, a-priori voting issue it does. Kritiks require detailed framework more than any other position. I'm open to all CP metadebate. On Disads – strong link scenarios with modest impact stories trump sensationalized impacts left in the wind (also applies to case advantages). I heavily value analysis over emotional appeal. I enjoy probability-timeframe-magnitude impact analysis. One pet peeve, please do not run major new positions in the MO – it's too late for them to be convincing. Otherwise, I enjoy hearing new and unfamiliar positions, unique strategies/styles, etc. This is what national competition is all about!

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.

Bill Newell - Willamette

n/a

Bob Becker - Northwest

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

Bohn Lattin - UP

Brendan Silk - UWash

Last Updated: 9/22/2014 Background This is my first year out, and the NW parli warmup will be my first experience judging open parli. I recommend keeping that in mind, since everything I’ve heard/seen suggests there can be a bit of an adjustment phase for new critics, and I don’t expect I’ll be an exception to this. My debate background is 4 years in high school LD and 4 in NPDA (going by semesters, it technically adds up to 3, but you can decide how much that matters to you). As a competitor, I tried to be as versatile as possible without strong preferences for any argument style - other than a bit of an implicit dislike of what I felt were overly normative stances toward how competitors should approach debate. To be clear: I love when people get excited about their preferred style of debate, because 1) that’s what it’s about and 2) that tends to make for much better debate in the first place. I am just slightly resistant to the idea that there is a right way to engage in the activity. That said, the point of the activity is to argue, and the critic’s job isn’t to impose views either, so I will certainly listen to any argument and will evaluate the way you tell me to. General Issues As implied above, while it’s hard to deny that bias is inevitable in an activity like this, I do consider it the critic’s responsibility to acknowledge and interrogate their own bias, and to do their best to remove it from the debate round. I think Joe Allen’s philosophy puts this especially nicely. The round is yours to do with it what you want, and I just ask that you make it as clear as possible what you want that to mean. As a side note - I always appreciated expressive judges, because I felt feedback and positive/negative reinforcement helped me correct and learn from my mistakes. Accordingly, I’ll do my best to be clear if I think you should move on or if I find a certain argument confusing. That said, I don’t think being a jerk teaches people much nor makes them want to debate more, and I think it’s often the judge’s responsibility to learn from the competitors, so I will not be over the top about this. If I look confused, it’s not because I’m trying to tell you I think you or your partner are dumb or wrong. Etiquette Be nice always! This is a great community full of great people, and I like it when debate rounds reflect that. I don’t care how fast you go or anything - you’ll know when I can’t understand you or can’t keep up. You should call points of order in front of me. I’ll always do my best to protect, but this will help you flag arguments you want me to take special care in evaluating while making my decision. That said, more than 2-3 in a rebuttal gets pretty exhausting. By that point, I’ll have a pretty good idea of how new the PMR may or may not be. Be sure to provide each other with copies of whatever text(s) you’re going to read. This pretty much always makes for better debate. I generally think it’s the responsibility of more experienced debaters to be friendly and welcoming to younger folks, especially in round. This activity can be real scary when you’re starting out, and I tend to think even the smallest gestures can go a long way in making newer people feel welcome. Plus, the best debaters I’ve seen never had a problem being incredibly nice between, before, or after their speeches. Or during, no matter how vicious their arguments might have sounded. Theory/Procedurals I always liked procedural debate, probably because there was more of it high school LD, but I acknowledge that its Iprevalence, utility, and average level of substance in parli appears to be on the decline. I’m generally sympathetic to the standard responses to your most common procedurals (e.g., POI’s check spec abuse), though I will always evaluate the arguments and responses as they’re presented. I both accept that time tradeoffs are a thing, strategically, and that most such arguments are also easily answered. For me, the best theory debates start with a solid, fixed interpretation (be as diligent with writing them as you are with plan or CP texts!) that has distinct, clear net benefits (standards) which are in turned tied to a clear, quantifiable, a priori voting issue (fairness, education). I think people too frequently spit through the end of a theory shell without explaining the reasons to vote for it in more than blips. To me, this is like reading a disad without an impact - some of the time people will fill in the blanks for you, but you shouldn’t count on it. If you want to be able to win a round on this kind of position, you need to do the work to impact it out for the judge. The most common procedurals I see these days are T and condo - I haven’t seen a lot else recently, but if I do I’ll update with my thoughts. For now, here are some specifics on those two: Topicality - I am pretty straightforward on topicality questions - as explained above, if you have a clear and well-supported interpretation tied to strong standards and fleshed out voters, you’ll be in good shape. I’ll evaluate T by first looking at the lens (CI vs reasonability), the level at which I’m told to evaluate it (a priori orrrrr….?), and the voter that is proved to be most important (fairness or education). Then I compare the net benefits (standards) of each interpretation as they relate to that voter. I don’t like to default in any direction on T, so please don’t make me. Conditionality good/bad - I will certainly vote for a conditionality bad shell, but I think the battle is always in demonstrating why exactly the abuse in kicking out of an advocacy differs from that of another argument in which there is a time tradeoff. For example, if your standards-level argument is that multiple conditional off force you to read contradictory arguments in the MG, I need a specific, voter-level explanation why that matters (e.g., why it’s unfair, why it demonstrably hurts education). While I think conditionality probably is better suited to an activity with backside rebuttals, I find these types of arguments against it pretty difficult to evaluate - especially when it’s become a widely accepted practice in some parts of the country (like the PNW!) and doesn’t seem to have caused a disproportionate neg bias. This could well be a case where the numbers say otherwise and I simply haven’t seen them. DAs/Advantages I (and my partner) got a bit of a reputation as a K hacky team, which is too bad because I think disads can often be smarter and significantly more specific. Topic-specific DA’s are what’s up, and I think they are some of the most interesting, satisfying, and fun to evaluate positions in the activity. They’ll also screw over an MG that doesn’t know the topic well. Research yr disads! Politics and other generics are fine by me as long as the scenario is clear. I think it’s a good habit to memorize a short thesis of the scenario and present it as an MO overview (this does help in the LOC too). Advantage-wise, I like to see some variety in impacts and impact modules, but honestly that’s only because I think it’s strategic, and you can do whatever the hell you want on that front. I do think impact framing of some kind in the PMC can be strategic regardless of the type of impact, though not at the expense of well-warranted scenarios. One more note about impacts - something I’d echo that I’ve heard a few times from folks who dislike the K or “project” type arguments (but appreciate the value of advantage/disad debate) is: crafting your own impact modules around types of oppression or violence you understand/know well/care about can be an excellent way to use your own voice in the debate round without having to modify your style. You’ll also probably win a lot of rounds with them. Critiques I’ll listen to any type of critique - aff or neg - but will echo what a lot of folks have already said in that you shouldn’t assume a critic wants to hear a critique simply because you’ve heard about them reading one. My partner and I read Nietzsche our entire freshman year together, but that was because I didn’t understand counterplans and disads, not because it was smart. I do really like well-researched kritik debate (obligatory #readabook) but, from my own experience reading kritiks without being well-versed in the literature, it can get pretty generic pretty fast if you just rely on an existing shell. I like nuanced frameworks, and especially K-specific ones. This tends to demonstrate that you understand the argument well, and get how it functions within the round. However, the way parli debate is going, I’m not absolutely convinced you need a ton of FW (or to spend much time on it in the block). I typically think a concise but spikey FW, focusing on how the K should be evaluated (why it comes first) is the way to go. With aff kritiks - when K-ing off the aff I tended to read either topical K affs or totally non-topical positions, and I think either is fine. Just please be prepared to answer the likely objections, and explain the function of the K if you’re rejecting the topic/policy debate/net-benefits.. CPs Not a lot to say here - I do think smart CP’s (esp. supported by a lit base) are, like good disads, what’s up. I don’t have a strong predisposition for or against specific kinds of counterplans, including the usual theoretical objections. I’m inclined to believe cheatery CP’s are easily answered with procedurals, but am probably also inclined to reject the arg vs. the team unless convinced otherwise.

Brent Northup - Carroll

n/a

Calvin Horne - PacificLutheran

n/a

Charles Kincy - Bellevue

~~(0) RESPECT THE INCREASED EQUITY CONSCIOUSNESS. Especially with your jokes and language. I don't want to ruin anyone's fun, but keep the humor harmless along lines of sexism, racism, and other frequent hotpoints of inclusivity. If you can't be "humorous" without trashing the feelings of others, then you suck at humor and should stick to business. If you feel at any point your opponents or I have acted in a way that is inappropriate, you have two options. You can immediately call a point of privilege, stop the clock, and we'll get it out in the open. That's especially important if the transgression was minor and probably unintentional, because it encourages us to talk about these things more. Or, if you don't feel comfortable with that, please explain the situation after the round to either the tournament director or the tournament equity officer/ombuds. (1) GROUND-LOSS AND ABUSE COMPLAINTS REQUIRE PERSUASIVE WARRANTS. You all know what's up in NPDA these days and you should expect anything. However, people get out of line, so you sometimes need some redress. (1a) The easiest way to warrant loss-of-ground claims is to run a speculative argument that you would've been able to run but for the loss of ground or abuse. For instance, if you're asking for a ballot on T because of loss of ground, read me the DA you should've been able to run. This allows AFF to concede a link to the DA if they're treading the line and allows the debate to proceed. If they're smart. (1b) If it's egregious abuse (eg. severe abuse of conditionality) calmly state your case and I'll evaluate it. The key thing to remember is you need to try to have a round anyway. If it's something involving social aggression (sexism, racism, harrassment, etc.), see point (0). (1c) Similarly, the biggest. pet. peeve. I have in NPDA is complaining about loss of ground in a pro-forma T argument and then reading 4 DAs with clean links. I know the game was played this way for years but I'm sick of it, and it's the kind of crap that ruins this event. STOP DOING IT. Penalty: If you do this, your opponents can simply say: "WE MEET and their DAs externally link" and I'll consider that adequate refutation of the T. (2) FRAME CONTROL IS THE NAME OF THE GAME. You’re not reading cards, so you need to project rhetorical confidence and power. You must not only tell me what issues are more important in the round, but you should also do this at the end of every non-PMC speech. (3) ESTABLISH THE FRAMEWORK BY STATING IT EXPLICITLY. This is easy--say “value is X, criteria is Y” or something similar. Opposition teams can either accept the framework and show why we should reject the topic OR provide a counter-framework and show why it is better. (4) IN REBUTTALS, ALWAYS ANALYZE CLASH OF FRAMEWORK OR IMPACTS. The easiest way to do this in the rebuttal is to crystallize the framework or impacts and say “we said this, they said that, we win because such and so.” If you need an explanatory overview, go for it. All else being equal, this will win you the round if the other team flubs it. (5) OFFENSE IS BETTER THAN DEFENSE. You can win on terminal D, but it shouldn't be your game plan. If you don’t go on offense, you won’t be able to weigh impacts. Further, you’re not reading cards, so standing for something is simply more persuasive than standing against your opponent. While I don't believe the policy debate notion of "presumption" applies to Parli, I will not vote Gov unless Gov has at least some surviving offense, which has the same effect as presumption. (6a) PRE-PROCEDURALS REQUIRE WARRANTS FOR PRE-PROCEDURALITY. You must explicitly demonstrate how the theoretical, procedural, or kritikal implications of your argument block access to your opponents’ impacts. (6b) USE WEIRD OR SILLY TACTICS AT YOUR PERIL... This includes things like performance, laughably silly stock politics DAs, RVIs, wacky existentialism Ks, K-Affs, plan-minus PICs, Ospecs, and other stuff like that. Sure I'll listen and flow it, but then I'll probably wrinkle my nose and drop you, because I'm old school like that. (6c) ...BUT I'M FAR MORE LIKELY TO ENTERTAIN THE UNUSUAL IN ROUNDS WITH BAD TOPICS.... If I feel the standard approach to your side of a topic is likely to force you to argue something absurd or offensive, I will give you a larger amount of latitude for nonstandard approaches. (Even though I will always intervene like this if I am aware of the imbalance, it's safer to point out to me that this principle should be in play.) A recent example is "USFGS mandate that blood donors cannot be discriminated against based on sexual orientation." Opposition teams are in the uncomfortable position of either advocating for discrimination or bad science if they are forced into the policymaker framework. K's and politics DAs are really the only ground they have, so I'm giving them a lot more weight. (6d) ...OR IF YOUR OPPONENTS ARE ABUSIVE. See point (0) on equity and point (1) on warrants. (7) SPEED DOESN’T KILL, BUT IT PROBABLY DOESN’T HELP. I’m probably about twice your age and don’t follow things nearly as well as I used to. A well-developed single argument wins against eight blippy and hard-to-follow ones. I’ll do the best I can, but it works better for all of us if you save your breath and show some quality of thought. (8) IF I SUSPECT YOU'RE MAKING CRAP UP, I WILL “GOOGLE IT”. I won’t entertain arguments that are patently absurd just because they are theoretically proper, and if the round comes down to a factual dispute, I will do as much research as I can in 5 minutes. If that doesn’t resolve it, I will consider the argument a wash. (9) SPEAKS. Speaks. I use something close to the last NPTE rubric. PMs and LOs start with 27. Members start with 27.5. Then you depart from there in 0.5 increments. Your speaks will be between 26 and 29 unless something highly unusual has happened. In novice or junior, these numbers measure your progress against the progress I expect from developing debaters (that is, it's much harder to get a 28 in March than in October). (10) YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? Seriously, you worry way too much about these things. If you want to know the detailed crap like whether I prefer functional or textual competition or junk like that, just ask before the round.

Chris Axtman - Carroll

n/a

Chris Pierini - UWash

Background: I debated 4 years in high school, 2 years LD, 2 years Cross X. I debated Parli at UW for 2 years. I'm now head coach at UW and been coaching the team for 5 years. This will be my 15th year involved with debate. In General: ·         My flow is strict and speed is fine. ·         I default “net benefits” if no other framework is engaged. ·        Read any textual advocacy twice (PMC plan, perm, K alt, CP, T violation, ect) or have your partner give me and your opponents a copy of the text during your speech. The last thing I want to judge is a theoretical argument predicated off of text I don’t have word for word. ·         I’m willing to do a “gut check” on absurd arguments to protect the academic value of the activity. If Gov makes an argument that a country does not exist to no link a relations DA that argument is not going to fly. I want to vote for intelligent and strategic arguments. ·         Terminal defense: Sigh…..at some point I guess defense can win you the argument/round. A “we meet” on T or 0 solvency because of a plan flaw, come to mind. 0 risk of a link is just hard to prove. Defense combined with offense is a much easier way to win my ballot. In fact I think defense is undervalued in most debates. ·        If you and the other team have agreed to specific terms before the round like say “we will provide a written copy of CP text if they provide a written copy of plan text”. I must know about it before hand, those ethical debates are nearly impossible resolve. ·        I think debate is fun. Don’t put me in a position where it’s not fun.  ·         POO's: Call them but I'll probably just take them "under consideration".  ·         POI’s: You should probably answer a question or two. If a team can not engage your argument because it’s unclear (usually I’m thinking of a T violation or wtf the K alt means) and you refuse to answer a question….I'm probably going to give a lot a weight to any theory coming your way.  ·         If you have a question please ask, I’m more than happy to answer it. chris.pierini@gmail.com Section 2: Specific Inquiries  1.      Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? ·         26-29.5 standard range. ·         Points are awarded on the basis of strategic decisions made in round. ·         I will only go outside of this range if you are horrifically rude to me, your partner, or your opponents. 2.      How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? ·         The “level” at which the K operates is dependent on the framework. ·         Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? That’s for the debaters to engage or not. ·         Kritiks are like any other argument, they can be run poorly and they can be run well. ·         If you start throwing out hyper specific buzz words (especially in your alt text) OR a melding of 16 different authors it would be prudent to define/terms and explain your argument more than going for laundry list links and impacts. 3.      Performance based arguments… ·         I will evaluate every argument made in round.  Isn’t all debate a type of performance? ·         I will vote for performance based arguments…if you win the performance should win you the ballot.   4.      Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? ·         My threshold for pulling the trigger on a theoretical argument, I would not consider high or low. However, you must have all of the right components to warrant the trigger being pulled. Winning your interp and standards without winning a voting issue pretty much means I’m not voting for the argument. ·         Make sure you’re going for and impacting to the correct voting issues. You should probably have reasons why education/ fairness/ abuse/ jurisdiction/whatever is an impact-able argument. ·         I don’t require competing interpretations to vote for T but it’s probably helpful. ·         I don’t require in-round abuse but it’s probably helpful.   5.      Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? ·         CP’s they are an argument. ·         I have zero bias for CP theory. What arguments are run is purely a question of strategy. ·         I think solvency isn’t necessarily binary. You can solve better or worse in a lot of instances. This means CP vs Case solvency is really important for weighing impacts.   6.      Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) ·         Absolutely   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?)? ·         Theory (either throw out the argument or reject the team) then I do straight net benefits: K or/and CP or SQ impacts vs Case impacts….in general. ·         If your losing a K framework without articulating how your K operates in the Gov framework I’m probably going to reject the argument as it no longer functions in a decision making calculus. ·         If you have specific scenarios, I’ll do my best to answer them but with the variety of how arguments interact I can’t reasonably explain every permutation possible.   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")? ·         Without argument interaction, PMs and LOs will be punished in speaker points ·         I have absolutely voted for positions like DeDev which went for value to life outweighing the nuclear war deaths and voted against when the warrants were not present. ·         If things are so diametrically opposed with ZERO argument interaction then my gut tells me I would default Gov as the Opp hasn’t presented a compelling argument to reject the Gov case. This has NEVER happened to me. Someone makes an argument which demonstrates impact interaction which I will evaluate because at this point judge intervention has become necessary to resolve the debate. I will intervene using arguments on the flow not my own personal bias. Basically, the better warranted or more logical argument will win out. ·          I give a lot of weight to specific scenarios vs generic impacts for reasons of probability.

Christine Fautenbery - PacificLutheran

n/a

Dan Broyles - Pacific

n/a

Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia

Dr. Dan Schabot Lower Columbia College Years Debating: 5 total (1 years NFL LD; 4 years CEDA/NDT ) Years Coaching/Judging: 15 Total (2 years CEDA/NDT; 13 Years NPDA)   General Philosophy: Each team should make good (well supported and well-reasoned) arguments and clash with each other. I prefer 2 or 3 in depth positions to 5 or 6 blipped positions.   Specifics: Affirmative teams:  At this point in my judging life I am no longer interested in listening to debates that do not at least make an attempt to address the topic in the resolution.  You can run any position you want as long as you explain why what you are arguing deals with the topic.   Negative Teams:  I also feel that negative teams have the responsibility to address affirmative arguments as well as presenting their own.  Positions just run for the sake of filling time (such as generic T) have little weight with me.  Each position should be part of a coherent strategy to win.   Speed and Presentation:  If you feel the need to go fast that is fine.  However, running a bunch of positions just so you can go fast is useless.  Speed as a strategy (in and of itself) will not be rewarded.     RFD:  My preferences are listed above.  I have and will vote for just about any argument type. A team must clearly explain why their advocacy is superior to other team’s advocacy to win a round.

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.

David Mooney - PacificLutheran

n/a

Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell

General information: I did LD in High School, CEDA in College and now coach NPDA.  I have been coaching for 8 years and have been involved in the activity for many more. I don't keep track of the specific number of rounds I have judged this year. More than 40. I am open to a variety of forms of debate.  Each round should take on its own form.  Any form or strategy is fine as long as everyone is the room can communicate.  I attempt to bring as little to the debate as possible although no judge can be totally tabla rosa. Arguments matter to me more than style.  I judge in a clear order. Kritik (if they are in the round) then procedurals (again, if they are present in the round) then case (government must prove that it is worth attempting plan) then weighing advantages against disadvantages.  Specific information: Topicality: I appreciate strategic interpretations of resolutions and will give a fair amount of room for the government to interpret the resolution.  They key is that everyone has some ground and some ability to debate.  I will also give a fair amount of room for novices to work on format and learn the rules.   Counterplans: CPs are great.  Condo is ok if well argued.  Disclose condo or no condo in the first speech.  My strong feeling is that it should not be about tricking the other team but going after a higher level of argumentation. I am not a huge fan of PICs. I would be open to argumentation on the issue. Points of Order are fine. The kritik: Kritiks are great--aff or neg.  Make a good, well-reasoned argument and have a reason for the K.  Then make sure to engage.  Theory: Great.  Go nuts. Disads: Cool.  Link them.

Derek Hanson - Willamette

n/a

Donald Kimball - NU

n/a

Duane Fish - Northwest

Parliamentary Debate is one in which the analysis and the argumentation are the critical elements. As a consequence, I evaluate two competing sets of arguments. My decision is based upon which team best persuades me to their position. I focus on the big picture at the end of the debate. I very seldom go into the minutia. The team that tells me the best story at the end of the round will win my ballot. I know that makes me a buffalo of sorts, but that is the way it is. That means elements such as organization, structure, and clash are critical. While delivery is important, it does not outweigh argumentation. I want the debaters to be professional and have fun. I try not intervene unless there is some violation at this level. My preference is to make a decision based upon the voting issues and not the flowery oratory. I treat topicality as another argument to be weighed in the context of the round. I want to see some abuse before I would vote on topicality. I must admit that topicality must be compelling for me to vote in this area. In policy round, I will listen to all types of competing plans and counterplans. I prefer net benefits as a paradigm for evaluation. I have voted on kritics, but would say that they are not my favorite argumentative strategy. In value rounds, I want a comparison of the values in competition as well. It is not enough to say we value "X" and say that is good enough to win the rounds. I really want a debate that is cordial and fun for everyone. Be nice to each other and enjoy what you are doing. If you have fun, so will I. I do not particularly like points of order. I think it is used to annoy rather than to make legitimate objections. I generally know new arguments and will not vote on them. They seldom make a difference in the big picture anyway. I certainly don't like them if you are looking to find out how I am feeling on an issue. I will most often tell you I will take it under advisement.

Dylan Brugman - ACU

TL;DR version: I don’t think that my job is to define for you the way that debate should be done. You should debate what you’re good at, not what I did/liked as a debater. **The only caveat: Please read interpretations/plan texts/and alt texts twice. That is the best way for me to get them down. Texts would be even better, but do what you want there. Longer version: General: I think that debates are won on offense, and I think that debates are won on strategy. I think that debate is capable in some ways of being a tool of liberation and expression, but I think that it is primarily a game to be played by two teams. The educational aspect of debate is nice, but if debate were about education, I would expect both teams to read textbooks to me about calculus or something during their speech. Win however you can and in whatever way you can. Speed: Hardly ever an issue. Clarity and argument depth often is. The way I flow is: I flow the claim and then flow the warrants underneath them. If I miss the claim, I flow the warrants and infer the claim from those warrants. If I miss both, your arguments are not warranted enough for me to write them down, and I will tell you to slow down. If you are unclear, then I will yell clear. Your options are to either become more clear, or slow down until you are clear. Or keep mumbling I guess. Theory/T/Procedurals: Run them. I default to competing interpretations, and that is the best way for me to evaluate theory, because it comes down to whoever debated it best and requires (arguably) the least intervention on my part; however, if I am given arguments as to why potential/proven abuse is good reason to pull the trigger, or why I shouldn't evaluate T, and the other team fails to provide an adequate answer, I’ll bite. Topicality is a voting issue, it is not a reverse voting issue. It's your fault if you let T become a time-suck. SPECs are generally for bad debaters. The Criticism: Can be run on the aff or the neg. Affs can be topical or not topical (as long as you win that you get to run a non topical aff), and affs can use fiat or not use fiat. A note about the criticism: If it is general/you assume that both teams understand it, I don’t need a thesis. If you are running something that I’m not familiar with/is super complicated, I would run a SHORT thesis. Most of the criticism’s that I ran were environmental, fem, and queer. I understand race pretty well, but if you start into post-structural, European philosophers like Baudrillard, Agamben, Derrida or the like, I need some indication of the thesis of the argument. For some reason, reading a bunch of leftist white academics wasn’t a thing we did at ACU in my undergraduate. That being said, I like hearing new things, if they are explained to me. I debated the criticism a lot as a debater, but in my old age, I prefer a Disad/CP debate. I also like DA/CP/K debate a lot if the negative can win condo. Criticisms/Turns of language in the PMC/LO/MG are generally ok. They are arguments that force the other team to spend time answering, which is always a good thing. Sometimes they make the other team look silly too, that can’t hurt your chances, right? On narratives/performance: Do it if you want, but when you introduce your own stories and experiences into a competitive environment, you make them competitive, and weaponizing identity doesn't help anybody in my experience. Do not physically hurt yourself or others in front of me (I cannot believe that I have to put this in a judging philosophy now). We should protect our activity and the people in it, and physical violence, I'm afraid, is not a good way to do this. Permutations are good to run on the aff. So are impact turns, and so is framework. And if you want to run a framework that policymaking is the only way to evaluate the round, I’ll evaluate that. Framing them out of the round is a good way to win. In general, I default to seeing permutations as tests of competitiveness, but will gladly hear all of the arguments about why they’re more than that. In general, when answering the criticism, do anything to win. Conditionality/multiple worlds: I don’t mind voting for a conditional argument, I also don’t mind voting on condo. I don’t care if you run three counter plans and a K, I don’t care if they conflict, and I don’t care if you collapse out of all of them into case turns. You should be the best condo debaters you can be though, because if you lose on condo or multiple worlds, I’ll vote against you. My favorite opp strat to watch as a judge is DA/CP/K debate. But each team should have one strategy that they're going for in the rebuttals. Opposition, you should go for one sheet of paper in the block (unless its a Disad/CP combo). Don't you dare stick to both disads. That is so bad. It's like the worst part of debate. Trust me enough to vote in the direction that you tell me. Disads: Are good. I like them to be big, and really like to have “burnt, dead bodies” in a disad. Dehume impacts are fine, and so are value to life arguments. With all disads, specificity is key (especially with politics). Lazy debaters are rarely rewarded, and many disads are lazy. Counterplans: Run as many as you want and run whatever you want. If you’re on the aff, run theory and run disads to the Counterplans. Also, permutations. Those are always a good thing. Case Debate: Offense is better than defense, but I think that impact defense (or impact turns) can be a pretty powerful tool. A note on impacts: I like impact calc, and I think it makes things easier for me. I default to extinction outweighs Dehume, but I am also very open to hearing impact frameworks that prioritize certain impacts over others. Everybody should let Ben Campbell teach them how to do impact calc, because that's the exact way that I feel about it. Speaker Points/Etiquette/etc: I don't call the house to order, I don't even know how to do that. I don't particularly like thank yous, but go for it I guess. I don't care if you talk to your partner or prompt them. I don't care if you stand or sit. You should wear some kind of clothing, but beyond that, you do what you want. I pretty much roll out of bed every morning. I don't care if you stand or sit, if you say "point of information" or not, or if you do the little teapot shin-dig when you ask a question (you know the hand on the head and the other one outstretched? Yeah, that's pretty silly). I always liked it when I felt that debaters were friendly to me, and I always disliked debaters that were not friendly to me. I think that for a lot of teams, being welcoming to them is important, inside and outside the round. Last year, I felt that my own RFD's were kind of mean spirited, and I'm trying to be more helpful in giving debaters an RFD that seems well justified. Because of that, I'll always flow on paper, but I'll probably open up my laptop afterwards and type up my RFD to read back to you. This is the best way for me to lay out the round and make the best decision possible. In addition, I promise to be respectful of you in my decision, and will always say something that is honest, but also encouraging. That being said, during the debate, I'm not very expressive, and may even look a little perturbed. I'm not, I promise, that's just the way that my face looks. I like jokes and references from Dungeons and Dragons, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Warhammer 40k, Firefly, Isaac Asimov books, The Sopranos, The Wire, The West Wing, Slavoj Zizek, my main man Barry-O, Kim Il-Sung/Jong-il/jong-un, and other weird things. Speaker points: My speaker points were a little lower than average last year, so I tried to change that this year, and create a more reliable/valid scale for speaker points. It is as follows: if I give you a 27, I think that you are a good debater, if I give you a 28, I think that you should be breaking, if I give you a 29, I think that you should be getting a speaker award, If I give you a 30, I think that you should be in finals. You want good speaker points? Then your rebuttal should be my RFD.

Gerry Philipsen - SeaPac

n/a

Jacob Witt - NU

n/a

Janelle Davis - UW Bothell

General Information: I competed in Parley and LD in high school, NPDA and BP/Worlds in college, and now help coach both NPDA and BP/Worlds. I retain a respect for structure, creative and well-laid arguments, criticism of foundational worldviews, economy of arguments, and thoughtfully proposed alternate approaches to both debate and the world around us. Though I reject and find problematic the concept of a tabula rasa judge, I make an effort to see and set aside my own biases in order to judge a round based on the arguments as they are made by debaters. Specific Information: Topicality: In my view, this strategy exists to respond to blatant abuse on the part of the government and should be used to check power of interpretation rather than to avoid engaging inconvenient or unexpected arguments. As such, I consider it a court of last resort that is rarely necessary. Counterplans: An effective means of taking the offensive by rejecting false binaries in order to seek a third option. I respond well to counterplans that think about the problem and challenge the status quo in a different way. Kritik: A well-deployed kritik challenges fundamental assumptions and proposes alternate ways of approaching the world or the problem at hand. Used well, a K takes the debate to a deeper level and allows debaters to unpack the world in a way that plan/counterplan debate rarely does. If you are using a philosopher/theorist to back up your analysis, make sure you understand what they said and how others have used them, or you run the risk of looking silly and ill-informed. Ultimately, advantages and disadvantages rest on impacts, which rest on links. Calculating impacts should take into account probability as much as scale - high probability outweighs high scale as long as that probability has been demonstrated.

Jeannie Hunt - Northwest

I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of  intervention on my part.  That means a couple of things.  You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round.  I don’t care what that framework is, but I want one. If there is debate about that criteria, make sure that the theory is clear and there are specific reasons why one framework is preferable to the other.  That framework is what I will follow, so please don’t set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits at the end.  More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.  I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, something tangible for me to vote on.  Absent that, I have to intervene.  There are no specific arguments that I prefer over another.  I will vote on pretty much anything and I am game for pretty much anything.  I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions or present narratives that you don't want attached to the curency of a ballot, which is what presenting the narrative in the round really comes down to.  If you run a k you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about.  However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out…  This is true of any theory based argument you choose to run.  I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important.  If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don’t have to spend time flowing it. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well. Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective.  I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K.  Make sure the framework is very specific so I don’t have to abandon objectivity all together. Finally, make your own arguments.  If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago.  Prompting someone with a statement like, “go to the DA” is fine.  Making an argument that is then repeated is not. Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn’t mean you should have no style.  You should be clear, structured and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is team).  You can at least take off your hat. Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.  Speed is not a problem if it is clear.  Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round - that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what could have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is really just you saying think you should have won on that argument. Because I don’t want to intervene, I don’t appreciate points of order.  You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way.  Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn’t vote on new arguments.  I won’t.  If you feel particularly abused in the round, and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill advised.  I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.

Jennifer Conner - Pacific

n/a

Jim Hanson - Bellevue

~~Jim Hanson Executive Director, Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate Parli Judging Philosophy I began judging in 1980 (I’m an old man!) My default is to weigh the benefits of the topical parts of the affirmative advocacy versus those of the competing negative advocacy. STYLE ISSUES 1. Please speak loudly; speak with emphasis and meaning. 2. Please give clear thesis statements for your arguments especially any position you want to go for in the MO, LOR and PMR. 3. Please extend arguments with a reference to where it was on the flow (eg 5th answer). 4. I dislike a) arguments that advocate purposely or actively killing thousands of people (e.g. "spark" “wipeout”); b) “They are stupid” comments; c) Personal attacks on opponents and carried too far could be the cause of a loss. 5. I think teams tend to cry “no new arguments” too much especially when they have a one line argument in the LOC that turns into several minutes of additional links and impacts in the MO/LOR. I am lenient about new arguments until the PMR. If you want me to “box-in” your opponent, then you will need a good explanation of what you could not argue and why that was so critical. THE MO-LOR BLOCK I will follow the rules of the tournament however these are my thoughts . . . 1. If you are going to debate line by line at high rates of speed, then do it throughout the debate—line by line right through the PMR. If so, I support MO’s and LOR’s splitting the block. MG’s should put out lots of offense and PMR’s should go for the 3 to 4 key answers on each position. 2. If you want to run old style (and I like that), then the LOR should have clear voting issues “Our first voting issue is . . .” DO NOT GO POINT BY POINT ON THE FLOW repeating the MO. And, you MUST WEIGH AND COMPARE LIKELIHOOD OF YOUR ARGUMENTS AND THEIR IMPACTS. 3. If you want to argue splitting the block is abusive—you have an uphill battle unless the tournament rules state splitting the block is not permitted but do so by presenting your argument in the MG or via a POI during the MO which lists off the reasons you want to go for. 4. Why I think the MO and LOR should split the block: 1) the MO has to race too fast with blippy arguments to cover everything; it ruins the quality of argumentation in the debate; 2) the LOR usually repeats the MO. I already heard it; 3) What am I supposed to vote on? Only what the LOR says? Can I vote on a specific MO answer that the PMR didn’t respond to but wasn’t directly in the LOR? I honestly don’t get it—you want me to vote line by line but with the split—I feel like I am voting on MO arguments that weren’t extended or I ignore them even though I found them persuasive and the PMR didn’t answer/had bad answers. (these concerns do not apply if the opp debates traditional style) TOPICALITY AND THEORY 1. I have a strong predisposition that affirmatives must be topical. I’m lenient on topicality including for post-modern/performativity/“we support but don’t traditionally fiat a plan”/"we support the resolution from this perspective eg transgender, race, gender remembering that the topic asks us what we should do" types of cases. However, affirmatives should not count on me voting that topicality oppresses you or that your case outweighs topicality; I’m very predisposed to believe that an affirmative does have to be topical. 2. My predisposition is that the negative must show a clear violation and that it has significant harmful effect (my default is not "competing interpretations"). Show the topic size explodes, becomes unpredictable for prep, kills core negative ground (eg the negative can't run "usfg action is bad" arguments; if you can't run a particular politics disad, i'm less likely to care). 3. I think my basic view of theory is: as long as an advocacy is clear, then argue it. Attempts to win theory with me on arguments such as “Conditionality bad” and “T is a reverse voter” and “A-Spec” tend to be uphill battles. To win such an argument, you should show that your opponent’s strategy destroyed your ability to debate effectively--not just that you lost an ability to run "x disad" or "y counterplan." Theory arguments that I find more convincing are: plan is so vague, it is not clear if any arguments apply; the affirmative severs or changes part of their plan; the negative runs two positions that straight turn each other. 4. My default is the negative gets the status quo, a counterplan, and a kritik alternative. 5. My default is that non-permable counterplans are ones that are functionally opposite to part or all of what is advocated explicitly in the text of the plan. 6. I have leanings (though not super strong) against consult counterplans--I think plan is usually enacted normal means and if the cplan alters the normal means, then that is consistent with the plan since it did not endorse a specific normal means. 7. I strongly default to "its severance and that's a voter" when affirmatives use perms that jettison a "functional" part of their plan needed to make it topical. e.g. the topic is "the usfg should pressure china" the aff. plan submits a complaint to the wto; aff. says the complaint would lead to sanctions (so the plan is topical pressure); then aff says "perm--do plan without sanctions." that is severence and/or intrinsic as far as i am concerned and it is a voter (and yea, that plan as reconceived in the perm is probably also not t). 8. International Fiat: Fine; I'm not likely to drop a Japan or EU Counterplan. 9. Multiple Actor Fiat: More debatable but the Aff. will need to give good args why I shouldn't consider such cplans. 10. Object Fiat: I think it is debatable and might depend on the situation. Affirmatives should typically be ready to defend US action but there's a debatable limit to how much the negative gets to counterplan out of harms. 11. Multiplank counterplan conditionality: I believe kicking out of parts of your counterplan in the MO but still advocating other parts is severance and creates a grossly unfair debate. DISADS Links, links, links. Explain to me why the plan causes the disad. KRITIKS Overall, I'm good on kritiks especially for the neg in parli debate where I find most gov answers not so compelling. I'm not a big fan of project/ignore the topic kritik arguments (as noted above in topicality) though I try to keep an open mind. That said, I have some key points that are important to winning/answering kritiks: • Negatives should have specific links, clearly stated implications/voters, and strong answers to perms. • I probably should either be able to envision an alternative or you should lay out a clear alternative—and it would be nice if it appeared in the LOC. If it isn’t, I give the PMR tons-o-latitude. • I'm not really big on kritiks of a word (eg “your evidence said the word ‘man’ so you lose”). Absent a team dropping the arg/making real weak responses, I avoid voting on such issues unless the word is so bad it prevents debate (e.g. using an epithet to attack another debater in the round). Now, if both sides agree that representations are key, then "word kritiks" matter. • Arguments about “pre-fiat” “post-fiat” “in-round is all that counts” and “fiat is illusory” aren’t real persuasive to me. Both sides made arguments in the round—so argue them. If the debate centers on representations, then show your representations--including the policy implications--are more important. K Teams: This means I almost always weigh the aff. advantage impacts against your K impacts. • “This kritik completely turns solvency” arguments are often not persuasive to me especially if the affirmative can depict one of their advantages as being independent, as being something specific and empirically proven, happens before kritik consideration, etc. • Ethical imperatives are fine but if you drop or lose badly nuclear wars/mass death/suffering--I have a hard time finding your argument persuasive. Put at least some defense against the consequences or you will have an uphill battle getting my ballot even if you have flaming "ignore the consequences" arguments. • Affirmatives should try to perm kritiks, show how the benefit of their case’s advocacy is more important than the harm of the kritik, and how the perm alters the aff in a way that makes it solve the kritik. • "Framework" arguments can help but in my opinion, they usually end up with one side just slightly winning and that usually isn't enough for me to throw out the kritik nor to throw out the aff. case advocacy. Wanna win a framework argument? Do like I suggest for theory/t arguments: show serious harm to your side; and frankly, most of the time the problem is the aff isn’t really topical—argue that. Otherwise, both side's arguments count. • Negatives that run performativity kritiks against affirmatives often leave me wondering how they answer the affirmative case especially as of the LOC (meaning, after you truly explain your K during the block, I let the PMR make new responses). Make sure you link your performance to the affirmative clearly; make it clear how the performance defeats the affirmative.

Joseph Hykan - Whitman

TL:DR (skip it if you’re reading the whole thing) I think you can mostly do what you want in front of me.  I try to be objective, and I think I’m willing/capable of evaluating most all of the different strategies people like to go for.  I am not the fastest flow, the fastest debaters should slow slightly in front of me, I will attempt to issue verbal slows or clears as needed, but it’s difficult to do in round.  I place a very high value on depth and on argument interaction.  You must return to the big picture at some point, compare competing claims, discuss the importance of the arguments you’re winning, and weigh impacts.  I find I’m most likely to sit or to make a decision that one team is upset about when the work isn’t done in the block/PMR to put the pieces of my decision together for me.    I’m probably more amenable to voting on theory and to give heavy weight to defense than is the norm.  There are many critical affs that I like, but I do want a clear explanation of what the aff advocates/defends, and why that is a reason to vote for them.  While I really don’t like voting on cheap shots I do find it hard to just waive them away, so you need to cover your bases against all the little things.  I aspire to be an objective and hyper-detailed evaluator of the flow, and a judge that everyone feels comfortable doing their thing in front of, but I do have preferences/flaws/peculiarities and that’s what’s in the long version.  Updates New for Nationals -Regarding cheap shots (this is a significant change):  There are at least three rounds this year where I have voted on arguments I think were “cheap shots”.  Arguments with little warrant/analysis that are not very good, but when conceded change the outcome of debates (i.e. perfcon is a voter, you must give us a perm text).  I think so far this year I have been more willing to vote on these arguments than is the norm.  I think this practice is not in line with what I value in debate, and I want to handle these arguments differently at nationals. I’m going to be willing to dismiss arguments that don’t meet a minimum threshold of warrant/logic, especially if they were only very brief blips in the LOC/MG that were blown up later in the debate.  I can’t specify an exact threshold, and I still want to limit intervention, so it still is important that you cover your bases against these arguments.    - If I’m asking you for the order, I probably don’t actually care. I’m trying to politely tell you to stop taking prep.  -I think you should make the choice to either cede a debate round to have a conversation/forum/whatever, or you should contest the ballot.  I do not think it’s fair to ask your opponents to not engage in a competitive round, while still asking for a coin flip or otherwise hanging on to a chance of picking up the ballot. Experience I debated for four years in high school in Colorado, mostly LD.  From 2009-2013 I debated at Lewis & Clark in NPDA/NPTE. General philosophy I want you to have fun, and debate the way you like to debate.  I’ll evaluate the arguments made in the round within the framework offered, and hopefully resolve conflicting claims with comparisons and reasons to prefer that are articulated by the debaters. I want to limit my intervention in the debate, and I am not interested in imposing my own views about the truth of arguments or about what debate should look like.  However, I do have opinions about debate and about particular arguments, and I think it’s only fair to advise you of them.  Do not interpret any of the following as, “I won’t/will vote for x argument”, I still don’t plan to intervene; this is just an effort to share information and make this philosophy useful. Answers to common questions -Clarity/Speed.  I reserve the right to issue a verbal slow if you get too quick for me.  Honestly, if you are one of the fastest debaters on the circuit, you should probably go slightly below your top speed in front of me.  Especially if you are moving quickly between claims and leaving me little pen time. I also reserve the right to ‘clear’ you, although clear doesn’t necessarily mean you need to slow down.  If you were too fast or too unclear for me I will not spot you the argument, I will only evaluate what I have flowed.  -Regarding the K.  I like the K.  I tend to prefer, but not require, framework’s that include a clear interpretation, rather than a laundry list of method good/policy bad arguments that fail to tell me how to evaluate the round.  I think critiques are better when teams are clear and specific, and do not rely on author names or buzzwords.  I really don’t like when teams intentionally obfuscate what they are critiquing, or how the other team can respond.  I do not like Kritiks that are non-falsifiable, psychoanalysis K’s tend to be some of the worst perpetrators.  I believe that the most effective way to answer a K is by directly indicting the logic of the argument itself, and not relying on a bunch of generic perms/alt arguments, or framework.  Similarly I believe that the best K teams defend their arguments in the block, instead of trying to shift and run away from MG offense.  (obviously a strategic shift/collapse is good, but refusing to answer arguments that truly are sticky is not) I’ve said this in post-round almost every time I have watched a critique this year, so I’ll put it here too.  I do not think that Generic perm net benefits like the double bind, or juxtaposition, or generic alt arguments like “the alt is totalitarian” tend to be effective.  Good MOs have no trouble with them, and for these arguments to have real teeth you probably need to be winning other more central arguments against the critique.  I think you’ll be most likely to win my ballot by reading offense to the core of the critique, and contexualizing any of your more generic arguments as much as possible to the specifics of the kritik and the aff.    -K aff’s are fine too.  I’d prefer that they be germane to the topic (and in the right direction), but I’ll listen to your framework your and K of T should you choose to run them.  Clarity is particularly important on framework here.  What is your advocacy, and why does that advocacy mean that you ought to win the debate?  Clear interpretations that provide some level of brightline for me to assess who wins the round would be helpful too.     -Performance/”project” arguments.  (Sorry if these terms homogenize arguments in a way that isn’t ideal, but I need a way to refer to them).  These arguments are good, and important.  I want to support folks who want to run them.  That said I’m still working out exactly what I value in these debates, and how I feel about them.  Some bullet points of things I would prefer you do. -Be clear on what exactly your advocacy is.  -Explain clearly how the debate should be evaluated -I think setting up this debate in a way that allow opponents to engage on the method level is desirable -I won’t enforce this on my own in any way.  But I think there’s a strong case to be made that if your advocacy is totally unrelated to the topic that you should disclose it to your opponents in prep time.  I think forcing your opponent to prep for your performance and a policy aff generates a huge advantage for you, and renders parlis limited prep incoherent.  -Be clear about what your performance does and why that’s sufficient.  If you create real change tell me how and why that change is good.  If you simply expose problematic structures tell me that that’s sufficient. Answering Performance/”project” arguments.  I won’t say that there isn’t a framework shell that I would vote for, but you’ll have to be nuanced for that to get you anywhere.  I’m most likely to give high speaker points to folks who engage on the method level.  I will not be very interested in hearing you complain that this style of debate is inherently unfair. -Conditionality.  No strong feeling here.  But I will note that I believe many parli teams defend condo poorly.  I think ‘we’ll kick down to one argument in the block’ and ‘hard debate is good debate’, are especially bad arguments. -CP theory.  No big predispositions here. I think the more specific the interp/counterinterp, the better you’ll generally do on a position.  Generally speaking I’m open to hearing CP theory, but I think some allowances have to be made for the fact that parli has no back side rebuttal, and that the aff has a second-line monopoly on mg theory.  That doesn’t mean I won’t pull the trigger, but it means PMR second lines aren’t automatically golden, and that their quality has to be compared to that of the MO arguments and justified by the quality/depth of the mg shell.  -Text Comp: I’ll listen to it, but I think it’s just a lazy way of making Pic’s bad and other arguments, and not a coherent interpretation of what a competitive counterplan is.  Veto/cheato bad and delay bad: They aren’t autowins, but you’re in a very good spot. States: I think states is a far more abusive argument than people tend to believe.  PIC’s bad: I think this can be a very persuasive argument if the interp is specific to rounds in which the affirmative must pass the entirety of an existing bill.  -Regarding Spec.  I do not think these arguments tend to be any good.  They’re almost always normal means/solvency debates, which are not procedural/voting issues.  However I’m also not a fan of the trend of swearing at people for making these arguments and refusing to answer them.  Just read your answers. -Topicality.  These are fine debates, and I think people should go for them more often because they seem to frequently be answered poorly. I default to competing interpretations, and I think potential abuse is plenty.  I do not like arbitrary interpretations e.g. Military force means boots on the ground.  No it doesn’t.  Topicality is about the meaning of words in the resolution.  I think ground/education and fairness are poor standards as well, unless made in the context of the meaning of words in the resolution.  I think the Israel debate is fair and educational, but it’s obviously not the topical debate in every round.  The, uh… Trichotomoy? (is this still necessary?) I do not want to hear “value” or “fact” debates.  If you want to have to have these debates you probably should not pref me. -Speaker points. I plan on giving speaker points on the following scale; I think it will make me on the lower end of the spectrum, but I’m trying to limit that effect.             -26 Poor             -27 Below average             -27.5 average             -28 Above average             -29 Excellent             -30 Near perfect.     Bullet point things to know *New: I don’t like strategies where one team deliberately holds back on making their argument until the member speech (e.g. plan text in the PMC then sit down, than a new Nietzche shell in the mg).  I think these arguments are anti-educational, unfair, and really indicate a team is unwilling to have a real debate. I won’t intervene against these arguments, but I’ll be extremely compelled by responses indicating these strategies are unfair/uneducational/pointless.  -I find a lack of depth is a consistent problem in the debates I watch, including debates with very good teams.  If I am to consider an argument coherent, I need a clear claim, and a warrant, and an impact.  You must explain coherently the impact a claim has on the debate, or I will be forced to do that work myself.  A good example would be if an MG says on politics "Link Turn: Republicans like plan".  Unless the LOC link argument was "Republicans don't like plan" the mg needs to do more work contextualizing the importance of plan's popularity with republicans and explaining why that is in fact a link turn.   -Please slow down for theory interps, and repeat them. -Please also slow down for top level of politics disads, details really matter there too.  -Speakers must take and substantively answer a question if asked in the PM or LOC, and I will almost certainly vote on the procedural if you don’t (if there’s flex/cx the procedural ground is worse).  Generally speaking I like when people take and legitimately answer a few questions, but that’s tough to enforce. -You must give your opponent a copy of any and all advocacies.  And they shouldn’t have to wait for your partner to write it out, just have it ready before your speech starts. -I will protect against new arguments, but points of order are fine.  When calling points of order don’t be rude, excessive, or repeatedly wrong. -I am likely to give more weight to defense than I think is the norm.  If you’re really far behind on the link and internal level of a disad I’m not likely to just grant you ‘some risk’ and move on (absent you also being pretty far ahead on magnitude first impact calc). -I don’t consider arguments dropped if they are intuitively answered by other arguments in the round, although there is obviously some limit to what you can get away with.  Example: If someone drops a link turn on a china relations advantage, but extends the PMC link arguments as reasons why China loves plan, I think it is fairly clear that the aff has not conceded the debate about how china perceives plan.  The PMR can’t newly answer the link turn, but it’s ok to compare the strength/warrants/responsiveness of the turn and the link argument.     -The way we use the term dehum in this activity makes it largely meaningless, be specific about it if you want it to be important. -I have a pretty strong inclination to buy death > dehum, life is the internal link to value to life. -Etiquette: I love good natured banter, and I think tactful and respectful clowning/posturing is awesome.  I understand debate is a game, and one we want to win badly, but do not be a jerk.  Do not bully your opponents.  Do not be nasty, or personal.  If you’re debating a team that is much less experienced/capable than you, feel free to win handily, but do not excessively humiliate them or beat up on them.  -Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies.  If your opponent reads an illegitimate perm than your advocacy is competitive, but that is not a reason to vote for you..

Justin Morgan-Parmett - WWU

Justin Morgan Parmett Western Washington University Judging philosophy I have been involved in Policy debate at many levels (high school, college, regional, national, novice, JV and varsity) since the mid 1990’s and have now been involved in parli debate since the beginning of this year (2014-2015). Thus far, I have enjoyed the transition and found that argument and stylistic tendencies have many cross overs.  I am still a bit new to parli so you, as debaters, may know more about procedural/ rule issues than I do at times. If this becomes critical to the debate, please explain yourself well. You will find me very open minded and above all I want people to have fun, be nice to each other and develop your arguments thoughtfully. I am competent flowing at high speed and will do my best to deliver a fair decision. Please do not hesitate to ask any questions you have prior to the round. Here is a bit more detail: My judging philosophy seems to be contextual to the round that I am judging. You can run whatever type of argument that you want to in front of me, however, I do have my preferences and they tend to be more towards the critical side of debate. I am not so likely to vote on topicality or FW arguments that are based in the assumption that this is the wrong place for the argument unless you not only win that there is some ground abuse, but also demonstrate that this ground loss is important. Do not just say that you can’t run your agent CP or your politics DA without saying why that ground is important. Likewise, I am not so likely to vote on theory arguments that say that I should reject a team for running a particular argument, usually the K. Theory arguments can operate effectively as defense, but rarely as offense for you. I prefer for debaters to be nice to each other in rounds as meanness will hurt your speaker points and your credibility. This does not mean that you will loose the debate, but if I have to do work at the end of the debate to figure out what is going on, this will come into play as to which side I do work for. Also, I am not likely to be persuaded if you tell me that I am a policy maker so I should not look at arguments that are philosophically based. This does not meant that I should not consider myself a policy maker, but that this role includes me questioning assumptions behind our actions. Basically, this means that I do not believe in the pre/post fiat distinction. I think that affirmatives have a right to frame the debate in a reasonable manner. You do not have to uphold some standard as to what the resolution is supposed to mean for everyone and I don’t see why it is productive for us all to be stuck to thinking exactly the same way about the topic. This being said, if you are going to talk about things that have nothing to do with the topic at all (I don’t know, maybe you want to talk about sports or music or something) you should have good reasons as to why you should do that. To be clear, proving that debate is structurally flawed is a good reason, but you should still ask me to vote on the argument you are making rather than the fact that debate is exclusionary. That is a start to your argument, but not the end. I could otherwise be persuaded to vote on a topicality arg in these cases. I think that this is enough to get an idea of where I stand. The debate is for you, but I also am going to be a part of it if I am watching the round. If there are any questions that you have, you should ask me at any time. Justin

Kevin Kuswa - Whitman

HI all, I look forward to judging.  I value explanation and reasoning with an emphasis on argumentation as a form of education instead of trickery.  Ultimately, though, you should do what you want to do and I will follow your lead.  I have no inherent problems with very traditional legislative debate, very unorthodox performativity debate, or anything between the two.  Theory debate is always more appealing with examples and comparisons and I generally favor arguments with multiple warrants regardless of what genre those arguments occupy.  if you have reasons and analysis behind your arguments, you are in the right vicinity.  My background is in policy debate, but I am enjoying Parli debate and I do like the variety of topics and styles available.  The two most important concepts you should keep in mind for me are specificity and clash.  Please treat your opponents with generosity, respect, and kindness.   • Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year , etc . about 60 rounds judged this year, competed in policy. ) • Approach of the critic to decision - making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock - issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) • no Relative importance of presentation/communication skill s to the critic in decision - somewhat--argument comes first making • Relative importance of on - case argumentation to the critic in decision - making • depends on the neg. Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks • well-explained Preferences on calling Points of Order. no

Kevin Thruellson - UW Bothell

Korry Harvey - WWU

Background/Experience I debated a lot (CEDA, NDT), and have coached and judged even more (CEDA, NDT, NPDA, NPTE, Worlds). I teach courses in argument theory, diversity, and civil dialogue, and I am heavily involved in community service. While my debate background comes primarily from a “policy” paradigm, I have no problem with either good “critical” debates or “persuasive communication”, and am willing to listen to any framework a team feels is justifiably appropriate for the debate.   I think that debate is simultaneously a challenging educational exercise, a competitive game of strategy, and a wonderfully odd and unique community – all of which work together to make it fun. I think debaters, judges, and coaches, should actively try to actually enjoy the activity. Debate should be both fun and congenial. Finally, while a written ballot is informative, I feel that post-round oral critiques are one of the most valuable educational tools we as coaches and judges have to offer, and I will always be willing to disclose and discuss my decisions, even if that may involve walking and talking in order to help the tournament staff expedite an efficient schedule for all of us.   Unique consideration I am hearing impaired. No joke – I wear hearing aids in both ears, and am largely deaf without them. I think most would agree that I keep a pretty good flow, but I can only write down what I understand. I work as hard as just about any of your critics to understand and assess your arguments, and I appreciate it when you help me out a little. Unfortunately, a good deal of my hearing loss is in the range of the human voice – go figure. As such, clarity and a somewhat orderly structure are particularly important for me. For some, a notch or two up on the volume scale doesn’t hurt, either. However, please note that vocal projection is not the same as shouting-- which often just causes an echo effect, making it even harder for me to hear. Also, excessive chatter and knocking for your partner can make it difficult for me to hear the speaker. I really want to hear you, and I can only assume that you want to be heard as well. Thanks for working with me a little on this one.   Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) Although I don't see absolute objectivity as easily attainable, I do try to let the debaters themselves determine what is and is not best for the debate process. Debaters should clarify what framework/criteria they are utilizing, and how things should be evaluated (a weighing mechanism or decision calculus). I see my role as a theoretically “neutral observer” evaluating and comparing the validity of your arguments according to their probability, significance, magnitude, etc. I very much like to hear warrants behind your claims, as too many debates in parli are based on unsubstantiated assertions. As such, while a “dropped argument” has considerable weight, it will be evaluated within the context of the overall debate and is not necessarily an automatic “round-winner”.   Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making As noted, clarity and structure are very important to me. It should be clear to me where you are and what argument you are answering or extending. Bear in mind that what you address as “their next argument” may not necessarily be the same thing I identify as “their next argument”. I see the flow as a “map” of the debate round, and you provide the content for that map. I like my maps to make sense.   That said, good content still weighs more heavily to me than slick presentation. Have something good to say, rather than simply being good at saying things.   Additionally, 1) although I think most people speak better when standing, that’s your choice; 2) I won’t flow the things your partner says during your speech time; 3) Please time yourselves and keep track of protected time.   Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making I find that good case debate is a very effective strategy. It usually provides the most direct and relevant clash. Unfortunately, it is rarely practiced. I can understand that at times counterplans and kritiks make a case debate irrelevant or even unhelpful. Nevertheless, I can't tell you the number of times I have seen an Opposition team get themselves in trouble because they failed to make some rather simple and intuitive arguments on the case.   Openness to critical/performative styles of debating See above. No problem, as long as it is well executed – which really makes it no different than traditional "net-benefits" or "stock issues" debates. To me, no particular style of debating is inherently “bad”. I’d much rather hear “good” critical/performative debate than “bad” traditional/policy debate, and vice versa.   Topicality/Theory While I try to keep an open mind here, I must admit I’m not particularly fond of heavy theory debates. I think most debaters would be surprised by just how much less interesting they are as a judge than as a competitor. I realize they have their place and will vote on them if validated. However, screaming “abuse” or “unfair” is insufficient for me. I’m far more concerned about educational integrity, stable advocacy and an equitable division of ground. Just because a team doesn’t like their ground doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have any. Likewise, my threshold for “reverse voters” is also on the somewhat higher end – I will vote on them, but not without some consideration. Basically, I greatly prefer substantive debates over procedural ones. They seem to be both more educational and interesting.   Parliamentary procedure While I have no problem with them, I tend not to follow much of the traditional stylizations or formal elements of parliamentary practice: 1) I will likely just “take into consideration” points of order that identify “new” arguments in rebuttals, but you are more than welcome to make them if you feel they are warranted; 3) Just because I am not rapping on the table doesn’t mean I don’t like you or dig your arguments; 4) You don’t need to do the little tea pot dance to ask a question, just stand or raise your hand; 5) I don’t give the whole speaker of the house rap about recognizing speakers for a speech; you know the order, go ahead and speak; 6) I will include “thank yous” in speech time, but I do appreciate a clear, concise and non-timed roadmap beforehand.   I lean toward thinking that “splitting the block”, while perhaps theoretically defensible, is somewhat problematic in an activity with only two rebuttals and often only makes a round more messy.

Krista Simonis - UP

Kristen Stevens - WWU

Kristen Stevens Western Washington University Background 3 years policy, 1 year LD in high school. 3 years NPDA/NPTE style parli at Willamette University. I majored in political science and minored in philosophy. This is my 4th coaching for Western Washington University. General information and comments: - I will vote off the flow - The team that makes the most sense will probably win my ballot, so please, make sense. - I will default to a net-benefits framework unless told otherwise - Neither of us wants me to intervene, so please clearly tell me why to vote for you, and not for the other team - Please read all texts and interpretations slowly and twice - Please give me a copy of your plan/cp/alt text - Speed is generally not an issue, but if you’re one of the fastest debaters in the country, slow down a bit. I want to understand your aguments as you go, not just transcribe them. - Reiterating the thesis of each position throughout the debate will greatly benefit you. Do not assume that I totally understand your story coming out of the PMC/LOC. MO regional overviews are a beautiful thing. - Please prioritize and weigh impacts and evidence/warrants. - I prefer policy-oriented debates to K debates, but will vote for a K if you’re winning it (see below for specifics). I love DA/CP and good case debate relevant to the topic.    (From the NPTE Questionnaire) How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?             I am okay with critical arguments, and will vote for them on aff or neg if you’re winning them. However, I prefer policy-oriented DA/CP or case debates, and often find K aff versus K neg debates difficult to evaluate. I also much prefer critical affs that are topical, as opposed to, “we talked about x issue first and therefore win.” That said, if you’re at your best when reading a project, I will vote for you if you’re winning. Don’t expect to win your K on the neg if you haven’t tailored your links directly to the plan/aff during the PMC. If you fail to contextualize your argument to the aff and just read the generic links you thought up in prep time, I will probably end up voting on the perm. On either side please give me a clear interpretation of how to evaluate your arguments, and apply this to the arguments present in the debate (ie. indicate in rebuttals that your framework excludes x arguments). That said, I do not care for neg K frameworks that straight up exclude the aff and strongly dislike the specific role of the ballot arguments I’ve been hearing this year that tell me to vote for the team that best does something super specific that only one side is prepared to engage in. Instead, use those justifications to weigh and prioritize your issue in the rebuttals like you would normally.  Give me a little extra pen time for long/wordy alternatives (or give me a copy). Condo usually resolves any issues of “contradictory” positions, although the aff is welcome to make arguments about the implications of a “contradictory” neg strat. Generally, I think perf con arguments should be justifications for the perm. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?             I normally stay between 27.5-29.5, but I usually give at least one 30 per tournament. Being funny and making clever or creative arguments will increase your speaker points. Being rude, offensive, or exclusionary to other debaters, will decrease your speaker points. Performance based arguments…             Haven’t encountered these much as a debater or judge, so if this is your thing I might not be the best judge for you. That said, I will vote for a performance if you are winning it. Just please give me an interpretation for how to evaluate your performance within the context of the round. So if you want to tap dance during your speech time that’s cool, just make sure you tell me why that means you win. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?             Please read your interp slowly, and twice if you want to be sure I have it word for word. I think T is always a voting issue, and will default to weighing the argument under competing interpretations if not told otherwise. I will also assume T is an apriori voter unless told otherwise. Under a competing interpretations framework, in order to win T you must win an offensive reason as to why your interpretation is best. That means clearly connecting and winning at least one standard to the voting level. In round abuse is not necessary to win my vote, but helps tremendously. It’s cool if you want me to use another framework to evaluate T such as reasonability, please just explain what that means. Also voters such as fairness and education should be terminalized, and I prefer this out of the LOC. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?             As mentioned earlier, please read the text slowly and twice (or give me a copy). I think most questions of counterplan theory are up for debate. Personally, I think condo is good, but have no problem voting for condo bad. I will vote for PICS bad (or any other counterplan theory) if you win it, however I strongly prefer to hear substantive arguments over theory on the counterplan. Please specify whether winning theory means the other team loses, or whether that means the counterplan just goes away. I will default to the latter. If you are going to run counterplan theory, please don’t stay at the theoretical surface level. Prove that THIS particular use of the counterplan given the res and plan is bad. Also, tell me explicitly how CP captures case out of the LOC. I’ve been astounded at the number of debates I’ve seen in which this is never explained. Perms are tests of competition. Opp should probably specify status. If not, POIs should be used for clarification. If this is never established I will assume the counterplan is conditional. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)             Sure. 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?)?             Procedural issues come first. After that I will default to the impact analysis present in the round. Unless otherwise told, I will evaluate kritiks second, and then case/other impacted issues. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?             Death is of higher magnitude and thus outweighs dehum.  Other Issues: Delivery: I can flow a pretty good pace, but if you consider yourself to be one of the fastest debaters in the country, you should slow down just a little bit for me. If you’re not sure if you qualify in that category, then probably err on the safe side. Or come ask me – I’m usually wandering around trying to find snacks. I’m also pretty expressive as I judge so just keep an eye out. Also please don’t lose clarity for the sake of speed. It makes me feel bad when I have to yell “clearer” at people. Disads: Run them. Topic specific disads that turn case, or politics. I can’t say this enough, MO/LOR/PMR overviews that reiterate the thesis of positions will help me enormously. Your line-by-line analysis will make a lot more sense to me if I have a firm understanding of your posititons.    Spec: I will vote for it if you’re winning it, but POI’s probably check. Points of Order: I will do my best to protect, but call them anyways. Etiquette and Misc: No need for thank-yous. Speak however is comfortable for you – sit, stand, lay on the ground, whatever. Take at least one question in your speech. Don’t be mean to each other - I love this community and want it to stay strong.

Kyle Cheesewright - IDAHO

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

Kym Davis - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Les Phillips - UWash

LES PHILLIPS –---POLICY VERSION I have been judging all kinds of debates since the dawn of time. Although, NPDA debate is a bit newer.  I have heard everything, and I have pretty much voted on everything. Like many judges, I try to be a blank slate; like all judges, I fail to do so. But I do try. I will sit and squirm and worry and look at the flow and read cards and think about them and try to avoid intervening. At various times I have voted for Ayn Rand is our savior, tobacco good, structural inherency must be explicit in 1AC, Albanian socialism, typos in plan text equal negative ballot, scientology-saves-the-world, and (my personal favorite) Reagan-leads.-to-Communism-and-Communism-is good. That said, there are some default positions (soft defaults, obviously, in my case). 1)             I think topicality serves an important limiting function. I used to vote on T very frequently; I have done so less often in recent years. Too often the negative wins the violation but doesn’t persuade me that there’s so much abuse that I should pull the trigger. One reason, I suppose, is that I don’t really think the negative is entitled to any particular ground (just enough ground). I do not default to “competing interpretations.” Similarly, it’s hard to persuade me that any particular counterplan or permutation is so abusive that a team should lose the round. 2) I grimace when you run specification arguments. I have voted on them. But if you have a choice between a specification argument and Ayn Rand good, run Ayn Rand good.  3) I am stingy about new responses in the PMR or LOR. Debaters are often too shy about calling out their opponents on new responses. Don’t’be. Dropped arguments carry full weight with me (see “typos in plan text,” above). Note also: 1) I love good K debates. (This is what you really wanted to know about, right?) I vote on K's frequently. I am not particularly wedded to the concept of fiat. In my personal and private capacity I am a grumpy, committed democratic socialist who believes that both direct action and radical rethinking are valuable and am very interested in robust discussion of their intersections. I welcome performance debates, although my understanding of performance theory is superficial at best. Normativity arguments may be a little bit uphill, as I have never been able to figure out what Pierre Schlag has to do with my ballot. But most important: make the IMPLICATIONS of your Kritikal position EXTREMELY CLEAR. 2) Make comparisons. Talk about your evidence versus your opponents'. Talk about your world versus your opponents' world. 3) I believe that debate is good. Debate comprises much of my life's work. I regard an excellent debate round as a celebration of intelligence, spirit, and hard work. A really good debate round fills me with wonder and awe; it's like being in a temple. Friendly aggression, amusing sarcasm, and flagrant displays of creativity and confidence are all very welcome; I like a sense of play. Rough or insulting conduct, really bad manners, language which demeans or disrespects individuals or groups -- these are most unwelcome in the temple. Blasphemers and heretics risk the wrath of my terrible swift sword. Enjoy!

Liz Kinnaman - Clark CC

n/a

Logan Emlet - Puget Sound

I want to judge like the improbably torporous Jame Stevenson wants to judge, but in twice the time. This will be my seventh year in parliamentary debate, but this is my first year as a coach/judge, so you are encouraged to observe all of the usual hesitancies regarding first year critics. I have judged at every tournament attended by the Puge this year.    I appreciate well-warranted, nuanced, and creative strategies that are executed with class (not the socioeconomic sort). I have no strong predisposition against any structure of argument. To be clear, most of my career was spent reading plans, politics, Agamben-esque kritiks, and avoiding extinction, but you don’t have to read a plan. You just need offense.   Some possible idiosyncrasies:   <ul> <li>I quite like the politics DA, but please make sure that your scenario is at least marginally plausible. I am not a fan of lying about top of the docket or ultra generic links.</li> <li> </li> <li>Due to the structure of Parli debate I am inclined against MG theory and kritiks. This is not to say that I will not vote for these arguments - CPs should be textually competitive - but I find that I give the Neg extra-creedence on many theoretical questions (e.g. Condo) and late breaking kritiks.</li> <li> </li> <li>I think that framework in the 1NC of the kritik shell is often unnecessary and unhelpful at resolving the question of the how the judge should understand the interaction of the two teams in the round. I think that this discussion is often more fruitful in the context of the alternative, and that the object of the kritik in terms of what “level” it operates is easily established in the thesis.</li> <li> </li> <li>I flow the K straight down on one piece of paper. </li> <li> </li> <li>I appreciate well-researched critiques that are evidently understood by the team that is reading them. I am less than compelled by nonsense.</li> <li> </li> <li>I like neg flex. I am baffled by the current hate that conditionality receives in Parli debate. I tend to think that conditionality is a coward’s argument. That said, have the debate if you think that it is strategic. I also don’t think that some internal inconsistencies in the neg strat liquidate any possibility of fairness or education.</li> <li> </li> <li>If slowing down will help you add warrants to your speech, please do so.</li> <li> </li> <li>Case args are dope.</li> <li> </li> <li>Call Points of Order if you want.</li> </ul>   In my mind, a 30 means a perfect speech. Speeches are never perfect. I will start at a 27.5 and move from there. A 28 means that you should be in out rounds. A 29+ means you should be receiving a speaker award. I don't know how people standardize their allocation of tenths of points.   Let me know if you have any questions before the round starts.    ***SPECIAL NOTE FROM JAMES STEVENSON: I'm not Logan, but I'm willing to bet that well-placed references to "Yacht Rock" will get you bonus speaker points. For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkizL1oyYQc&list=PLBEB75B6A1F9C1D01&index=2

Louisa Fan - UWash

Melissa Franke-Young - SeattleU

n/a

Michael Artime - Saint Martin\&#039

n/a

Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Nicholas Todd - Lower Columbia

Nick Carlson - WWU

Pam Barker - Carroll

n/a

Paul Boudreaux - Lower Columbia

I try to approach rounds as Tabula rasa as possible. I think you should do what you specialize in to ensure the highest quality debates. I had a long policy background but spent my last few years running a lot of criticisms’ in college. I have three years of high school policy experience and four years of NPDA and Two year of NPTE Experience. I was an all American in college and have recently graduated from Washburn Law. My legal background probably makes me have a higher tolerance for well-articulated procedurals. I enjoy both substantive and theory debate. I just finished taking the bar so my current events knowledge is not as in depth as it was in college but I have a degree in Economics and have followed international relations since high school. I don’t have any real problems with speed, so long that it is not used exclusive for exclusionary reasons with proper substance. Run the debate your way and justify why your way is best and you’ll likely pick up my vote.

Phillip Lee - Clark CC

n/a

Richie Laursen - Clark CC

n/a

Rita Vityaz - SFU

n/a

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.

Ron Price - IDAHO

Background: Did policy and LD in high school. Debated for Boise State. Have been the assistant coach for C of I for the past 8 yrs. Have been involved with this activity for the past 15 yrs or so. Please make your arguments logical and cohesive. Ok with speed, but if you are not organized or clear then your arguments may get “lost” somewhere and it’s up to you to “find” them again. Will vote on Topicality; include standards, voters, etc. Ok with critical arguments but make sure your advocacy doesn’t contradict itself. Make sure your links story is solid. A to B to C works, but A to B to Z is a no go.  Have a plausible link/ impact story (not everything has to lead to or end in nuke war and extinction). Also not a huge fan of morally repugnant arguments (i.e. all gays will psychologically damage their children when raising them) so don’t make them.   Hmmm, so basically I will vote on the most convincing and logical arguments you present in the round so make smart choices and arguments, have fun and we’ll see what happens on the flow.

Samantha Briggs - Willamette

n/a

Sarah Partlow Lefevre - ISU

I have been doing NDT/CEDA policy debate since 1991.  I debated for four years at the University of Utah, assistant coached for 6 years at the University of Kansas, and I have been the Director of Debate at Idaho State since 2001.   I am fairly open to any type of well explained and warranted arguments.  I like it when debaters provide a good meta analysis in rebuttals.  I can generally flow unless you are extremely blippy and very fast.  I like both policy and critical arguments.  I think the debaters should debate about the rules of debate.  So I am open to procedurals and framing arguments.  I want the rebuttals to write my ballot for me.  I also vote on defense but prefer offense.

Shannon Scott - George Fox

n/a

Steve Bonner - UWash

Name:    Steve  Bonner  School:    University of Washington   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.   The most important thing about debating in front of me is to know that I try to vote exactly as I’m told. Please take time in the rebuttals to explain which arguments matter and why. I’m open to pretty much any framework for debate.  Just please tell me which one I should use and how arguments should be weighed. Please clearly compare arguments and how they interact. The team that does a better job of that will normally get my ballot. I’ll vote for the most probable arguments if I’m not told to otherwise.     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)? a.       I normally give 26-29 with the majority being 27s. Normally give one 28 or 29 each round.   2.       How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? a.       Critical arguments are just like any other argument, I will vote for them if they are well argued and make sense. I am ok with Critical Aff’s but keep in mind that you still have to win Topicality. (unless of course you run your K topically) Contradictory arguments are only a problem if the opposing team makes them a problem. If you run a performance or rhetoric based criticism, you should probably not be contradictory, but only because it guts your solvency. Though if the other side doesn’t make the argument, I won’t make it for them. I really like good K’s (especially ones that are relevant to the topic and function in a Policy/Fiat world) BUT I really dislike bad K’s.   3.       Performance based arguments… a.       I haven’t seen any of these done well, but if I see one, I can think of no reason I wouldn’t vote for it.     4.       Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? a.       To vote on T I only need arguments for why I should. I think that T’s need frameworks so that I know what to do with them. I guess I would say that my default way of resolving them is to decide if the Aff is so abusive that a fair round was impossible. I am more than happy to dump that framework and adopt any that either team makes.  In round abuse is not necessary to get a ballot, but you need to give me some reason to vote for the T. In-Round abuse, Prep skew, Lost DA’s and CPs,  and such are all good reasons to vote for a T, but not the only ones.   5.       Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? a.       I am open to all kinds of CP’s and all the Theory arguments for why they are good or bad. PICs are fine, but I’d vote for a theory position that claims they are not. Same with Agent CP’s, Timeframe CP’s, etc. Fair warning though, it would be pretty easy to win that Delay CP’s are abusive.  As for identifying status, competition etc, I think it is a good idea and it makes for better debate, but not a must. I’ll vote however I’m told to.   6.       Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) a.       Yes. Just keep in mind that I won’t be seeing them.     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?)? a.       PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me how to vote. I hate making decisions. Make them for me. But if I have to, I first would vote anywhere someone says “A priori” or “most important argument in the round”. If there are multiple I guess the order would be Theory, K’s, High Probability Impacts and then High Magnitude Impacts.   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")? a.       If arguments are not compared at all, then the only way to compare them is to intervene. I don’t like doing that. I read a lot and if forced to I will use the things I know to figure out which argument should carry more weight. Please don’t make me do that. My bias for weighing arguments is toward more probable impacts. If I have to weigh Dehum v Death, I slightly lean toward Dehum, but again, I’ll err on the side of probability.

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.

Tanner VanWyck - Carroll

n/a

Tanner Wiley - Lower Columbia

Tiffany Artime - Saint Martin\&#039

n/a

Tim Worthen - Whitworth Univ

n/a

Tori Vigil - PacificLutheran

n/a

Tracy Valgento - U of M

Quick Tips in Prep Time: Debate is a game and you should play it the best way you know how. This means DO WHATEVER you want argument wise and stylistically. Anything is up for debate, so long as you can win the reasons why your argument is best. Most importantly, stay organized. Clean debates are easily won debates. And have fun! The Specifics: I debated for a total of seven years with four years of Parli and LD for Northern Arizona University.  Plan, counterplan and alternative texts should be read twice. You should take a question during constructive speeches.   Impact calculus: I am a material girl in a material world; meaning I prefer tangangible, real world impacts within the debate, that are terminalized.  Absent another framework I default to net benefits with probability and timeframe first.  You should explain clear internal links that articulate how you get from point A-Z. Procedurals: I have a generally high threshold for procedurals, meaning you must prove abuse within the round. Or if you choose to use a competing interpretations framework you need to win the reason to prefer your. DA/CP debate: I really enjoy clear and specific disadvantages. I am open to hearing anything, but I want a well explained uniqueness story. For example, in econ DA debates I want to hear about specific markets or situations that cause collapse, rather than general arguments about the economy as a whole and for politics I want to hear specific warrants about who votes what way and why, rather than  a generic backlash argument.  All  counterplans are fine e.g PICs and the like, so long as win the theory arguments explaining why it is good or bad. These arguments should be specific to the round. I feel it is better to articulate why a specific counterplan is abusive, rather than generic block arguments that endite all PICs.  For counter plans and the subject of conditionality: I feel that absent policy style backside or second rebuttals, the Neg should only run one counter-plan. In my experience, multiple, conditional advocacies tend to contradict themselves. Arguments made and things said in a debate round do NOT occur in a vacuum. This means, for example, I will be grumpy if  your disadvantage links to your kritic.  I enjoy good permutations debates. Perms need a text and articulated net benefits/ solvency. I want to hear the reasons why the counter plan is not functionally, ideologically and/or textually mutually exclusive.    Kritics: Criticisms are fine on both the Aff and Neg-despite this being what I mostly ran do not assume that a) this all I want to hear or b) that I have read all K literature and will know what you are saying if you name drop critical theorists. You should know that I have very little Post-Modern literature. Critics should have clear frameworks that articulate impact prioritization and the roll of the ballot. If the MG does not answer an LOC framework I will defaults to the Neg’s interpretation.

Vaughn Ellis - Lower Columbia

Willow Moline - ISU

david dickinson - Snow

n/a

2015 Western Washington Univ Speech and Debate Tournament