FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam McKibben - Whitman

Adam Testerman - Lewis & Clark

Background   Hi there!  I have competed in debate and forensics for over 10 years.  I participated in parliamentary debate during college, with two years at Southern Illinois University and two years at Texas Tech University.  I feel comfortable judging any “genre” of argument and have no real argument preference beyond the desire to see clash.  This is my second year coaching for Lewis & Clark College.    General Issues   It is my goal to involve myself in the debate round as little as possible.  I have no preference for any particular kind of argument and generally feel that almost every debate issue can be resolved in the round.  I will vote for arguments with warrants. I will try my best to synthesize your arguments, but I also believe that to be a central skill of effective debaters.  The only thing that I hate is awkwardness.  Please don’t be rude or overly confrontational with your opponents, because it makes me feel awkward and I will probably try to reassure myself with your excess speaker points.  I will vote for arguments I think are stupid 10 out of 10 times if they are won in the round.    Etiquette   Emphasize explanation early… don’t let your argument make sense for the first time in the LOR or PMR etc.  All constructive speeches should take a question if asked, and it’s strategic to ask questions.  Theory interpretations and advocacy statements should be read slowly and read twice.  It will be difficult to explain why fact or value debates aren’t horrible, so roll that way at your own risk.  Points of Order should be called, but I will also do my best to protect new arguments… don’t be excessive with them though [I’ll be vague about what that means, but see above for awkwardness.]  RVI’s have never been good arguments, read them at your own risk.  <a name="_GoBack"></a>I am not the best judge when it comes to speaker points.  I tend to average a 28-point something, but I don’t vary outside of that range much.  I am trying to adjust my scale, but fair warning that I’m not the judge giving everyone 30s.    Theory/Procedurals   I cut my teeth on procedural arguments in college, so I understand why they can be useful.  It is probably true that debates are less substance-driven when they become about procedurals, but that won’t impact my decision at all.  To vote on a procedural, I require an interpretation explaining how the debate should be evaluated, a violation detailing specifically why the other team does not fit within that interpretation, standards that explain why the interpretation is good, and a voter that outlines why I should vote on the argument.  PLEASE read your interpretation/definition slowly and probably repeat it.  I think bad T arguments are REALLY bad, but good T arguments are some of my favorite debates to watch, so… have an interpretation that makes some sense.    DAs/Advantages   DAs and Advs. Require uniqueness arguments that explain why the situation the affirmative causes is not happening in the status quo.  If you plan on running linear DAs, please spend time explaining how the affirmative triggers a new impact that is not present in the status quo [or makes a current impact worse.]  Defensive arguments are useful, but they often serve to make offensive arguments more impactful or serve as risk mitigation, as opposed to terminal takeouts.    I ran politics in a majority of my negative rounds and I coach my teams to read the position often as well.  So, I will totally vote on politics every time when it’s won.  That being said, I’m finding the position to be one my least favorite and least compelling these days.  The obscene nature of congress these days makes the position even more laughable than it was in the past [and it’s always been sketchy at best, without cards].  Read the DA if you’re a politics team, but there are almost always better arguments out there.    Critiques   Critique debates can be fun to watch, but only when the position is clear at the thesis level. If your shell argues that the K is a prior question or something like that, spend some meaningful time explaining why that’s the case instead of “shadow” extending an argument from the shell.  I am familiar with a lot of the literature, but you should argue the position as if I am not.  I really hate when critiques prove the “people who hate critiques crowd” right, by being excessively confusing and blippy.  Critiques are totally dope, but only because they have the potential to make compelling arguments… not because they are obtuse.    Framework debates are a waste of time a vast majority of the time.  I don’t understand why teams spend any substantive amount of time on framework.  The question of whether the affirmative methodology/epistemology/whatever vague term you want to use, is good or bad should be determined in the links and impacts of the criticism.  I see almost no world where framework matters independent of the rest of the shell.  So… the only K framework questions that tend to make sense to me are arguments about why it’s a prior question.  It makes sense that if the critique wins that the affirmative impacts are threat constructions that I’m not going to weigh the affirmative impacts against the position.  That’s not a framework debate though, that’s a question determined by winning the thesis of the position.    Critical affirmatives can be cool, but they also put me in a weird position as a judge sometimes.  If your affirmative is positioned to critique DAs, then I still want to see specific applications of those arguments to the DAs.  I need to see how the DA demonstrates your argument to be true in some specific way.  By that I mean, if the negative outright wins a DA, I would need to see why that would mean the affirmative shouldn’t lose early, often, and specifically.  The same is true of any set/genre of negative positions.    CPs   There are probably enough arguments on both sides to justify different interpretations of how permutation or CP theory in general should go down, that I don’t have strong opinions about many CP related issues.  In general, the CP/DA debate is probably what I feel most comfortable judging accurately and I think CPs that solve the aff are very strategic.  Multiple CPs in the round is probably bad for education and not strategic.

Ben Menzies - Whitman

(things have changed some - my old philosophy really didn't reflect very accurately on how my thoughts have changed over the last couple years) Short version: I’m middle of the road, willing to listen to anything, and conscious of biases that I also try to keep at arms length. I’m a senior debating at Whitman College, so you know I’m into those DAs and CPs. I do a lot of thinking and reading about “non-policy” modes of debate though, both in my academic life and in my pre-college debate career. I like contextualized analysis and am much more happy with a few good cards deployed well than a mountain of single-sentence cards extended in a list at the bottom of your speech. Be competitive, be smart, but shake hands and be nice at the end of the debate. Condescension to opponents, especially inexperienced opponents, will be punished with poor speaks. Also, in case you can’t tell from the novel below, I think long thoughts and will probably have quite a bit to say at the end of the debate – feel free to cut me off if you need to go. Update 10/28 - I will be disclosing speaker ranks in all future rounds. Typically I operate on a scale of 26-29, with 29+ points awarded for people I think should be locks for top 15 speakers at a major tournament (Cal, Harvard, USC, etc) and below 27 reserved for younger debaters with substantial progress to be made on both technical and stylistic fronts. I would guess that my average is something like 27.9. This scale will be different for JV/Novice divisions - I would probably use 28+ for debaters I think display significant promise already and could probably hang in an open division round without being blown out. Contact me at <a href="mailto:menziebr@whitman.edu">menziebr@whitman.edu</a> if you want help on going to Whitman, debating in college (anywhere) or just generally want to talk about debate or making it to college. Debates I am most qualified/happy to be judging based on 2NR strat: Case/DA CP/DA Case/K T K alone (...) Bataille Couple quotes that illustrate my perspective – “I believe I have an obligation to work as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates.” – Scott Harris – in other words, I’m gonna read a lot of cards and I’m going to think a lot of thoughts “When you go for everything, you get nothing.” – Stephen Goldberg – debate is a game of strategic choices – the best way to play it is to make conscious, intelligent choices that put you in a better position to win the debate. I give speaker points that reflect whether I think you did that or not. Long version: Debate, for me, has been a space for extraordinary diversity of thought, and has allowed me tremendous space to bounce all over the place in the past seven years. I think my primary responsibility as a critic (not a judge) to help you in whatever way I can regardless of where you are locating yourself within that space. My vision for debate is a space in which hard work necessarily results in success, despite natural ability and material inequalities. As such, I tend to reward teams with specific, contextualized arguments backed by rigorous research and deployed responsively against opposing arguments. I think judges who say they are “tab” are lying to themselves and to you, so I will not claim to be that – see below for specific argumentative proclivities – but I also think that it is my obligation to work as hard as possible to hear your arguments fairly. That means I’ll listen to any strategy – K, policy, something irreducible to such labels – and will work very hard to give you a constructive critique. I sympathize with one iteration of James Stevenson’s philosophy: “I aim to be the most middle-of-the-road judge ever”; however, I also am limited simply by what I find persuasive. Members of the community who I particularly admired and thus have exercised significant influence over the development of my perspective(s) on debate (in no particular order): Lindsay VanLuvanee, Alex Zendeh, Allison Humble, James Stevenson, Ryan Wash, Sam Allen, Meghan Hughes, Matt Schissler, Nate Cohn, Ben Meiches, Stephen Goldberg, Jimi Durkee, Aaron Hardy, Tom Meagher. I hope to add many more to this list. Inclusion on this list does not mean that I agree with everything this person things - in fact I have some very serious disagreements with a number of these people on philosophical grounds, but each person there has contributed significantly to my understanding of debate. Note that the above list would produce a very interesting squad… My background: I debated for three years in high school on the California circuit (Long Beach, USC, Cal, Stanford, Berkeley, usually a few more in there) at Nevada Union HS. We were a rural, public high school and as such encountered a LOT of difficulties in terms of resource disparities. We were lucky enough to be somewhat proximate to a lot of good debate (only an eight hour drive to LA!). The team also basically fell apart shortly before I joined. As a result, the vast majority of my time in high school was spent doing team-building things (teaching, fundraising, recruiting etc) as opposed to “debate” things. Most of this time was spent moving further towards the “critical” side of the policy/critical divide – my senior year, I read narratives about Hmong veterans on the aff and talked about Chaloupka and decoloniality (word to Tom Meagher) a lot on the neg. Then I got a massive need-based scholarship to go to Whitman and got shafted by a lot of state schools, which sort of changed my argumentative toolbox. I spent a lot of time early in college learning how to do “traditional” debate with Aaron Hardy and had a somewhat radical pendulum swing towards the “policy” stuff. At Whitman, I’ve also studied a lot of humanities – I’m a Religion major in a department headed by a brilliant Gender Studies scholar who specializes in Queer Studies, if that gives you a picture for the kind of work we do. As a result, I’m very comfortable with the general theoretical framework of “critical” arguments (even if I am a bit of a materialist at heart). I’ll also take this moment to note that while I do still have some of that “rural, poor, small, public school kid” chip on my shoulder, there’s a lot of privilege embedded in the above background, and personally, I spend a lot of time thinking about how to acknowledge that privilege without letting it entirely determine my thought and practice. In the last couple years, I’ve settled somewhat in the middle if I had to peg my ideology: I have a lot of respect for what some “critical” teams do (Emporia SW was obviously one of the best teams ever, for instance), and think the K is a strategic tool much like anything else, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say that I found the incommensurability of impacts in these debates somewhat difficult to evaluate, leaving me in an awkward position as a critic. I’ll confess: I like extinction impacts because I think they create a somewhat stable locus of impact comparison, but I’m also pretty soundly persuaded that they tend to obviate other forms of violence that have “probability” and “timeframe” metrics through the roof. “Framework” (whatever this is). I think the framework debate is becoming kind of a vestigial component of K debates, which is unfortunate. While I am almost entirely unpersuaded by the 2AC framework that says Ks are cheating, I also think some discussion of “framework” is necessary to determine how I, the critic, should evaluate new, different frames of analysis. IE – if the 1NC says your ontology is bad, you definitely need some reason why the 1AC should matter at all as a matter of ontology. At the same time, if your K is about ontology, you really should defend why an ontological focus is necessary. The basic utility of this argument, then, for the K on the neg is to “frame out” aff impacts, and for the aff, to develop a reason why I should evaluate the 1AC. My perspective on this changes significantly when there is a K aff. K affs are cool. However, a necessary cost is defending your relationship to the topic, whatever that is. I honestly don’t understand the snide dismissal of framework/T in these debates these days – it seems like a central question of the affirmative’s “mechanism” much like a plan in a more traditional debate, and thus seems an important argument to forward by the negative. I think “T version of your aff” is often devastating, and affs should be very diligent about answering it. I also think that negatives are best served by establishing an interpretation of debate that grants some space for “non-traditional” argumentation while preserving some locus of negative debates. I am also somewhat alarmed by a growth in affs that I find fundamentally un-negatable – I am deeply troubled by the prospect of compelling a negative to make arguments against a person’s identity, for instance, or forcing that same negative to discuss their identity if they do not wish to. But of course, like all things, that perspective is wrapped up in some privilege. K affs – if you don’t derive any advantage from the plan action, why read a plan text? If you’re only garnering solvency from your critical genealogy (or whatever), having a text probably only hurts you by creating space for the neg to out-radical you. Affirmative thoughts: I’ve spent most of my time in debate writing affirmatives. As such, I appreciate well-constructed affs. A good aff is much like a good article – there is a coherent purpose to each part of the aff. Furthermore, the best affs begin as responses to the best negative arguments on the topic. Thus, on the college topic, the best 1ACs contain embedded DAs to the XO counterplan. The worst affs are a bunch of random impacts strung together loosely, and these are usually defeated by intelligent counterplans. Most affs depend on fairly tenuous internal links – I reward negatives that are able to pull those apart. You don’t need cards to make case args – nothing is more devastating for a 2A than a 1NC that contains significant quantities of smart analytics against the case. Cards against the case are good though. I think a neg that doesn’t answer the aff will lose 95% of its rounds – that can mean either adequately extending defense to the case directly or a well-argued counterplan that negates the strategic benefit of the 1AC, but one way or another, that case is likely big and scary and quite persuasive to me if you aren’t challenging it. Theory – here are my biases. First, as noted above, my least favorite kinds of debates are debates between blocks written by somebody else. Theory tends to be the epitome of that. I tend to think theoretical challenges are no-cost, small reward options, and therefore will not punish you for them, but I am probably zoning out while you read your crappy shell. You probably don’t need ten standards on your conditionality violation. Interpretations are useful and make debates easier to adjudicate. I am a 2A and therefore probably somewhat aff-biased on question of cheating counterplans (I am usually not fond of CPs that just steal the whole aff, although they are also often strategic necessities), but I am also a 1N which means I am also friendly to neg claims making fun of “abuse.” The best way to get my ballot on this is to set up an intelligent, coherent, and short violation early in the debate, have offense for your interpretation, and spend a lot of time in the final rebuttals doing impact calc. I recommend you only do this if they have made a serious, round-losing error, like dropping the argument. I’ll close with a thought from James Stevenson that largely sums up my feelings: “I no longer flow answers to theory arguments, I just write "hard debate is good debate" and move on.” “The K”: If all you are looking for is whether I will listen – yes. That said, I’ve had a long and complex relationship with the K. I’ve used it to effectively demolish some teams by being crafty and working hard. I’ve also had it used against me in ways that I think sidestepped the importance of hard work in favor of obscure philosophical terms. I think the K is at its best when it is paired with a heavy case press to disprove the truth claims of the 1AC. It is at its second-best when effectively deployed to criticize a critical aff’s methodology. It is at its worst when it is the McWhorter card and the Zimmerman card in the 1NC, and the block fails to mention the aff. The K is powerful because it offers alternative theoretical understandings of the 1AC – those NECESSITATE contextualization. Your overview written in August is likely not directly applicable to the round at hand – so don’t read it verbatim. The best K debaters are those who are most flexible against the affirmative – applying their genero Burke evidence to the ways the 1AC constructs a violent ontology SPECIFICALLY (as opposed to “They said states do stuff = genocide”). I confess, my “Ivory Tower Bullshit” alarm starts going off the more cards read by abstract European intellectuals – Heidegger, Baudrillard, Derrida, Lacan, and Bataille, are all individuals I find entirely boring (but occasionally useful). I’ve rolled with many a standard cap K in my day and am very comfortable with that literature. In the right context, I think Nietzsche is slayer and I have read a lot of Nietzsche in my day. I am generally on board and quite familiar with critiques of oppressive systems – I have a ton of background in gender studies, and quite a lot of background in various strains of critical race theory (and its more contemporary iterations). The #1 problem with critiques is the alternative – the more the aff indicts it and impacts their indictments of it, the more likely the aff is to win. I am generally uncompelled by “the K is cheating” but some component of framework is necessary – see above. Analytics > cards 99% of the time in these debates – in fact, I am generally inclined that cards are not necessary for critique debates (although you should probably still read some). DAs – these exist and I frequently vote on them. Topic DAs are always better than politics DAs. The politics DA is basically on dialysis given the political dynamics of the Obama Administration, but I have seen it occasionally revived. Smart analytics are sometimes (often?) better than cards. I’m generally a “low risk = some risk” kind of guy, but can be persuaded otherwise. Counterplans – they’re important. I’m an aff guy and am therefore sympathetic to the aff’s case when you read a stupid/cheating cp that is generic to the topic. I am particularly hostile to cps that result in the entirety of the aff by some currently-nonexistent system – for instance, a counterplan creating a commission that will recommend the plan be done whose recommendation enters into law after a certain amount of time. The dumber your cp evidence, the more weight I will grant to aff analytics indicting the cp. I’m persuaded that the SQ is always a logical option, but I sure would feel uncomfortable kicking the CP and voting neg after a 2NR/2AR where these words were never uttered. Don’t interpret the above as meaning I’m anti-CP – you gotta do what you gotta do, and I anticipate what you do will probably be fine. Textual competition is a gold standard probably, but again, you should debate it. T – eh. See theory above. Debate it like a disad – don’t forget that even T debates are about impacts, NOT links – ie – if you just repeat your violation a million times without telling me the impact, I will likely not be that compelled. This seems like a pretty easy topic to be topical under. Probably should not be your A strat. Then again, if they aren’t topic, probably no excuse. T version of your aff is highly compelling. And, as we all-too-often forget in this activity of stress and anger - have fun doing whatever it is you do. If it isn't fulfilling you, find a way to make it fulfilling. This community should be a welcoming place where people come to think and talk about important things in a setting that allows them freedom to develop their own perspectives while engaging in friendly competition.

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.

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.

James Stevenson2 - Puget Sound

The rap sheet  -          My favorite parli judge is Tom Schally.  My goal in parli is to judge like Tom, but in half the time. -          Debate well.  Impact comparison, clash, etc. Read Schally’s novel/”philosophy” if you don’t know how to do that already. I don't care what kinds of arguments as long as they're tailored well for the topic and the opposing arguments.  I love it all. -          Tech over truth in general, but truth matters. True impact defense especially. -          Offense/defense mostly, but not absolutely. I’m totally a hack for defense sometimes. -          Specificity matters.  This is true in strategic terms (greater specificity inversely correlates with the responsiveness of your opponents’ args) but it’s also basically my guiding principle for resolving points of clash.  The argument that is more assumptive of the other argument tends to win.  -          Work and scholarly/academic merit matter.   -         "Net benefits" is not a framework interp. "Perm: do both" is a legit perm. "The USFG will do something" is not a correctly written plan text; "The USFG should do something" is.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdPgJ0ZN8eU

Joe Allen - Concordia

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

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark

Joe Provencher – Lewis and Clark   The Quick hits for Prep time:   Unless told otherwise, I default to net-bens/policy making.   If you want me to evaluate topicality via competing interpretations, slow down a bit through your interpretations so I have the text exactly as you intend it. You should also probably take a question on your definition/interp if it's particularly long/nuanced/complex/crazy.   I used to tell teams I believed all advocacies in round should be unconditional. However, a lot of the conditionallity debates I saw were really terrible, and probably had PMRs going for the theory without really understanding it, and then expecting me to vote every time for the aff as a result of my philosophy. So I'll try my best to explain it more below, but for your quick evaluation of me now, know that I don't really think conditionality is necessary (maybe not even good), but will do my absolute best to be open to the theory arguments made in round.   I think that counter-plans must compete via net-benefits or mutual exclusivity. Other CP theory arguments are going to be an uphill battle for my ballot.   I don't think I'm biased one way or another on the kritik. I think good K debate is good, and bad K debate is bad (and good theory debate is good, bad theory debate is bad, etc, etc). Just get small in the rebuttals, one way or the other, and pick your winning argument. Like any argument, if you suspect I may not be 100% familiar with the literature you are using, then make the tag line very clear so you can read your warrants as fast as you want.   Take some points of information. Be cordial. Call as many points of order as you want, but it should be limited to the individual calling the point of order, and a response from the opposing individual making the argument. There should never be a debate, or any back and forth, about whether an argument is new. Make your point, respond to it.      Some further reading for your strikes:   On conditionality: I would never explicitly tell a team not to run a certain argument in front of me. However, out of all the reading I've done, and rounds I've seen, I can't imagine a world in which the MG puts out a good Condo bad shell, the PMR goes for it sufficiently, and I do not vote for it. Maybe the reading I've done is insufficient, but I'm not convinced yet, and the limited condo debates I've seen have been bad ones that only reinforce that opinion. However, I'm trying to stay open to furthering my education in the activity and would encourage anyone to come find me and talk (maybe outside of round) so we can keep the discussion going.   On topicality: I believe that T is a discussion to find the best definition of a word in the resolution. The standards debate is a debate about why a particular definition is very good. A lot of times, especially with teams yelling about ground to DAs they're supposed to have, I think that focus gets lost. If a plan doesn't link to your DA, it might not be because they have mis-defined a word. It might just be that the DA is not good. Consequently, the claim that NEG can read DAs is not a reason your definition is good. That just means they can run DAs. Most debaters are good enough to come up with some kind of offense on the spot.   In general: Good debate gets small at the end of the rounds. Rebuttal speeches should be deep and specific, and focussed around why I must prioritize a single given story. Do that, you win.

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

Kehl Van Winkle - Lewis & Clark

“The radical questionings announced by philosophy are in fact circumscribed by the interests linked to membership in the philosophical field, that is, to the very existence of this field and the corresponding censorships.”  - Bourdieu   I understand that it can appear to be a competitive advantage to read the arguments you think I want to hear, i.e. the arguments I read as a debater. This saddens me. I'm not here for me so that I can listen to all of you just bolster my beliefs. I'm here because people before me showed up and let me say what I wanted to say to them, so now it's my turn to listen to what you have to say. Whatever that may be.   What this means - don't perform just because that's what I did. Don't read my arg book back to me just because I wrote it and must think everything in it is God's gift to debate. Of course, I'm not saying don't read it (that would defeat the purpose of making it available) just use it only if you need it. This also means that I'm not particularly persuaded by positions that say "you aren't allowed to read that in debate." While its not impossible that I would vote on such a position, if a team is able to successfully defend why they are choosing to debate whatever way they do, I will allow it.   I like to think I am at least competent enough to evaluate 98% of debates that happen. I debated for Oregon for 4 years, debated at the NPTE for 3, have coached high school policy, and am currently a coach for Lewis and Clark. I have no trouble with speed, I read very lefty performative arguments my senior year, more traditional (i.e. Marx) Ks my junior year, and I was a straight up, CP & DA debater before that.    I stipulate to the 2% because there are just some knowledge bases I do not possess and a very technical debate about those issues could fly over my head a bit. I am quite ill equipped to talk about the economy outside of marxist terminology, I don't understand stocks, bonds, the Fed, etc. at a very high level at all. I pretty much just said whatever Will Chamberlain told me to and assumed that it was correct. I have a fairly broad familiarity with critical literature with the biggest glaring hole being Psychoanalysis.    Being as objective as I can about myself, it may not be a bad idea to call POIs in front of me. I was a rebuttalist my entire debate existence, and as such, I recognize that I perhaps am a little more lenient than some when it comes to "adding nuance" in the rebuttals. I will do my best to protect, but don't assume your definition of new and mine match up. If you think it could really be a round decider, point it out. That being said, the vast majority of times I see new args in the rebuttals, it is someone grasping at straws in a round they've already lost, and excessive POIs in that instance are very unnecessary and quite annoying.   Any more specific Qs, holla at me.

Kendra Doty - Whitman

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

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.

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.

Lindsay VanLuvanee - Whitman

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

Marten King - Puget Sound

The purpose of this judge philosophy is to give you insight into who I was as a debater and how I tend to think about the game that I obsessed over for 4 years. I do not find philosophies that declare themselves to be “neutral” to be particularly useful. Rather, I believe it is more valuable that I make my preferences clear to you so that you can debate to the best of your ability.   Debate background:   I debated for four years at Whitman College. For the most part, I did parliamentary debate, although I also went to 2-3 policy tournaments per year. I graduated in 2014.   General comments:   First and foremost, you should roll with the strategy that you are most comfortable with. While I have certain preferences, I am willing to vote on almost any argument. That being said, you should use the knowledge of my preferences to your advantage. Rather than changing your go-to strategy entirely in front of me, it is probably best to simply pay attention to the frustrations that I have with particular parts of various strategies.   Regardless of what you run, please place an emphasis on clarity and depth of warrants. I am very troubled by the recent trend in favor of blippy LOC arguments. Please have clear taglines that explain each distinct argument in a position, be that a subpoint of uniqueness or a link. A good rule is that you should be able to read the taglines of your position to a person outside of debate and they should be able to understand what the position is saying. I am confident in my ability to flow, and I will give the PMR leeway to respond to arguments that were impossible for me to follow in the LOC.   Please read the above paragraph again. I really mean it.   I am fine with speed. I think that speed is a positive for the activity and, absent issues concerning disabilities, it is perhaps the most accessible tool in the activity; becoming fast requires nothing more than a closet and time. However, I do think that there is a limit (around 300-330 wpm) to how fast you can go in parli because the need for pen time is much greater than in policy.   Etiquette:   Feel free to be as passionate and as intense as you want in front of me. That being said, be respectful. I have seen far too much bullying in debate in my time. It is totally unnecessary and inappropriate. Do not, for instance, scoff at every argument your opponent makes. It is fine to have strategic non-verbals, but do not be rude.   Try to be as inclusive as possible. If you are debating someone who is clearly less experienced than you and they ask you to slow down or explain things again, I will reward you with speaker points if you do.   The K   I believe that the concepts and ideas explored in Kritik debates are very important. I also recognize that the K has immense strategic value. During my senior year, my partner and I ran a K along with a DA almost every round because of the flexibility that the K-DA-Case strategy provided. I am perfectly willing to vote on a Kritik, and I believe that MGs responses to Ks are generally lackluster. That being said, I find a lot of things about K debate frustrating.   I do not like the use of overly obtuse language. Too many debaters try to be intentionally confusing reading the K. If I do not understand the K out of the LOC, I will not want to vote for it. As a great judge once told me, you want to make everyone in the room want to vote for you. Don’t do that by hiding the meaning of your argument. Have a clear thesis section. Have crystal clear links that can then be explained as DAs to the perm. Perhaps read the K a little slower than other parts of the debate.   I find much of the impact debate on the K to be underdeveloped. I rarely, if ever, will find no value to life claims persuasive. I find the extinction and turns case arguments on the K to be very tenuous. For the aff, this means that you should defense to the Neg’s impact claims. For the Neg, this means that if the aff reads solid D to those over the top claims, you might want to go for a structural violence impact coupled with case indicts (for example).   While I understand the trend away from framework, I am somewhat puzzled by it as well. I do not think that the Ks function in a debate is “self-explanatory.” In fact, it is not immediately obvious why the mindset/decision making process/etc. of the aff is a reason why the plan is a bad idea. While I do not think framework is necessary, I do think it is important for the negative to explain their conception of debate and how the K functions within that conception. How does the alt function? Does it ACTUALLY get rid of all bio-power, or is that question irrelevant? This being said, spending a lot of time saying the aff “isn’t real” and therefore its impacts don’t matter is not compelling to me.   Politics   I ran politics a LOT. I like politics. I also think that there are many problems with the politics debate.   Please do not lie. Do not claim that a bill has bi-partisan support when it passed the house without a single democratic vote.  Please also have an explanation for how the link is connected to your specific piece of legislation – I.E., why would the GOP being mad about Obama’s executive orders relating to immigration make them unwilling to do something totally unrelated?   If a politics DA is bad, then it should be easy to beat. I find thumpers to be one of the best answers to a politics DA. The link is not simply “stupid,” but rather demonstrably false – the GOP has been angered many many times, but the farm bill still passes.   Not Defending the Topic   I am not very fond of this strategy. I believe in the educational value of topic-area research and of switching sides. I am not compelled by answers to framework that claim that policy debate is totally vapid. I also find fairness and competition to be important, as I think the competitive aspect of debate is what incentivizes people to research and participate at an in depth level.   That being said, I recognize the importance of the discussions that have been generated by folks who decide not to defend the topic. If you wish to do this, I will of course evaluate the debate in as fair a manner as I can. Do know, however, that I will be pre-disposed towards certain arguments that your opponents might make. You will need to be nuanced in responding to these arguments.   CPs   I believe that counterplans are, by their very function, conditional. I believe that it is fair for me to kick the counterplan for you, but I believe that the NEG has to introduce this theoretical concept.   I believe that conditionality is a logical and educational model for debate, and I think that this is uniquely true in parli where the lack of backside rebuttals makes PMR sandbagging on DA’s to CPs particularly unfair. That being said, I find people’s answers to conditionality bad to be horrible. I think that given the bad answers that MOs generally have, it is strategic to read conditionally bad in front of me if your PMR is good at going for it.   I believe that counterplans should be both textually and functionally competitive. While textual competition is an arbitrary standard, so is all other counterplan theory. I find text comp to be a predictable limit that allows the negative to read educational PICS while preventing them from reading abusive strategies.   In general, I find counterplan theory difficult to assess. The lack of backside rebuttals leaves the debate woefully underdeveloped. It also makes the MOs life very difficult as they are unable to both read standards and weigh them in an efficient way. I have not decided how much room I will give the PMR to extrapolate on their standards, but it will not be as much as some judges give.   Please don’t say “perm do both – they can both happen at the same time!” and leave it at that. If a perm does not shield the link to the DA or resolve some of the negative’s offense in some way, it does not matter.   Theory   Theory – excluding counter plan theory – was the one area of debate that I did not invest a particularly large amount of time in. I rarely if ever ran T by the end of my senior year.   As a result, I do not have a lot of fully formed preconceptions when it comes to T. While I default to competing interpretations, I am somewhat compelled by the model of debate encapsulated by reasonability that states that the aff’s interpretation is ok if it gives the negative sufficient ground, not if it gives the negative perfect ground. My guess is that I will have a generally high threshold for voting on T. It is difficult to provide a brightline when evaluating T through the lense of sufficiency, however, and I will continue to struggle with the CI/Reasonability debate.   I do not like spec arguments.   Please read your interp slowly and twice. If the interp is missed, nothing else makes sense.   Parli-specific things   I will protect against new arguments even if you don’t point of order.   I will assess the intuitive interaction between every argument, including those that are dropped. I think that this is especially fair given the lack of backside rebuttals.   Please write down a text of any advocacy and share them with your opponent.

Michael Artime - Saint Martin\&#039

n/a

Rob Layne - Utah

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

Steve Woods - WWU

Debate Background: 14 years at WWU Coaching since 1987 overall (K-State, Florida State, Vermont, Wm. Jewell) Overview: I tend to default to a policy maker framework. However, I am open to a variety of paradigms if explicitly introduced and supported in the debate.  As such, I do NOT automatically dismiss an argument based on its "name" (DA or Kritik for example), BUT I do put a premium on how well the argument fits the context of the round.  Often, policy arguments are incredibly generic and poorly linked to the PMC, and critical approaches may be well linked and appropriate (and vice versa).  So, concentrate on the substance of the issues more than the "type" of the argument.  I can tolerate high rates of delivery, but clarity is your responsibility. I also find that high rates of delivery are a cover for a lack of strategy rather than a strategy.  If you go fast, have a reason.  Specifics: Topicality--I tend to give Govt extensive leeway on topicality. Proceduerals/Spec arguments--must be more than plan flaw issues and show real in round abuse. Solvency--I do weigh case versus off case, so Solvency is a part of the overall decision factor.  While it may be tough to "win" on solvency presses and mitigation, good case debate is useful to set up the link directions for the off case arguments/case turns. Disadvantages--HAVE TO BE LINKED to Plan text.  Generic positions tend to get weighed less likely. Counterplans--Issues of competition and permutations neeed to be clear.  I don't need perm "standards" and the like, but clear delineation between the policy options is required. Critical--Acceptable if well linked and relevant.  I tend not to be impressed by appeals to philosophical authority.  Team introducing has an obligation to make argument understandable. How to get High Points: Be polite and collegial to your opponents.  Use clear structure (labeling and signposting).  Have a good strategy and display round awareness.  Generally strong substance is more rewarded than speaking performance.  However, the combination of both is appreciated :)  Good rebuttals and clear strategic choices that make the RFD your work instead of one I have to concoct will help you.  Humor and good will are always appreciated as well. Strike or No Strike? I feel that I am pretty tolerant of a variety of styles and approaches.  I have a policy background but have coached parli for 13 years, so I have seen a lot of different styles and approaches,  I try to be tabula rasa to the extent both teams seem to be in agreement for the paradigm for the round--but do reserve the right to be a "critic of argument" when issues are left unresolved by the debaters, but I do try to limit intervention in those cases to a bare minimum.

Tiffany Artime - Saint Martin\&#039

n/a

Tom Schally - Puget Sound

Tom Schally, by James Stevenson:   “First, the highlights. Tom’s generally interested in all types of arguments – policy, K, whatever. He’s got a fairly technical mind and a clean flow, but tends to vote for arguments which demonstrate superior nuance and contextual specificity. Explanation is a big deal to Tom, and he won’t necessarily consider an argument dropped if it’s blippy and undeveloped. He understands debate as both a game that is fun (sometimes even when it stretches what is ‘true’) and as an educational endeavor that should probably teach us something valuable.  He also considers the communicative aspect to be a central component of debate, so rhetorical skill, drawing connections in CX and late rebuttals, and humor/self-awareness will take you far. Clash and argumentative comparison, as with most judges, are key.   I’m not sure the stuff I below will actually be helpful, but here’s the bottom line. Tom’s a smart person with a lot of debate experience and know-how who takes judging very seriously. He doesn’t decide debates lightly, and will take his time to give a clear, sound explanation and good feedback. --- As a background, Tom just started a job at a political communications firm or something, and studied public policy in grad school. He has like six years of experience coaching college debate, mostly in NPTE/NPDA parliamentary, but has been at least partially involved in policy for the last few. He did a year of college policy at Macalester before transferring to Western Kentucky University where he was ridiculously successful in parli and NFA-LD. I hesitate to mention this because NPDA/NPTE folks can be super elitist about their style of debate, but debate is debate, and Tom’s good at it. He can also speak much faster than I ever could, so as long as you retain clarity, speed is probably not an issue.   In his personal life, Tom is probably a pragmatist more than anything else, but in a very broad sense. What he sees as the ‘pragmatic’ move is largely context-dependent, particularly in debate – I think he likes to see teams draw direct linkages between where we are, what we should do, and why we should do it, especially in a reflexive and self-aware manner. This is, once again, largely a function of good explanation and strategic/argumentative nuance, rather than ideological location – he picks between “trying or dying” or “reflecting/resisting” based on who better outlines the relevance of their method, the validity of their knowledge claims, and the implications of their arguments. He’s pretty knowledgeable about public policy subjects, and also is pretty well-read on K stuff like Marxism, postcolonialism, and critical IR, but is fairly detached from what the debate argument flavor of the month is, so don’t assume he’s familiar your specific jargon or ideology.   In “policy” debates, Tom is willing and able to defer to traditional debate risk analysis tools like “try or die” or “uniqueness outweighs the link,” but I think he gives more credibility to good defense (even if it’s uncarded) than other judges do. Card quality matters to him, and he’ll definitely read evidence after a round and consider it significant if its quality is put into question during the debate. In particular, evidentiary specificity is probably a big deal on aff and CP solvency debates. Additionally, he prefers counterplans that compete with the substance of the plan over those premised off “normal means” or process.    Tom will vote on T. As with other kinds of debates, I think he values comparison of offense over an enumeration of many possible lines of offense. Keep in mind, Tom does some topic research but isn’t stalking the caselist 24/7, so throwaway references to particular schools or affs might not make sense to him. As for theory, he’ll probably reject the argument instead of the team without some substantial work. Conditionality could be a voting issue, but not necessarily. As with T, comparison and argumentative interaction are paramount.   Tom likes the K and other nontraditional argument styles, and this has been more and more of what he’s coached over the last few years. That said, he still expects clarity and rigor on the basics – what the ballot does, how decisions should be made, what kinds of stuff should be prioritized, and so on. If you are defending alternate styles of argument competition or analysis, this kind of explanation would be especially important. Buzzwords and mystification will not impress him. I think that on framework/clash of civs debates, smart and well-placed defense (on either side) would go a long way.   Clever references to Twin Peaks would probably make him laugh.”

Trond Jacobsen - Oregon

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

2015 Whitman: McSloy Classic