FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Ben Mann - Utah

I am currently the Director of Debate at the University of Utah. This is my eighth year involved in college parli debate: I competed from 2010-14 on the national circuit at Lewis & Clark College, coached and judged parli extensively for two years at the University of the Pacific, and am now in my second year as a coach at Utah.   I take my role as a critic very seriously. My goal is to limit judge intervention and allow you to debate the way you would like to debate. I am comfortable with a variety of argument types, including Ks, theory, CPs, critical affs, and so forth. I evaluate debates based on comparative access to comparative impacts. In other words, I will vote for the team that demonstrates to me that they best access the most important impacts in the debate.   In front of me, success can best be achieved through resolving areas of tension in rebuttals (such as explaining why your uniqueness or link warrants should be preferred) along with using impact calculus (such as timeframe/magnitude/probability) to highlight the most important arguments. I appreciate collapse (external and internal) in the block and the PMR, as it typically makes for cleaner and more substantive debates. I also appreciate clear, specific warrants and smart offense. I will assign an “average” speaker point total of 27.5, and move up or down from there. I am not okay with sexism, racism, and other forms of oppression that occur within the debate round, nor am I okay with rudeness or personal attacks.   Last season, I judged a fair number of critical debates. I am not sure if this is a product of parli’s increasingly critical turn, assumptions about my argument preferences, or both, but I enjoy either policy or critical debate. I have a somewhat decent background in critical theory (my primary research is in critical/rhetorical approaches to disability and gender) but do not take this as an invitation for me to fill in arguments for you. I will also do my best to evaluate any framework/theory arguments against critical debate fairly.   One final note: the one and only time in which I did not feel like I could vote for an argument comfortably due to my own background came from a round last season in which a team suggested that death would “solve” disability issues. You can d-dev, but know that my own background means I am likely uncomfortable voting on arguments that specifically argue for death to disabled populations. It’s too close to home.   Any other questions? Feel free to ask me at benwmann@gmail.com

Doug Hall - Casper

Argumentation: I am a flow judge. I only vote on what is on the flow, I will NOT intervene or do work for you. I vote primarily on the merit of the arguments made in the round. Are arguments covered, defeated, or dropped? I will vote on these sorts of things. Speed: I do NOT like speed and your speaker points will be decreased for poor communication. I will also not flow something if I can't follow it due to speed. Again, if it's not on the flow, its as if I didn't hear it. In this vein, I do NOT like spreading either. The point of this activity is to not see how much crap you can get to stick, it is to make good arguments that defeat your opponent. Think of it in the context of the real world, would a representative in a parliament win over her colleagues just by making a lot of arguments? Even if some, or most, of them were weak? No, she would focus on the strongest arguments and present those. If you choose to spread, I will not punish your opponent for dropped arguments. Civility: I will judge you harshly if you behave rudely in round. This can be through aggressive tone and/or behavior, caustic sarcasm, using insulting or demeaning language, or displaying a general lack of respect for your opponents. You may not drop the round for this type of behavior, but your speaks will be greatly reduced. Partner Help: I am okay with this as long as the person who is recognized to speak is doing the large majority of the speaking. If the person who is not recognized to speak is speaking, it is as if I cannot hear them and I will not flow it unless it is said by the recognized speaker. Round Etiquette: I would prefer that recognized speakers please stand while speaking. If you would like to ask a question, I ask that you stand to be recognized and not simply raise your hand or interrupt. Procedurals: I do not vote on procedurals unless there is a clear violation and that case is made articulately by the opposition team. I will almost never reward the use of procedurals as gamesmanship. Permutations: Permutations must be clearly laid out with a perm text for me to consider them. I have to know what the plan is for which I would be voting. Kritiques: I am not a fan. The rules of Parliamentary Debate clearly state that you cannot bring pre-prepped materials into the round with you. I, in most cases, do not believe that the Kritique was solely prepared during the prep period and therefore have trouble accepting them as legitimate. That being said, if I do find your "K" to be legit, I will be looking for a clear link and alt. Without these components I cannot vote on the "K". In other words, if you are a team that is going to be running a project "K", you should just strike me now.

Jason Jordan - Utah

*I have fairly significant hearing loss. This is almost never a problem when judging debates. This also doesn't mean you should yell at me during your speech, that won't help. If I can't understand the words you're saying, I will give a clear verbal prompt to let you know what you need to change for me to understand you (ex: 'clear,' 'louder,' 'slow down,' or 'hey aff stop talking so loud so that I can hear the MO please'). If I don't prompt you to the contrary, I can understand the words you're saying just fine.   *make arguments, tell me how to evaluate these arguments, and compare these arguments to the other teams arguments and methods of evaluating arguments. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to place me within. I have very few, if any, normative beliefs about what debate should look like and/or ‘be.’    *Unless I am told to do otherwise, on all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments.

Loretta Rowley - Utah

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

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.

Tyler Pierce - Casper

Rate of Delivery: I don’t like speed, but it’s not something that ALONE will lose you a ballot, it just won’t do you any favors. On this same not, quantity or arguments doesn’t matter to me in the slightest, I want fully developed arguments, not just a wall of half arguments to set back your opponent. Communication and Issues: This is obviously the most important thing in ANY debate round. I am a flow judge, so if something isn’t said, is said to quickly that I don’t notice it, or is said with no indication as to where on the flow it should be: I will not weigh this point, it will be as if you never said it. Make sure all claims are backed up with argumentation or have a source of some kind applied to them, I am not in the habit of taking debaters words at face value, so make yourself credible. A claim alone doesn’t count as a line of argumentation, if it isn’t backed up in some way it isn’t going on my flow. Speaking ability alone won’t win or lose you a round either, though I do expect clarity and organization as a bare minimum from every competitor. Theory and Procedurals: Again, I am not outright opposed to these types of arguments; they just aren’t going to do you any favors. As far as procedurals go, I will only vote on them if a clear violation of rules is outlined. If it seems frivolous or like no more than a strategic edge, I will not weigh it at all. This goes for K’s as well. If it feels genuinely warranted and is justified with STRONG links then I am absolutely open to your argument, but as I hate pre-prepared materials being brought into parli (it’s against the rules guys) and often they are clearly used frivolously and without much regard for the text of the resolution or the arguments made by opponents, I’m heavily skeptical about this type of argumentation.