FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Kubrick - Crowder

Alyssa Barratt - Crowder

n/a

Andrew Hart - Missouri State

Experience: 3 years of high school policy debate, 5 years of NDT/CEDA debate at Miami University and Missouri State University.    I am open to most positions, but I usually default to in round argumentation, analysis and clash over other factors that might occur in a debate. I generally have few biases about how a debate should go down and what few I have I will do my best to lock away during the round.    Most of my experience in debate was on the policy side of thing. That doesn't make me uncomfortable with kritiks, but I  also wouldn't say I'm familiar with much of the critical literature base.  Even more so than in policy rounds, solid evidence analysis and application is very important for me to vote on a critical issue on either the affirmative or the negative. For critical affirmatives, I do think it's important to answer any topicality or framework arguments presented by the negative. For kritiks against these types of affirmatives, I think it's important to contextualize the philosophies and arguments in each in relation to the other side. Maybe even more than in policy v critical debates clash here is very important to me.    On the policy side of things, I love to see a good case debate, and think that evidence analysis(of both your own and your opponent's evidence) is of the utmost importance in these debates.  I love a good discussion and comparison of impacts.    I'm also open to most counterplans, especially if they have a solvency advocate. In terms of CP theory, I will probably default to rejecting the argument rather than the team in most instances if the affirmative wins the theory debate. On conditionality, the affirmative must have a pretty specific scenario on the negative's abuse in the round for me to vote on it. I much prefer the specificity of that distinction over the nebulous "bad for debate" generality.    Cross-X's importance, I think, is usually undervalued by most, and an effective use of CX time is very important. I will likely not flow it, like I would a speech, but I am more likely to note important concessions or admissions made in CX.     Speed is fine, but I think clarity is far more important that showing me that you can read a bunch of cards.

Ashley Larson - Crowder

n/a

Brian Swafford - Northwest MO

n/a

Casey Stueber - Crowder

n/a

Chad Meadows - WKU

Debate should reward hard work. Your strategies and in round execution should reflect intensive research and thought about the topic/your opponents arguments. My speaker points AND ballot will be used to reinforce a curriculum that normalizes debate practices I believe are needed for the overall health of the community. 1 -Evidence Debate should be a referendum on the quality and quantity of research done first, and then a matter of execution later. I will reward debaters who do excellent and thorough research over debaters who have “slick tricks” to win debates. I think evidence is VERY important, its quality and qualifications should be debated. I will usually prefer excellent evidence to spin. When comparing a good card which was not well explained/had no spin vs. no card or a bad card with excellent spin I will typically prefer the good card. I will call for cards after the debate. I will generally only call for evidence which is referenced in the final two rebuttals. Refer to evidence by last name and date after it has been cited in the first instance. If you do not READILY share citations and evidence with your opponent in the round - I WILL be cranky, probably vote against you, or at the very least give you TERRIBLE speaker points. 2 - Speed/Flowing If speaking at a more rapid rate is used to advance more scholarship in the round, I encourage debaters to speak quickly. If speaking quickly devolves into assaulting the round with a barrage of bad arguments in the hope that your opponent will not clash with them all, my ballot and speaker points will not encourage this practice. I keep an excellent and detailed flow. However, winning for me is more about establishing a coherent and researched explanation of the world rather than extending a specific argument. An argument is not “true” because it is extended on one sheet of paper if it is logically answered by evidence on another sheet of paper or later on the line by line. You can check your rhetorical bullying at the door. Posturing, repeating yourself (even loudly), insulting your opponents (except during cross-x), or insisting that I will "ALWAYS vote here" are probably a waste of your time. 3 - Argument Selection Any argument that advances argument on the desirability of the resolution through valid decision making is persuasive. The source of argumentation should be left up to the debaters. I am very unlikely to be persuaded that the source of evidence justifies its exclusion. In particular I am unconvinced the methodology, epistemology, ontology, and other indicts pertaining to the foundation of the affirmative are unjustified avenues of research to explore in debate. Above all else, the content of your argument should not be used to duck clash. Specific Issues: 1 - Topicality is a voter and not a reverse voter. "Proving abuse" is irrelevant, well explained standards are not. 2 – The affirmative does not have to specify more than is required to affirm the resolution. I encourage Affirmatives to dismiss specs/vagueness and other procedurals without implications for the topicality of the affirmative with absolute disregard. 3 – Conditionality is logical, restraints on logical decision making are only justified in extreme circumstances.  4 – There is nothing implied in the plan. Consult, process, and other counterplans which include the entirety of the plan text are not competitive. 5 – I will decide if the counterplan is competitive by evaluating if the permutation is better than the counterplan alone or if the plan is better than counterplan. Ideological, philosophical, and redudancy standards for competiton are not persuasive and not useful for making decisions. 6 – I mediate my preferences for arguably silly counterplans like agent, international, and PICS/PECS primarily based upon the quality of the counterplan solvency evidence. 7 – Direction/Strength of link evidence is more important than “controlling uniqueness” This is PARTICULARLY true when BOTH sides have compelling and recent uniqueness evidence. Uniqueness is a strong factor in the relative probability of the direction of the link, if you don't have uniqueness evidence you are behind.  8 - I do not have a "threshold" on topicality. A vote for T is just as internally valid as a vote for a DA. I prefer topicality arguments with topic specific interpretation and violation evidence. I will CLOSELY evaluate your explanation on the link and impact of your standards. 9 - I am very unlikely to make a decision primarily based upon defensive arguments. <a href="mailto:chadwickmeadows@gmail.com">chadwickmeadows@gmail.com</a>

Chelsea Skaggs - Crowder

n/a

Chris Outzen - Truman

Judging Philosophy: NFA-LD I take the position that any form of public communication, including debate, is an audience-centric endeavor. The role of each debater is not to convince each other of their rightness in an isolated box at the front of the room; it is to convince the judge that they are the more right debater in that round. To that end, adaptation of strategy and delivery of argument necessitates consideration of both your opponent AND the experience of the judge. To that end, the following are some of my expectations and constraints as a judge. Judge’s General Debate Experience: I am the primary IE coach at my program and this is my 2nd year judging LD regularly. I have 1-semester college policy experience from and undergraduate class, so you can expect that I will understand most debate terminology but that my flowing and listening speed will not be up to par with those who have been in the debate community consistently for years. Speaker Speed: I believe that LD inhabits a unique position where both argumentation and strong speaking skills can be valued. However, I have noticed with the advent of digital files and including judges in sharing chains that these are treated as permission to spread, even in front of judges without years of spreading/flowing experince. At this point, we reduce debate to a comparison of evidence, not a speaking and oral argument exercise. Therefore, I am fine with a faster than conversational rate of speaking but I have no tolerance for true spreading you might see in NDT/CEDA or some parli formats. If you are looking for a brightline, consider the climax of a Poetry Interpretation. A little faster than that would be fine, but not much more. If agreed to by both debaters, I’m willing to alert you in-round if you are going too fast for my comprehension. Argument Explanation: You are welcome to run any arguments you wish in front of me in varying levels of complexity. However, remember the audience-centric principle. Your audience/judge may not be familiar with every aspect of this topic. Thus, your debate is not just debating; it is a teachable moment where you can give information about the topic in order to justify your win. This means you should be practicing breaking down complex concepts and providing strong links between the different pieces of your argument. Ethical Speaking: Engaging in unethical or obfuscating behavior, including misleading card cutting, deliberate spreading against judge preference, ignoring the audience as consumers of your message, or styling your arguments deliberately to be overly complex/dense, are not acceptable as a speaker. You are also expected to grant your opponent the same ground/courtesy as you expect. Example: If you cut off their answers in CX to move on to your next question, do not talk over/ignore them when they do the same thing in their CX. Topicality-I’m open to T arguments. Proven abuse is the best course to win a T argument, but I’m willing to consider potential abuse if the possible abuse is of a significant magnitude. Kritiks-I’m open to K debate. However, I expect K-affs to pass the test of Topicality; make sure you can explain how it links to the resolution. Additionally, do keep in mind that K debate is still a growing area of argumentation in the LD community, so please consider the principles laid out above with regard to Argument Explanation if you run a K on either side of the debate. To summarize, I'm open to all forms of argumentation on the premise that a) They are understandable and follow basic ethical guidelines; and b) They are justified by you as fitting in the round and resolution.

Cori Middick - Crowder

n/a

Darren Meeker - Crowder

n/a

David Bailey - SBU

n/a

Derek Pritchett - UCM

<h3>NPDA</h3> Overview I competed in Policy Debate for four years in high school and did Lincoln-Douglas and Parli all throughout college. I am currently a graduate student coach at the University of Central Missouri and I coach and Judge LD and Parli. I tend to default policymaker, but if you want to put me into something else I’ll listen. The debaters should define the round, not the judge. Procedurals I like Topicality and Procedurals if they're warranted (using them as time sucks is a useful strategy as well). For Topicality I usually can be pretty swayed by reasonability claims from the aff, but if there is demonstrable abuse it easily overcome reasonability. Competing Interps are good to use, but I wouldn’t punish an affirmative team for just meeting neg’s interp (assuming they actually do). Disads These are probably the easiest to evaluate, just make sure you do impact calculus for me. I don’t really like politics Das unless there are specific links, brinks, and Internal links. CPs I like CPS a lot, but will vote on a good perm if the competition isn’t good enough. I’ll also listen to theory positions on CPs, but there needs to be proven abuse. Kritiks I’m up to date on several kriticisms, but not so much on others. Just make sure the information is clear. Kritiks need clear links and framework. Alternatives need to be something other than “reject aff” and be something I could actually accomplish. The alt solvency and role of the ballot claims are really important to me when I comes to evaluating the K Kritical Affs/Projects I haven’t judged a ton of projects so far, but I’m fairly receptive to them. I think its negatives job to challenge the methodology of the 1AC. I don’t think procedural arguments/fairness are particularly persuasive against these affirmatives unless leveraged as framework. Speed I should be fine with most speed, but make sure you are clear and enunciate (if not slow down) on taglines and things you need to make sure I flow.   If you have any other questions you can ask me before the round.     <h3>NFA-LD</h3> This same general stuff is true for LD as it is for Parli, but I do default to the rules and need a really good reason to change that.

Emilee West - Crowder

n/a

Eric Morris - Missouri State

I primarily judge in NDTCEDA (which I enjoy), but operate under different assumptions when judging in NFA-LD (if you want to read my NDT CEDA philosophy to understand how I think, it can be found here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_account_id=6383). I like NFA-LD because it is more novice-friendly, and most of the community prefers DA-case debate. I don't dislike CP's (or K's that refute the plan) outside of the novice division, but direct refutation is refreshing to me. I tend to prioritize probability (strength of link and internal link) when two impacts have a large magnitude. Uniqueness is rarely 100% either direction (although it can be).  Explicitly non-topical affs or K's which refuse the topic entirely have a huge presumption to overcome.  I have a presumption for NFA-LD rules, but you need to apply the specific rule. There is often room for counter-interpretations (including mine). Use them to help you refute arguments instead of making a bunch of independent voters. Thus, stock issues may be a place for debate more than "voting" issues - since negative often minimizes them instead of completely refuting them.  I like that NFA-LD is not as fast as NDT (for access reasons), but the line of "how much is too much" is hard for me to judge. I want debaters to negotiate this before the round - the round should be no faster than the preferences of either participant (including others judges on a panel).  Although I lean negative on many T questions relative to the NDT community, I'm not a hardliner on effects T. I think the literature base is relevant to how much is "too much" on extra T. I think T arguments should be grounded in clear definitions/interpretations, and I lean aff when there is uncertainty about the violation. I think spec arguments are best handled as CX questions, and generally have a strong presumption against theory voting issues - reject the argument not the <debater> is my leaning.  If you share evidence via email chain (the best method), my gmail is ermocito. Given quick decision times, I prefer to get a copy of all speeches in real time (even if by flash drive) so I can double check things during prep time and CX.  I will flow closely but often my RFD for the opponent could be reversed with better application of your argument to theirs, or better readings of their evidence to support your argument. Those things are excellent debating.

Ernesto Arvisu - CSUSB

n/a

Gabbi Ray - Northwest MO

n/a

Genifer Arwood - Crowder

n/a

Gina Jensen - Webster

n/a

JP Dickey - Crowder

n/a

Jack Rogers - UCM

Jason Roach - Webster

n/a

Jeremy Frazer - WKU

Jessica Furgerson - WKU

Jim Hight - Crowder

n/a

Joe Blasdel - McKendree

Joe Blasdel McKendree University Section 1: General Information 1. I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University.  After a three year hiatus studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so since 2003. 2. In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues).  I am very unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments. 3. On 'trichotomy,' I tend to think the government has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that they are topical.  While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debate, I am open to people choosing to do so.  I’m also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality. 4. If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised.  The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion.  If you’re calling multiple POOs, I will probably not be pleased. 5. I do not think the rules permit splitting the block.  Any responses in the LOR to MG arguments that were dropped by the MO will be considered new.  Additionally, it is rare that I will vote on MO arguments that are not extended in the LOR. 6. I’m not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then warranting them in the MO/PMR.  I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ‘new’ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ‘new’ PMR arguments. Section 2: Specific Inquiries 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given). Typically, my range of speaker points is 26-30, with an average of 28. 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I’m open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for competition and alt solvency than most judges.  I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical.  If they are not topical, I have a very low threshold for voting on topicality/framework. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K. 3. Performance based arguments… Same as above.  I’d be hesitant to run them with me as your critic if they are not topical/competitive. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary.  A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position that’s run – it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground.  I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework – I’m not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an ‘average’ threshold.  I don’t vote on RVIs. On spec, I have a ‘high’ threshold.  Unless there is in-round ground abuse, I’m probably not going to vote on spec.  I would only run spec arguments in front of me if you’re using it as link insurance for another position and the affirmative refuses to answer your questions. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition? All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay), but am growing more frustrated with tiny PICs and other arguably abusive CPs – so this trend may change.  I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized. 6. 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?)? All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework. 7. 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 tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise.  If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.

John Alba - Crowder

n/a

John Markley - UCM

Josh Smith - Crowder

n/a

Joy Qualls - Evangel

n/a

Juli Denisco - Crowder

n/a

Justin Stanley - JCCC

n/a

Karen Colton-Millsap - Crowder

n/a

Keith Zoromski - Crowder

n/a

Kelly Larson - Crowder

n/a

Kevin Minch - Truman

Kiefer Storrer - UCM

I default Policy Maker. I enjoy realistic impacts but if y’all want to get into competing terminal impact scenarios I wouldn’t be opposed to that. If you’re going to run theory or kritical positions (with the latter not being just a linear DA) impact out how I’m affected in the round as well as the debate community as a whole. On topicality abuse wise I’ll accept a healthy medium between proven and hypothetical abuse, so if you don’t want to waste two minutes of your speech running a non-unique DA to prove abuse you can just give me the flow of the argument. On the other hand, reasonability is a totally valid counter standard most of the time for me, so while T is definitely a debate to be had, again, there is a reason I default policy maker. Speed is a non-issue, I can flow it fine, but I will say specifically for Parli (because there isn’t carded evidence) I’m not the biggest fan of levels that require double clutching and such…at that point I’m going to feel like you just canned out every word of your position and you’re reciting it instead of arguing it. Rapid delivery is cool, spreading is a legitimate strategy but I’d much rather have you go in depth on two DAs instead of running four or five that just aren’t as well articulated. Experience wise, I competed in Kansas high school policy for four years, did four years of Parli in college, took a year off to judge parli/ld/forensics, and am now assistant coaching at UCM. I believe that debate is a pedagogical activity and that the most important parts of it will be the parts that bleed out into the real world. We are future politicians, lawyers, scholars, rhetoricians, and professors; so ideally all of us involved with this activity will take realistic, impactful ideas and bring them to fruition in the real world. And for those of us that are current or future coaches, I believe we should be striving to instill those real world changes in the future. Have fun, be polite.

Kim Eckerman - Crowder

n/a

Kyle Jacobs - Crowder

n/a

Lance Allen - Crowder

n/a

Mark Kelton - Evangel

n/a

Mark Smith - Crowder

n/a

Marty Feeney - Simpson College

Matt Delzer - Simpson College

Natalie Estrada - Crowder

n/a

Nikki Freeman - UCM

Rachel Stillions - Crowder

n/a

Rebecca Godsey - SBU

n/a

Sadie Sullivan - Crowder

n/a

Scott Jensen - Webster

n/a

Shanna Carlson - ISU

Background: I competed in parliamentary and LD debate for Washburn University for five years. I am currently the assistant debate coach at Illinois State University. I believe that the debate is yours to be had, but there are a few things that you should know: 1. Blippy, warrantless debates are mind numbing. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. This usually occurs at the top of the AC/NC when you are trying to be "clever." Less "clever," more intelligent. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence. 2. I don't really care about speed--go as fast as you want as long as you are clear and warranted. I will give you two verbal "clears" if you are going too fast or I cannot understand you. After that I quit flowing and if I do not flow it I do not evaluate it. 3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not like moral obligations as I do not believe that they are usually warranted and I caution you in running these in front of me. I do not believe that all impacts have to go to extinction or nuclear war, but that they should be quantifiable in some manner. 4. Run whatever strategy you want--I will do my best to evaluate whatever you give me in whatever frame I'm supposed to--if you don't give me the tools...I default to policy maker, if it's clearly not a policy maker paradigm round for some reason I'll make something up to vote on...basically, your safest bet is to tell me where to vote. 5. If you are rude, I will not hesitate to tank your speaker points. There is a difference between confidence and rudeness. 6. I am not the best with kritiks. I will vote on them, but you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative, and alt solvency (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like and how my ballot functions to get us there. 7. If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow. 8. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round. 9. Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. 10. I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision. Really, I'm open to anything. Debate, have fun, and be engaging. Ask me any questions you may have before the start of the round so that we can all be on the same page :)

2015 Missouri Association of Forensics Activities (MAFA)