FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Krell - Hired X

Cliff Notes -I try to keep myself out of the debate as much as possible. The greater the depth of analysis and warrant comparison provided by you, the better I’m able to achieve that goal. -Conversely, arguments with little depth and arguments that aren’t compared with your opponent’s make it difficult to achieve that goal. I’ll listen to any argument that you want to run, but I am comfortable gut-checking arguments if they don’t reach a minimal threshold of depth and sensibility.  -You should run the arguments that you feel the most comfortable running. I don’t think I have a preference for a certain type or style of argument over any other. I do, however, prefer arguments that are well-warranted and thorough, and you’ll be best able to do that by running the arguments you want to and like.  -The team that isolates the important issue(s) in the debate first and goes deepest on those questions generally wins the debate. -Be funny and civil. Don’t be unfunny and uncivil.  -The rest of the philosophy will detail the way I tend to lean about certain issues in debate, but again, my opinion really shouldn’t matter. If you want to use this info to cater to what you believe to be my partiality, you’re welcome to, but that’s in no way expected or required and you should feel free to do whatever you want. Specifics: Topicality -I default to a lens of competing interpretations, although I’m open to reasonability frameworks. Most reasonability frameworks are arbitrary, but if you can come up with one that isn’t or a warrant for why its arbitrary nature isn’t relevant, I’m game. -Standards should have impacts. It is irrelevant that your interpretation is more real world absent a reason why a real world interpretation is beneficial. -I’m open to creative interpretations of the resolution, but I think the best K affs still attempt to interact with the core resolutional question.  Advantages/Disads -I tend to prioritize the link level of the debate above all others. The probability of any future event happening is almost never certain, and thus the uniqueness cannot completely control the direction of the link. -I believe it is possible to have terminal defense against an adv/da. Offense is still your friend, but it’s theoretically possible to reduce the probability of a adv/da to zero. -Fiat means that I assume that the plan has passed. All arguments on the link level that assume that there enacting plan took some sort of special effort (horse trading, plan uses up too much political capital, etc.) are irrelevant, fiat moves through them. So, “Obama used up all his political capital passing plan and doesn’t have enough to pass X” doesn’t make sense, because he didn’t use any political capitol to pass it, it was fiated into being. But “Obama looks bad because of plan, popularity decreases, hurts his pol cap, means not enough to pass X” does make sense, because all these arguments take place after plan was fiated.  Counterplans -I generally default to determining competition functionally. I’m sympathetic to the goals of textual competition, and tend to dislike the CPs that textual competition exists to exclude (consult, delay, etc.) but think that requiring textual competition in a more free-form type of debate like parli is an unreasonable burden on the negative. So, I’m not likely to be persuaded to reject a CP because it’s not textually competitive, but you’re more than welcome to read a separate theoretical objection to the CP that I’m more likely to be inclined toward. -I wouldn’t say that I have a default as to whether I lean towards rejecting the argument and rejecting the team on CP theory. If the aff wins an impact on the standards debate that isn’t solved solely be rejecting the argument, then I’m perfectly comfortable voting the neg down on CP theory. But if rejecting the arg solves back for all the offense on the standards debate, I see no reason to vote the neg down when solely rejecting the CP would suffice. -I assume counterplans are conditional unless specified otherwise.  Ks -I’m open to any and all of them, but am almost certainly not well versed in the literature.  -I’m sympathetic to arguments that Ks which exclude aff impacts are kinda bullshit. Your K should be able to outweigh or turn the aff, and the aff impacts probably function in your framework anyway. -Framework should be a lens through which to view, evaluate, and weigh impacts. It should not be a voting issue. Theory -Standards should have impacts. The best theory debates include impact calculus and comparison between standards and counterstandards.  -CP theory generally doesn’t require a specific counter-interpretation. -Again, you should be doing the work to tell me if I should be rejecting the argument or the team.  Any other questions, feel free to ask. Either find me at a tournament or email at adam dot thomas dot krell at gmail dot com <o:p></o:p>

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.

Cathy Glenn - SMC

Charles Kincy - Bellevue

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

Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell

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

Hannah Pizelo - UW Bothell

Katie Bergus - Oregon

Name: Katie Bergus School: University of Oregon   Section 1: General Information   *Important note: My debate partner/best friend took her life 16 months ago. Please be sensitive with the arguments that you choose to read in front of me and the words that you use during the debate. If you have questions about this, please do not hesitate to ask but it is safe to say that you should err on the side of caution.   General: The debating style that my partner and I had was, in my opinion, a mixed bag. We were just as likely to go for the K as the CP/DA as the DA alone as case turns and, as such, there is not a particular set of arguments that I greatly prefer or strongly dislike. While we very rarely went for theory args, I think they have their place and I am down for a good theory debate. On what seems to be an increasingly relevant side note, while I would have never asked another team to disclose their args, I would have had no problem disclosing anything they would have wanted to know.  I think that you should choose the arguments that are most strategic for you based on the team that you’re debating and your understanding of the resolution and that my argumentative preferences should be a low priority* in your game plan. If you think things that I explicitly disagree with below or that aren’t listed below, I am open to logical arguments about why your belief should be the case in general or in the debate that is occurring in front of me. I think that my understanding of debate is pretty consistent with a lot of the current thoughts about the activity but I will list some specific thoughts below. The following is in no way a comprehensive explanation of how I understand debate or how I will evaluate a round, but keep in mind that you probably wouldn't read something that long and that it would contain so many absurdly specific factoids that it wouldn't be a helpful tool in your pre-round kit. If there is anything that you have a question about, don't hesitate to ask. My email is <a href="mailto:katiebergus@gmail.com" target="_blank">katiebergus@gmail.com</a>.    Section 2: Specific Inquiries     Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 27-29.9; 28.3 = average overall I value kindness and courtesy. I think that there is almost never a reason for hostility or rudeness in a debate. While your demeanor will not make or break your chance at my ballot, it may influence your speaker points. I also appreciate jokes, especially puns; this is an easy avenue to potentially receiving a slight bump in speaker points. Other than these factors, I try to determine speaker points by a completely arbitrary balance of ethos and argument quality.    How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I am very open to critically framed arguments on both the aff and neg. I am not as deep in the literature as my debate partner was, but I have a reasonable debate understanding of most of the more common K type args. Cutting corners in your arg construction/explanation by name dropping doesn’t do it for me—just because your author isn’t Reuters 3-15 doesn’t mean that your author’s name becomes a warrant for your argument. This is especially true for me as a critic since I almost certainly have not read the book you are citing.  I don’t believe that framework is a voting issue; I think that it is a lens through which you evaluate the rest of the debate. I think that you can win a K without winning the alt (as an impact turn to the aff) and that you can win K impacts in a net bens framework. I don’t mind perfomative contradictions so long as you can justify your perf con and aren’t going for a contradictory strat in the block.    Performance based arguments… These are fine. I’m not as familiar as my debate partner was with this type of argument, but if you give me a mechanism by which to evaluate the debate, I will do my best to evaluate the debate by such a mechanism. I am typically not my most confident in rendering decisions in rounds involving performance based args, so be aware that you will need to put in some extra effort to make sure I'm understanding well how I ought to think about the debate and how I ought to use my ballot.   Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I think that you can win topicality on potential abuse but that these instances tend to require deeper, more analytic work. Topicality (or any of a number of other procedural debates) has to be an all-in strategy in the block for me to think seriously about it. I am not persuaded by RVIs. In all or nearly all instances, competing interpretations helps more than it hurts. T is just like any other arg, you need to win offense within your framing of the debate and weigh it against the offense your opponents have.   Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? I think that you should identify the status of your CP. I believe in conditionality personally but am not closed to arguments in favor of other statuses, though, to be honest, after almost a decade in debate, I still do not really understand what is meant by 'dispo.' I think you should give your opponents a legible copy of the CP (or K or plan) text when you read it and then ask them if they have a question before continuing. I think that a permutation needs an explicit net benefit if you are going to advocate for it. I think that functional competition and textual competition both have their merits depending on the type of debate you want to have. I think that the most legitimate permutations compete through both mechanisms. I personally think that PICs are okay in some instances, but I’m open to hear you justify yours/say why the instance of the neg’s PIC isn’t okay.   Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) I have no problem with sharing.   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?)? T > K > Adv(s) = DA(s) = CP(s)   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")? In the absence of this interaction made explicit by the debaters, I will likely look for a root cause impact or whatever impact seems to be furthest upstream in the impact pathway, ie. Economic collapse can prevent R&D necessary to solve warming, so I’d prefer to stop economic collapse than solve warming itself, since solving warming may be a consequence of avoiding economic collapse but is almost certainly impossible in a world post-collapse. Absent a direct comparison by the debaters, I am likely to believe that abstract impacts encompass/explain internal links to more concrete impacts.

Kyle Kimball - Puget Sound

Melissa Franke - PacificLutheran

n/a

Mitch Dunn - Whitman

Years Coached Parli Debate: 0 Years Competed in Policy Debate: 6 Years Competed in Parli Debate: 2 Coach or compete in the Northwest? Yes. Coach or compete on the National Circuit? Yes Involved in Other Events? I like mountain biking and woodworking. How I decide Parli debates:  Key for reading my philosophy: <ul> <li>If you are reading this right before the round then just read the bolded sentences.</li> <li>If you are reading this to fill out your pref sheet then read the paragraph below the bolded sentences for more detailed analysis.</li> </ul> <ol> <li>I think that a long judging philosophies by a recent graduate is mostly ego-stroking.</li> </ol> Because of this, I have created a sparknotes version of my philosophy that you can quickly read before a round begins to save you time. 2) Blank slates are impossible, but I’ll try my best: I try to go in Tabula Rasa and then I remind myself that this is impossible. While I bring many pre-conditioned notions of the world into the round, I will flow all arguments and then use what is on my flow to determine what the world of the affirmative looks like vs the world(s) of the negative looks like at the end of the debate to determine the round. 3) Round vision will be rewarded: I think offense/defense is the best way to view the round. Impact calculus done in the MO and the PMR is the best way for teams to win the debate.  Speaker points will be allocated accordingly to people who do this well. 4) Counterplan theory is good, limited conditionality is good, MG’s should be held to a high standard: I believe that counterplans must be both textually and functionally competitive. I believe that 1 counterplan and 1 kritik is fine, past that on either or both is probably pushing it. I was lucky enough to debate with a women who was certainly the best MG in the country my senior year and arguably the best MG debate has seen in a very long time.   As a result of having the privilege of seeing just how good MG’s can be in parli debate, I have a very high threshold for the aff on theory issues that were not stated above. But, I will vote on any and all that are introduced into the round. I just though I’d let you know how I lean. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to email me at <a href="mailto:mitch.s.dunn@gmail.com">mitch.s.dunn@gmail.com</a> OR <a href="mailto:mitch.s.dunn@icloud.com">mitch.s.dunn@icloud.com</a>.

Judge Philosophies

Adam Krell - Hired X

Ben Dodds - Oregon

Cathy Glenn - SMC

Charles Kincy - Bellevue

Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell

Hannah Pizelo - UW Bothell

Katie Bergus - Oregon

Kyle Kimball - Puget Sound

Melissa Franke - PacificLutheran

Mitch Dunn - Whitman

Nigel Ramoz-Leslie - Whitman

Shanglun Wang - Whitman

Tom Hyatt - Bellevue

Zach Tschida - Puget Sound

2012 NW Parli Champs

Judge Philosophies

Adam Krell - Hired X

Ben Dodds - Oregon

Cathy Glenn - SMC

Charles Kincy - Bellevue

Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell

Hannah Pizelo - UW Bothell

Katie Bergus - Oregon

Kyle Kimball - Puget Sound

Melissa Franke - PacificLutheran

Mitch Dunn - Whitman

Nigel Ramoz-Leslie - Whitman

Shanglun Wang - Whitman

Tom Hyatt - Bellevue

Zach Tschida - Puget Sound