FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam McKibben - Whitman

Cathy Glenn - SMC

Conner Sabin - Puget Sound

Conner Sabin A little bit of background, I debated for 3 years in High School at University High School, one year in college, and now compete at University of Puget Sound. General Themes Regarding my Judging Philosophy:        1. As a debater in Parli, the most fun I've ever had watching and debating in rounds is seeing all of the tips and tricks that stem from a nuanced, well developed debate. I love nothing more than seeing a team extend one of their tricks as a means to nullify a lot of ink, and then dig in on their favorite positions. This means that I will reward smart arguments and strategic decisions that make or break the debate for you, and that will probably be accompanied with higher speaks and the ballot. If you have any questions about this, just ask.       2. Humorous jabs at your opponents or yourself are encouraged, and will garner you speaker points. I'll reward pop culture references with .1 speaker points.       3. Don't be a dick. Feel free to go for the jugular, but everyone in the round knows what too aggressive is, and you should avoid it.       4. Please repeat every important text (Plan, CP, T interp, K alt, etc) twice, just to make sure I have the correct wording, or give me a copy. This may seem old school or whatever, but I want to make sure that I have the details of your advocacy or whatever you want to go for at the end of the debate. Additionally, if you give your opponents a copy (which I highly recommend), you should still make sure you repeat it slow enough for me to get the entire text. T: I'm a big fan of the T debate. I think that this is one of the most strategic positions in Parli Debate. I think that the focus on this sheet of paper should be on how your interp/counter-interp gains better internal links to your standards, and how those should be evaluated in the lens of the Topicality debate. RVI's are stupid, don't go for them. CP: I love the CP debate. Analysis as to why you capture specific Advantages or turn others will be very convincing in my book. Generally, I will err neg on CP theory, unless there is an outrageous amount of abuse, in which case, go for Condo/whatever. I see most issues of theory, like process and consult CP's  bad as a reason to generally reject the argument rather than the team, unless there's warranted and detailed analysis on why me allowing that to happen is bad for debate. I'm also probably more friendly to text comp as well, if that's your thing. Additionally, I think multiple permutations probably check for most of the abuse that condo causes, so feel free to read multiple perms if they read more than one CP. Or hell, even one CP. I do require that the analysis as to why the perm is net beneficial (shields the link, double solvency, etc.) needs to be made in the MG. I am also a firm believer of reading Advantage CP's or CP's that solve one advantage and turning the other one, so a crafty LOC that turns an advantage and solves another while avoiding a DA is going to be rewarded in front of me. In the same way, an MG that reads perms, a solvency deficit, and wins offense on the NB and the CP proper will probably be similarly rewarded. DA: Obviously, if this is your thing, play to your strong suits. Who doesn't love a good Politics debate? Just make sure you have all the crucial parts, and tell me why the DA o/w or turns case. Overviews on every segment will only increase your chance of winning. Impact calculus on this debate is crucial to me, and can make or break the debate for you depending on the articulation of the internal links to the impacts. I'm very skeptical of assigning zero risk to a DA. What this means for you in the block is that the LOR focus should probably cover what you think the PMR spin is going to be, and articulate why the DA wins your impact framing of the debate. If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round. K: Love the K. But don't assume I understand your lit base. Make sure that you can clearly articulate the links to the K, and do topical overviews or an overview that crystallizes the thesis of the K. Not only does it make it far easier for me to understand as a judge, but it also allows for more MO/PMR spin, which can only be advantageous to you. A word of warning though,  I will probably hold you to a slightly higher threshold on the K as a first or second year debater, as I don't want the debate to come down to whether or not the PMR really understood the K. Please make sure you read a thesis or at least an overview of the K so that your opponents know what they are debating. This will only garner you higher speaker points and a more likely chance of winning my ballot. Also, give them a copy of the alt. Perm do both is sufficient for me, I don't require a text. Spec's: Absolutely hate them. Going for it in the block is asking me to hate myself for 12 minutes before I sign the ballot aff. I understand the strategic use of the spec args, but just ask the POI and move on. Any other questions, feel free to ask in round. I will do my best to answer them, and also intervene as little as possible in the debate. Make sure y'all have fun, that's what this is all about.

David Airne - U of M

4 years HS Policy; NDT 3 years and 1 year LD in college Coached HS Policy, HS LD, HS PF  NDT/CEDA, LD, IPDA and Parli for +10 years.   Upadated: January 2018 and also on Tabroom.com The quick overview to my judging is really simple. I judge things on what happens in the context of the round and it is up to those in the round to write that ballot for me. If you do not write it for me then you leave it up to me and I do not really want to intervene in the round, so write the ballot for me. So use the rebuttals to write my ballot. Asking me what arguments I like is silly, run what you want and if you are winning it then I vote on it. If you run things I happen to not like that just means you might have a higher threshold needed to win it, but if you are winning it then I vote for it. I typically default into a policy maker, but I am happy to vote wherever the round takes me. Finally, I will openly admit I do not give the highest of speaker points when compared to others (26-28 is pretty typical) but good debate warrants higher speaks when it occurs. Any specific issues you want to know about continue reading or just ask me since I am happy to tell you. However, note I teach, research, and publish in political communication (campaigning) and gender (masculinties, in particular). Those issues are difficult, at times, for me to step away from and while you are not debating against me as the juege, it can make it more difficult for me to evaluate the argument because it those issues are ingrained in my head and I see them in different ways that you may be arguing those issues (especially in Parli since we do not have access to evidence, but in evidence based forms that is different). That does not mean that you cannot run those certain positions, but they get a differnet listen than other arguments due to my work in the area. Framework: If you have a framework be sure you explain how it functions for me in the round. Remember, I tend to default to policy maker so without a clear explanation of it I will use that lens in the framework. So you have to tell me how the AFF/NEG views compete with each other. Critical Stuff: Never have had any problem with it other than I do not like them run poorly and I am not a fan of running them in the 1NC with other contradictory positions so that you can pick which arguments are your winners. It does need to be well developed and explained, especially in forms of debate where there is no evidence that I get to read after the round. Otherwise, feel free to run whatever critical arguments you want but be sure you explain how it compares to the AFF or NEG so I see how it operates in the world. Doing those things make critical arguments always great to hear. Traditional Policy Arguments: All are fair game. Be sure that you give me some way to evaluate the impact and show me how it relates to the AFF/NEG. However things like "RVI", or "T is a voter for fairness and education" do need some form of explanation. Your unsubstantiated claims are not going to work so well against one that is supported and explained. Parli specific notes--Points of order: You are welcome to call them, but just know that they are all under consideration and that is how I will answer to all of them. I tend to feel that me ruling on them has to potential to provide some unfair advantage for the team and it feels like a form of intervention since now you know how I "feel" about an argument so I just default to the under consideration answer to avoid that perception/advantage one side might get from the argument. Any specific questions you have please feel free to ask and I am more than happy to answer.

Drake Skaggs - Puget Sound

Background: I competed in parliamentary debate for four years for Whitman College on the national circuit. This is my first year as a coach. As a debater, I read a lot of politics and CP/DA strategies, blippy textual competition and T shells, and Neitchzx,.ej,we and Neoliberalism bad Ks. General Information:  I strive to be the kind of judge that I wanted in the back as a debater: flow-oriented, without proclivities for/against certain arguments, and willing to answer questions at the end of debates.  I am fine with speed and if I cannot flow you/understand you I will tell you to slow down or clear up.  I believe that debate is a game and you should use whatever tools are at your disposal to win the game.  You are best served going for strategies you understand and are capable of executing instead of complicated arguments that you think make you sound smarter. Debate to your strengths and you have a higher chance of picking up my ballot. Just because I read text comp and Neitchzizekwekljmk doesn't mean you should, especially if you don't understand the argument. One of the most important things for me is impact comparison and contexualization. At the end of the debate, I should have a good idea of what offense you are winning and why it is important. Discuss your impacts in terms of the opponent's impacts (i.e. DA outweighs and turns case impacts because...). While I will vote just as easily on generic strategies, specific strategies are better for education in debate and also much more interesting. I will reward you with better speaker points if I think your strategy is unique and interesting. I love warrant comparison. Tell me why your warrants are more specific, predictive, etc. in later speeches instead of just extending your partner's arguments. I will protect you from new arguments if I assess them to be new. If you think the other team is about to get away with a new argument and its critical to your strategy, go ahead and call the POO. I think debaters should slowly read and repeat all plan/CP/alt texts and theory interps for the judge and provide a copy to the opposing team if asked. Jokes are great and will get you extra speaker points. +.5 speaks if you make 3 good pokemon references in one speech (limited, of course, to the first 151 pokemon. -1 speaks for any reference to pokemon after Mew). Other favorite topics for jokes include anyone involved in the Whitman debate program, how bad/how much of a hipster James "First Place" Stevenson is, and how much Lubbock sucks. Speaker points range is subject to variance as a result of the above comments about jokes, but is generally between 27-29.5 Theory: If you are reading topicality and you think there is a chance you will go for it, you should slow down on your interpretation and read it twice, same when you’re answering as the MG. Far too often T debates come down the exact wording of interpretations and the LOC/MG was unclear/too fast for the judge to get every word. I will listen to your T debates happily, though I prefer to hear substance debate if it’s a viable strategy. I would say my threshold for voting on T is lower than many in the community; if you’re winning a controlling standard and effectively arguing why it’s the controlling standard, I have no problems pulling the trigger for you. I am amenable to all other theory arguments except spec unless you didn’t get a question, in which case you should read “you have to take a question” as a procedural instead, I’m much more likely to vote on that. It’s an uphill battle to win that one conditional counterplan is bad. Abusive PICS should have PICS bad/textual competition read against them. Kritiks: While I enjoy the K debate, I understand it better from a debate point of view than a literature point of view. I might even be worse read than Nick Robinson. What this means is that you need to be clear in the shell of your criticism, especially the alternative. Don’t assume I know what Heidegger says about Being, because I don’t. This doesn’t mean I’m stupid; I can grasp philosophical concepts as long as they are clearly explained. Real-world examples and big-picture moments will make me much more likely to vote for your K. When responding to the K, I think you are best off reading impact and alt solvency turns, and I love a good perm debate. Counterplans: CPs are good. Conditionality is fine. Make sure you have case-specific solvency. As an MG, make sure you create a substantial solvency deficit to the counterplan. I will assess that counterplan has durable fiat EVEN IF the aff reads arguments that say counterplan would never happen IRL (e.g., aff reads USFG should send Jimmy Carter somewhere, neg reads non-US organization should send Jimmy Carter somewhere, MG response "Jimmy Carter is usually associated with US policy and wouldn't travel with non-US organization" is not a responsive argument). DAs: DAs are good. Make sure your story is comprehensible coming out of the LOC shell; a good way to do this is to have summary phrases explaining the general thesis of the Uq/L/IL/Impx every step of the way if you think the DA is more complicated than normal. DAs that turn case are a good idea. DAs that are only competitive because of your PIC out of a tiny portion of the aff are a less good idea. I am in favor of more complete explanations of the status of bills in Politics scenarios, by which I mean I want you to tell me where the bill is (i.e. passed the House, in Senate committee etc.).

Hannah Pizelo - UW Bothell

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.

Kirby Brooke - U of M

4 years of parli at Carroll, so you should probably strike me.  1. Be nice. Debate is competitive enough without making it personal. I say this realizing that I wasn't always the kindest debater and that I should have been. Malice in a debate won't make you lose, but it will be reflected in your speaker points. Jokes are also encouraged and will reflect in speaker points. 2. Debate is a communication event, and communication only happens slowly. But seriously. I'm fine with speed. BUT, it seems like parli has gotten faster than I remember, so I will qualify that statement. Speed is fine for my comprehension of arguments; I can understand what you are arguing and I remember the argument when a rebuttal speaker covers it. However, in very fast rounds, I find myself struggling to keep up on the flow. I worry about this, because it could result in a decision that would make one or both teams very angry with me. So, while I am usually fine with fast debate, I will let you know when it is too fast. 3. I like warrants, or reasons why your argument is true. Even if an argument is dropped, I really like it to have some reasoning behind it. I will not vote on "condo bad" simply because one side said it and the other side said nothing, but I will vote on "condo bad because...". That being said, any warrant will do. I try not to inject my reasoning in evaluating warrants, instead I try to rely only on the reasoning that the debaters express. Even if I feel that a warrant is blatantly untrue or misinterpreted, I will not weigh that feeling in my decision.  4. All arguments are acceptable. I promise to not be offended by any statement made in a round.

Nigel Ramoz-Leslie - Whitman

Shane Follmann - Puget Sound

Background: I competed for two years in Oregon Public in High school and am a third year parli debater at Puget Sound.     General   I think debate is a game and you should use whatever strategy you wish to win the round. I will vote on any argument if you win it and impact it out. You should read whatever you feel the most comfortable with; as it will make for a better debate as well as give you the best chance to win. ASPEC is the best.   I will protect in rebuttal speeches but if you feel an argument is new and critical to the debate go ahead and call POO’s   Unless told otherwise I will default to a net benefits framework if you want me to evaluate the round in any other way that’s fine but start that debate in the PMC/LOC and give me a clear way to evaluate the round.   Theory: Theory is great both as a strategic time trade off and as an actual position. If you plan on going for or think you might go for a theory position make sure you have a decent interpretation and warrants on the voters level for why this argument is important.    DA: Topic specific DA’s are best both for making interesting rounds as well as strategically. Generics are also fine just make sure there are specific link arguments pertain to the Aff. Personally I have never been a huge fan of politics if you do read it make sure there is a clear uniqueness story if you isolate actual senators and voting blocks even better. The link level is often the weakest make sure you have an actual warrant for why X actor or group backlashes not just because they are mad.   Counter plans: Good idea to read them, make sure there is clear explanation of how you access the case not just the cp solves. Without any argumentation to the contrary I error on conditionality being legitimate but have no problem voting for condo bad if you win.   The K: I am well read on K literature so if you read a K make sure you explain the arguments not just an author with the expectation of me understanding them I wont. That being said the K is a key neg and aff tool and should be utilized if you feel it is strategic. If you do read the K specific link arguments go a long way winning inroads into impacts and creating nuance that is often missing in K rounds. I find the Alt to often be the weakest area of the K make sure there is a clear solvency mechanism for how you solve your impacts and if you use the ballot as a tool to explain the way in which my vote changes and solves whatever it is you are critiquing.

Judge Philosophies

Adam McKibben - Whitman

Cathy Glenn - SMC

Conner Sabin - Puget Sound

David Airne - U of M

Drake Skaggs - Puget Sound

Hannah Pizelo - UW Bothell

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark

Kirby Brooke - U of M

Nigel Ramoz-Leslie - Whitman

Shane Follmann - Puget Sound

Tyler Griffin - Bellevue

Zach Tschida - Whitman

2013 NW First-Second Year Parli Champs

Judge Philosophies

Adam McKibben - Whitman

Cathy Glenn - SMC

Conner Sabin - Puget Sound

David Airne - U of M

Drake Skaggs - Puget Sound

Hannah Pizelo - UW Bothell

Joe Provencher - Lewis &amp; Clark

Kirby Brooke - U of M

Nigel Ramoz-Leslie - Whitman

Shane Follmann - Puget Sound

Tyler Griffin - Bellevue

Zach Tschida - Whitman

Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark