FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alyson Escalante - Oregon

I competed in NPDA/NPTE parli debate for four years, two at El Camino College and two at the University of Oregon. As such, I've debate both on communication centric local circuits as well as national level competative circuit debate. The round is yours, and you are free to do what you wish with it. I will do my best to accomodate the type of round the teams involved decide to have. I do have some preferances but I will attempt to minimize the impact they have. This paradigm is meant to provide transparency for how I understand and aproach debate so that you can understand the biases and preferences which inform my evaluation of a round. Theory: I generally have a middle of the line threshold on most theory positions and I don't have particularly strong opinions on most of the debates about ideal pedagogy, except in relation to topicality. In general my threashold is lowest for questions of topicality and I tend to prefer that the affirmative team defend the resolution. I am willing to judge rounds where that is not the case, but the affirmative should have ample justifications for their decision and I tend to be sympathetic to topicality/framework. In terms of theoretical questions regarding counterplan status, I default towards understanding conditionality to be positive, but I am more than happy to vote on a condo bad shell which is not properly adressed. Critiques: I'm fairly comfortable with most literature bases for the main popular critiques on the national circuit. While I enjoy critique debate, I generally find that it massively simplifies incredibly complex literature. As such, I will reward debaters clearly well versed in, and understanding the nuance of their literature, with speaker points. In general I have a better understanding of more traditional political critiques of capitalism, the state, or other objective political institutions. I am also fairly comfortable with my understanding of criticisms grounded in broader continental philosophy. I am less well read in the fields of critical race theory and critical legal studies so if you want to read positions grounded in this literature please be sure to explain terminology and concepts so I can understand their function in the round. "Identity politics": I don't really like the term identity politics but it seems to be the term the circuit has settled on so here we are. Anyway, I generally find these rounds dificult to judge when not provided with a clear framework for how I am supposed to engage the round. If you want to read these kinds of arguments you should answer a few questions for me. What is my role in this round? Am I here as an objective observer flowing the round or should my social location and identity effect my interaction with the arguments being made? Should I stick to a logocentric understanding of the flow as an objective measure of the round, or should I evaluate without emphasizing the flow? If you address these sorts of questions you will have a significantly easier time winning my ballot. If you do not give me a paradigm to evaluate the round I will default to the flow, which I often find is insufficient for evaluating the affective and personal aspects of these rounds. Just tell me what you prefer. Disads: I probably prefer plan versus disad debate the most. I'm not particularly opposed to any particular disadvantages and I generally find that the more generic disads such as politics, hegemony, business confidence, or other generics are a really interesting debate when a team goes above and beyond in researching these positions and understanding the nuances of the story they are telling. If you have any questions not addressed here please feel free to ask me before round.

Austin Brittenham - Puget Sound

Overview        ~I am a first year out college debater~ I debated policy debate for 3 years in high school and 4 years in college. I went to the NDT in '15 and '16  debating arguments about embodiment (parli seems to call this performance), transness, and queerness. That being said my high school debate experience was primarily flex debating. I have a strong respect for the cp/ptx da combo. I mean to say no argument is a non-starter in front of me (I have voted on T, FW, terminal case defense, cp's, da's, k's, and theory). Please read your best arguments and I will invest myself in adjudicating what you have presented. To win my ballot just frame your offense and compare it to the other teams, generally. I think that's the core of debate no matter how you think about debate ideologically. Really, debate however you want and be prepared to debate your opponents. If you have a speed k, read it. You want to read one hege advantage with a lot of ethos, go for it. If you have 5 off and case, do you. You want to play a guitar and talk about Deleuze--cool.  My impulses as an educator ~Msc Theory~ ** I think that critical affs should either normatively defend something that isn't the squo or have a reason why their speech act/performance generates offense that is unique to each round. I think try-or-die is really vote aff on presumption which seems silly. Either the aff wins their impacts or they don't, try-or-die seems like a concession that the aff has lost the impact defense but should be voter for anyway for some reason. I think (logically limitted) conditionality is fine and am not generally inclined to vote on conditionality unless there is an in round impact or a team is significantly out debating another team on condo. It might be harder to convince me that one conditional cp/alt (especially if it isn’t kicked) is abusive. However, you can certainly go for this argument using a “model of debate” interp (i.e. their model of debate—condo good—produces bad debates because…).  I think that "methods" debates don't necessarily mean that the affirmative doesn't get a permutation. Methods seem permutable to me. I think there are other theoretical arguments which warrant the affirmative not getting a permutation in particular kinds of debates.  **These are just how I enter into a debate. Please obviously debate and win the arg and I will vote against my feelings. If this isn't helpful please ask me questions 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.

Derek Buescher - Puget Sound

Derek Buescher University of Puget Sound Judging Philosophy This is really a list of things to keep in mind about my approach to judging and parliamentary debate more so than a philosophy. 1. I have judged very few rounds over the last decade. Prior to that time I judged frequently at NPDA/NPTE and CEDA/NDT tournaments. 2. I have no true argumentative preference. I do believe, generally, but not exclusively, that the debate round is the decision of the debaters. I will be open to listening to “traditional” styles of debate (CP/tix), critical affirmatives, and performance/identity styles of debate. I believe it is the responsible of all debaters to engage arguments and propose different views/means for evaluation. 3. I am not as versed in theory anymore as you might wish me to be. What this means is that you have likely adopted a vocabulary and agreed with other debaters about the meaning and operation of certain words, terms, and concepts relevant to the debate. It is unlikely that I share this vocabulary with you. As a result, many of your short cuts will not mean to mean what you want them to mean to me. They will like, in my view, the depth and weight, you may think they carry. It is your responsibility to make such ideas clear to me, although it is not your obligation to make them clear. Just realize that I may make assumptions contrary or with less weight to an idea that is, to me less clear. 4. Clarity in argument structure and depth is central to my process of argument evaluation. Many judges that debaters tend to “prefer” do impressive analysis of the interaction of arguments. In the vast majority of cases, I will evaluate the argument interactions that debaters tell me to evaluate and am not likely to reach the level of analysis you may tend to prefer. I want arguments to have warrants and clear explication of scenarios. If you, for example, say “x leads to nuke war which is bad because nuclear winter and people die blah blah blah” I am not very likely to give the argument much weight despite its likely veracity. I am very likely to dismiss the impact outright if the opponent says anything about the problems of the argument. 5. I do believe the uniqueness of parliamentary style debate rests with the changing resolution. This means I believe, or at least would prefer, the debate engage the resolution. This does not preclude critical or performative affs, but does suggest they be grounded to the resolution. 6. I do think CPs should be competitive. 7. I am likely to be slower than you prefer. You might want to account for that in your speaking rate. Feel free to ask me specific questions.

Duncan Stewart - Lewis & Clark

Background I participated in parliamentary debate at The University of Utah for 4 years. I currently coach for Lewis & Clark College. Overview My preference is that you do what type of argumentation you like to do, and/or what is most strategic given the topic. I will not use my ballot as an attempt to discipline the activity in the direction I think it should go. If you win the argument on the flow I will vote for it-every time. That being said, I judge debate via a line-by-line flow. If you have an alternate way you’d like me to evaluate the round, solid! I will consider the debate in any manne<a name="_GoBack"></a>r you’d like me to. Just be clear about what that method is. I will use only your explanations of arguments to make my decision. Meaning even if an argument is ‘dropped’ it’s difficult for me to vote for it absent warrants. Theory I don’t hold any standardized positions on theory arguments. Debaters should get access to their arguments without an offensive theoretical objection explaining why that should not be the case. Have that debate. Please repeat your interpretations twice. Advantages and Disadvantages Links come before risk calculation. Impact calculus will win you these debates. Unless specifically told otherwise, I will compare arguments via timeframe magnitude and probability. Defense makes both of our jobs easier, but only when accompanied by offense. Counter plans Evaluating the round becomes easier if the LOC reads theoretical justifications for their counter plan. This prevents new theory answers I have to consider in the PMR. Kritiks To be especially compelling these should be operationalized as if I have no familiarity with your literature. You should be specific about what you are criticizing. For example, if you are a questioning of methodology you should say so in the LOC. Your criticism is easier to evaluate when the critique of the aff happens on the thesis/links level, not in the framework. On the topic of critical affs, go for it! Other general statements Speed is good, but not at the cost of excluding someone. Call points of order, though I will do my best to protect against new arguments. I think taking questions produces better debate. You should take one in each in constructive.

Jacob Landsberg - UW Bothell

Joe Allen - Oregon

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

Kevin Thruellson - UW Bothell

Kinny Torre - WWU

First year out of the activity. I've debated for 7 years (3 years policy and 3.5 years parli) I've coached high school debate for 3.5 years and I currently coach for WWU    tl;dr My judging philosophy is contextual to each round so, show up ready to debate and there shouldn’t be a problem. I know that debate has radical potential but we can probably only achieve it if we have some fun along the way ;)    Usually, I default to the flow because it’s best way for me to process information. I’m not saying that I’m objective and to consider judges that evaluate debates through the flow as inherently objective is very harmful. That being stated, I do my best to evaluate the round through the competing lens that I am given; otherwise, I will be left to my own arbitrary view of debate. Note: that’s not to say that I will view the round through the lens of a policy maker but rather that I’ll evaluate the arguments the way that I think they should be evaluated unless I am told otherwise.   In other words, run tix and delay, Nietzsche and heg, a project, or several procedurals. My judging philosophy is centered around the belief that the debaters ought to determine the way through which I evaluate the round. Unless given an alternative lens, this means that I default to competing interpretations on procedurals and framework because I’m not sure how else I would answer those questions.   Lastly, a few tips if you want me to like you as a debater: <ol> <li>Obviously, don’t be exclusionary or an asshole to your opponents or partner. If you're mean to your partner or your opponents there's a higher chance that in a close round I'll do the work for the oppossing team. </li> <li>Usually, you don't have to call a point of order; often it times the argument doesn't matter and (usually) my flow is good enough that I should be able to tell. Nevertheless, if you feel like you need to call them then shoot. </li> <li>I usually do not find "this is not the place for this argument" style of argument to particularly persuasive unless you can prove that there was a significant imbalance in ground AND that this is bad. </li> <li>Please don't make one argument an RVI...you should have entire positions that prove why you should win. </li> <li>Don’t assume that just because I was a K hack during my last few years that I know about the random argument that you found on redcritque; every argument needs a clear a warrant  </li> <li>Read all advocacies and texts twice or slowly (or both). I know that you have super dope argument about the semiotics of capitalism but I also need to know wtf you're gonna do about it</li> <li>If you’re clearly winning sit down</li> </ol>

Margaret Rockey - WWU

Background: Parli coach at WWU for one year. Competed in parli at Whitman for three years and one year independently (sco Sweets!). I have no idea if I am or if people perceive me as a K- or policy-oriented judge. I guess I read a lot of disads, topical K affs, disads, and always read, but never went for politics, but I strongly preferred being a double member because I gave no shits about what our strategy was and would defend whatever. So I have no strong preferences regarding argumentative content.  I’ve tried writing a philosophy four or five times this year, and every attempt has ended with one sentence rejecting the proposition of writing in a philosophy in the first place. The short version, and what you probably want to know, is that you can read whatever you want, and should give me a reason why you win and a reason why the other team loses. In the event that the reason you win is also the reason they lose, you should explain how it is so. What follows is not a syncretic philosophy but a disorganized and unenclosed series of thoughts on debate, some arbitrary biases and thresholds, and judging tendencies I’ve noticed in myself. It may or may not be helpful. Judging Generally I find I feel much less certain about my decisions as a judge than I did about my predictions as a competitor and observer. Actually doing the work of making and justifying a decision almost always necessitates getting my hands dirty in some form or other. Most of my decisions require intervention to vote for any one team, either because certain core questions have not been resolved, or some resolved questions have not been contextualized to one another, or some combination of the two. Recognizing the frequent inevitability of dirty hands in decision-making, I try to stick to both a general principle and practice when judging. In principle, I try to have a justification for every decision I make. In practice, I find I try to limit my intervention to extrapolating from arguments made to resolve unanswered issues; if a certain team is winning a certain part of the flow; what does that mean for this part where no one is clearly ahead but where someone must be to decide the round? This is also means that an easy way to get ahead is doing that work for me--provide the summary and application of an argument in addition to making it.  Framework In general I think framework either tells me how to prioritize impacts or understand solvency, and in particular how to situate solvency in relation to debate as a practice. Most framework arguments I see in-round seem to be made out of a precautious fear of leaving the something crucial open on the line-by-line, but with little understanding of the argument’s application to interpreting the rest of the round. At least, that’s what I felt like when I extended framework arguments for awhile. I don’t understand the argument that fiat is illusory. The advocacy actually being implemented has never been a reason to vote aff, as far as I can tell. The purpose of fiat is to force a “should” and not “will” debate. Framework arguments that dictate and defend a certain standard for the negative’s burden to argue that the advocacy “should not” happen are ideal. I’m open to arguments proposing a different understanding of solvency than what a policymaking framework supplies. My only other observation about framework debates is that every interpretation seems to get slotted into some “critical non fiat –ology” slot or “policy fiat roleplaying” slot. This is a false binary but its frequent assumption means many non-competitive framework (and advocacies!) are set against each other as if they’re competitive. Policymaking and roleplaying are not the same thing; epistemology and ontology being distinct doesn’t mean they’re inherently competitive, for a couple examples.  This is also the major flaw of most non-topical K v. K debates I see—the advocacies are not competitive. They feel like I.E. speeches forced into the debate format when the content and structure of that content just don’t clash—I mean, it’s like the aff showing up and saying dogs are cool and the neg firing back that cats are cool. It’s just not quite debate as we’re used to, and demands reconceptualizing competition. This is also why I don’t think “no perms in a method debate” makes any sense but I agree with the object of that argument. The topic creates sides—you’re either for or against it. In rounds where each team is just going to propose distinct ways of apprehending the world, whatever that looks like, I see no reason to award noncompetitiveness to either team. (Oh, this should not be used as a justification for negative counterperms. How counterperms being leveraged against perms represents anything less than the death of debate is a mystery to me) I’m not saying don’t have nontopical KvK rounds, please do, just please also read offense against each other’s arguments (cats are cool and dogs are bad). In those rounds, your reason to win is not the same reason the other team loses, which is the case for advocacies which are opportunity costs to each other. For the record, I think critical literature is arguably the most important education debate offers. I just think debate is structured for competition oriented around policy advocacies and the ways that kritikal arguments tend to engage each other challenge that structure in ways we have yet to explore in parli (at least, writ large). Theory Don’t have anything in particular to say about this other than that I have a high threshold for evaluating anything other than plan text in a vacuum in determining interp violations. Everything else seems a solvency question to me, but make the arguments you want to and can defend. Independent Voters I’ve noticed that I have a pretty high threshold on independent voters. I voted for an independent voter once when the block went for it. Arguments about discursive issues serve an important purpose. But for arguments read flippantly or as a gotcha or, more often, that lack any substantive impact, I always feel a little guilty voting there and jettisoning the rest of the debate, like feeling bad for picking one spoon over another when you’re a kid. I think a lot of judges want the simple way to vote but I don’t, as far as I can tell. They don’t necessarily have to be complicated, but I like thorough ways to vote, which do often involve a lot of nuance or at least word dancing (I believe debate is fundamentally competitive bullshitting, which I do not mean derisively in the slightest).

Nick Budak - Lewis & Clark

I competed in Parli for four years at Whitman (RIP). I currently work at L&C. My degree is in Asian Studies, with some Politics experience. I am receptive to and can be expected to know critiques like Orientalism and those that deal with IR theory, plus a grab bag of things that the average MG would have learned to answer. Be nice, especially to your partner. People who interrupt others are difficult for me to watch. Humor is a lost art and may yet be the salvation of our awful little community. Theory Theory serves an important role as in-round immune system of the community - it allows us to excise toxic elements (and playtest new and exciting ones). There are no theory arguments I will outright ignore, though I may visibly react if you unironically read spec (Carlton). Counterplans are important and useful, including conditional ones. However, I side with Zach “Harvard Law” Tschida: despite my opinion that condo is theoretically justified, one ought not deploy it so as to detract from thoughtful debate. If you keep a conditional advocacy in the block, I will evaluate it and not the status quo. I adhere to the community norm of looking down upon delay/consult CPs. If you’re reading one, it should be because it has special relevance to the topic and because you can answer theory on it. Textual/functional competition and the legitimacy of a given permutation are issues that should be decided in the round. If you can relate your competition theory back to the topic in a specific way, more speaks for you. All theory questions are weighed on competing interpretations; reasonability is a pipe dream. Kritiks As Zizek says, “Nowadays, you can do anything that you want—anal, oral, fisting—but you need to be wearing gloves, condoms, protection.” Words to live by.

Roger Copenhaver - UWash

Background: This year will be my 11th year in the activity. I debated for 3 years in high school at Puyallup High School (2006-2009) and 4 in college at Idaho State University (CEDA/NDT)/The University of Oregon (2009-2013). I only did parli at like 4 tournaments during my year at Oregon. I have coached parli for multiple schools since then. Ben Dodds, Tom Schalley, Sarah Hamid, and Will Chamberlin all shaped my understanding of the activity. Current affiliation: University of Washington How I decide debates: I believe that a balance between tech and truth is important in debate. I tend to see and evaluate debates holistically. I am also very flow oriented. I try my best to keep a good flow of the debate. You should frame the end of the debate around important central questions to get my ballot. I prefer to watch fast, technical, efficient, and witty debaters. Framework: My views on framework seem to have changed every year since I finished my college career. I think framework is an important arsenal for negative teams to use vs. non-topical/non traditional/non-fiat based affirmatives. If have read this type of affirmative and don't have a good defense of it, you should lose. If you are going for framework, you should still be responsible for engaging the content of the affirmative. Reading an AFF just because it is important in the abstract is not a good enough reason to not talk about the topic. Counterplans: What is theoretically legitimate is open for debate. I try to enter the debate without any biases for what debaters should be allowed to talk about. With that being said, I probably still think that counterplans should compete in some capacity and provide and opportunity cost to the affirmative. I typically lean neg on questions of theory. Truthfully most â€œcheatingâ€ counterplans are bad and should be easy to beat because they are bad. Lastly, I think judge kick is stupid. I will do it if I am told to, but I am persuaded that 2Nâ€™s should have to think strategically and should be held accountable to their 2NR choice. I do think that AFFâ€™s should exploit the difference between the CP and the AFF. Disadvantages: While I find a lot of the intricacies of the politics debate interesting, I think the politics DA is stale. That is not to say that I wonâ€™t vote for it. Obviously politics is an essential component of the negatives toolbox. However, I think topic DAâ€™s and DAâ€™s specific to the AFF are way more interesting to listen to, and often times a much better strategy entering the debate. K/Performance Debate: Controlling meta level questions for the debate is necessary. This is the type of debate that I have the most experience with. I rather see a debate where people are willing to defend something specific and generate offensive arguments from it rather then saying they are everything and nothing. You should be able to justify what you do. AFFâ€™s should get permutations regardless of the type of debate that is happening. Debate is a competition and negative teams have the burden of meeting some standard for competition. I donâ€™t think the alt has to solve the AFF. I think the alt needs to at least resolve a substantial amount of the link to the AFF. It makes much more sense to me to conceptualize the link debate as mini DAâ€™s to the AFF and the impact section of the debate as impact framing. Other miscellaneous things: Flowing and good line by line debate is a lost art. You will be greatly rewarded if you do good line by line debate. Bad embedded clash is almost impossible to follow and I probably won't get arguments where they should be. Most of the time I keep a pretty good flow and I have typically found that my flow reflects the quality of the debate in terms of efficiency and debate technique. Framework vs. framing â€“ to me, framework is what should be allowed in the debate, and framing is what impacts should come first. I think these two things often times become conflated. To me, unless otherwise stated, the role of the ballot, judge, etc.. are all just impact framing issues. Aff framework vs. the K is silly and neither team is going to generate traction in front of me spending substantial time here. Debate is fun. I hope that you debate because you love this activity. I also like judging debates when debaters are intelligent, witty, funny, and engaged. I have zero tolerance for people that destroy the pedagogical values of this activity or that make this activity an unsafe, violent, or unpleasant space for other participants. Parli Things: K's are one argument and I will flow them on one piece of paper. It makes zero sense to compartmentalize the debate into small sections that don't assume each other. Conditionality is good. Bad arguments should lose debates. Competition also sets a standard for what is legitimate. And there is only a limited number of good counterplans especially considering you have limited prep. This is not to say I won't vote on conditionality bad, but if that is your A strat - 1. you are not really making strategic decisions 2. you obviously don't care about the substance of the debate and 3. I will probably be annoyed because it is almost always the worse option to go all in on theory. Point of orders are silly. I can flow and will evaluate the debate based off of my flow. I understand they have some strategic utility, but tbh, I would prefer you not call them. Unless it is an accessibility issue, or your performance requires it, I think sitting down is a bad idea. I have heard people all year sound like terrible speakers while sitting. This will probably impact your speaker points. You should debate the case. This does not mean "CP solves this adv," "DA turns this impact," but rather an in-depth case debate where you develop a variety of case arguments that benefit your LOC strat. You should be able to make pivots while/after the PMC is read. Too many people just read the LOC they prepped, but don't make any modifications based on the PMC, which makes the debate stale, and also puts you in a worse position as the negative.

Steve Woods - WWU

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

Thomas Hyatt - UW Bothell

Tom Schally - Lewis & Clark

I've always believed having someone else write your judging philosophy yields better insights and nobody knows me better than James Stevenson, so I present to you: Tom Schally, â€&lsaquo;written â€&lsaquo; by James Stevenson: “First, the highlights. Tom’s generally interested in all types of arguments – policy, K, whatever. He’s got a very technical mind and a clean flow, but tends to vote for arguments which demonstrate superior nuance and contextual specificity. Explanation is a big deal to Tom, and he won’t necessarily consider an argument dropped if it’s blippy and undeveloped. He understands debate as both a game that is fun (sometimes even when it stretches what is ‘true’) and as an educational endeavor that should probably teach us something valuable. He also considers the communicative aspect to be a central component of debate, so rhetorical skill, drawing connections in CX and late rebuttals, and humor/self-awareness will take you far. Clash and argumentative comparison, as with most judges, are key. I’m not sure the stuff I below will actually be helpful, but here’s the bottom line. Tom’s a smart person with a lot of debate experience and know-how who takes judging very seriously. He doesn’t decide debates lightly, and will take his time to give a clear, sound explanation and good feedback. --- As a background, Tom just started a job at a political communications firm or something, and studied public policy and administration in grad school. He has like seven years of experience coaching college debate, mostly in NPTE/NPDA parliamentary, but has been at least partially involved in policy for the last few. He did a year of college policy at Macalester before transferring to Western Kentucky University, where he was ridiculously successful in parli and NFA-LD. I hesitate to mention this because CEDA/NDT folks can be super elitist about their style of debate, but debate is debate, and Tom’s good at it. He can also speak much faster than I ever could, so as long as you retain clarity, speed is probably not an issue. In his personal life, Tom is probably a pragmatist more than anything else, but in a very broad sense. What he sees as the ‘pragmatic’ move is largely context-dependent, particularly in debate – I think he likes to see teams draw direct linkages between where we are, what we should do, and why we should do it, especially in a reflexive and self-aware manner. This is, once again, largely a function of good explanation and strategic/argumentative nuance, rather than ideological location – he picks between “trying or dying” or “reflecting/resisting” based on who better outlines the relevance of their method, the validity of their knowledge claims, and the implications of their arguments. He’s pretty knowledgeable about public policy subjects, and also is pretty well-read on K stuff like Marxism, postcolonialism, and critical IR, but is fairly detached from what the debate argument flavor of the month is, so don’t assume he’s familiar your specific jargon or ideology. In “policy” debates, Tom is willing and able to defer to traditional debate risk analysis tools like “try or die” or “uniqueness outweighs the link,” but I think he gives more credibility to good defense (even if it’s uncarded) than other judges do. Card quality matters to him, and he’ll definitely read evidence after a round and consider it significant if its quality is put into question during the debate. In particular, evidentiary specificity is probably a big deal on aff and CP solvency debates. Additionally, he prefers counterplans that compete with the substance of the plan over those premised off “normal means” or process. Tom will vote on T. As with other kinds of debates, I think he values comparison of offense over an enumeration of many possible lines of offense. Keep in mind, Tom does some topic research but isn’t stalking the caselist 24/7, so throwaway references to particular schools or affs might not make sense to him. As for theory, he’ll probably reject the argument instead of the team without some substantial work. Conditionality could be a voting issue, but not necessarily. As with T, comparison and argumentative interaction are paramount. Tom likes the K and other nontraditional argument styles, and this has been more and more of what he’s coached over the last few years. That said, he still expects clarity and rigor on the basics – what the ballot does, how decisions should be made, what kinds of stuff should be prioritized, and so on. If you are defending alternate styles of argument competition or analysis, this kind of explanation would be especially important. Buzzwords and mystification will not impress him. I think that on framework/clash of civs debates, smart and well-placed defense (on either side) would go a long way. Clever references to Twin Peaks would probably make him laugh."

2016 NW Parli Warmup IPDA and NPTE-NPDA